Indo story re green diesel - surely sums are wrong

Marcusm

The Indo's running a story - http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/government-could-save-750m-annually-on-diesel-dye-29368175.html- that €750m a year could be saved by abandoning agri diesel. 600 m of the savings to be made simply by ceasing to add the dye which it says costs that much for 1.25bn litres. Now that's nearly 50c per litre; surely that's the rebate not the cost of adding dye which is presumably a fraction of this.

Separately it says that changing it to a rebate system would involve €48m payments to farmers - does this mean it costs 12x as much to operate the dye process as the effective value to users. Presumably this is crap work by the lobbyists (Social Justice) and lack of research by the Indo rather than a massize waste of money.

CJhaughey

Marcusm wrote: »

The Indo's running a story - http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/government-could-save-750m-annually-on-diesel-dye-29368175.html- that €750m a year could be saved by abandoning agri diesel. 600 m of the savings to be made simply by ceasing to add the dye which it says costs that much for 1.25bn litres. Now that's nearly 50c per litre; surely that's the rebate not the cost of adding dye which is presumably a fraction of this.

Separately it says that changing it to a rebate system would involve €48m payments to farmers - does this mean it costs 12x as much to operate the dye process as the effective value to users. Presumably this is crap work by the lobbyists (Social Justice) and lack of research by the Indo rather than a massize waste of money.

Not when you consider all the man-hours involved in roadside inspections, etc etc. The figure was confirmed as 628m by the revenue commissioners.

MugMugs

It's pointless though until "Norn Iron" stop adding dye to their Daysul.

Marcusm

CJhaughey wrote: »

Not when you consider all the man-hours involved in roadside inspections, etc etc. The figure was confirmed as 628m by the revenue commissioners.

But this is where I get confused; if the legitimate users (farmers) are entitled only to a €78m subsidy, why on earth does the gov't pick up the tab for 1.25bn litres? Surely they must then realise that the bulk of the fuel that they are paying to dye is being washed or used inappropriately. It's like them importing hundreds of tonnes of opium to provide morphine, paying for the conversion but ignoring the fact that most of it was being turned to heroin and ending up on the streets.

At that disparity of quantities, there would effectively have to be widespread collusion amongst the distributors. there's enough money for a new hospital each year there. That's worthy of a much bigger headline and a more targetted one.

Marcusm

MugMugs wrote: »

It's pointless though until "Norn Iron" stop adding dye to their Daysul.

If the numbers are right, they should both stop marking it and simply pay the farmers on proof of receipts with mileage (if poss) for the relevant vehicles. It's way too much a disparity, 78 v 600m. The farmers could claim 4 times as much as they actually use and still the gov't would be quids in or 25% of the way towards the "fiscal adjustment" for the current year.

MugMugs

Marcusm wrote: »

If the numbers are right, they should both stop marking it and simply pay the farmers on proof of receipts with mileage (if poss) for the relevant vehicles. It's way too much a disparity, 78 v 600m. The farmers could claim 4 times as much as they actually use and still the gov't would be quids in or 25% of the way towards the "fiscal adjustment" for the current year.

And how is that done?

"Howaya lads, listen, losing a shed load of cash down here...... gonna kill the dye..... any chance you'd oblige and completely overhaul your system for us too? Cheers !"

Only to be met with an obligatory "Ulster says No"

I am all for it, it'd be great and it'd kill the laundered fuel issue that is rife in this country but we need our northern brethren to play ball with us.

Marcusm

MugMugs wrote: »

And how is that done?

"Howaya lads, listening, losing a shed load of cash down here...... gonna kill the dye..... any chance you'd oblige and completely overhaul your system for us too? Cheers !"

Only to be met with an obligatory "Ulster says No"

I am all for it, it'd be great and it'd kill the laundered fuel issue that is rife in this country but we need our northern brethren to play ball with us.

Assuming they have the same dying and compliance costs, they'd be quids in too. And that's ignoring the assertions that the laundering funds organised crime by former or current paramilitaries. That's why I think the numbers must somehow be wrong as surely both countries can't be equally idiotic! It would push a bit more paperwork etc back to farmers but if the numbers are right, this is entirely justified.

godtabh

MugMugs wrote: »

I am all for it, it'd be great and it'd kill the laundered fuel issue that is rife in this country but we need our northern brethren to play ball with us.

Why? We should be thinking of Ireland only in this

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Would the farmers not have an absolute mickey fit over this though?

MugMugs

godtabh wrote: »

Why? We should be thinking of Ireland only in this

I would have thought why was fairly obvious. If we axe our dye and they continue to dye then the problem still exists.

Gumbo

Marcusm wrote: »

If the numbers are right, they should both stop marking it and simply pay the farmers on proof of receipts with mileage (if poss) for the relevant vehicles. It's way too much a disparity, 78 v 600m. The farmers could claim 4 times as much as they actually use and still the gov't would be quids in or 25% of the way towards the "fiscal adjustment" for the current year.

Whats to stop the farmers, or their children or extended family filling up their own cars then on this cut price diesel?

Sam Russell

There's another problem if the dye is removed.

A farmer will have a tank of diesel worth may times its current value and be a target for thieves. The dye could be retained for farmers (maybe they could add it themselves) but they pay full price for fuel and claim a rebate. If fuel gets stolen then the dye remains a problem for the thief.

serious3

simple way in my eyes is if you're a legitimate user then use your vat number/herd number/farm reps number/ etc cross referenced with your fuel reciepts and get a rebate back on the litres you used, no more dyed diesel, no more laundered fuel no more threads about dirty diesel ruined my car!

Marcusm

kceire wrote: »

Whats to stop the farmers, or their children or extended family filling up their own cars then on this cut price diesel?

If the numbers are right (600+m v 78m) then the current compliance regime is not workign at any level. There's already lots of laundered fuel about and the government is paying to dye it ad consumers are paying (through failed cars) for the effect of the laundering. A new system would have to be identified (perhaps limiting the amount of fuel which may be purchased by reference to registered agricultural vehicles and machinery and common usage levels) but clearly 500M+ of waste cannot carry on.

The farmers have a "mickeyfit" would be the least of my concerns - they could all be paid off, as per usual, if the purported savings are actually correct.

MugMugs

Sam Russell wrote: »

There's another problem if the dye is removed.

A farmer will have a tank of diesel worth may times its current value and be a target for thieves. The dye could be retained for farmers (maybe they could add it themselves) but they pay full price for fuel and claim a rebate. If fuel gets stolen then the dye remains a problem for the thief.

Sorry to be blunt on this but why would the state give two hoots about farmers and securing their Diesel?

Tea 1000

kceire wrote: »

Whats to stop the farmers, or their children or extended family filling up their own cars then on this cut price diesel?

Nothing really, but you could actually let them if the figures are correct and still win.
But in reality, you do it like truckers. They get a rebate. Some are probably filling their cars too, but for the most part it's working.
There are many ways to implement it, and just threaten any audit discrepancies with heavy penalties, like a fine plus no rebate for 10 years. They'll steal the odd fill for sure, but in the grand scheme of things it'll be small money.
Regarding the theft of diesel, sure there's that going on anyway with home heating oil.

Cee-Jay-Cee

MugMugs wrote: »

It's pointless though until "Norn Iron" stop adding dye to their Daysul.

No it's not, they don't have to change their system, it will simply mean that legislation would have to be introduced to prosecute anyone found using marked diesel in their vehicles. It's only abused by those who have no business using marked diesel, anyone entitled to claim back tax under a rebate system would have no reason to buy marked diesel in the north.

It makes so much sense that it will ever be introduced.

MugMugs

CJC999 wrote: »

No it's not, they don't have to change their system, it will simply mean that legislation would have to be introduced to prosecute anyone found using marked diesel in their vehicles. It's only abused by those who have no business using marked diesel, anyone entitled to claim back tax under a rebate system would have no reason to buy marked diesel in the north.

It makes so much sense that it will ever be introduced.

So the north continuing their use of the marked diesel system stops the laundered diesel issue and subsequent revenue loss from its sale South of the border how exactly?

Cee-Jay-Cee

kceire wrote: »

Whats to stop the farmers, or their children or extended family filling up their own cars then on this cut price diesel?

To add to kceires reply, if their returns are included as part of the annual tax returns then they're not going to be claiming for diesel that family and friends have bought. If they claim they're spending xxx amount on diesel then it suggests higher productivity in their business and if their income returns don't reflect that then they're audited and run the chance of being fined or prosecuted.

Tea 1000

CJC999 wrote: »

No it's not, they don't have to change their system, it will simply mean that legislation would have to be introduced to prosecute anyone found using marked diesel in their vehicles. It's only abused by those who have no business using marked diesel, anyone entitled to claim back tax under a rebate system would have no reason to buy marked diesel in the north.

It makes so much sense that it will ever be introduced.

They do have to change their system. The problem exists because they're taking the dyed diesel from the North and laundering it down here and selling it on.
Us taking the dye out of our own diesel isn't going to stop that.

randy hickey

CJC999 wrote: »

No it's not, they don't have to change their system, it will simply mean that legislation would have to be introduced to prosecute anyone found using marked diesel in their vehicles. It's only abused by those who have no business using marked diesel, anyone entitled to claim back tax under a rebate system would have no reason to buy marked diesel in the north.

It makes so much sense that it will ever be introduced.

Any solution to this problem that involves doing away with the marker in agri diesel simply MUST be implemented on an All-Ireland basis.
In fact, if cheaper MGO was still available over in GB, I would suggest the problem still wouldn't go away.

Given the criminal elements behind diesel laundering, I don't think you would find any resistance to change from the NI Assembley or the UK Gov.

Nermal

Who says anyone has to get a rebate? Why do farmers deserve cheap fuel more than any other business? Just charge them the same as everyone else.

serious3

Nermal wrote: »

Who says anyone has to get a rebate? Why do farmers deserve cheap fuel more than any other business? Just charge them the same as everyone else.

you have to incentivise it for farmers, they have a huge and powerful voice in this country, think of all the votes! they also will absolutly not do anything unless they will profit from it

Tea 1000

Nermal wrote: »

Who says anyone has to get a rebate? Why do farmers deserve cheap fuel more than any other business? Just charge them the same as everyone else.

Most industries in Europe are funded or subsidized in one or many fashions. Truckers get tax back from fuel too. Taxing the crap out of truckers or farmers drives up the cost of goods and therefore the cost of living for everyone.
Anyway, that's for another argument in another thread, not in motors.

Capt'n Midnight

Nermal wrote: »

Who says anyone has to get a rebate? Why do farmers deserve cheap fuel more than any other business?

But it's the only way to make it economic to produce biodiesel from rapeseed oil