Licence fee

[Cheshire cat]

That's a reasonable outcome.

[Nightwatch]

32 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

That's a reasonable outcome.

Very reasonable. I think it’s probably the best result. No money coming out of the coffers but us boaters have a months holiday.

 

It has been said that they will review in a month.

[Momac]

On 23/04/2020 at 13:11, The Welsh Cruiser said:

 

Problem is, these authorities are accountable to no one. 

Dint you use your vote?

 

On 23/04/2020 at 12:56, Bluebeard20 said:

......... now they tell us that the virus situation will go on to Chirstmas

What's  Chirstmas ???

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Some very very rough figures -

Assuming all licence holders are eligible, CRT will lose about £1.8m per month in licence income for each 'free' month given. This represents less than 1% of CRT's annual income.

CRT staff costs for a third of its workforce is about £1.8m a month.

 

 

[The Welsh Cruiser]

CRT also chose to pay the additional 20% of salaries for those furloughed. It didn't need to. 

[frahkn]

4 hours ago, MartynG said:

Dint you use your vote?

 

What's  Chirstmas ???

See post no. 11.

[LadyG]

 A lot of confused thinking in this thread, it seems clear that the CRT have taken hits where they need not, including topping up wages, and not thinking about reduced costs to employees due to no travel, no "work" clothes and no purchasing snack lunches and coffees at £2.00 a cup.

I am not sure if they had to lay off workers who could be employed on maintenance, though I appreciate a lot of work requires "teams" which are difficult to arrange in these times.

I trust they ask workers to lose holiday entitlement, else when folks go back after say four months, they don't immediately ask for holidays, as that four months become four months and two weeks, making work scheduling even more difficult.

We are all taking a hit to some extent, but it seems some take considerably less and some considerably more.

I know some self-employed who now have no income, and that's a very big hit.

[David Mack]

 

2 hours ago, LadyG said:

 

I trust they ask workers to lose holiday entitlement, else when folks go back after say four months, they don't immediately ask for holidays, as that four months become four months and two weeks, making work scheduling even more difficult.

Under the furlough scheme employees continue to accrue leave in accordance with their contract of employment. Employees can (but do not have to) agree to forgo some leave, but not so as to take their leave entitlement to below the statutory 5.6 weeks (including public holidays) per annum.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-could-be-covered-by-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

Edited April 25, 2020 by David Mack

[haggis]

2 hours ago, LadyG said:

 A lot of confused thinking in this thread, it seems clear that the CRT have taken hits where they need not, including topping up wages, and not thinking about reduced costs to employees due to no travel, no "work" clothes and no purchasing snack lunches and coffees at £2.00 a cup.

 

A bit hard on C&RT, I think. They supply work clothes for maintenance staff and I think most of them will travel to work in official vehicles. I very much doubt that maintenance men and women will be buying coffee at £2 a cup as they will mostly take a packed lunch and a flask. They have to eat whether they are working or not so I don't think you can count their lunch as a saving ? . I may be wrong (I often am!) but I thought the furlough scheme was that the Government paid 80% of wages and the employer paid the other 20%. I didn't realise that this was optional .

Where they may have spent money they didn't have to  is printing and putting up notices on towpaths but would they have had to do that if boaters, who thought they owned the towpath, hadn't created merry hell? 

With some of the comments made by boaters on here and on FB about various aspects of canal boating I often wonder if some folk should take up another past time. After all, they bought a boat knowing the set up so why start complaining about things years down the line? If folk aren't happy with the way things are there is no one stopping them selling their boat and taking up another past time where the rules will suit them better. 

Stay safe folks! 

haggis

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, LadyG said:

 A lot of confused thinking in this thread, it seems clear that the CRT have taken hits where they need not, including topping up wages, and not thinking about reduced costs to employees due to no travel, no "work" clothes and no purchasing snack lunches and coffees at £2.00 a cup.

I am not sure if they had to lay off workers who could be employed on maintenance, though I appreciate a lot of work requires "teams" which are difficult to arrange in these times.

I trust they ask workers to lose holiday entitlement, else when folks go back after say four months, they don't immediately ask for holidays, as that four months become four months and two weeks, making work scheduling even more difficult.

We are all taking a hit to some extent, but it seems some take considerably less and some considerably more.

I know some self-employed who now have no income, and that's a very big hit.

The question of enforced holiday was asked and addressed on the BBC Q&A a couple of days back. Whilst t is fairly complex, basically the answer is the there is not a lot of wiggle room for the employer, in comparison with normal times. The point about furlough is that you are still employed. In particular, the same notice periods apply.

[The Welsh Cruiser]

1 hour ago, haggis said:

A bit hard on C&RT, I think. They supply work clothes for maintenance staff and I think most of them will travel to work in official vehicles. I very much doubt that maintenance men and women will be buying coffee at £2 a cup as they will mostly take a packed lunch and a flask. They have to eat whether they are working or not so I don't think you can count their lunch as a saving ? . I may be wrong (I often am!) but I thought the furlough scheme was that the Government paid 80% of wages and the employer paid the other 20%. I didn't realise that this was optional .

Where they may have spent money they didn't have to  is printing and putting up notices on towpaths but would they have had to do that if boaters, who thought they owned the towpath, hadn't created merry hell? 

With some of the comments made by boaters on here and on FB about various aspects of canal boating I often wonder if some folk should take up another past time. After all, they bought a boat knowing the set up so why start complaining about things years down the line? If folk aren't happy with the way things are there is no one stopping them selling their boat and taking up another past time where the rules will suit them better. 

Stay safe folks! 

haggis

An employer isn't required to pay the additional 20% of wages. The government said: 'it hoped most employers would pay the additional 20%'.

[LadyG]

40 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

An employer isn't required to pay the additional 20% of wages. The government said: 'it hoped most employers would pay the additional 20%'.

 

40 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

An employer isn't required to pay the additional 20% of wages. The government said: 'it hoped most employers would pay the additional 20%'.

Is that the same government that expect pensioners to live on half the living wage, and one third the average salary?

[The Welsh Cruiser]

3 minutes ago, LadyG said:

 

Is that the same government that expect pensioners to live on half the living wage, and one third the average salary?

I guess so. The same government that requires people to make 35 years of contributions in order to get the full state pension. But then, if they haven't made this level of contribution, pays this sum regardless.

[LadyG]

54 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

I guess so. The same government that requires people to make 35 years of contributions in order to get the full state pension. But then, if they haven't made this level of contribution, pays this sum regardless.

and if like me, they worked from the age of 17 to 60+ [43 years] get no more than if they only worked for a mere 35 years?

I seem to remember having to go and "sign on" for no benefit to ensure I was "contributing" 

Edited April 25, 2020 by LadyG

[Stilllearning]

52 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

I guess so. The same government that requires people to make 35 years of contributions in order to get the full state pension. But then, if they haven't made this level of contribution, pays this sum regardless.

No. My wife paid contributions from the age of 15 to 60, and still doesn’t get the full pension, as the rules have changed, and some of her contribution years don’t count towards her pension. Additionally, she has been in lengthy conversations with the pensions people to find out how to pay the top up costs - and has been trying to get an answer for two years now.

[LadyG]

1 minute ago, Stilllearning said:

No. My wife paid contributions from the age of 15 to 60, and still doesn’t get the full pension, as the rules have changed, and some of her contribution years don’t count towards her pension. Additionally, she has been in lengthy conversations with the pensions people to find out how to pay the top up costs - and has been trying to get an answer for two years now.

I think the "system" is designed to make sure everyone has a roof over their heads and get the rent from LA or "whoever" if they have not bought their own house..

So once again, I slip though" the net", I view it as  me subsidising the rest of the country once again. I know there are many many unfortunates who need assistance, but I just see too many scroungers, professional piss-takers. People who are unable to do any paid work due to disability but are fine to do welding/building/humping heavy weights about ................  when it is in their own interests.

Bad backs, intermittent ailments, and weird diseases.

[The Welsh Cruiser]

33 minutes ago, LadyG said:

and if like me, they worked from the age of 17 to 60+ [43 years] get no more than if they only worked for a mere 35 years?

I seem to remember having to go and "sign on" for no benefit to ensure I was "contributing" 

There exists something known as 'pension credit'. If you fail to make enough contributions, well, you get the full amount anyway. Not just that. Bizarrely, if you qualify for 'pension credit' you receive the likes of free dental treatment, contribution towards glasses etc., that 'fully paid up' pensioners don't receive. So if we looked at an example of two people, neither have earnings or savings above £10K:

 

Person 1: Has made 35 or more years of contributions. They receive £175 per week.

 

Person 2: Has made less than 35 years of contributions, or none at all. They receive £175 per week plus free dental treatment and low cost glasses.

 

Oh, and at the age of 75 person 2 gets a free tv licence.

 

I know that socialists like the notion of welfare based on perceived need, rather than contribution, but it's a real stretch to see any fairness in a system that looks at 2 people, both with the same 'earnings', and financially penalises the person who's made the higher level of contributions. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by The Welsh Cruiser

[Stilllearning]

3 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

There exists something known as 'pension credit'. If you fail to make enough contributions, well, you get the full amount anyway. Not just that. Bizarrely, if you qualify for 'pension credit' you receive the likes of free dental treatment, contribution towards glasses etc., that 'fully paid up' pensioners don't receive. So if we looked at an example of two people, neither have earnings or savings above £10K:

 

Person 1: Has made 35 or more years of contributions. They receive £175 per week.

 

Person 2: Has made less than 35 years of contributions, or none at all. They receive £175 per week plus free dental treatment and low cost glasses.

 

You couldn't make it up. 

As already stated, it isn’t as simple as you want to make out.

My wife has made more than 35 years of contributions, but will only get about £150 a week, when she finally reaches the new, higher, pension age. Rules have been changed for women, the government carefully didn’t inform them, and getting accurate up to date information on how to top up the contributions is almost impossible.

[The Welsh Cruiser]

1 minute ago, Stilllearning said:

As already stated, it isn’t as simple as you want to make out.

My wife has made more than 35 years of contributions, but will only get about £150 a week, when she finally reaches the new, higher, pension age. Rules have been changed for women, the government carefully didn’t inform them, and getting accurate up to date information on how to top up the contributions is almost impossible.

What I suggested holds good for people who live on their own; men and women.

Edited April 25, 2020 by The Welsh Cruiser

[Stilllearning]

1 minute ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

What I suggested holds good for people who live on their own; men and women.

You do know that there are no married people’s pensions don’t you? Individuals receive their individual pensions.

[The Welsh Cruiser]

Just now, Stilllearning said:

You do know that there are no married people’s pensions don’t you? Individuals receive their individual pensions.

I understand that 'households' are considered for the purpose of calculating pension credit.

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:

You do know that there are no married people’s pensions don’t you? Individuals receive their individual pensions.

 

5 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

I understand that 'households' are considered for the purpose of calculating pension credit.

 

Maybe our 'friend' is thinking of the system in the country in which he lives ?

 

From the .Gov website :

 

Guarantee Credit tops up your weekly income if it’s below £173.75 (for single people) or £265.20 (for couples). You may still be eligible if you have savings, a pension or your own home.

Savings Credit is an extra payment for people who saved some money towards their retirement, for example a pension.

 

https://www.gov.uk/pension-credit

 

 

[LadyG]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Maybe our 'friend' is thinking of the system in the country in which he lives ?

 

From the .Gov website :

 

Guarantee Credit tops up your weekly income if it’s below £173.75 (for single people) or £265.20 (for couples). You may still be eligible if you have savings, a pension or your own home.

 

https://www.gov.uk/pension-credit

 

 

Well, funnily enough, I fell in to that exact category, and never got a penny of "may be eligible", I was never asked, and I can bet I can't get it backdated either.

I once got a gas fire serviced for free, that was in 1980, and since then, no, I can't recall anything, "free", not dentistry, not glasses, oh yes, prescriptions, that is a major benefit, not that folks who are out of work due to illness should ever have to pay, but I am sure I did, as once again I was not  eligible for some enhanced scheme.

Edited April 25, 2020 by LadyG

[Captain Pegg]

Pension credit applies for people whose income is below the NI contribution threshold and would presumably otherwise have no income post-retirement.

 

I think the reference to single people is because there are different thresholds for individuals and for couples.

 

Seems pretty necessary to me irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the 35 year contribution limit, and also a damned sight more important than subsidising boaters for a month or two of lost cruising ability.

 

JP

[The Welsh Cruiser]

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Maybe our 'friend' is thinking of the system in the country in which he lives ?

 

From the .Gov website :

 

Guarantee Credit tops up your weekly income if it’s below £173.75 (for single people) or £265.20 (for couples). You may still be eligible if you have savings, a pension or your own home.

Savings Credit is an extra payment for people who saved some money towards their retirement, for example a pension.

 

https://www.gov.uk/pension-credit

 

 

Savings credit was a relatively small amount, about 13 quid a week from memory, and is effectively redundant as you had to reach state pension retirement age by 2016 to qualify for it. But yes, 'guarantee credit' ensures you get the full state pension regardless of contributions, providing you have no other earnings and have less than £10K in savings or other assets. Things like your house, car, jewellery etc. are not considered to be assets.

 

This bizarre set of affairs means it's rarely a good idea for individuals to pay HMRC for any missing years of contributions. It might be better to cash in any other pensions you may have and buy a more expensive house. You could then receive the additional benefits that 'pension credit' offers and if you get a bit short of cash at a later date, simply draw down on the equity in your house via an equity release scheme.

 

Things may be different for couples, I haven't checked.