Proposed licence fee rises

[fender]

do y'all think I'm joking?

 

wanna me post a piccy?

 

thought so!

 

I'll post a piccy so y'all know where your raised licence fees will go...

 

or is it just that no one cares?

[Teadaemon]

Why do you assume that if a boat is not being moved it is not being used?

 

Because in most cases it's true.

 

The stats I saw were for all pleasure craft in the uk, and there are a great many more yachts and motor boats used purely for leisure than there are residential boats on canals and rivers (especially if you limit that definition to boats on moorings with planning permission for residential use, or continuous cruisers complying with the CC regs, which is what the treasury and NAO would do).

[StephenA]

Are the anglers going to pay any more

are the cyclists going to pay anything

are the canoeists going to pay anything

are the ramblers going to pay anything

 

This was mentioned in a way during the item on BBC Midlands Today the other day... a LOT of people use the canals and gain benefit from them and never pay a penny.

[fuzzyduck]

thought so!

 

I'll post a piccy so y'all know where your raised licence fees will go...

 

or is it just that no one cares?

 

Go on then. post away.

[blackrose]

As I don't own a boat on BW waters I don't feel able to comment directly on the increases

 

On which waterways jurisdiction do you own a boat?

[fender]

Go on then. post away.

 

 

 

And this page will show you what BW intends to do with our money (not a even bloody bit of dosh for maintaining the canals I bet!)

 

http://www.waterscape.com/features-and-art...odays-waterside

Edited October 8, 2007 by fender

[Teadaemon]

Are the anglers going to pay any moreare the cyclists going to pay anythingare the canoeists going to pay anythingare the ramblers going to pay anything

Canoeists already pay through their BCU subscription (I'm not sure how much of their subs go to BW though). If they're not BCU members then they need a licence like anyone else (Portable Unpowered, currently £34.37 for 12 months).

On which waterways jurisdiction do you own a boat?

Currently none, I'm a freeloading rambler at the moment.

[NB Alnwick]

Sadly we have to face the reality of the situation. To the commercially minded whiz-kids being drafted in to make BW more profitable and, therefore more saleable to potential buyers when it is privatised, we boaters are a captive market. Furthermore we are a wealthy captive market because their own research will show that whenever they put the licence fee up, we moan a bit (some moan a lot) but we still pay it and they always win!

 

I am guessing that even if the licence fee, doubles just as our diesel fuel is set to double, we all will still be here because this is what we do.

 

Is there anything we can do to stop it?

[Neil.A]

All the hallmarks of mismanagement.

Sadly we have to face the reality of the situation. To the commercially minded whiz-kids being drafted in to make BW more profitable and, therefore more saleable to potential buyers when it is privatised, we boaters are a captive market. Furthermore we are a wealthy captive market because their own research will show that whenever they put the licence fee up, we moan a bit (some moan a lot) but we still pay it and they always win!I am guessing that even if the licence fee, doubles just as our diesel fuel is set to double, we all will still be here because this is what we do.Is there anything we can do to stop it?

Here.

Are you up for it?

Edited October 8, 2007 by Neil.A

[denboy]

Canoeists already pay through their BCU subscription (I'm not sure how much of their subs go to BW though). If they're not BCU members then they need a licence like anyone else (Portable Unpowered, currently £34.37 for 12 months).Currently none, I'm a freeloading rambler at the moment.

Ive yet to see any form of licence disc or certificate on the canoes that go past me except for the scouts association

[StoneHenge]

All the hallmarks of mismanagement.Here.

Are you up for it?

 

But how many of us sitting here now would really go for it and say, right then, let's all refuse to pay our licenses next year and see how far it gets us?

 

The problem here is that BW have us by the short and curly's. No license fee payers, no services (or services will be withdrawn). Imagine a protest of say 5,000 people who refuse to pay the increase or even the license renewal at all. BW say fine, we will just off the water, or close the Elsan and pump outs, let's see how long you last then?

 

Not sure how we can stop it. Day light robbery, but I refuse to give up the boat or move back on land because they can't manage themselves.

 

Makes you tempted to stuff the mooring when you think that money could be spent elsewhere.

[magnetman]

I obviously don't like license fee increases but its got to be said that £550 for a 55ft nb to be able to do the whole (BW) canal system (which is quite extensive) is a BARGAIN. Twice that would be a BARGAIN.

[StoneHenge]

I obviously don't like license fee increases but its got to be said that £550 for a 55ft nb to be able to do the whole (BW) canal system (which is quite extensive) is a BARGAIN. Twice that would be a BARGAIN.

 

I don't disagree with you on that point. I just worry it will become too much for some to afford and they will have to give up something they love because finances will dictact otherwise. Unless we all get a 9% payrise to compensate, or pensions suddenly increase, some people will have to leave the waterways who have probably been on them for a very long time.

[WJM]

"To the commercially minded whiz-kids being drafted in to make BW more profitable"

 

You could also say they have been drafted in to stop BW being a drain on public expenditure. Think of all the people who have no interest in waterways, why should their taxes go to subsidise your little hobby?

[carlt]

I obviously don't like license fee increases but its got to be said that £550 for a 55ft nb to be able to do the whole (BW) canal system (which is quite extensive) is a BARGAIN. Twice that would be a BARGAIN.

It is twice that. You have the moving tax; and the staying still tax; plus the tax that everybody pays for the upkeep of a national asset. £24 for using 70' of waterways anytime you like, 24hours a day, 7days a week puts your £550 (plus mooring tax) into perspective. And my £70 family English heritage pa, allowing me free access (with up to a dozen kids, though god knows why) to all EH sites is significantly cheaper, too.

Think of all the people who have no interest in waterways, why should their taxes go to subsidise your little hobby?

People have no interest in a lot of things that are a national asset, therefore maintained out of the public purse. As an atheist should I be jumping up and down because some ofmy taxes go towards the upkeep of churches? Maybe people who don't drive can be refunded part of their council tax, and what about those childless folk not contributing to education?

[magnetman]

Fishermen and canoeists don't use locks, require a particular channel shape / depth or use sanity stations. To me a canal would be a lake if it had no defined channel, locks or other structures. All of this infrastructure is worn out and damaged by BOATS therefore the BOATERS should pay for their use. Towpaths, however, should be (are?) subsidised.

[fuzzyduck]

"To the commercially minded whiz-kids being drafted in to make BW more profitable"

 

You could also say they have been drafted in to stop BW being a drain on public expenditure. Think of all the people who have no interest in waterways, why should their taxes go to subsidise your little hobby?

 

because I pay for things I don't want, like schools, MPs expenses and pensions, the armed forces, the Olympics, the motorway network, corporate welfare, all those dodgy government ads on the TV.

 

Also without boaters the canals would just be muddy ditches, and none of the other people would actually have anything to visit, for instance how many people would go to Foxton without the locks?

 

This whole issue won't affect me that much, I use petrol which is already fully taxed, and a 30 percent increase of a license for my boat won't be that much. I'm thinking of those who have retired etc. the next 3 years is going to really hurt.

Edited October 9, 2007 by fuzzyduck

[carlt]

Fishermen and canoeists don't use locks, require a particular channel shape / depth or use sanity stations. To me a canal would be a lake if it had no defined channel, locks or other structures. All of this infrastructure is worn out and damaged by BOATS therefore the BOATERS should pay for their use. Towpaths, however, should be (are?) subsidised.

So a liveaboard who doesn't venture beyond their marina, uses the marina facilities and has never been through a lock should pay nothing then? Maybe boaters who never venture further than the ashby should pay less because they don't use locks.

 

I've regularly seen canoes in locks and just ask a fisherman if he doesn't need a particular depth or channel shape (and why he's fishing in the shadow of a lock or under the bows of a boat). Without channel maintenance (and boats) the canals would soon become too choked to fish.

 

I come back to the national asset issue. My English Heritage membership allows me free admission to over 400 state owned properties (plus grant aided properties) which require as much, if not more maintenance by specialist craftsmen. Every taxpayer pays for the upkeep of these state-owned assets. I choose to pay more so I can enjoy them up close. I pay 20 times more for hindered access to another state owned asset which needs less specialist maintenance and is enjoyed by people who pay nothing, or less than my EH membership.

[chris w]

................Furthermore we are a wealthy captive market because their own research will show that whenever they put the licence fee up, we moan a bit (some moan a lot) but we still pay it and they always win!

 

Setting licence fees is pretty much the same exercise as setting tax rates. There is an optimum level for BW just as there is an optimum income tax rate for the Government.

 

If income tax were 0%, clearly no tax revenue would be raised. Similarly if the tax rate were 100%, no revenue would be raised. Between these two zero revenue points is an inverted curve with a peak at some tax rate. The Chancellor's job is to get as close to this peak as possible.

 

The same logic obtains with licence fees. There is some optimum fee at which the number of boaters deciding to give up (ie: lost revenue) is more than matched by the additional fees raised by the increase. The only way to find out where this optimum fee level is in reality is to keep increasing by an above-inflation amount and see what happens. Presumably, because they keep increasing above inflation, the equation is still in their favour which doesn't bode well for the future from our perspective.

 

Chris

[NB Alnwick]

I don't think we need worry too much - we live in an age where market forces determine the price of everything. The price that something is sold usually bears little relation to its value its all about how much people are prepared to pay - and as BW have a monopoly - they are at liberty to stretch the market as far as it will go. As individuaql boaters there is little we can do except lodge our protest (which will probably be ignored) and make the best of it.

 

On the other hand, if prices rise so high that people cease using the canals and other influential commercial interests such as hire companies and marina operators begin to see their profits declining, there would be real pressure on BW to curb price increases but I cannot see anything else that will have any affect.

[carlt]

Setting licence fees is pretty much the same exercise as setting tax rates. There is an optimum level for BW just as there is an optimum income tax rate for the Government.

 

If income tax were 0%, clearly no tax revenue would be raised. Similarly if the tax rate were 100%, no revenue would be raised. Between these two zero revenue points is an inverted curve with a peak at some tax rate. The Chancellor's job is to get as close to this peak as possible.

 

The same logic obtains with licence fees. There is some optimum fee at which the number of boaters deciding to give up (ie: lost revenue) is more than matched by the additional fees raised by the increase. The only way to find out where this optimum fee level is in reality is to keep increasing by an above-inflation amount and see what happens. Presumably, because they keep increasing above inflation, the equation is still in their favour which doesn't bode well for the future from our perspective.

 

Chris

The problem with this is that you'd think they have had long enough to work out an optimum level of taxation, by now. Sadly BW (under DEFRA) has been at it for so long, consistently falling short, wasting money, destroying heritage, not maintaining the infrastructure adequately that I think it's time they gave up and gave another dept. a go. How about giving a major transport system to the DOT to maintain, at least they might get the ridiculous maintenance costs down to a reasonable level.

[magnetman]

If someone never comes off the Ashby why should they pay the same as someone who goes from brentford to York and back twice a year in a 'ring'?. Regional licenses and re-instatement of historically important stop locks for tolls. Why not? Run the system as it was designed. This would involve selling off individual canals and allowing the Company to set general navigation and mooring policy.

[chris w]

..............I don't think we need worry too much - we live in an age where market forces determine the price of everything. The price that something is sold usually bears little relation to its value its all about how much people are prepared to pay ............................

 

Can you cite an age where this was not the case? (excluding Communist states).

 

Everything is worth what one can get for it and that's basically supply and demand economics. No doubt, when you sell your labour, you also try to get top-dollar for your particular skills and that will depend on the general availability of similar skills.

 

 

Chris

[carlt]

If someone never comes off the Ashby why should they pay the same as someone who goes from brentford to York and back twice a year in a 'ring'?. Regional licenses and re-instatement of historically important stop locks for tolls. Why not? Run the system as it was designed. This would involve selling off individual canals and allowing the Company to set general navigation and mooring policy.

Because the tollhouses have either been demolished or sold off with the rest of the family silver. Because I don't mind paying a fair rate for a national asset and regionalising it would mean lesser used canals would fall into disrepair.

 

Boaters who travel extensively help to maintain the system by keeping the channel open, keeping canal furniture working by using it (a lock would become derelict through lack of use quicker than if used regularly). So should they pay less?

 

Anyone who thinks privatisation is a good thing has not thought it through. If you think that BW is subsiding hire companies, just wait and see how a private canal company would weigh up the difference between a private boat and a hire boat.

[blackrose]

Can you cite an age where this was not the case? (excluding Communist states).

 

Everything is worth what one can get for it and that's basically supply and demand economics. No doubt, when you sell your labour, you also try to get top-dollar for your particular skills and that will depend on the general availability of similar skills.

Chris

 

That's true Chris, but things have changed even in the last 10 years. When I got my first boat BW had not involked market forces in their setting of fees quite as avidly as they are doing now. Just look at the new moorings trial where you have to place sealed bids. If boating is your hobby then it probably always was a relatively expensive hobby and it is going up, but many people for whom living on a boat was a possibility whereas owning their own house or flat was not, are being forced off their boats and out of their homes presumably into low grade rental accommodation. Thus it's difficult to understand how a belief in the sanctity of market forces can be squared with the Tory dream of everyone owning their own home?

 

Don't get me wrong, I believe market forces should play their part in how an economy runs, but I also believe that there is no such thing as a perfect market and that's where regulation comes in. Unfortunately in these matters, as with the hiving off of waterside heritage, it has become apparent that our regulators are not completely impartial have decided to cash in themselves.

Edited October 9, 2007 by blackrose