Anyone passing Barrowford Locks?

[David Mack]

7 hours ago, haggis said:

Just adding a bit in response to your question of how you taking a marina mooring would help C&RT. marinas (uness they are one of the ones where you don't need a licence) make a payment to C&RT based on how many places they have for boats. 

Under the NAA , marinas pay a fee to CRT on the basis of the number of moorings available, not those occupied. So if LadyG or anyone else takes a mooring in a NAA marina CRT don't get any extra income - it all goes to the marina operator.

[Naughty Cal]

15 hours ago, LadyG said:

But I'm on a budget, if costs are raised significantly I will just sell the boat, I'm thinking of doing that anyway, unless I can get back to my original plan of a bit of travel and a bit of wildlife watching, visiting museums and parts of the country I don't know well.

I give it another six months, and then might well sell up. Ive spent the last few weeks looking at property online: retirement homes, they have communal laundries, which for some reason greatly appeals, plus some have conservatories,  I have yet to find one with a pool. 

 

I thought you didn't like living in bricks and mortar?

 

Wasn't that the whole point of moving onto a boat to get away from bricks and mortar?

 

Given that you hated living in the flat you were struggling to sell some 3 years ago, what makes you think living in close quarters with other people on a "retirement village" is going to be suited to you?

[Briss]

The retirement places we looked at for my mum all said "no pets". Sorry Arthur! (I think that's his name)

[frangar]

A winter marina can work well. Also a lot depends on design and location of marina. Some feel more crowded than others…it’s why I like linear jetties as there’s more space between boats…my present one also has liveaboards spread out so not all next to each other…it’s also in the middle of a long pound so easy to nip out just for a night or few days and either find the local pub or middle of nowhere as mood dictates. There’s a lot to be said to be a few foot from a tap and having unlimited power in winter…after living aboard for 30 years this April you learn the things that matter. 

[LadyG]

49 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

I thought you didn't like living in bricks and mortar?

 

Wasn't that the whole point of moving onto a boat to get away from bricks and mortar?

 

Given that you hated living in the flat you were struggling to sell some 3 years ago, what makes you think living in close quarters with other people on a "retirement village" is going to be suited to you?

I don't like living next to an alcoholic who breaks in to my house among other things, police visiting regularly, etc etc. 

Other reasons. 

Living on a boat was never a forever option. 

I would never buy a flat that has a shared entrance. 

The boat idea came from my salty water background and the idea of freedom of movement, well there has been little or no freedom of movement in the last three years, so probably best to cut and run while I still have my basic faculties. 

 

Edited January 4, 2022 by LadyG

[Mike Todd]

15 hours ago, IanD said:

Length/beam is -- as you say -- easier to administer and harder to fiddle than value, and I was assuming that this would be done too. The problem with *only* using this is that (for example) older/poorer people in 70' boats would see a huge fee increase which they couldn't afford to pay, and the well-off in expensive boats who could afford today more wouldn't.

 

Linking payments to boat/house value isn't perfect but many countries manage to make it work for local taxes, and it is a lot more redistributive than a flat rate. Just because it's harder to do doesn't mean it should be rejected immediately...

I was not implying that it could not be done but, rather, that it is a very expensive way of raising taxation. As such, it is then a matter of society weighing up the cost versus any social benefits. In this context, the latter would have to be rather considerable to make the balance tip their way.

[Mike Todd]

10 hours ago, David Mack said:

Under the NAA , marinas pay a fee to CRT on the basis of the number of moorings available, not those occupied. So if LadyG or anyone else takes a mooring in a NAA marina CRT don't get any extra income - it all goes to the marina operator.

Taking a slightly longer term view, if the number of moorers drops permanently then the marina will reduce its declared capacity and so CaRT will be deprived long term of some income. Any policy with regard to the canal system has to take pretty long view. (ie nothing can be done in a hurry!)

[David Mack]

16 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

if the number of moorers drops permanently then the marina will reduce its declared capacity

Under the terms of the NAA it is not up to the marina to declare its capacity. The capacity is the capacity (unless they fill in some of the water space). That said, when CRT and Pillings Lock Marina eventually sorted out their issues; CRT agreed to reduce the stated capacity of the marina to reduce the connection fee which would be payable (as well as writing off around £0.25m iirc in previous unpaid fees).

 

I don't disagree with your broader conclusion though, that pushing more boaters into marinas would in the long term increase CRT's income from marinas.

Edited January 4, 2022 by David Mack

[Alan de Enfield]

24 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Taking a slightly longer term view, if the number of moorers drops permanently then the marina will reduce its declared capacity and so CaRT will be deprived long term of some income. Any policy with regard to the canal system has to take pretty long view. (ie nothing can be done in a hurry!)

 

That is exactly what happened at Pillings Lock, they removed a pontoon(s) and C&RT reassessed them on the reduced 'moorings available' numbers.

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

I was not implying that it could not be done but, rather, that it is a very expensive way of raising taxation. As such, it is then a matter of society weighing up the cost versus any social benefits. In this context, the latter would have to be rather considerable to make the balance tip their way.

Why is it expensive and complicated? It's not like means-testing (income/outgoings) which *is* very difficult/expensive to do, any boat on the canals has to be insured and I believe has to have a declared value for insurance purposes, so the required information already exists.

 

If people want to under-declare the value to reduce the license fee then they're also reducing their insurance cover, which will discourage people from doing this.

 

There will never be any system which is 100% fraud-proof, what is needed is something which will get it roughly right for most people, and this seems much fairer then a purely size-based tariff (which would be done as well). Without it older "real" boaters who have been on the canals for many years and are likely to have low incomes will be driven off the canals... 😞

[Tony Brooks]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Why is it expensive and complicated? It's not like means-testing (income/outgoings) which *is* very difficult/expensive to do, any boat on the canals has to be insured and I believe has to have a declared value for insurance purposes, so the required information already exists.

 

If people want to under-declare the value to reduce the license fee then they're also reducing their insurance cover, which will discourage people from doing this.

 

There will never be any system which is 100% fraud-proof, what is needed is something which will get it roughly right for most people, and this seems much fairer then a purely size-based tariff (which would be done as well). Without it older "real" boaters who have been on the canals for many years and are likely to have low incomes will be driven off the canals... 😞

 

What about third party only cover? I don't know if a value is required for that.

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

What about third party only cover? I don't know if a value is required for that.

If not, it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to come up with a substitute figure based on boat length/width and age, since this information is in the boat registration. Yes it's not perfect, but doesn't have to be.

 

We shouldn't reject the good in search of the perfect... 😉

 

[Mike Todd]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Why is it expensive and complicated? It's not like means-testing (income/outgoings) which *is* very difficult/expensive to do, any boat on the canals has to be insured and I believe has to have a declared value for insurance purposes, so the required information already exists.

 

If people want to under-declare the value to reduce the license fee then they're also reducing their insurance cover, which will discourage people from doing this.

 

There will never be any system which is 100% fraud-proof, what is needed is something which will get it roughly right for most people, and this seems much fairer then a purely size-based tariff (which would be done as well). Without it older "real" boaters who have been on the canals for many years and are likely to have low incomes will be driven off the canals... 😞

One of the complications in such systems lies in the basin principles of data protection - information given in one context cannot normally be shared with another organisation unless it is reasonable, part of the data registration and the data subject has given permission whilst not under duress etc etc. In practice this means that separate means testing becomes a necessity - for example, benefit applications cannot re-use the HMRC database.

 

Whatever we might think as being 'good enough' for the context, legislators and their legal advisers almost certainly would insist on a more foolproof method such that there would be a whole new department at CaRT just to certify the valuation. In the first instance at least this would probably mean a visit to every boat. In the longer term, cost cutting would lead to the valuations being updated by formula with the consequent difficulties that we see with rating values after decades of non-revaluation. The latter brings its own problems for those whose values have risen more than they thought. If anyone is likely to gain it will be the insurance companies if the legislation that would be needed makes the valuations a public record (ie they could base their premiums on the valuations) You idea also does not work unless comprehensive insurance becomes a legal necessity (very unlikely) as third party only would not need a valuation.

 

If the current system is maintained, then no old lags are going to be 'driven off the canals' just on this basis alone (assuming they can afford it at the present) - they might if the cost of boating generally rises to an unaffordable level.

 

In designing a new system it you have to accept the inevitable that there will be winners and losers - otherwise the change (and its inevitable admin cost) will not be worth doing.

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

If not, it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man to come up with a substitute figure based on boat length/width and age, since this information is in the boat registration. Yes it's not perfect, but doesn't have to be.

 

We shouldn't reject the good in search of the perfect... 😉

 

Sadly, that is not the basis of new legislation (assuming you can get it in the first place)

[IanD]

44 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

One of the complications in such systems lies in the basin principles of data protection - information given in one context cannot normally be shared with another organisation unless it is reasonable, part of the data registration and the data subject has given permission whilst not under duress etc etc. In practice this means that separate means testing becomes a necessity - for example, benefit applications cannot re-use the HMRC database.

 

Whatever we might think as being 'good enough' for the context, legislators and their legal advisers almost certainly would insist on a more foolproof method such that there would be a whole new department at CaRT just to certify the valuation. In the first instance at least this would probably mean a visit to every boat. In the longer term, cost cutting would lead to the valuations being updated by formula with the consequent difficulties that we see with rating values after decades of non-revaluation. The latter brings its own problems for those whose values have risen more than they thought. If anyone is likely to gain it will be the insurance companies if the legislation that would be needed makes the valuations a public record (ie they could base their premiums on the valuations) You idea also does not work unless comprehensive insurance becomes a legal necessity (very unlikely) as third party only would not need a valuation.

 

If the current system is maintained, then no old lags are going to be 'driven off the canals' just on this basis alone (assuming they can afford it at the present) - they might if the cost of boating generally rises to an unaffordable level.

 

In designing a new system it you have to accept the inevitable that there will be winners and losers - otherwise the change (and its inevitable admin cost) will not be worth doing.

Sadly, that is not the basis of new legislation (assuming you can get it in the first place)

Data protection simply means you have to consent to your data being revealed to a third party. Sharing an insurance valuation with CART shouldn't have any issue here, just make it part of the terms of being granted a license -- at the moment you have to prove you have insurance so there's already information transferred, this just expands it slightly -- no Big Brother "slippery slope" involved.

 

Insurance valuations are already either automatically updated or set at an agreed value provided by the boater, this would not change in any way.

 

If third party doesn't need a valuation and the boater doesn't provide one, then a number based on boat size would be used.

 

The whole point of this is that the overall CART take from licenses *does* need to rise hugely, possible doubling, and some people have clearly said that this would drive them off the canals. It seems much fairer to all to change the system to be more redistributive than flat-rate, and boat value (and size) is the only was I can see to do this.

 

Mike, if you don't like my suggestion, what's your proposal to stop *everybody* being hit by a big increase, whether they can afford it or not?

 

It's easy to sit there and fire off objections, it's much harder to be helpful and come up with a better alternative. Over to you... 😉

 

Edited January 4, 2022 by IanD

[haggis]

27 minutes ago, IanD said:

Why is it expensive and complicated? It's not like means-testing (income/outgoings) which *is* very difficult/expensive to do, any boat on the canals has to be insured and I believe has to have a declared value for insurance purposes, so the required information already exists.

 

The value of boats fluctuates as the market changes. For example, because of the upsurge in staycation holidays, canal boats are much in demand and as a result, their  value has increased quite a lot in the last year or so. It is up to boat owners to negotiate with their broker if they feel the insured value is no longer correct. In the motor industry the value of any vehicle can be quickly established by the many professional guides out there but as canal boats are not similarly identified by make, model and year any licencing based on boat value is a bit hit and miss. 

Back to the drawing board, I think but I can't think of a fairer method than size. In the example you gave earlier of an elderly couple having a 70 foot boat for which they could no longer afford the licence, they can always sell it and buy a smaller one 🙂 

 

haggis

 

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, haggis said:

The value of boats fluctuates as the market changes. For example, because of the upsurge in staycation holidays, canal boats are much in demand and as a result, their  value has increased quite a lot in the last year or so. It is up to boat owners to negotiate with their broker if they feel the insured value is no longer correct. In the motor industry the value of any vehicle can be quickly established by the many professional guides out there but as canal boats are not similarly identified by make, model and year any licencing based on boat value is a bit hit and miss. 

Back to the drawing board, I think but I can't think of a fairer method than size. In the example you gave earlier of an elderly couple having a 70 foot boat for which they could no longer afford the licence, they can always sell it and buy a smaller one 🙂 

 

haggis

 

So if the value changes year by year, so does the license fee. Why is this an issue, the insurance value (and premium) also change just like houses do, so what's different?

 

Whether it's perfectly accurate or a bit hit and miss doesn't really matter, so long as it broadly gets the fees right and is a lot better than a flat fee (or one only based on size -- which should be used as well).

 

Size is only "fair" if you think that everyone should pay the same, regardless of whether they're a well-off shiny boater in a customised £250000 boat or somebody retired on a pension living on the same boat they bought 30 years ago which is worth a tenth of that (and with a tenth of the income) -- so I assume you really *were* joking... 😉

 

I do wonder how many of the objections are coming from people who've thought "Hang on, my boat is worth a fair bit, this would mean I'll have to pay more!" rather than any genuine objections about how well such a system could work? I know it would cost me a lot more, and I'd be happy to pay more because I think that's fair 🙂

Edited January 4, 2022 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

We could always go back to 'the user pays' concept that BW / C&RT planned to introduce was bus 'shouted down' as unfair.

 

Take the base licence fee for any particular size boat, multiply by a factor depending on usage (higher users pay more), or deduct for various users, Rivers only, Electric Boats, unpowered boat etc etc.

 

The proposal was that hire boats and boats with no home mooring were the biggest uses of the infrastructure so should pay 2.5 times the 'base rate'.

 

Here is the proposal :

 

 

Nb : Since then width has been introduced as a chargable factor.

 

Boat over 12 metres long is the 'base-line' licence fee.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

44 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

We could always go back to 'the user pays' concept that BW / C&RT planned to introduce was bus 'shouted down' as unfair.

 

Take the base licence fee for any particular size boat, multiply by a factor depending on usage (higher users pay more), or deduct for various users, Rivers only, Electric Boats, unpowered boat etc etc.

 

The proposal was that hire boats and boats with no home mooring were the biggest uses of the infrastructure so should pay 2.5 times the 'base rate'.

 

Here is the proposal :

 

 

Nb : Since then width has been introduced as a chargable factor.

 

Boat over 12 metres long is the 'base-line' licence fee.

 

 

 

 

 

Which is certainly fairer than the close-to-flat-fee approach now, at least it tries to make the system "payment depending on use of canal system". Presumably it was howled down by the "losers" who would end up paying more?

 

[as was pointed out, any change always has "winners" and "losers", and the "winners" don't object...]

 

The thing some people are arguing against is whether it should also be redistribitive -- indirectly linked to "ability to pay" via boat value. In a way this is no different to a graduated income tax, the principle being that the richer pay proportionally more and the poorer pay less. Seems to grate with some though, perhaps because -- as above -- they think they'd pay more?

Edited January 4, 2022 by IanD

[Ex Brummie]

When you come up with the ideal formula, please pass on the details to HMRC, who have been trying to do this for longer than I can remember with both domestic and business rates.

Their current basis relies on the most valuable pay most and has little regard for the direct load on the services. The difference between this and boats is that property always increases steadily whilst, excluding the current blip, boats depreciate steadily, sometimes sharply. No amount of tinkering would produce significantly more than the size criteria at present without vastly increasing the bureaucratic load exponentially.

[haggis]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

The thing some people are arguing against is whether it should also be redistribitive -- indirectly linked to "ability to pay" via boat value. In a way this is no different to a graduated income tax, the principle being that the richer pay proportionally more and the poorer pay less. Seems to grate with some though, perhaps because -- as above -- they think they'd pay more?

If you are implying that I would object to paying more you are barking up the wrong tree as if you look back, I think it was I (me?) who suggested that all boaters need to pay more 🙂 

Why should a boats licence fee be linked to ability to pay? It is not an essential expense, like income tax, community charge etc, but is something which some people decide to pay. I am well aware of the fact that some people might be forced off the water but the alternative, if C&RT don't get enough money to maintain the canals is that there will be no canals for any boats.  For the long term future of the canals, what is best, no navigable canals  or fewer boats?  Something has got to give! 

 

Haggis

[TheBiscuits]

5 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

When you come up with the ideal formula, please pass on the details to HMRC, who have been trying to do this for longer than I can remember with both domestic and business rates.

 

Robert Heinlein suggested a system where you value your own property for tax purposes.  The catch being if someone offers that amount you have to either sell it to them or increase your own valuation by some percentage ...

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, Ex Brummie said:

When you come up with the ideal formula, please pass on the details to HMRC, who have been trying to do this for longer than I can remember with both domestic and business rates.

Their current basis relies on the most valuable pay most and has little regard for the direct load on the services. The difference between this and boats is that property always increases steadily whilst, excluding the current blip, boats depreciate steadily, sometimes sharply. No amount of tinkering would produce significantly more than the size criteria at present without vastly increasing the bureaucratic load exponentially.

I really don't see where this claimed massive bureaucratic load comes from -- CART already know the boat width/length/age, insurance companies already know the age/value (if comprehensively insured), all the information is already there.

 

Where does it come from?

 

The purpose of such a system would be precisely to allow CART to raise a lot more money without making a boat cripplingly expensive for those who can't afford it. What's wrong with this?

Edited January 4, 2022 by IanD

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, haggis said:

If you are implying that I would object to paying more you are barking up the wrong tree as if you look back, I think it was I (me?) who suggested that all boaters need to pay more 🙂 

Why should a boats licence fee be linked to ability to pay? It is not an essential expense, like income tax, community charge etc, but is something which some people decide to pay. I am well aware of the fact that some people might be forced off the water but the alternative, if C&RT don't get enough money to maintain the canals is that there will be no canals for any boats.  For the long term future of the canals, what is best, no navigable canals  or fewer boats?  Something has got to give! 

 

Haggis

On this same principle, why should income tax be linked to ability to pay? We all use things like the NHS/roads/police and these are funded by taxation, on the principle that the rich pay more. Do you think everyone should pay the same rate of income tax, with no exemptions for low earners?

 

You seem to be saying that you don't care if some older/poorer people are forced off the canals so long as richer people don't pay more. Why? How else can CART raise more money?

 

Needless to say, if CART was entirely (and generously) funded by central government -- which some say it should be, as national infrastructure -- the rich would pay more via taxation. Why should it be any different just because it's called a "CART license  fee" instead of "income tax"?

[Mike Todd]

To reply to several posts:

 

One of the problems with a property value tax (eg rateable value) is that prices are volatile yet the total take needs to be stable - would it be acceptable to have to halve the number of child protection officers (say) just because house pri8ces dropped dramatically? The result has been that rateable values are based on a notional time frame and gradually drift away from reality. The cost and consequences of a universal re-valuation at a single point in time have deterred successive governments who keep putting it off. 

 

One of the problems with pay-by-use is in deciding which things to charge for and at what tariff. Determining actual cost of provision is hard and again can have unintended consequences. (eg allocating business overheads to different departments can be a highly political process) If the idea is to raise the money to run the system this way then each item charged has to cover more than its inherent cost. As a means of taxation it suffers also if the consumer has a choice over whether to use the service or not. It is not possible to assume simply that everything else in a system stays the same apart from the bit you want to change. It practice, a lot else adapts to the new context. So, let us take a very simple example (and some want simplicity!) let us suppose that we double the income from boaters by charging for sewage disposal at a level that will raise the amount required. Then, a smart business person spots an opportunity and offers an alternative at a quarter of the cost and everyone stops buying from CaRT.

 

The basis for suggesting that access to the right to navigate should take into account individual financial circumstances is not obvious. For the most part, boaters are not compelled to use the canals, it is a matter of personal choice. Most other things in life where there is a similar choice, the broad assumption is that if you want something then you pay for it at the going rate. Some thigs are deemed to be necessities in a civilised society and so are charged on an ability to pay basis - for example policing and homeland security. We no longer consider it right to require everyone to have their own policing contractor (save for cases where the social aspect does not apply eg paying for police at football matches) In the area of housing - which arguably comes into the necessity category - attempts to provide social housing (laughingly called affordable housing!) other than by Council Housing (ie provided on a basis very similar to benefits) have been a spectacular failure. In most cases all that has happened is that the public money ends up in the pockets of developers, usually the large ones.

 

It is a misunderstanding to suggest that insurance value is stable like rateable values. The former are set by commercial businesses whilst the latter are formulaic and intended to be immune to economic cycles. (ie we want business rates and council tax to be the same whether we are in a boom or a recession) In any event, the insurances value is only part of the equation in arriving an an annual premium. eg premiums rise when economic conditions lead to sharp rises in repair or replacement costs.

 

Any significant change in the basis of the licence fee will, as I understand it, entail primary legislation. At the present time, were this to be undertaken (and there is slim chance of time being made available anyway) any government would take the opportunity to solve its problems not the boaters'. Specifically, it will seek to reduce - or even eliminate - any call on public money other than for very limited social requirements (eg flood control) The result is most likely to be a comprehensive shift towards CaRT being self sufficient with all services being charged at an economic level. There will be no scope for 'ability to pay' in any way. 

 

Incidentally, in one of the areas of greater income, the charges CaRT makes for water management, in the past few years CaRT have woken up to this and increased their charges (such as for water supply or drainage). I believe that in some cases customers suddenly found themselves with a more than doubled charge with little alternative in the short term but to stump up.

 

As I said before, I have spent quite a lot of time in devising comparable 'taxation' schemes and am all too aware of the complexities. One of the dangers is that people see a system that is not perfect and assume that change is a given. "If it is broken then it should be mended." The fallacy is that there is of necessity a better way. Sometimes, we have to learn to live with a scheme that has flaws but is a good compromise between lots of competing aims. It will never be 'perfect'. It may well be the case that the current is about as good as it gets.

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

To reply to several posts:

 

One of the problems with a property value tax (eg rateable value) is that prices are volatile yet the total take needs to be stable - would it be acceptable to have to halve the number of child protection officers (say) just because house pri8ces dropped dramatically? The result has been that rateable values are based on a notional time frame and gradually drift away from reality. The cost and consequences of a universal re-valuation at a single point in time have deterred successive governments who keep putting it off. 

 

One of the problems with pay-by-use is in deciding which things to charge for and at what tariff. Determining actual cost of provision is hard and again can have unintended consequences. (eg allocating business overheads to different departments can be a highly political process) If the idea is to raise the money to run the system this way then each item charged has to cover more than its inherent cost. As a means of taxation it suffers also if the consumer has a choice over whether to use the service or not. It is not possible to assume simply that everything else in a system stays the same apart from the bit you want to change. It practice, a lot else adapts to the new context. So, let us take a very simple example (and some want simplicity!) let us suppose that we double the income from boaters by charging for sewage disposal at a level that will raise the amount required. Then, a smart business person spots an opportunity and offers an alternative at a quarter of the cost and everyone stops buying from CaRT.

 

The basis for suggesting that access to the right to navigate should take into account individual financial circumstances is not obvious. For the most part, boaters are not compelled to use the canals, it is a matter of personal choice. Most other things in life where there is a similar choice, the broad assumption is that if you want something then you pay for it at the going rate. Some thigs are deemed to be necessities in a civilised society and so are charged on an ability to pay basis - for example policing and homeland security. We no longer consider it right to require everyone to have their own policing contractor (save for cases where the social aspect does not apply eg paying for police at football matches) In the area of housing - which arguably comes into the necessity category - attempts to provide social housing (laughingly called affordable housing!) other than by Council Housing (ie provided on a basis very similar to benefits) have been a spectacular failure. In most cases all that has happened is that the public money ends up in the pockets of developers, usually the large ones.

 

It is a misunderstanding to suggest that insurance value is stable like rateable values. The former are set by commercial businesses whilst the latter are formulaic and intended to be immune to economic cycles. (ie we want business rates and council tax to be the same whether we are in a boom or a recession) In any event, the insurances value is only part of the equation in arriving an an annual premium. eg premiums rise when economic conditions lead to sharp rises in repair or replacement costs.

 

Any significant change in the basis of the licence fee will, as I understand it, entail primary legislation. At the present time, were this to be undertaken (and there is slim chance of time being made available anyway) any government would take the opportunity to solve its problems not the boaters'. Specifically, it will seek to reduce - or even eliminate - any call on public money other than for very limited social requirements (eg flood control) The result is most likely to be a comprehensive shift towards CaRT being self sufficient with all services being charged at an economic level. There will be no scope for 'ability to pay' in any way. 

 

Incidentally, in one of the areas of greater income, the charges CaRT makes for water management, in the past few years CaRT have woken up to this and increased their charges (such as for water supply or drainage). I believe that in some cases customers suddenly found themselves with a more than doubled charge with little alternative in the short term but to stump up.

 

As I said before, I have spent quite a lot of time in devising comparable 'taxation' schemes and am all too aware of the complexities. One of the dangers is that people see a system that is not perfect and assume that change is a given. "If it is broken then it should be mended." The fallacy is that there is of necessity a better way. Sometimes, we have to learn to live with a scheme that has flaws but is a good compromise between lots of competing aims. It will never be 'perfect'. It may well be the case that the current is about as good as it gets.

 

The problem with your proposal -- which isn't one, it's "leave it as it is" -- is simple. CART need to get more income, and if they keep the current system and just jack up the cost by 50% or 100% this will be crippling for a lot of poorer/older boaters. Your objection seems to be that trying to get rich boaters to pay more so that poor ones can pay less is either somehow morally wrong or impossible to deliver without massive costs -- is that correct?

 

If you're saying that CART can't increase the license fees, where do you suggest they get the necessary extra income from?

 

If they do put the fees up by (for example) 50% on average, to prevent severe impact on those who can't afford it it seems sensible to me to graduate the fees with "income" -- for which boat value is the only available proxy -- so that (for example) poorer boaters pay the same as they do now, typical boaters pay 50% more, and well-off boaters pay 100% more -- yes I realise boat value is not an accurate predictor of ability to pay, but it's certainly coupled to it. This isn't based on any envy or wanting "somebody else" to pay (I'd be paying the highest rate!), it just seems the fairest way to minimise the negative impact of the license fee increase, without massive administrative cost.

 

What is your objection to this? And if you don't like it, what would you propose instead?

 

The status quo is not the answer, because the CART funding system clearly *is* broken to the tune of at least £100M a year... 😞

Edited January 4, 2022 by IanD