Jump to content

Is the current infrastructure really any worse than the 70s 80s?


Featured Posts

12 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I would provide a list but it would be almost as long as an average Ian D post. 

 

Not only that but he'd tell you your list was wrong, lol!

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tracy D'arth said:

So having never made a claim and not being 100% honest, like everybody else I know, I insure my boat 3rd party to get the salvage cover and 3rd party claims approved but at a declared value of £100. I don't want any insurance for the paint, the woodwork, the gas or electric, never use my engine because I moor permanently in a marina. 

Do you think C&RT will give me a licence?

I have complied with all the requirements you list.

 

I have better things to do than discuss what will never happen  now. My sock drawer needs tidying.

 

Ian is the type of bloke that causes your heart to sink when you discover you have been seated next to him at a wedding.

  • Horror 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

Ian is the type of bloke that causes your heart to sink when you discover you have been seated next to him at a wedding.


No need for that 

 

I dare say..(but won’t)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Goliath said:


No need for that 

 

I dare say..(but won’t)

 

Yes I guess some would reciprocate. So what?

 

But we choose who we sit with in a pub, I wouldnt choose to sit with someone who constantly foists their opinions (as facts) on everybody in the vicinity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

Yes I guess some would reciprocate. So what?

 

But we choose who we sit with in a pub, I wouldnt choose to sit with someone who constantly foists their opinions (as facts) on everybody in the vicinity.

 

I remember you being at the banter at Calf Heath we had about ten years ago. . 

 

Quiet as a mouse, not saying nothing much to no-one. Several people pointed you out to me, telling me how you were full of it on the forum. i had no idea at the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

Yes I guess some would reciprocate. So what?

 

But we choose who we sit with in a pub, I wouldnt choose to sit with someone who constantly foists their opinions (as facts) on everybody in the vicinity.

Absolutely why would you?
We have the choice here  too. 
Either way we can quietly choose to ignore.

 

 

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

I remember you being at the banter at Calf Heath we had about ten years ago. . 

 

Quiet as a mouse, not saying nothing much to no-one. Several people pointed you out to me, telling me how you were full of it on the forum. i had no idea at the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is that when he had a boat?

Edited by Goliath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I remember you being at the banter at Calf Heath we had about ten years ago. . 

 

Quiet as a mouse, not saying nothing much to no-one. Several people pointed you out to me, telling me how you were full of it on the forum. i had no idea at the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really? How very interesting.

 

You are mistaking me for someone else. Ive never been to a banter at Calf Heath.

 

3 minutes ago, Goliath said:


Either way we can quietly choose to ignore.

 

 

 

Very true. You could try it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Absolutely why would you?
We have the choose here too. 
Either way we can quietly choose to ignore.

 

 

Is that when he had a boat?

 

 

Yes, a boat called The Dog House, same user name. 

 

He got banned from here for being his normal self but re-registered. I have no idea why this is tolerated by Team Mod as the policy is the person is banned, not whatever username they happen to be using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Very true. You could try it.

Ignore Ian!

No way.


One day, one day in the not so long future I’ll have him supporting the NBTA 👍

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Yes, a boat called The Dog House, same user name. 

 

He got banned from here for being his normal self but re-registered. I have no idea why this is tolerated by Team Mod as the policy is the person is banned, not whatever username they happen to be using.

 

Old news Mike.

 

Care to comment further on mis identifying me at a banter I never attended?

Just now, Goliath said:

Ignore Ian!

No way.


One day, one day in the not so long future I’ll have him supporting the NBTA 👍

 

 

I meant me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Yes, a boat called The Dog House, same user name. 

 

He got banned from here for being his normal self but re-registered. I have no idea why this is tolerated by Team Mod as the policy is the person is banned, not whatever username they happen to be using.

of course The Dog House, I’d forgotten 

but I think he ignores you

so this may come out a bit jointed for him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Goliath said:

of course The Dog House, I’d forgotten 

but I think he ignores you

so this may come out a bit jointed for him

 

No.

 

Mike ignores me. Or so he once claimed in a rather convaluted manner.

 

I dont have anyone on ignore. Its petty and childish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I just looked at your profile

You won a day!

How the f***?

 

27 th April

 

You'd have to ask the folk who gave my posts a vote up that day.

 

It was probably rooted in the politics section would be my guess.

 

 

Edited by The Happy Nomad
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Goliath said:

Ignore Ian!

No way.


One day, one day in the not so long future I’ll have him supporting the NBTA 👍

 

That'll be a long time coming... 😉

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This being CWDF as usual, I wondered how long it would be before the usual suspects resorted to ad hominem tactics when confronted with facts or asked questions they didn't want to answer... 😞

 

I could reply in kind, but I don't fancy mud-wresting today 😉

 

A suggestion for those who seem to think CART and blue signs are to blame for everything, and nothing can be done to fix it, and the canals are going to hell in a handbasket:

 

https://www.lifehack.org/869079/how-to-stop-being-negative

Edited by IanD
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, IanD said:

Why? All the information (insurance valuation) is already there, and CART already ask for proof of insurance. The whole thing can be automated as part of the license application process -- cost, close to zero. Policing is then exactly the same as today, checking whether boats have a valid license or not. No extra cost here either...

FWIW I just looked at the certificate we have used several times to satisfy  navigation authorities and marinas and it does not state the insured value. I guess that this not considered to be necessarily public information and is only a matter between the insurer and insured. What it does state, as this is a matter of general concern, is the level of third party cover.

 

Whilst I am not instinctively opposed to an alternative to a cost based licence fee system, I do believe that anything which is more costly to administer will be an unlikely flier. It is clear, even from the limited debate here, that a value-based system would rapidly become as complex as the tax system (well, perhaps not quite as much as there would be fewer lawyers, real and barrack room), contesting special cases. It is always the special cases that bedevil any alternative. Many a taxation authority (and their equivalent in other contexts) have fallen foul of a supposed attempt to simplify the system. Almost always they end up even more complex - inevitable as all the old special cases have to be incorporated from the outset together with all the new ones that the the scheme throws up. It is important always to remember that no-one complains about a system that especially favours them but our vociferous when it disadvantages them. (Surprising!)

 

[Note: I have spent many years involved in a parallel ecclesiastical context. You would not believe just how many lawyers and accountants there are in church pews!]

 

The most obvious (to me!) problems are:

 

1. Value is not static - the rating system works because houses rarely change, only their price, and the rateable value is based on a fixed valuation date (ish). Property rarely goes down in value - if it did it would provoke far more valuation appeals than is the case now. In general, boats lose value over time.

 

2. Purchase price is not a realistic measure of ability to pay - this was one of the key poll tax problems. Pensioners living is properties bought long ago were particularly hit.

 

3. Unless valuations are back dated to a fixed baseline, then you get the anomaly that two boats making identical use of the system and for all practical purposes the same, would pay very different license fees. This means that you cannot use purchase price without invoking an expensive valuation system that would be an on-going and frequent cost. I suspect that many boaters get quite a surprise at the valuation given by a broker when they come to sell after years of ownership (sometime up, sometimes down) Self declaration for insurance purposes is likely to be much less of an issue than for licenses.

 

4. It would first be necessary to persuade enough relevant people (boaters, politicians and general public) to buy-in to a principle that boaters with a lower income should be subsidised through a price mechanism*. This would be equivalent to having a different price for a bottle of whisky for every customer. With housing, there is some public support for the notion that low income people should have their basic housing costs subsidised but even there we have largely moved away from a price to an income approach. Council housing has largely disappeared through selling them off and is replaced by various benefits, some specific eg council tax benefit, and some general, eg Universal Credit. An alternative for boats based on value would be swimming against the tide and first require a buy-in by the stakeholders. [Please note that I am not endorsing either cost or income approaches, both have pros and cons, not always well understood. The problem is that campaigners for change often only see the cons in the status quo and the benefits of the new] 

 

5. It can be surprising just how different the name (even the unofficial ones) can be on public acceptance to pay. Call it a charge for services rendered and it is much better honoured than calling it a tax. (vide Community Charge v Poll Tax - not that it worked for Thatcher!)

 

* my guess is that most stakeholders would see canal boating as an optional extra and not a necessity - again, note that I am not endorsing such a view but simply recognising it as a hurdle that would have to be overcome. A demo in Trafalgar Square for the 'Right to Live on a Canal' would probably not be that well attended!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

5. It can be surprising just how different the name (even the unofficial ones) can be on public acceptance to pay. Call it a charge for services rendered and it is much better honoured than calling it a tax. (vide Community Charge v Poll Tax - not that it worked for Thatcher!)

 

The problem with Thatcher's poll tax (and the previous one) was there was no way to avoid it. It is a basic principle of taxation (AIUI) that one should be able to avoid a tax if you wish not to pay it. Hate the window tax? Brick up your windows. Hate income tax? Stop earning money. Etc. But with a poll tax the only way to escape liability is to top yourself, so it was doomed in principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

FWIW I just looked at the certificate we have used several times to satisfy  navigation authorities and marinas and it does not state the insured value. I guess that this not considered to be necessarily public information and is only a matter between the insurer and insured. What it does state, as this is a matter of general concern, is the level of third party cover.

 

Whilst I am not instinctively opposed to an alternative to a cost based licence fee system, I do believe that anything which is more costly to administer will be an unlikely flier. It is clear, even from the limited debate here, that a value-based system would rapidly become as complex as the tax system (well, perhaps not quite as much as there would be fewer lawyers, real and barrack room), contesting special cases. It is always the special cases that bedevil any alternative. Many a taxation authority (and their equivalent in other contexts) have fallen foul of a supposed attempt to simplify the system. Almost always they end up even more complex - inevitable as all the old special cases have to be incorporated from the outset together with all the new ones that the the scheme throws up. It is important always to remember that no-one complains about a system that especially favours them but our vociferous when it disadvantages them. (Surprising!)

 

[Note: I have spent many years involved in a parallel ecclesiastical context. You would not believe just how many lawyers and accountants there are in church pews!]

 

The most obvious (to me!) problems are:

 

1. Value is not static - the rating system works because houses rarely change, only their price, and the rateable value is based on a fixed valuation date (ish). Property rarely goes down in value - if it did it would provoke far more valuation appeals than is the case now. In general, boats lose value over time.

 

2. Purchase price is not a realistic measure of ability to pay - this was one of the key poll tax problems. Pensioners living is properties bought long ago were particularly hit.

 

3. Unless valuations are back dated to a fixed baseline, then you get the anomaly that two boats making identical use of the system and for all practical purposes the same, would pay very different license fees. This means that you cannot use purchase price without invoking an expensive valuation system that would be an on-going and frequent cost. I suspect that many boaters get quite a surprise at the valuation given by a broker when they come to sell after years of ownership (sometime up, sometimes down) Self declaration for insurance purposes is likely to be much less of an issue than for licenses.

 

4. It would first be necessary to persuade enough relevant people (boaters, politicians and general public) to buy-in to a principle that boaters with a lower income should be subsidised through a price mechanism*. This would be equivalent to having a different price for a bottle of whisky for every customer. With housing, there is some public support for the notion that low income people should have their basic housing costs subsidised but even there we have largely moved away from a price to an income approach. Council housing has largely disappeared through selling them off and is replaced by various benefits, some specific eg council tax benefit, and some general, eg Universal Credit. An alternative for boats based on value would be swimming against the tide and first require a buy-in by the stakeholders. [Please note that I am not endorsing either cost or income approaches, both have pros and cons, not always well understood. The problem is that campaigners for change often only see the cons in the status quo and the benefits of the new] 

 

5. It can be surprising just how different the name (even the unofficial ones) can be on public acceptance to pay. Call it a charge for services rendered and it is much better honoured than calling it a tax. (vide Community Charge v Poll Tax - not that it worked for Thatcher!)

 

* my guess is that most stakeholders would see canal boating as an optional extra and not a necessity - again, note that I am not endorsing such a view but simply recognising it as a hurdle that would have to be overcome. A demo in Trafalgar Square for the 'Right to Live on a Canal' would probably not be that well attended!

 

I think most of what you're saying here is what I said : boat value (and insurance value) is not an ideal measure of ability to pay, for various reasons that you listed.

 

But so far nobody has come up with any alternative which is progressive, better, easy to administer, and doesn't involve a lot of disclosure of sensitive information like income.

 

The "pensioners with expensive boats" issue is the same one that comes up with houses. But any system always has winners and losers, the question is whether a proposed one is better/fairer than the status quo.

 

I contend that -- especially if license fees have to go up to fund maintenance -- it's fairer to have some weighting using boat/insurance value to try and stop poorer boaters being priced off the canals and get richer ones to pay more, than keeping the almost-flat-fee system we have today -- but the weighting for boat width should also be bigger, and maybe also factors for CCing, and anything else to try and make it fairer overall.

 

My guess is that if you look at the income distribution of boaters it's heavily weighted towards the bottom end, so this scheme should have more winners (poorer boaters) than losers (richer boaters). There will be some losers too (poor boaters with expensive boats) as well as winners (rich boaters with cheap boats), but this is inevitable unless you go to full means-testing. But it's still "fairer" than not taking any account of "value/income".

 

The progressive license fee principle is really no different to who would pay if the entire extra cost of the canals was met by the government, which a lot of people on CWDF are in favour of for the obvious reason that they wouldn't have to pay more.

 

But "the government" actually means "people's taxes", and the rich (if they don't use offshore tax fiddles and so on...) pay higher rates of tax (e.g. 45%) than the poor (e.g. 20%, or 0% below the threshold). So trying to make the license fee more progressive echoes the principle that "those with the broadest shoulders should carry the biggest load", which I hope most people (except some Tories...) would agree is a sign of a caring society... 🙂

Edited by IanD
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IanD said:

But "the government" actually means "people's taxes", and the rich (if they don't use offshore tax fiddles and so on...) pay higher rates of tax (e.g. 45%) than the poor (e.g. 20%, or 0% below the threshold). So trying to make the license fee more progressive echoes the principle that "those with the broadest shoulders should carry the biggest load", which I hope most people (except some Tories...) would agree is a sign of a caring society...

Just not true at all. The best off don't accrue money in a PAYE job working for someone else! I remember one Tory chancellor openly sneering at "people on a fixed income" as if they were a lesser, foolish species. I was a ltd co director/employee of my own company and I can assure you that in this position the first thing one does is put as little of ones income through the PAYE/NI route as you can get away with because the taxation rate is punitive. Such people never pay any tax at 45%. Even at the lowest rates PAYE + employees NI + employers NI adds up to a hefty % compared to corporation tax so you just use the PAYE for it's tax free portion + a bit more to look willing enough to stop the tax office immediately investigating then pay yourself in dividends because - you own all the shares. You even end up not having to pay that tax for almost 2 years if you are canny. Whether anyone approves of this or not is neither here nor there, it's perfectly legal - the system is ostensibly set up to encourage private enterprise - got to give tax breaks to do that. Gordon Brown made this even more attractive than the Tories at the lower end for exactly this reason.

 

I mean, I and others in this position could have channelled everything through PAYE and taken a 50% hit on take home "pay", but just as you do not donate 5 figure sums to CRT, why would we/they?

 

BTW I'm not even a Tory, never voted for 'em, ever. You get into this situation and take advice from your accountant. On the other hand I do regard myself as a socialist of sorts, I employed bright but unqualified school failures to get them out of a rut, trained them myself and paid them 50% over the odds. We do what we can.

Edited by Slow and Steady
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Slow and Steady said:

Just not true at all. The best off don't accrue money in a PAYE job working for someone else! I remember one Tory chancellor openly sneering at "people on a fixed income" as if they were a lesser, foolish species. I was a ltd co director/employee of my own company and I can assure you that in this position the first thing one does is put as little of ones income through the PAYE/NI route as you can get away with because the taxation rate is punitive. Such people never pay any tax at 45%. Even at the lowest rates PAYE + employees NI + employers NI adds up to a hefty % compared to corporation tax so you just use the PAYE for it's tax free portion + a bit more to look willing enough to stop the tax office immediately investigating then pay yourself in dividends because - you own all the shares. You even end up not having to pay that tax for almost 2 years if you are canny. Whether anyone approves of this or not is neither here nor there, it's perfectly legal - the system is ostensibly set up to encourage private enterprise - got to give tax breaks to do that. Gordon Brown made this even more attractive than the Tories at the lower end for exactly this reason.

 

I mean, I and others in this position could have channelled everything through PAYE and taken a 50% hit on take home "pay", but just as you do not donate 5 figure sums to CRT, why would we/they?

 

BTW I'm not even a Tory, never voted for 'em, ever. You get into this situation and take advice from your accountant. On the other hand I do regard myself as a socialist of sorts, I employed bright but unqualified school failures to get them out of a rut, trained them myself and paid them 50% over the odds. We do what we can.

 

I must be really stupid then, having a very well-paid technical position high-up in a multinational company and paying 45% income tax... 😞

 

None of which is the point, tax avoidance is always a problem with the very rich or immoral (and I don't think there are many billionaires on the canals), but the basis of the UK tax system is that those with higher incomes pay a higher tax rate -- so money paid by the government to maintain the canals comes more from people on higher incomes.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IanD said:

I must be really stupid then, having a very well-paid position high-up in a multinational company and paying 45% income tax... 😞

Agreed - I bet when you go part time consultant you'll earn more doing less, it's the way of the world!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.