Jump to content

Boat dwellers to be able to claim the £400 energy allowance.


Alway Swilby

Featured Posts

3 hours ago, dmr said:

Isn't this just another one of canal life conudrums?  The council is quite happy to have the boats there, some of them are making a contribution to the character of Hebden. The council does not want to grant residential status, it would probably like the council tax but its more trouble than its worth?? I believe that some of the boats have been there a while

And the the council doesn't want the consequences of making housed people homeless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happened to be in Hebden Bridge when the reporter (free lance) was asking folks about cost of living. I don't think I moaned, I just answered his questions and assessed my energy costs over the last two winters. I don't remember if the 14 day rule was discussed in any detail, CT was not mentioned. I think people are reading too much into the article.

I always find things get pretty tight at this time of year, I'm a lot warmer than I would be in a house, as long as I can buy plenty of coal and logs, not good for the environment but overall my contribution to global warming is probably less than than the average UK resident. I can't save the planet single-handed.

 

 

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I happened to be in Hebden Bridge when the reporter (free lance) was asking folks about cost of living. I don't think I moaned, I just answered his questions and assessed my energy costs over the last two winters. I don't remember if the 14 day rule was discussed, CT was not mentioned. I think people are reading too much into the article.

I always find things get pretty tight at this time of year, I'm a lot warmer than I would be in a house, but I can't see how I could live comfortably in a rented flat, a fully owned house, or a Residential Mooring.

 

Did you work (full time?) and plan for your retirement? Did you have financial advice offered, or sought it, at any stage in life? I am not asking personally, but in a general sense to people who might turn to boating later in life as a lifestyle choice which might also have cost benefits (but might not if circumstances change a lot, ie massive increase in energy costs in general, high inflation, etc). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

Makes the local councilors responsible for its level so if enough votesr thiknk it is too high they can vote them out. Juat putting it on general taxation lets the locals off the hook.

But would you agree that impoverished areas with low incomes would end up with underfunded councils?

13 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

But they won't be "as" broke as someone who has the additional £1000+ Council Tax bill to pay. Also, a boat is somewhat smaller in volumetric size and the fuels used to heat it are different, so comparing the increase in fuel bills as an amount more, rather than saying "doubled" or "increased 50%" or whatever, is required.

 

I know its been done to death but its a pretty simple concept:

 

* Certain residential boaters are not charged council tax (£1000 or more) because the administrative burden of doing so, outweighs the amount.
* They won't be getting the £400 because the administrative burden of keeping track of it, in some kind of (yet to be suggested how it would actually work in the real world) scheme is simply sky high; its going to be at least the above cost.

If someone is genuinely broke, they don't pay council tax.  They recieve council tax benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, doratheexplorer said:

But would you agree that impoverished areas with low incomes would end up with underfunded councils?

 

Why? The contributor base would be larger, so the cost per contributor should be lower than now. That means low income areas could still get the same money in, whereas higher income areas, each contributor may pay less than individuals pay now. In any case it all depends upon how large the local authority is and its demographic, rich areas, in effect, subsidising the poorer areas.

 

We have seen how central government play fast and loose with passing funding to local areas over recent years, so think it is vital that they are kept as far away from local funds as they can be, and local councillors are made accountable for the local funds they raise and spend. An awful lot of the current problems for local authorities stem from central government cutting their grants while at the same time limiting what they can raise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tony Brooks said:

 

Why? The contributor base would be larger, so the cost per contributor should be lower than now. That means low income areas could still get the same money in, whereas higher income areas, each contributor may pay less than individuals pay now. In any case it all depends upon how large the local authority is and its demographic, rich areas, in effect, subsidising the poorer areas.

 

We have seen how central government play fast and loose with passing funding to local areas over recent years, so think it is vital that they are kept as far away from local funds as they can be, and local councillors are made accountable for the local funds they raise and spend. An awful lot of the current problems for local authorities stem from central government cutting their grants while at the same time limiting what they can raise.

What do you mean "the contributor base would be larger"?

 

1 minute ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

 

 

We have seen how central government play fast and loose with passing funding to local areas over recent years, so think it is vital that they are kept as far away from local funds as they can be, and local councillors are made accountable for the local funds they raise and spend. An awful lot of the current problems for local authorities stem from central government cutting their grants while at the same time limiting what they can raise.

Earlier in the thread, I suggested money from central government should be allocated according to a clearly defined formula.  This would stop the situation you describe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, doratheexplorer said:

What do you mean "the contributor base would be larger"?

 

 

At present council tax is levied on each property so it falls to the individual property holder to pay the tax. They may or may not get contributions from other people who are earning and live in that property. With a local income tax everyone who is earning and living in that area pays, not just the householder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Did you work (full time?) and plan for your retirement? Did you have financial advice offered, or sought it, at any stage in life? I am not asking personally, but in a general sense to people who might turn to boating later in life as a lifestyle choice which might also have cost benefits (but might not if circumstances change a lot, ie massive increase in energy costs in general, high inflation, etc). 

I think the majority of those who are struggling to survive as liveaboard boaters haven't made a lifestyle choice, unless it was between the boat and the street. Certainly, when I lived on, the majority were there because they had lost their homes for one reason or another, the usual one being divorce (as it was in my case). Several were in the "later in life" category  or at least middle aged. Only one couple were there by choice and had rented their house out so they could move back in due course.

Most worked full time, and none that I knew of could afford to plan for retirement. Those I know of still on the boat survive on the OAP or benefits and have nowhere else to go (we're all of an age now!).

The majority of people now on low incomes don't have the wherewithal to buy a house in the first place, and financial advice is a waste of everyone's time when you are effectively broke - all, and I mean all, your income going on essentials.

Those making a lifestyle choice are the wealthy and can probably manage to cope with unexpected costs, and have an escape route planned. Some things, though, just can't be planned for - the effect of climate change, for one  has been faster than expected with another year of drought expected in Europe, which we probably won't avoid even though we've got our borders back. Not much of a satisfying lifestyle choice being stuck in mud or one place for months.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tony Brooks said:

 

At present council tax is levied on each property so it falls to the individual property holder to pay the tax. They may or may not get contributions from other people who are earning and live in that property. With a local income tax everyone who is earning and living in that area pays, not just the householder.

I agree with that, but the fact still remains that when paying a proportion of income as a local income tax, those areas with a lower average income will either have to accept lower tax revenue, or they'll have to charge a higher proportion of income to their residents.

 

You say above that rich areas would subsidise poor areas.  How would that work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, doratheexplorer said:

I agree with that, but the fact still remains that when paying a proportion of income as a local income tax, those areas with a lower average income will either have to accept lower tax revenue, or they'll have to charge a higher proportion of income to their residents.

 

You say above that rich areas would subsidise poor areas.  How would that work?

 

It already does with the council tax house banding (except the banding needs more bands in my view). I accept that in some cases the local authority areas might need redrawing, or the areas made larger, especially in cities. For instance, I think some London boroughs are poor areas, but some are rich, so maybe the local tax rate would be for the whole of London and not just Hackney. This is made a lot easier now we have the city mayors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

Earlier in the thread, I suggested money from central government should be allocated according to a clearly defined formula.  This would stop the situation you describe.

It is allocated by a clearly defined formula. That's why, under a Tory government, it goes to areas where the government thinks it will help get the votes in or keep favoured MPs in place, and not where it knows it won't.

It's been so long since we had a Labour government so it's a bit hard to compare, but if I was a betting man I'd put money on them doing exactly the equivalent, though maintaining they were just levelling up the impoverished areas. Sounds vaguely familiar, that.

So it doesn't stop the situation, it makes it worse. Democracy, see?

  • Greenie 1
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think the majority of those who are struggling to survive as liveaboard boaters haven't made a lifestyle choice, unless it was between the boat and the street. Certainly, when I lived on, the majority were there because they had lost their homes for one reason or another, the usual one being divorce (as it was in my case). Several were in the "later in life" category  or at least middle aged. Only one couple were there by choice and had rented their house out so they could move back in due course.

Most worked full time, and none that I knew of could afford to plan for retirement. Those I know of still on the boat survive on the OAP or benefits and have nowhere else to go (we're all of an age now!).

The majority of people now on low incomes don't have the wherewithal to buy a house in the first place, and financial advice is a waste of everyone's time when you are effectively broke - all, and I mean all, your income going on essentials.

Those making a lifestyle choice are the wealthy and can probably manage to cope with unexpected costs, and have an escape route planned. Some things, though, just can't be planned for - the effect of climate change, for one  has been faster than expected with another year of drought expected in Europe, which we probably won't avoid even though we've got our borders back. Not much of a satisfying lifestyle choice being stuck in mud or one place for months.

I really wanted to live in a boat, getting divorced allowed that, I know I am lucky with my pension, so in reality I could afford to stay on CRT waters, however I dont want to anymore. I was just saying to someone about the lack of water in our canals and rivers, I do wonder if this year a choice will have to be made water for food or water for cruising, I suspect we are going to be sitting in mud! Some will still hide their heads in the mud over climate change but its real and we are in the dodah currently. Your post is correct unfortunately

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Higgs said:

CT is levied on the property value. A tax would be levied on individuals. A system of taxing individuals in a property failed. The Poll tax. 

 

 

 

It did "fail" when it was withdrawn because of all the protests stirred up by the press. That does not mean it was a bad idea.  In any case, council tax is definitely not a property tax because the base on which you pay is badly skewed towards the less well off and the property values are not revalued often enough with enough bands. This means those in very valuable property are not taxed at the same rate as those in lower bands. It is just another tax, that is all it is.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think @peterboat is correct, and though I hope to "last out" for another two years on CRT waters I suspect I'll then have to make some sort of decision due to changes to the cc rules and the difficulty of navigation.

In spite of the benefits of the lifestyle, and assurance by CRT, life is not always better by water.

Edited by LadyG
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I think @peterboat is correct, and though I hope to "last out" for another two years on CRT waters I suspect I'll have to make some sort of decision due to changes to the cc rules and the difficulty of navigation. 

 

I have not seen anywhere that there has been any proposed changes to the CC 'rules' (there cannot be without a change in the law) but there will certainly be a big-multiplier in the licence fee for CCers, and probably far more enforcement of the existing rules.

 

What have you seen about proposed CC rule changes ?

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I have not seen anywhere there has been any proposed changes to the CC 'rules' (there cannot be without a change in the law) but there will certainly be a big-multiplier in the licence fee for CCers and probably far stricter enforcement of the existing rules.

 

What have you seen about proposed CC rule changes ?

Its the consultation Alan it was skewed to get the answers CRT wanted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tony Brooks said:

 

It did "fail" when it was withdrawn because of all the protests stirred up by the press. That does not mean it was a bad idea.  In any case, council tax is definitely not a property tax because the base on which you pay is badly skewed towards the less well off and the property values are not revalued often enough with enough bands. This means those in very valuable property are not taxed at the same rate as those in lower bands. It is just another tax, that is all it is.

 

It was a personal tax, and CT was what happened. Why try and re-brand the poll tax, people already pay tax, that can pay tax. Why not simply increase the CT to a level that would bring in more revenue. What is being proposed is another increase in personal tax. Call it what it is. Tell everyone they're going to face a tax increase, and don't try to hide it within some property/council framework. You would still have those who will be eligible for universal credit, that won't be paying. 

 

It's an over-complication. IMO.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I think @peterboat is correct, and though I hope to "last out" for another two years on CRT waters I suspect I'll have to make some sort of decision due to changes to the cc rules and the difficulty of navigation. 

Just so People dont think I am waffling here is the current situation on rivers

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/one-hot-dry-spell-away-from-drought-returning-this-summer-national-drought-group-warns

Feb 10, 2023 ... There has been a dry start to the month – with low rainfall across England since the end of January – meaning 63% of rivers are currently below ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

It already does with the council tax house banding (except the banding needs more bands in my view). I know it already does.  That's why I've been saying we should get rid of council tax.  I accept that in some cases the local authority areas might need redrawing, or the areas made larger, especially in cities. For instance, I think some London boroughs are poor areas, but some are rich, so maybe the local tax rate would be for the whole of London and not just Hackney. What about outside London?  Some predominantly rural counties are very poor in terms of income, while others are very rich.  Perhaps we should redraw the boundaries so that, for example, they include North Lincolnshire with Buckinghamshire, so as to ensure poorer places like Scunthorpe can be subsidised by wealthier areas like Marlow.  Or we could do away with such nonsense and funded local services from a national pot, raised through national income tax.

 

36 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It is allocated by a clearly defined formula. That's why, under a Tory government, it goes to areas where the government thinks it will help get the votes in or keep favoured MPs in place, and not where it knows it won't.

It's been so long since we had a Labour government so it's a bit hard to compare, but if I was a betting man I'd put money on them doing exactly the equivalent, though maintaining they were just levelling up the impoverished areas. Sounds vaguely familiar, that.

So it doesn't stop the situation, it makes it worse. Democracy, see?

That's not a clearly defined formula.

30 minutes ago, Higgs said:

CT is levied on the property value. A tax would be levied on individuals. A system of taxing individuals in a property failed. The Poll tax. 

 

 

The poll tax failed because it paid no heed to the ability to pay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

That's not a clearly defined formula.

 

Even if there were, the politicians would soon amend it to suit their needs. As proven by the cuts is central government grant to local authorities over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

The poll tax failed because it paid no heed to the ability to pay. 

 

The Poll Tax failed because it bucked a basic principle of taxation - that there should be a way to avoid it. 

 

Don't like the Window Tax? Brick up your windows. Don't like Income Tax? Stop earning so much. Don't like Council Tax? Live in a tent.

 

Don't like the Poll Tax? Only way for you to swerve it was to die. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

It already does with the council tax house banding (except the banding needs more bands in my view). I accept that in some cases the local authority areas might need redrawing, or the areas made larger, especially in cities. For instance, I think some London boroughs are poor areas, but some are rich, so maybe the local tax rate would be for the whole of London and not just Hackney. This is made a lot easier now we have the city mayors.

 

No wonder everyone in Hackney is poor. It costs well over a million quid to get a decent house. Terrible situation.

Poverty in London

 

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Hackney/3-bed-houses.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

The Poll Tax failed because it bucked a basic principle of taxation - that there should be a way to avoid it. 

 

Don't like the Window Tax? Brick up your windows. Don't like Income Tax? Stop earning so much. Don't like Council Tax? Live in a tent.

 

Don't like the Poll Tax? Only way for you to swerve it was to die. 

That was part of it, but fundamentally it represented the largest redistribution of wealth from poor to rich in recent history.  It showed the Tory party the limits of what society would accept.  Notably, they haven't tinkered much with CT in 30 years now.

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.