Baton Twirlers Stage Protest (again)

[Peanut]

25 minutes ago, StephenA said:

On the BBC yesterday I learned that some of these "Travellers" can do up to 30 miles a year......

~132 meters a day!

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

It would make much more sense to have a system based on occupancy rather than property value. Four adults pay double what two do etc etc. some people have expensive houses but are skint themselves so should pay the same for services as anyone else. The usual cop outs could still be applied. I am not moaning but I pay considerably more than my neighbour who is also a retired couple simply because my house is two bands higher than his. The use of services etc is identical. Maybe a system called poll tax or similar would be fairer.

The current Council Tax is based on the property valuation and doesn't vary with the number of occupants (apart from the single occupancy discount). The Poll Tax was based solely on occupancy and didn't vary with property value (or any other measure of income or wealth). I wonder how a charge which varied both with occupancy and property value would have gone down?

[Momac]

27 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I’d be interested to see the figures CRT have for the non movers. 
what we got 7000boats without a home mooring?

I wonder how many have been given their eviction orders, how many have been put on a six month license, where the  target areas are. 
and how many at a given time are on a permission to overstay,

I wonder what the split would be?

 

That data should be made available but I suspect low numbers on all items.

There is no advantage to seeking permission to overstay if C&RT are not active.

I would also be interested in the data for unlicensed boats.

 

[LadyG]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

It would make much more sense to have a system based on occupancy rather than property value. Four adults pay double what two do etc etc. some people have expensive houses but are skint themselves so should pay the same for services as anyone else. The usual cop outs could still be applied. I am not moaning but I pay considerably more than my neighbour who is also a retired couple simply because my house is two bands higher than his. The use of services etc is identical. Maybe a system called poll tax or similar would be fairer.

Lol, they tried that and it went down a black hole.

The families asked to pay their fair share, and i mean adults, not their very costly children, nearly rioted.

Votes count not logic 

18 hours ago, peterboat said:

 

I follow a London boaters forum on Facebook, its interesting to say the least.

?

Edited March 31 by LadyG

[MtB]

20 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I wonder how a charge which varied both with occupancy and property value would have gone down?

 

I predict it would only ever have gone up!

 

 

(Well you did leave that as an open goal  ) 

 

 

 

[Peanut]

Occupancy is harder to establish, and may vary frequently, value is much easier to establish, and property values tend to move together and so the banding remains equivalent between properties.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

19 minutes ago, Momac said:

That data should be made available but I suspect low numbers on all items.

There is no advantage to seeking permission to overstay if C&RT are not active.

I would also be interested in the data for unlicensed boats.

 

I ain’t seen the latest figure for unlicensed boats but I think at one point CRT claimed they had it down to 3%?

 

 

[MtB]

Just now, Peanut said:

Occupancy is harder to establish, and may vary frequently, value is much easier to establish, and property values tend to move together and so the banding remains equivalent between properties.

 

 

Quite so. 

 

Also, it is far easier to tax stuff that doesn't easily move so a house is an excellent example. Once you own it, you become a sitting duck for all manner of charges that 'the man' can associate with it. The main ones being Council Tax, water charges and gas and electricity standing charges.

 

And any sort of poll tax runs counter to one of the foundation principles of taxation, which is why there are riots opposing it. The principle is that the citizen must be able to arrange their affairs so as avoid any given tax. With a poll tax levied on you for existing and breathing, there is no way to legitimately avoid it other than by dying. 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

5 hours ago, Momac said:

C&RT are not asking existing customers for evidence of a mooring contract at the point of purchasing a license . But when the customer changes the home mooring location they will ask for evidence.. C&RT may ask for evidence of a mooring contract at any time if they wish. 

 

Which they have never asked for prior to the surcharge on boats with no home mooring

[Paul C]

2 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 Now I see this as the red herring,

there’s no reason at all to make the comparison,

 

I guess it grates on me because there’s rarely positive talk/reference to the CCer, 

just a perpetual moaning, or continuous moaning about them,

mind, I see Arthur’s hinted at something more positive,

 

 

You're right - its a perception thing - which has been made worse, I fear, not better by the publicity NBTA brings. Remember when they sought clarification on whether CCers could claim the extra one-off energy payments?

[Lady M]

9 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Which they have never asked for prior to the surcharge on boats with no home mooring

CRT are able to check with at least some mooring providers the boats on their site.  This happened at my boat club and we discovered a member who was in process of changing her boat on the mooring had licensed both against the one berth.  There were also a couple of boats that had moved on still showing the club as their mooring place.

[matty40s]

33 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I ain’t seen the latest figure for unlicensed boats but I think at one point CRT claimed they had it down to 3%?

 

 

They did get it just under 5, target was 3%

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

10 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

You're right - it’s a perception thing - which has been made worse, I fear, not better by the publicity NBTA brings. Remember when they sought clarification on whether CCers could claim the extra one-off energy payments?

 I’ve mixed feelings about them now. Enough that I’ve withdrawn my support. Not gonna try explaining it on here. But basically I feel it’s now a London mob that I don’t want representing me. 

I got the energy payment in the end, how  much that was down to their doing I dunno. There were several organisations chasing it up. 

[Momac]

15 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Which they have never asked for prior to the surcharge on boats with no home mooring

This is true.

But it doesn't mean everyone has to provide evidence of a mooring agreement each time they buy a license. Nothing has changed (yet) in the license buying process providing the home mooring has not changed.

 

It all seems like more admin for the boater but also for C&RT for little gain.

But who knows what is in C&RTs future plan. Maybe they intend to target and attack home moorers next. 

[Peanut]

It might be better if the owner of the mooring had to let C&RT know to whom they had let it. Far less chance of fiddling, and not too demanding.

[Lady M]

In my experience, they do if so requested.

[Rincewind]

4 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Maybe a system called poll tax or similar would be fairer.

 

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

The Poll Tax was based solely on occupancy and didn't vary with property value (or any other measure of income or wealth).

Bring back Window Tax, that's what I say!

And a Porthole Tax,

And a Houdini Tax an all - Posh Buggers!

Edited March 31 by Rincewind

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Peanut said:

Occupancy is harder to establish, and may vary frequently, value is much easier to establish, and property values tend to move together and so the banding remains equivalent between properties.

True. Although the Poll Tax relied on occupancy information - presumably the electoral roll with some follow up checking to ensure people weren't ducking the electoral roll to avoid the Poll Tax. It wouldn't be that difficult to merge the ER data and council tax valuation data to levy a tax per occupant at a level based on the house valuation.

[Peanut]

I seem to recall that a poll tax was tried, and the Iron Lady was voted out of office.

[Alan de Enfield]

Following on from the boaters protests on Saturday where 10s of people attended the rally, on Sunday, the "Boaters should pay their way" pressure group (who believe that those with moorings, or even 'bricks and mortar' dwellings should not subsidise CMers) held a rally, which seemed quite well attended.

 

Maybe the weather was better on Sunday ?

 

 

 

 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Following on from the boaters protests on Saturday where 10s of people attended the rally, on Sunday, the "Boaters should pay their way" pressure group (who believe that those with moorings, or even 'bricks and mortar' dwellings should not subsidise CMers) held a rally, which seemed quite well attended.

 

Maybe the weather was better on Sunday ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oops, I think I attended the wrong rally...

 

 

[Momac]

18 hours ago, Peanut said:

It might be better if the owner of the mooring had to let C&RT know to whom they had let it. Far less chance of fiddling, and not too demanding.

Or perhaps C&RT should bring their online system up to date so the boater can share the insurance certificate and receipt for the moorings.

If this is a challenge for some boaters then perhaps simply requiring the boater to have evidence available in case of being asked for it by a C&RT employee.

[Rob-M]

Our marina has issued us a new style receipt this year which shows the marina details, boat details and the number of nights paid for which is 364 so we can provide evidence to CRT when renewing our licence.

[matty40s]

1 minute ago, Rob-M said:

Our marina has issued us a new style receipt this year which shows the marina details, boat details and the number of nights paid for which is 364 so we can provide evidence to CRT when renewing our licence.

Do you all have to ship out on one night then??

[Alan de Enfield]

37 minutes ago, Momac said:

Or perhaps C&RT should bring their online system up to date so the boater can share the insurance certificate and receipt for the moorings.

If this is a challenge for some boaters then perhaps simply requiring the boater to have evidence available in case of being asked for it by a C&RT employee.

 

Maybe there should be a list of "Inland Waterways Ships Papers" (as per sea-going cruising boats) that must be carried by the boat / skipper at all times.

 

1) Insurance

2) BSS

3) Mooring status

4) Licence