continuous cruise confused

[Maffi]

Therefore how to share up the burden on boaters in the fairest way possible?

 

It is this revenue contribution that Continuous Cruisers do not make- which works at to at least £150 per boat per year.

 

This sum is therefore levied from other boaters in the form of a higher licence fee than would otherwise be charged.

 

If continuous cruisers and wide beam boats pay a higher fee the licence fee increase in 2009 for ordinary boaters will not be so high.

 

Oh look another "lets shove it up the CCer" thread.

 

The fairest way is for every one to pay the same licence fee for a given length of boat, but wait a minute thats what happens now!

 

The reason that some think they pay more is because they need somewhere to park their boat when at work.

 

This means that someone somewhere has to gouge out a bloody big hole from a field and fill it with water, BW's water.

 

Whats the problem?

[Natalie Graham]

So good he posted twice!

 

 

I fail to see how a wide beam owner, already subsidising the boats that can use the parts of the system it can't access, should pay more.

 

Read the report.

 

It's because a 'disproportionate' number of widebeams hang out on the rivers, presumably instead of venturing through the narrow canals. They therefore avoid paying their 'fair' share twice. Such cheats, they are.

 

Although they don't all avoid the narrow canals of course as under these new 'fair' proposal, as someone else pointed out, boats over 6'10" are counted as wide. I guess members of the Historic Narrowboat Owners Club should be considering a change of name.

 

Natalie.

[magpie patrick]

Oh look another "lets shove it up the CCer" thread.

 

The fairest way is for every one to pay the same licence fee for a given length of boat, but wait a minute thats what happens now!

 

The reason that some think they pay more is because they need somewhere to park their boat when at work.

 

This means that someone somewhere has to gouge out a bloody big hole from a field and fill it with water, BW's water.

 

Whats the problem?

 

 

Most eleoquent well said

 

More seriously (aside from agreeing wholeheartedly with Maffi's post) the whole thing is crystalised by boaters who have a BW licence but moor on non-BW waters, be they EA, Bristol Harbour, or open waters such as Winsford Flash. They don't pay extra and they don't count as CC, will they be the next in the witch hunt? And can BW REALLY get verification of a mooring not on their waters?

 

edited coz wrong smiley inserted first time

Edited September 10, 2008 by magpie patrick

[BlueStringPudding]

Oh look another "lets shove it up the CCer" thread.

 

The fairest way is for every one to pay the same licence fee for a given length of boat, but wait a minute thats what happens now!

 

The reason that some think they pay more is because they need somewhere to park their boat when at work.

 

This means that someone somewhere has to gouge out a bloody big hole from a field and fill it with water, BW's water.

 

Whats the problem?

 

[magpie patrick]

If I dare prolong this one...

 

Just done the sums from that paper. In BW's most extreme option a continuous cruising broad beam owner would pay £158 more than if we stuck wityh the current system: I can here some of you know. "Quite Right too"!

 

And how much would screwing this guy/gal save me compared to "no change"? £26...

 

You see, the majority of us are narrow boaters with moorings, so however much we may or may not like it, we have to foot most of the bill, and screwing broad beams and ccers won't save us very much

[Chris Pink]

And can BW REALLY get verification of a mooring not on their waters?

 

 

Especially as it only has to be a 'place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left' which seems to cover a multitude of possibilities.

 

Whereas I agree with johnthebridge on another discussion that the real answer would be a 100% boycott or any proposed extra charges, pragmatically it may be necessary to play as dirty as BW.

 

The downside to this is that there is a danger of making the rifts in boatie groups larger.

[Maffi]

snip

 

The downside to this is that there is a danger of making the rifts in boatie groups larger.

 

Well done Chris.

 

There are a large number of boating organisations listed on the BWAF. Though I dont know I wouldn't mind betting the commercials have the most punch.

 

Private boaters should not be slapping each other around to gain miniscule advantage. We should be joing together to look after our interests instead we hide away keeping our heads down only coming out for the occasional CC bashing.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Maffi

[Tiller Slave]

If I dare prolong this one...

 

Just done the sums from that paper. In BW's most extreme option a continuous cruising broad beam owner would pay £158 more than if we stuck wityh the current system: I can here some of you know. "Quite Right too"!

 

And how much would screwing this guy/gal save me compared to "no change"? £26...

 

You see, the majority of us are narrow boaters with moorings, so however much we may or may not like it, we have to foot most of the bill, and screwing broad beams and ccers won't save us very much

 

Surely the point of the BW paper is it is outlining their thinking in advance?

 

Either every boater WILL pay circa 11+% more OR if other options are taken "the majority of us are narrow boaters with moorings" would pay 6.6% and the others would pay more?

 

What do the majority of ordinary boaters think?

 

Are they happy to pay more than they need to or would they rather keep their cost increases as low as possible?

 

Should every boat pay the same irrespective of size ( and value) OR should their be a system where some pay more and some pay less?

 

If so what would be a fair way to do it; given BW's stated need to raise nearly £15 million a year from boaters?

[carlt]

What do the majority of ordinary boaters think?

I still wonder if people who own widebeams, or choose not to pay extra for the luxury of a permanent mooring, regard themselves as "ordinary boaters".

[Natalie Graham]

What's with all this "ordinary boaters" business? When did continuous cruisers and wide-beam owners cease to be ordinary boaters?

 

Natalie.

[Tiller Slave]

What's with all this "ordinary boaters" business? When did continuous cruisers and wide-beam owners cease to be ordinary boaters?

 

Natalie.

 

Well according to the BW report more than 80% of boaters do not have a wide beam and do not live aboard; and use them for leisure purposes- as stated on their boat licence- I suppose that makes them ordinary, rather than those "lucky" enough to live a board 365 days a year OR to have enough money to buy a much larger- wider- vessel!

[carlt]

OR to have enough money to buy a much larger- wider- vessel!

You certainly know how to generalise.

 

What percentage of boat owners hire them out for commercial gain? Very small, I imagine.

 

Why don't you advocate hammering them, to keep "ordinary" boaters fees low?

 

I'll bet my wide beam boat cost significantly less than your narrow boat.

[Natalie Graham]

Well according to the BW report more than 80% of boaters do not have a wide beam and do not live aboard; and use them for leisure purposes- as stated on their boat licence- I suppose that makes them ordinary, rather than those "lucky" enough to live a board 365 days a year OR to have enough money to buy a much larger- wider- vessel!

 

 

I would have said it simply makes them more numerous.

 

I don't believe numerical superiority confers any status of 'ordinariness' in the sense that it is being used in the BWAF report to justify punitive charges on those who fall outside this perceived norm.

 

Natalie.

[Chris Pink]

Well according to the BW report more than 80% of boaters do not have a wide beam and do not live aboard; and use them for leisure purposes- as stated on their boat licence- I suppose that makes them ordinary, rather than those "lucky" enough to live a board 365 days a year OR to have enough money to buy a much larger- wider- vessel!

 

Either every boater WILL pay circa 11+% more OR if other options are taken "the majority of us are narrow boaters with moorings" would pay 6.6% and the others would pay more?

 

so let me get this straight.....

 

You are saying that 80% of boaters want the other 20% to pay more than half of the extra money BW are trying to raise?

 

Well they would wouldn't they?

 

Why not get 80% of the boaters to say the other 20% should pay all of the increase? or do you have some kind of cut-off for this imposition. "don't make the little dears too poor or they won't be able to pay it" ?

 

Oh, and as you seem so in favour of these proposals, tell me what BW want the extra money for when they made a profit last year.

 

So who do think the 20% would want to pay more than half the increase? o yes, i remember, nobody asked them.

[carlt]

So who do think the 20% would want to pay more than half the increase? o yes, i remember, nobody asked them.

Why should they be asked?

 

They're not "ordinary".

Edited September 14, 2008 by carlt

[Natalie Graham]

So who do think the 20% would want to pay more than half the increase? o yes, i remember, nobody asked them.

 

Surely somebody must have asked, since BW's legal bod says this group have a 'greater willingness to pay'. He wouldn't just say that unless there was proper definitive research to back it up, would he?

 

Natalie.

[Chris Pink]

Surely somebody must have asked, since BW's legal bod says this group have a 'greater willingness to pay'. He wouldn't just say that unless there was proper definitive research to back it up, would he?

 

Natalie.

 

and I hear Turkeys are campaigning for Christmas as well.

[Tiller Slave]

You certainly know how to generalise.

 

What percentage of boat owners hire them out for commercial gain? Very small, I imagine.

 

Why don't you advocate hammering them, to keep "ordinary" boaters fees low?

 

They already pay 2.35 x an ordinary licence- according to the report!

 

I'll bet my wide beam boat cost significantly less than your narrow boat.

 

 

so let me get this straight.....

 

You are saying that 80% of boaters want the other 20% to pay more than half of the extra money BW are trying to raise?

 

Well they would wouldn't they?

 

Probably yes!

 

Why not get 80% of the boaters to say the other 20% should pay all of the increase? or do you have some kind of cut-off for this imposition. "don't make the little dears too poor or they won't be able to pay it" ?

 

Oh, and as you seem so in favour of these proposals, tell me what BW want the extra money for when they made a profit last year.

 

Bit bemused about the "made a profit" comment , have you seen their annual report, it makes pretty grim reading, it is a chronically under funded government agency with a huge shortfall in revenue for essential repairs.

 

So who do think the 20% would want to pay more than half the increase? o yes, i remember, nobody asked them.

 

Presumably that is why there is a consultation in progress?

[Chris Pink]

Bit bemused about the "made a profit" comment , have you seen their annual report, it makes pretty grim reading, it is a chronically under funded government agency with a huge shortfall in revenue for essential repairs.

 

Time to do your research then before asking the 20% to pay for the rest.

 

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/do...nts_2007-08.pdf

 

section 1:10 refers; £38.1m profit. Debatable whether this is (as i believe) achieved through theft but profit all the same.

[Phoenix_V]

Surely the point of the BW paper is it is outlining their thinking in advance?

 

Either every boater WILL pay circa 11+% more OR if other options are taken "the majority of us are narrow boaters with moorings" would pay 6.6% and the others would pay more?

 

What do the majority of ordinary boaters think?

 

Are they happy to pay more than they need to or would they rather keep their cost increases as low as possible?

 

Should every boat pay the same irrespective of size ( and value) OR should their be a system where some pay more and some pay less?

 

If so what would be a fair way to do it; given BW's stated need to raise nearly £15 million a year from boaters?

 

 

Surely the point of the BW paper is it is outlining their thinking in advance?

 

Either every boater WILL pay circa 11+% more OR if other options are taken "the majority of us are narrow boaters with moorings" would pay 6.6% and the others would pay more?

 

What do the majority of ordinary boaters think?

 

Are they happy to pay more than they need to or would they rather keep their cost increases as low as possible?

 

Should every boat pay the same irrespective of size ( and value) OR should their be a system where some pay more and some pay less?

 

If so what would be a fair way to do it; given BW's stated need to raise nearly £15 million a year from boaters?

[Phoenix_V]

Surely the point of the BW paper is it is outlining their thinking in advance?

 

Either every boater WILL pay circa 11+% more OR if other options are taken "the majority of us are narrow boaters with moorings" would pay 6.6% and the others would pay more?

 

What do the majority of ordinary boaters think?

 

Are they happy to pay more than they need to or would they rather keep their cost increases as low as possible?

 

Should every boat pay the same irrespective of size ( and value) OR should their be a system where some pay more and some pay less?

 

If so what would be a fair way to do it; given BW's stated need to raise nearly £15 million a year from boaters?

 

 

I know every one else has had their two pennyworth but this is starting to wind me up.

 

The increases in licence taxation should be opposed by us all and as for rising to the divide and rule debate stimulated by BW by suggesting that others should pay a greater increase so ones own becomes less, how pathetic, the current system has been fit for purpose for over 40 years and remains so.

 

However if it should change I suggest

 

Owners of 57' narrowboats pay most as they are usually rich and can access the whole system, small narrowboats discounted as now.

 

Discount for 70 foot boats as they cant access the whole system to say 75% of the 57' rate.

 

Discount for rivers only licences to say 50% as everyone knows rivers are cheaper to maintain (Note rates on the Avon)

 

Discount widebeams to 50% as they can only access a limited part pf the system and we wouldnt want them subsidysing the smug 57 footer narrowboat crowd would we?

 

Continuos cruisers 25% discount as they keep urban moorings occupied and safe for vsitors (ever tried to find a safe overnight mooring in Birmingham where for some reason they dont go)

 

there you are that should sort it out

[Chris Pink]

Owners of 57' narrowboats pay most as they are usually rich and can access the whole system

 

With a supplement based on the size of your inverter.

 

Love it.

[carlt]

And extend the historic car tax exemption, to include all forms of transport.

[sueb]

With a supplement based on the size of your inverter.

 

Love it.

Those with generators should pay double.

Sue

[bottle]

Those with generators should pay double.

Sue

 

Only if it is a small on deck type, those with inboard standalone 7Kw or more should be exempt.

 

Guess what I am having.