Richard Bustens Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) We will never agree on this subject but i do believe you should pay for what you use and yes street lights come into it or do you never walk along the roads to the shops in the dark or go to the pub or cinema, or drive a car. or use refuse points or any of the other services that the good citizens of the country pay for. And according to the rating office at the Crewe and Nantwich council you should pay rates if you live on a boat, but not if you have a house that you pay rates on. Edited August 31, 2005 by Richard Bustens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 And according to the rating office at the Crewe and Nantwich councill you should pay rates if you live on a boat, but not if you have a house that you pay rates on. 29219[/snapback] Simply because a CC is moving through many different areas, as I said above they are classed as itinerants and are not liable to council tax etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Bustens Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 Back in the days of pole tax i was working in London and was paying the hotel each week for my lodgings. I went down there on the first Monday of the month and stayed there till the last Friday coming back to Retford for a few days. I argued that when i paid the hotel £30 per night they were paying business pole tax which had a amount built in it for this , so my £30 would include a amount to cover the tax in the area i was actually using it in and i in essence had paid my pole tax through the hotel. Bassetlaw county council disagreed and took out a court summons for the pole tax they said i owed. I lost and had to pay it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) That is slightly different. If we go away on our boat for six months at a time, we have to still pay our council tax on the house and keep the payments up to BW for our mooring whether we are there or not. If we decided to give up the house and become CC's give up our moorings then since we would be travelling through many different areas and therefore many council areas we would be itinerant and not liable to one council. Edited August 31, 2005 by Bernie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fender Posted August 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 Back in the days of pole tax i was working in London and was paying the hotel each week for my lodgings.I went down there on the first Monday of the month and stayed there till the last Friday coming back to Retford for a few days. I argued that when i paid the hotel £30 per night they were paying business pole tax which had a amount built in it for this , so my £30 would include a amount to cover the tax in the area i was actually using it in and i in essence had paid my pole tax through the hotel. Bassetlaw county council disagreed and took out a court summons for the pole tax they said i owed. I lost and had to pay it. 29222[/snapback] Interesting. But it still doesnt convince me. The Borough of Crewe and Nantwich are completely wrong. What on earth is all this to do with boaters. You seem to be implying that we should pay for everything that is non-boating related? We do actually pay for some of these things through our boat licences so I think you'll find you are out of order here. Do you want to be a canaller or do you want to be a pen pushing landlubber who interferes in everything to do with boating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Bustens Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 I expect everyone CCers or PTB to pay for what services they have and use. Nothing more Nothing less Perhaps that is why BW are trying to increase the fees to CCers, perhaps they will pass some on to the council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Schweizer Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) Interesting. But it still doesnt convince me. The Borough of Crewe and Nantwich are completely wrong. What on earth is all this to do with boaters. You seem to be implying that we should pay for everything that is non-boating related? We do actually pay for some of these things through our boat licences so I think you'll find you are out of order here. Do you want to be a canaller or do you want to be a pen pushing landlubber who interferes in everything to do with boating? 29226[/snapback] I disagree, I think that the Council is correct. The payment of Council Tax is not conditional on whether you use the Local Authority services or not, but onm a legal obligation to pay. It is very unlikely that any Council Tax payer is benefiting from, or even enitled to benefit from, all the services at any one time. In that respect a boater does not differ from any other citizen. We are all treated the same. The local Authorities have a range of Statutory duties together with a number of discretionary duties, and payment of the Council tax is based upon the need to fund those responsibilies, together with the expectaion that at some time during their lifetime, most people will have either received the benifit, or will need to benefit, from those services. As far as paying for services twice is concerned I cannot think of any. Water Rates are nothing to do with Council Tax and are payed for separately, and refuse collection is funded by the Local Authority, even if BW do pay for the collection, the disposal of that rubbish is still the responsibity iof the Local Authority. If we want to get pedantic about these matters, boaters who cruise for only a few weeks of the year could argue that they are making the same contibution towards BW water rates and refuse collection costs, whilst using them far less than the Rermanent Cruiser. Based upon your assertion that you should not pay for services that you do not used, Permanent Cruisers and residentioal boaters should be charged more, because they use the services more. That is one of the BW arguements that I thought most people were opposing. Edited August 31, 2005 by David Schweizer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 I agree gererally with David, If (god Forbid) your boat caught fire, you would expect the Fire Brigade to turn out and try to extinguish it. Or would you refuse because you do not pay for "things not boat related"? Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fender Posted August 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 Permanent Cruisers and residentioal boaters should be charged more, because they use the services more. That is one of the BW arguements that I thought most people were opposing. 29235[/snapback] My assertions? Lets get pedantic then: Based upon your assertions, people walking the towpath, and cyclists, and on towpaths that are used by cars, these should pay a fee for the wear and tear, plus collection of their rubbish, and use of toilets and other facilities where they are provided by BW for the public. That is because these users will "have either received the benifit, or will need to benefit, from those services." Dont forget the chewing gum tax for removing the stuff from lock gates and other canalside furniture. If some darned chewing gum sticks to the sole of your shoes or your clothes, David, in my view you are just providing a free removal service. Another example of free service provision is this peeing in the bushes just off the towpath. This is known as 'watering' the local fauna (say you've paid for the liquid - water - tea whatever - in the first place via water rates or the purchasing of a drink etc so logically BW should pay for the service that, say for example you are 'dispensing.' But like chewing gum, its tough luck its your lot!) You seem to forget that in some cases there is a trade-off, such as presence of boats & people leading to security etc. Boaters should be getting together and charging BW for security, thats for a start. But I dont expect that will include you, or Richard for you'll be more concerned about Harry Buttle (sorry Tuttle! no it aint its that damned fly!) Damn you bureaucrats my brain huuuurts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Bustens Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) Well Fender.. that post is a load of garbage...... it is easy to see when you are beaten, you break down into a gibbering wreck... Edited August 31, 2005 by Richard Bustens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fender Posted August 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) Well Fender.. that post is a load of garbage...... it is easy to see when you are beaten, you break down into a gibbering wreck... 29243[/snapback] My post a load of garbage? Gee cant wait to be charged for dumping on 'public property!' Richard, I'm begining to think like you now. May I make a suggestion? Let's each of us forum users pay an annual fee to Canalworld for its running costs eh? It must cost something, domain names, hosting, bandwidth, purchase of software etc etc. Its not fair having it for free! Edited August 31, 2005 by fender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 Fender, that idea had i believe alreadyy been suggested and went down very well with the members who replied.. bit of a bad example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Bustens Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 Well i think that is the best idea you have had today Fender. I did suggest this last year when we needed more bandwidth, it would only need to be about £2 each per year, so i hope when Jon sees this he puts it into practice. but last year he felt there was no need to do this. and as there is no advertising on the site to confuse the issues ,or get a revenue from all expenses come out of his pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveh Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 May I make a suggestion? Let's each of us forum users pay an annual fee to Canalworld for its running costs eh? It must cost something, domain names, hosting, bandwidth, purchase of software etc etc. Its not fair having it for free! 29255[/snapback] Does that mean if I don't read all the posts I can pay less? Is this called Post hopping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fender Posted August 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) If I moor on a topic too long will I be moved off? Or will I discover a plastic envelope stuck to my computer screen with a nice letter inside telling me if I stay any longer there'll be a 25 pounds a day fine? Edited August 31, 2005 by fender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Schweizer Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 My assertions? Lets get pedantic then: Based upon your assertions, people walking the towpath, and cyclists, and on towpaths that are used by cars, these should pay a fee for the wear and tear, plus collection of their rubbish, and use of toilets and other facilities where they are provided by BW for the public. That is because these users will "have either received the benifit, or will need to benefit, from those services." Dont forget the chewing gum tax for removing the stuff from lock gates and other canalside furniture. If some darned chewing gum sticks to the sole of your shoes or your clothes, David, in my view you are just providing a free removal service. Another example of free service provision is this peeing in the bushes just off the towpath. This is known as 'watering' the local fauna (say you've paid for the liquid - water - tea whatever - in the first place via water rates or the purchasing of a drink etc so logically BW should pay for the service that, say for example you are 'dispensing.' But like chewing gum, its tough luck its your lot!) You seem to forget that in some cases there is a trade-off, such as presence of boats & people leading to security etc. Boaters should be getting together and charging BW for security, thats for a start. But I dont expect that will include you, or Richard for you'll be more concerned about Harry Buttle (sorry Tuttle! no it aint its that damned fly!) Damn you bureaucrats my brain huuuurts! 29241[/snapback] Until now I thought that you might have a serious arguement, but wittering on about chewing gum and peeing in bushes is really a joke. What is more you clearly have little notion of how Local Authorities engage with BW to pay for the public to use the towpath. Most of the towpaths frequently used by walkers and cyclists are funded by the District Council from the rates. However the real pont is that as a permanent resident on a boat you have legal obligation to pay Council Tax, that is not an opinion it is a fact. The problem, as Bernie has pointed out, is that collecting it is difficult if the boat keeps moving from one Rating District to another. In all my time as a Local Councillor and as a Council Clerk, I have never heard the term Itinerant used to describe someone moving on a boat but I understand the concept, however this is a misconception. What you should do is register your boat for Council Tax with the same Local Authority where you have been registered to vote. If you have not registered to vote then, you are not really in a position to complain about the way in which the Country is governed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fender Posted August 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) If you have not registered to vote then, you are not really in a position to complain about the way in which the Country is governed. 29263[/snapback] Oh I see! Do you mean if I havent registered I cant even become prime minster? Thats a real shame cos I was looking forward to putting up council taxes 2.47 times to give all canal boaters a free licence each. My peeing in bushes etc is about your stuff being a real joke. You and Richard take things to a logical extreme that suggests that everything must be paid for and if its not paid for well then too bad! Richard says "Well i think that is the best idea you have had today Fender." It just shows your ways of thinking. Like Derek says, dont expect the fire brigadge to come and extinguish your boat! Or like in some countries if you are in an accident and aint got insurance they'll let you die on the spot! Edited August 31, 2005 by fender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) Bless you fender. so sweet Edited September 1, 2005 by Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maffi mushkila Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) Sorry Maffi i deleted this post by mistake trying to answer it Richard Edited September 1, 2005 by Richard Bustens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big COL Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) OH dear Richard. People that live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. SCANDAL It'll be in the Sun by Friday, News of The World by Sunday. Do the honourable thing resign now, don't let them drag you through the mud, resign. Edited August 31, 2005 by Big COL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maffi mushkila Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 OH dear Richard. People that live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. Or walk around naked with a boil on their bum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fender Posted August 31, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 Bless you fender. so sweet 29266[/snapback] Sam, thanks its a nice compliment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maffi mushkila Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 You are liable to pay council tax if you live on a boat, if you are in a live-board mooring you will have to pay and you will have to if you are on the move. This is fact, i have just checked with the rating office. There ya go poking ya nose in again. Now some Jobsworth will be seeing this as his life quest. GET A LIFE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Schweizer Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 Oh I see! Do you mean if I havent registered I cant even become prime minster? Thats a real shame cos I was looking forward to putting up council taxes 2.47 times to give all canal boaters a free licence each. My peeing in bushes etc is about your stuff being a real joke. You and Richard take things to a logical extreme that suggests that everything must be paid for and if its not paid for well then too bad! Richard says "Well i think that is the best idea you have had today Fender." It just shows your ways of thinking. Like Derek says, dont expect the fire brigadge to come and extinguish your boat! Or like in some countries if you are in an accident and aint got insurance they'll let you die on the spot! 29265[/snapback] I think it is time for another tablet Fender, you are becoming incoherent again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts