council tax for liveaboards

[Arthur Brown]

I suspect that central government funding cuts imposed on local authorities will cause them to seek extra income from wherever they can. It's very obvious that in my local area (Newham London) there are many more parking penalty issuers walking the street than a year ago, and lots of camera cars sit watching places with a prohibited turn.

[Tacet]

I can see no reason that liveaboards should not pay Council Tax, whether "Cruisers" or "Moorers".

Everyone uses a number of these public services and its only right we should all contribute towards the costs.

Here are some examples:-

 

• Local Roads

• Footpaths......

 

 

Council Tax is errr.. a tax, essentially on the occupation of land. It provides a smaller part of local authority revenue; there are lots of other taxes, the income from which goes towards local and national services. Why draw the line at Council Tax? Why not make everyone pay income tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, corporation tax, stamp duty, landfill tax, duty on tobacco, petrol, alcohol - regardless of whether we have an income, capital gain, buy petrol etc?

 

The Community Charge (aka Poll Tax) required an equal payment from all; it was rather unpopular.

[tillergirl]

As I explained to Ally in chat the other night I believe the local council have decided they are missing a trick with the residential/daily users. Although planning permission was never requested for residential berths they will just class all these people living there as Band A and impose council tax accordingly. Had they not been having to make savings over the next four years all these people would probably have been overlooked. Its income they have been missing out on in their eyes. But whatever happens Ally the marina cannot charge you VAT on council tax. You either pay as a non Vat added charge on your mooring fees which would be a nightmare for the marina owner to collect and pay direct on your behalf or you pay direct to the council,, And I reiterate what I said the other night and this goes for anyone else it affects, if you are a low income earner apply for a council tax rebate and tax credits as well. If they are now going to deem you are a resident in their authority you have the same rights as any other residents and can apply for assistance with this.

I'm not going to pontificate as to whether its right or wrong only to say if this is what happens that's the way forward..

[Tuscan]

As I explained to Ally in chat the other night I believe the local council have decided they are missing a trick with the residential/daily users. Although planning permission was never requested for residential berths they will just class all these people living there as Band A and impose council tax accordingly. Had they not been having to make savings over the next four years all these people would probably have been overlooked. Its income they have been missing out on in their eyes. But whatever happens Ally the marina cannot charge you VAT on council tax. You either pay as a non Vat added charge on your mooring fees which would be a nightmare for the marina owner to collect and pay direct on your behalf or you pay direct to the council,, And I reiterate what I said the other night and this goes for anyone else it affects, if you are a low income earner apply for a council tax rebate and tax credits as well. If they are now going to deem you are a resident in their authority you have the same rights as any other residents and can apply for assistance with this.

I'm not going to pontificate as to whether its right or wrong only to say if this is what happens that's the way forward..

 

 

 

I am sure you are right both on cost and claims , I suspect there will be a fair amount of marina hopping.

[Higgs]

Those that can afford it will pay and those that can't, can claim part or all. Those that are unemployed will have to seek work paying a higher wage to bring in more money to cover the extra CT they don't need to pay for, at the moment. A higher wage is needed to lift them out of benefits.

 

With a wider demand for CT to be paid, incomes will be reduced. If a point isn't reached, where by more tax can be collected than benefits claimed and paid out, the whole exercise is fruitless.

 

I can see the point of paying toward services, but a bonkers like for like relation between housing and boats is up there with bankers bonuses. Thick and worthy of cretins.

[Rebotco]

Council Tax is errr.. a tax, essentially on the occupation of land. It provides a smaller part of local authority revenue; there are lots of other taxes, the income from which goes towards local and national services. Why draw the line at Council Tax? Why not make everyone pay income tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, corporation tax, stamp duty, landfill tax, duty on tobacco, petrol, alcohol - regardless of whether we have an income, capital gain, buy petrol etc?

 

The Community Charge (aka Poll Tax) required an equal payment from all; it was rather unpopular.

 

Not sure what your point is. Mine is that if you benefit from public services, it is only fair you contribute towards them. It is not a tax on land, but on residences, whether houses or liveaboard boats. If you have no income, there are exemptions and rebates - as there are in the other taxes you mention.

[johnmck]

Not sure what your point is. Mine is that if you benefit from public services, it is only fair you contribute towards them. It is not a tax on land, but on residences, whether houses or liveaboard boats. If you have no income, there are exemptions and rebates - as there are in the other taxes you mention.

 

I admit to being dim. This is my slot in life. But, I have to agree to the above. I have a boat and a house. Yes some would say that I am lucky, well yes, but I bloody well saved, worked, saved again and and paid my taxes.

 

Whilst on the boat for the summer, I still pay for all the utilities for my land based residence and my council tax ! Do I consider this unfair ? It is my life choice.

 

Whilst on the boat, If the need arises to use any of the public services, I feel that I have contributed. Should I decide that my sole residence is to be the boat, why am I then exempt from contributing to services that I may well need or require ?

 

I am not a political animal, but rights come with responsibility. Your rights are not automatic, nor is the provision of services without contribution.

 

Waiting to be shot to pieces.

 

Edit to sat that I cannot therefore understand the premis of the original post !

Edited July 7, 2012 by johnmck

[Higgs]

I admit to being dim. This is my slot in life. But, I have to agree to the above. I have a boat and a house. Yes some would say that I am lucky, well yes, but I bloody well saved, worked, saved again and and paid my taxes.

 

Whilst on the boat for the summer, I still pay for all the utilities for my land based residence and my council tax ! Do I consider this unfair? It is my life choice.

 

 

If the holiday home example is followed, you'll be paying again.

 

To argue against CT doesn't seem very public spirited. All I know is, the canals and the group that live on it and use it have not been high on the political agenda. Is the canal actually treated in the same way as normal civic life, I don't think so.

 

Paying CT, to me, doesn't actully mean paying into a pot that will benefit all. It means more money in the hands of people to make more cocks ups and waste. I can't make other people pay for my dispute, though.

 

I also don't think it fair to use standard CT rates. That just smacks of sloppy policy.

 

The convenient expression is 'residence', a tax on your cave. Yet we have a banding system.

 

I would like those that argue for CT to argue Why use a house banding system. What's wrong with an oddly out-of-this-world 'boat' band system.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Higgs

[Smelly]

If it's going to be so blunt.

 

I can offer individual advice on claiming Council Tax Benefit should people wish to PM...

 

might yet put a thread together with an explanation of how the scheme works, but I'm hellishly busy at work at the mo so for now PM is probably better.

[Guest wanted]

Good work Dan, (for those that don't know, Dan is the Don when it comes to this malarkey)

 

Now, shifting on a little, could this be turned to an advantage? Is it possible that it will give marina owners more weight to apply and gain planning for much needed residential mooring?

 

Whilst I know the cost will rise, I think there are a lot of leisureboards who would jump at the chance to be fully Res. Especially if they are paying CT.

[Smelly]

Is it possible that it will give marina owners more weight to apply and gain planning for much needed residential mooring?

 

 

 

Interesting thought considering the recent abandonment of the much maligned Regional Development Plan. I wonder whether Patrick might offer his wealth of knowledge to offer an informed thought on the matter...

 

OTOH, Cheers Matey

[Ally]

I suspect Patrick will keep well clear of anything to do with this particular council!!!

[Guest wanted]

I've heard he can be persuaded with whisky....

[Tacet]

Not sure what your point is. Mine is that if you benefit from public services, it is only fair you contribute towards them.

 

Whether or not it is fair that everyone who benefits from public services should contribute is a matter of politics, but if so, it would be more sensible to levy the tax on persons rather than their residences. Even if accepted, there are numerous taxes so just because someone is not liable for one tax(Council Tax) does not mean they are failing to contribute towards public services; very few people pay each and every tax. Council Tax comprises a minority of local authority income, so it is not even true of Council services.

[Rebotco]

Whether or not it is fair that everyone who benefits from public services should contribute is a matter of politics, but if so, it would be more sensible to levy the tax on persons rather than their residences. Even if accepted, there are numerous taxes so just because someone is not liable for one tax(Council Tax) does not mean they are failing to contribute towards public services; very few people pay each and every tax. Council Tax comprises a minority of local authority income, so it is not even true of Council services.

 

Thats precisely what the "Poll Tax" did. It was so despised and hated by the vast majority that it led to the downfall of Mrs Thatcher! - and the subsequent return of the Rates on residences type system we now call Council Tax. So I cannot see how repeating previous disasters can be "sensible", as you say.

If liveaboards do not pay Council Tax, I agree most are contributing a little to public services indirectly through other taxes- as we all are. But the point is they are not then paying their fair share that the rest of us are obliged to pay. Why should householders be expected to subsidise the liveaboards' lifestyle?

[Smelly]

Whereas it has been argued that the licence covers a component toward those liabilities that CT would otherwise cover... At least on BW moorings!

 

It would be interesting to see the research behind that!

[Tacet]

Thats precisely what the "Poll Tax" did. It was so despised and hated by the vast majority that it led to the downfall of Mrs Thatcher! - and the subsequent return of the Rates on residences type system we now call Council Tax. So I cannot see how repeating previous disasters can be "sensible", as you say.

If liveaboards do not pay Council Tax, I agree most are contributing a little to public services indirectly through other taxes- as we all are. But the point is they are not then paying their fair share that the rest of us are obliged to pay. Why should householders be expected to subsidise the liveaboards' lifestyle?

 

Actually, I quite agree about the iniquities of the Poll Tax - but you said "Everyone uses a number of these public services and its only right we should all contribute towards the costs" - which is surely advocating something similar rather than a tax on occupation (or sometimes ownership) of types of land/property.

 

To say that liveaboards do not pay their fair share that the rest of us are obliged to do, is a bit of a generalisation - although possibly true! It largely depends on what other taxes they are paying and partly on one's definition of "fair". I might agree that the tax system is not entirely fair - but simply making a land/property tax mandatory for all (including those who have no land/property) but leaving the remainder of the tax system as contingent is not going to straighten it out. It would also still mean that various services that we all benefit e.g. Health were not being directly financed by everyone.

 

Tax is a levy on various types of income, asset etc to pay for the various types of public service - but it is not based on an individual's expected consumption of those services but generally according to an ability to pay. The unpopularity of the Poll Tax was essentially that it required all to pay the same - which was widely considered unfair.

[Maffi]

Surely the 'Poll tax' failed Partly because even though it was levied on each individual the householder was the one the tax office went to when the tax wasn't paid.The council tax system reduced the overall burden on a property owner at which point we capitulated because we percieved that we had won something, but in truth lost so much. There was nothing wrong with the Poll Tax as long as it was based on ability to pay. The whole idea of the PT was to stop the anomaly whereby a little old granny in a three bed semi living on a meagre pension was paying the same in rates for her house as the chap in the other half of the semi with an income of £100,000 a year, which was grossly unfair. When the great unwashed realised they would have to stump up to even the balance all hell let loose. Granny is still paying a disproportionate amount for her CT while a large proportion of the population do not contribute to CT at all.

 

Story: I, a single parent, was living with 14 yo daughter in a four bedrom house. I had a 25% reduction on my CT. Three doors away in a three bed property lived a middle-aged couple with two adult sons. Their CT was based on there being two adults living at the property. They could however have their sons living with them with no increase in CT. So My house had one income and theirs had four incomes, yet my CT bill was larger than theirs.

 

I don't see anyone arguing about the adult offspring living in their parents house getting to use all the services for free! With the price of housing rocketing this is happening more and more. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of adults are not contributing yet they never get mentioned. Why is this?

 

I live on my boat and anyone who knows about buying a boat will know that a narrow boat is not "a qualifying ship" as a residence and so VAT is paid as a leisure craft

 

Question: How many house owners paid VAT on their house?

 

Answer: not any

 

All of the boat owners that I know who live aboard, that bought new, paid VAT because its a 'leisure craft'. Now you cant have it both ways either its a vatable leisure craft or it a CT banded home. Dont you dare tell me I am not contributing. I put my life at the disposal of the government for over 25 years serving as a member of the Royal Air Force. After I left and jobs were scarce I didn't go on benefits. I put my life on hold and moved abroad to work, in doing so putting no burden on the state. I bought my boat when I returned. I was able to do that because I sold it to a couple that needed it and so took them off the list of people needing a home.

 

Oh My total bill was £86,000 and I paid £12,500 VAT I think that just about covers my council tax for a few years dont you? And someone buying a boat new today, lets say £120,000,will pay £25,000 VAT Thats £25,000 that they wouldnt pay if they bought a house. So maybe if new boat live-a-board boaters start to pay CT then new house people should pay VAT on their homes? Whada ya think? I think its a champion idea!

Edited July 8, 2012 by Maffi

[Smelly]

Whada ya think?

 

The fact that it is only offline mooring holders, most of who have paid VAT as well as mooring fees and now face a Council Tax bill undermines your theory.

[Maffi]

The fact that it is only offline mooring holders, most of who have paid VAT as well as mooring fees and now face a Council Tax bill undermines your theory.

 

 

Why?

[Rebotco]

Actually, I quite agree about the iniquities of the Poll Tax - but you said "Everyone uses a number of these public services and its only right we should all contribute towards the costs" - which is surely advocating something similar rather than a tax on occupation (or sometimes ownership) of types of land/property.

 

To say that liveaboards do not pay their fair share that the rest of us are obliged to do, is a bit of a generalisation - although possibly true! It largely depends on what other taxes they are paying and partly on one's definition of "fair". I might agree that the tax system is not entirely fair - but simply making a land/property tax mandatory for all (including those who have no land/property) but leaving the remainder of the tax system as contingent is not going to straighten it out. It would also still mean that various services that we all benefit e.g. Health were not being directly financed by everyone.

 

Tax is a levy on various types of income, asset etc to pay for the various types of public service - but it is not based on an individual's expected consumption of those services but generally according to an ability to pay. The unpopularity of the Poll Tax was essentially that it required all to pay the same - which was widely considered unfair.

 

I think we are agreed on most points!

The essential difference appears to be based on the argument that those who "do not own any land or property" should not have to pay a tax on what they don't have.

I would agree with that too, if it were so. However, in the case of liveaboards, I would argue that they do indeed have "property" - the boat which they use as a residence.

It's not the fact that they have a boat which renders them liable to Council Tax, but the fact that they have a residence.

I certainly do not use many of the public services available, and would accept that liveaboards mostly use a great deal less than me. But there is a core of provision we all depend on, as well as the wider range any of us may have to use from time to time, or come to need in the future.

Why should only people who live on land based homes pay for all these services, but those who live on water based homes get them for free? That means land dwellers are subsidising water dwellers. That cannot be fair. What would be fair is that liveaboards pay a lower rate to reflect their (generally) lower use of services.

[GUMPY]

Scrap council tax and replace it with a local income tax.

You would pay an extra tax on your earnings, say 4% this would go directly to govenment

Thus someone earning 25k would pay £1000 a year or about the same as Band A council tax.

Those not earning would not pay (nothing new there) those earning a lot would pay more.

Everyone would be liable to a greater or lesser degree

Seems totally fair to me!

[Higgs]

Why should only people who live on land based homes pay for all these services, but those who live on water based homes get them for free? That means land dwellers are subsidising water dwellers. That cannot be fair. What would be fair is that liveaboards pay a lower rate to reflect their (generally) lower use of services.

 

If you are going to argue a like for like, then the canal system should come under the same umbrella as main civic considerations. No longer a backwater, proper departmental funding. Not the begging bowl. We lack considerable support from the geneneral public and government.

 

Where are the morals?

Edited July 9, 2012 by Higgs

[mayalld]

Won't happen... Valuations are banded; boats are band A regardless. It's all or nowt as far as we're concerned.

 

Not necessarily.

 

In the case of a SINGLE mooring, that certainly applies, because that is the lowest rate.

 

In the case of a mooring site which provides a number of moorings, some of which are residential, and some of which are not, and where it cannot be determined which mooring will be which from month to month, they can actually assess the whole mooring site for CT. In that case, the banding may well be higher than band A, but it will cover more than one mooring.

 

I am entirely unclear whether this is legitimate, but I do know that it is done, with the mooring provider paying the bill, and charging the residential moorers their share of the cost (which is significantly less than a single band A charge)

[jelunga]

Surely the 'Poll tax' failed Partly because even though it was levied on each individual the householder was the one the tax office went to when the tax wasn't paid.The council tax system reduced the overall burden on a property owner at which point we capitulated because we percieved that we had won something, but in truth lost so much. There was nothing wrong with the Poll Tax as long as it was based on ability to pay. The whole idea of the PT was to stop the anomaly whereby a little old granny in a three bed semi living on a meagre pension was paying the same in rates for her house as the chap in the other half of the semi with an income of £100,000 a year, which was grossly unfair. When the great unwashed realised they would have to stump up to even the balance all hell let loose. Granny is still paying a disproportionate amount for her CT while a large proportion of the population do not contribute to CT at all.

 

Story: I, a single parent, was living with 14 yo daughter in a four bedrom house. I had a 25% reduction on my CT. Three doors away in a three bed property lived a middle-aged couple with two adult sons. Their CT was based on there being two adults living at the property. They could however have their sons living with them with no increase in CT. So My house had one income and theirs had four incomes, yet my CT bill was larger than theirs.

 

I don't see anyone arguing about the adult offspring living in their parents house getting to use all the services for free! With the price of housing rocketing this is happening more and more. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of adults are not contributing yet they never get mentioned. Why is this?

 

I live on my boat and anyone who knows about buying a boat will know that a narrow boat is not "a qualifying ship" as a residence and so VAT is paid as a leisure craft

 

Question: How many house owners paid VAT on their house?

 

Answer: not any

 

All of the boat owners that I know who live aboard, that bought new, paid VAT because its a 'leisure craft'. Now you cant have it both ways either its a vatable leisure craft or it a CT banded home. Dont you dare tell me I am not contributing. I put my life at the disposal of the government for over 25 years serving as a member of the Royal Air Force. After I left and jobs were scarce I didn't go on benefits. I put my life on hold and moved abroad to work, in doing so putting no burden on the state. I bought my boat when I returned. I was able to do that because I sold it to a couple that needed it and so took them off the list of people needing a home.

 

Oh My total bill was £86,000 and I paid £12,500 VAT I think that just about covers my council tax for a few years dont you? And someone buying a boat new today, lets say £120,000,will pay £25,000 VAT Thats £25,000 that they wouldnt pay if they bought a house. So maybe if new boat live-a-board boaters start to pay CT then new house people should pay VAT on their homes? Whada ya think? I think its a champion idea!

As ever Maffi, you logic is excellent

Unlike my first attempt to spell your name just now when you became the Naffi!