Continual cruising

[Noah T]

So how are council's supposed to pay for their reducing services in the face of Government cutbacks?

 

I doubt that attempting to extract council tax from a few dozen or so people living on the Regents Canal etc would make up in any perceptible way for the cuts in government funding.

 

The impression I get is that the motivation of those raising this issue here has nothing to do with any concern for the finances of the London Borough of Camden (or Islington or Hackney). Rather it seems designed to promote a divisive agenda among boaters.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

The only drivel on this page is from you. Your forward thinking is lazy, unimaginative and is very much related to why this country is in such a state.

Like many politicians, you can't see past taxation, mainly because you don't know how to.

You pointedly failed to answer the question of where the Councils get their money for your ideas of 'investment' and 'housing'. Do they borrow it from the banks? or do they raise it from taxation? The only other option I can think of is for the councillors to get themselves a day job and pay their wages to the local authority, but since you don't want to pay any money to the local authority why should they ? So perhaps, rather than facile generalisations such as 'Investment, business and housing, providing some services that can be charged for' give us some concrete examples of where EXACTLY the local authorities should be getting their money from. EXACTLY what services should they be charging for (Childrens Services? Social Services? Care Services?) EXACTLY what 'Investments' should they be making? I'm willing to learn but I'm not sure you're the teacher.

 

Like I said, most other countries. I've lived abroad most of my life and have never paid as much tax as I pay now on pretty much everything I do. All of the countries I've lived seem to have excellent health care, fire services etc.. In fact in almost all cases their services were much better than the UK.

 

If they didn't spend all the tax they collected on crap they could use more of it on the important stuff.

Again we need the specifics of what crap they spend it on. NHS? Policing? Social Services? As someone else has queried, exactly which countries are so much better than the UK. I have also travelled and haven't yet found this El Dorado of which you speak. As a specific, which country that you have experience of has a better health service? The closest I've found was in fact Cuba but there are, shall we say, one or two other issues which would deter me from living there.

 

 

I doubt that attempting to extract council tax from a few dozen or so people living on the Regents Canal etc would make up in any perceptible way for the cuts in government funding.

 

The impression I get is that the motivation of those raising this issue here has nothing to do with any concern for the finances of the London Borough of Camden (or Islington or Hackney). Rather it seems designed to promote a divisive agenda among boaters.

The NBTA tell us that there are in fact some 300 liveaboards in the area (conservative estimate) whilst they aren't likely to fill the hole in the budget caused by the coalition , as the phrase goes, every little helps. And perhaps you could give a reasonable explanation of why permanently resident boaters should be exempt from council tax? Because they don't want to pay it doesn't count as a reasonable excuse. It isn't a divisive agenda between boaters since personally I couldn't really give a toss, but if I was a resident of Camden with a bunch of freeloaders at the bottom of my garden it may be different.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Smelly]

Islington £840 band A council tax for a year less 25% for single occupancy is £630 just £63 for 10 months so then if on low income go for benefits council will pay Licence and council tax Therefore no winner for council

Not so, Councils receive a subsidy from DWP that covers Council Tax, Housing Benefit and notional administration costs

[Delta9]

As a specific, which country that you have experience of has a better health service? The closest I've found was in fact Cuba but there are, shall we say, one or two other issues which would deter me from living there.

 

The Netherlands.

 

http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/files/ehci-2013/ehci-2013-index-matrix-a3.pdf

[Noah T]

The NBTA tell us that there are in fact some 300 liveaboards in the area (conservative estimate) whilst they aren't likely to fill the hole in the budget caused by the coalition , as the phrase goes, every little helps. And perhaps you could give a reasonable explanation of why permanently resident boaters should be exempt from council tax? Because they don't want to pay it doesn't count as a reasonable excuse. It isn't a divisive agenda between boaters since personally I couldn't really give a toss, but if I was a resident of Camden with a bunch of freeloaders at the bottom of my garden it may be different.

 

Does the NBTA quote that figure (300) as the number of CCers who are are living permanently on the canal in Camden? .

 

Even so, that would be 0.13 of a percent of the population of the borough. And, even were the relevant legislation and collection mechanisms in place, taking into account the average value of a house in Camden, it would be difficult to imagine that this figure could translate into as much as 0.05 of a percent of potential council tax revenue. Probably a lot less.

 

So hardly surprising that the residents who actually do live in Camden are not particularly motivated against those who you call the "bunch of freeloaders at the bottom of their gardens".

 

As for you, it is odd that while you claim that you "don't give a toss", you do seem to be getting rather excercised on behalf of the residents of a London borough, who have (so far as I know) not engaged you to devote your outrage on their behalf.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Does the NBTA quote that figure (300) as the number of CCers who are are living permanently on the canal in Camden? .

 

Even so, that would be 0.13 of a percent of the population of the borough. And, even were the relevant legislation and collection mechanisms in place, taking into account the average value of a house in Camden, it would be difficult to imagine that this figure could translate into as much as 0.05 of a percent of potential council tax revenue. Probably a lot less.

 

So hardly surprising that the residents who actually do live in Camden are not particularly motivated against those who you call the "bunch of freeloaders at the bottom of their gardens".

 

As for you, it is odd that while you claim that you "don't give a toss", you do seem to be getting rather excercised on behalf of the residents of a London borough, who have (so far as I know) not engaged you to devote your outrage on their behalf.

I think that you will find, as Captain Zim generously pointed out (http://www.legalrss.co.uk/bsg/tub-boat-dweller-must-pay-council-tax) the legislation does already exist, if you are a permanent resident of an area you should be paying council tax. So tell me once again, why should permanently resident boaters be exempt from this liability? I am now genuinely interested to know what makes them special compared to a land based resident. If they wish to live in Camden, disregarding your economics, why should they not contribute?

[Captain Zim]

I think that you will find, as Captain Zim generously pointed out (http://www.legalrss.co.uk/bsg/tub-boat-dweller-must-pay-council-tax) the legislation does already exist, if you are a permanent resident of an area you should be paying council tax. So tell me once again, why should permanently resident boaters be exempt from this liability? I am now genuinely interested to know what makes them special compared to a land based resident. If they wish to live in Camden, disregarding your economics, why should they not contribute?

Do these 300 live permanently and wholly within the single borough for a whole year? That seems very unlikely to me.

[BrumSaint]

Wanderer Vagabond, on 16 Dec 2014 - 01:53 AM, said:

I think that you will find, as Captain Zim generously pointed out (http://www.legalrss....pay-council-tax) the legislation does already exist, if you are a permanent resident of an area you should be paying council tax. So tell me once again, why should permanently resident boaters be exempt from this liability? I am now genuinely interested to know what makes them special compared to a land based resident. If they wish to live in Camden, disregarding your economics, why should they not contribute?

Do these 300 live permanently and wholly within the single borough for a whole year? That seems very unlikely to me.

 

Instead of continuingly avoiding the question, just suppose for a minute that a boater does "...live permanently and wholly within the single borough for a whole year..." can you say why they should not pay council tax?

[Chris Hills]

Paying Council Tax is not just about rubbish bins. It is about local funding for Fire Services, Police, Parks, Play Areas, Adult Social Services, support for local small businesses so that local shops stop open, grass cutting of open spaces, street cleaning, community centres and much more. These are the things that help make a community a community. If you permanently live in a community and you earn enough to be expected to contribute to these things, what reason could you give to object? Everyone else in the community that can, does. Why not you?

[mango]

Paying Council Tax is not just about rubbish bins. It is about local funding for Fire Services, Police, Parks, Play Areas, Adult Social Services, support for local small businesses so that local shops stop open, grass cutting of open spaces, street cleaning, community centres and much more. These are the things that help make a community a community. If you permanently live in a community and you earn enough to be expected to contribute to these things, what reason could you give to object? Everyone else in the community that can, does. Why not you?

People with second homes usually pay Council Tax, albeit at a reduced rate. It's crazy if we have people living on boats and not contributing their fair share.

[BrumSaint]

Wanderer Vagabond, on 16 Dec 2014 - 12:03 AM, said:

As a specific, which country that you have experience of has a better health service?

The Netherlands.

 

http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/files/ehci-2013/ehci-2013-index-matrix-a3.pdf

Firstly - As one of the reasons you gave earlier for not living in another country was family health reasons why not move family to the Netherlands?

 

Secondly - The Netherlands is an interesting choice considering your comments about tax rates in Britain being higher compared to other countries.

 

In the Netherlands the combined Tax & NI for an income of e0 (£0) to e20,000 (£15,900) is 5.1%,

from e20,000 (£15,900) to e33,350 (£26,500) it is 42%

above e33,500 (£26,500) NI is not paid but the Tax rate is 42% until income reaches

e56,500 (£44,900) when income tax is 52%.

 

Higher rates than we pay in Britain.

 

(These are 2014 figures and I've used an exchange rate of e1 =£0.80) Link

 

Edited to say that the above figures have been rounded, before someone complains that the euro figures are not the exact Netherlands tax bandings.

Edited December 16, 2014 by BrumSaint

[Captain Zim]

Wanderer Vagabond, on 16 Dec 2014 - 01:53 AM, said:

 

Instead of continuingly avoiding the question, just suppose for a minute that a boater does "...live permanently and wholly within the single borough for a whole year..." can you say why they should not pay council tax?

I'm not avoiding the question. I was the one who posted the link to the north Devon case. That gives you the theoretical answer. But as others have said, and no doubt you understand, you can't avoid the economics of this. A judge in the court of appeal has ruled that someone living in one borough for more than 12 months is liable to pay council tax. That should be a fairly strong decision. It's not guaranteed but it's pretty good.

 

But there are myriad counter arguments I've tried to explain such as proving the residency. If it costs more to set up and administer this system than it would make back for the council, they won't do it, regardless of whether or not they can. That's why I'm concerned with numbers. 300 is a lot. It seems unlikely.

 

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick if you think I'm saying they shouldn't pay. I just don't see it being economically worthwhile for councils to invest to set this up for a small return.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Captain Zim

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I'm not avoiding the question. I was the one who posted the link to the north Devon case. That gives you the theoretical answer. But as others have said, and no doubt you understand, you can't avoid the economics of this. A judge in the court of appeal has ruled that someone living in one borough for more than 12 months is liable to pay council tax. That should be a fairly strong decision. It's not guaranteed but it's pretty good.

 

But there are myriad counter arguments I've tried to explain such as proving the residency. If it costs more to set up and administer this system than it would make back for the council, they won't do it, regardless of whether or not they can. That's why I'm concerned with numbers. 300 is a lot. It seems unlikely.

 

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick if you think I'm saying they shouldn't pay. I just don't see it being economically worthwhile for councils to invest to set this up for a small return.

But surely the 'voluntary' scheme in the mode of the Congestion Charge I described earlier would have minimal cost is setting up. Enforcement against those who choose not to pay would be expensive which is why one would set punitive penalties for those gaming the system, again in the style of the Congestion Charge. Except it is charging people for what they are currently getting for free, where is the genuine objection.

[SamKingfisher]

I don't have an objection to it as a concept, but think it would cost more to set up than it would ever bring in.

 

I would agree that taxation is a good thing, but it isn't the area of tax dodging that I'd be concentrating on, or getting hot under the collar about, if I were in charge!

[BrumSaint]

I'm not avoiding the question.

 

.....

 

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick if you think I'm saying they shouldn't pay. I just don't see it being economically worthwhile for councils to invest to set this up for a small return.

My apologies, I've been dipping in and out of this thread and confused you with some of the others who think it is OK to use services and not pay. I can see your point about the economics of collecting it, but think people are just trying to clarify the principle of liability to pay, which you've now confirmed you are in agreement with.

 

Mind you just to upset Delta9 (who apparently doesn't like paying too much tax) perhaps a local purchase tax could be introduced and then CMers would be contributing towards the local services whenever they purchased anything.

[Alan de Enfield]

My apologies, I've been dipping in and out of this thread and confused you with some of the others who think it is OK to use services and not pay. I can see your point about the economics of collecting it, but think people are just trying to clarify the principle of liability to pay, which you've now confirmed you are in agreement with.

 

Mind you just to upset Delta9 (who apparently doesn't like paying too much tax) perhaps a local purchase tax could be introduced and then CMers would be contributing towards the local services whenever they purchased anything.

 

Or - maybe a bit controversial - paying for a mooring, now there is a thought.

[Alf Roberts]

What a sickening load of dross from a pack of sheep like slaves.

Rather than wondering why a few dozen boats don't pay an extra tax (on top of the income tax, fuel duty, VAT et al) your baying would be better aimed at finding out why you are so happy to pay so much for so little.

And how you are so happy to accept the lies you are fed on a daily basis.

And how you are prepared to prop up, with your money = your efforts, a bloated and corrupt bureaucracy.



In the last six years the richest 10% in Britain doubled their wealth. Austerity? Yeah right. Pack of fools the lot of you.

Now you can go back to creating your straw men.

 

 

oh and remind me again, how successful your baying has been at getting tax out of Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone and Google. That might be a bit more worthwhile than raining your spite on a couple of hundred boaters.

[b0atman]

Not so, Councils receive a subsidy from DWP that covers Council Tax, Housing Benefit and notional administration costs

Thanks for that information I was not aware .

So councils can benefit from collecting council tax, however the boat would need to be in that council district for more than one year .

Then planning permission would surely also come into play .

In the situation of a Boat being in a district like this then Council tax should be paid .

Problem is that boats will simply move between districts .

CRT doing partnership with Councils will be the end solution and mooring charges will then be made for all boats in the London zone .so visitors will pay too.

Would that be a bad thing though if it gives Better facilities ?

[Gordias]

There's a cheap low-tech solution to recording boats within a limited area like a London local council's area:

 

Each boat could be required to have an RIFD chip (perhaps many - they are very cheap), which could be scanned by e.g. someone ridding along the tow path on a bicycle. According to wikipedia there's an existing technology with a range of 1-12 m, using passive tags that cost USD 0.15 each that seems practical. Or there's an active tag system (requires powered tags) at USD 5.00 per tag with a range of 1-100m. Compared to the cost of even the very cheapest boat license, this isn't a major cost for the tags (even the fancy active tags would cost under USD 200K for every boat in the system.

 

I don't know why CaRT aren't already doing this instead of writing down boat numbers.

 

Note that the data content need be no more than the existing number of he boat, or something that maps uniquely to the existing number.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Gordias

[Alf Roberts]

so boaters just pass them one to the other, job done, no more need to move your boat just move your chip.

 

a new job for Nigel Carton? chip mover.

 

it would beat the winter stoppages

[matty40s]

you'd still have some with a chip on their shoulder though...

[Gordias]

I didn't think most forum participants need me to explain the solution to that technique.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Gordias

[Wanderer Vagabond]

There's a cheap low-tech solution to recording boats within a limited area like a London local council's area:

 

Each boat could be required to have an RIFD chip (perhaps many - they are very cheap), which could be scanned by e.g. someone ridding along the tow path on a bicycle. According to wikipedia there's an existing technology with a range of 1-12 m, using passive tags that cost USD 0.15 each that seems practical. Or there's an active tag system (requires powered tags) at USD 5.00 per tag with a range of 1-100m. Compared to the cost of even the very cheapest boat license, this isn't a major cost for the tags (even the fancy active tags would cost under USD 200K for every boat in the system.

 

I don't know why CaRT aren't already doing this instead of writing down boat numbers.

 

Note that the data content need be no more than the existing number of he boat, or something that maps uniquely to the existing number.

Have to say that I don't have much knowledge of the technology but would it be possible to implant a passive RFID chip into the annual licence? Since we are already required to both own and display a licence you are not really imposing anything additional on the boatowner. If the owner tried to disable or remove the chip the licence could then become invalid. As far as I can see it doesn't contravene any data protection laws since it isn't actually tracking the boat, it requires someone to actually visit the boat to record it's location (on whatever device) so it is no different really to someone coming along and photographing your boat. The only real question would be reliability.

[Delta9]

Have to say that I don't have much knowledge of the technology but would it be possible to implant a passive RFID chip into the annual licence? Since we are already required to both own and display a licence you are not really imposing anything additional on the boatowner. If the owner tried to disable or remove the chip the licence could then become invalid. As far as I can see it doesn't contravene any data protection laws since it isn't actually tracking the boat, it requires someone to actually visit the boat to record it's location (on whatever device) so it is no different really to someone coming along and photographing your boat. The only real question would be reliability.

They will be getting rid of displaying paper licenses like they did tax disks for cars. It is outdated and unnecessary.

[Captain Zim]

Okay. This would help CRT track boats. How would this help the council?

 

ETA apologies to delta 9 who is correct about the paper licences. But since this thread is already way beyond the realms of reality I wanted to see where we were going

Edited December 16, 2014 by Captain Zim