Council Tax and Continuous Cruisers

[Delta9]

 

So why can't we have the off-topic squabbling deleted from the thread? It's OFF TOPIC and in contravention of the forum guidelines.

 

 

You are aware that you are posting this in a thread about council tax?

[b0atman]

Yes not about council tax but very relevant to most topics when some children spit their dummies out and at every opportunity.

[Paul's Nulife4-2]

Hi Gang,

Interesting stuff,

 

As some may know, I'm not based on the inland waterways so much, However I am a full time livaboard, and have been for some 30 years, until relatively recently I have been what I consider a CCr choosing the Coast line, Rivers, Estuaries and a splattering of Canals as my cruising grounds.

Have I paid CT ?. No !.

Do I feel Guilty or feel it's unfair in some way ?.

No !.

In ALL the Harbors I've entered, I've had to pay Dues.

In ALL the Estuaries I've entered, I've had to pay a License.

On The Rivers and Canals I've explored, I've had to pay the nessacary navigation authority there rate.

In the Marinas I've stayed at for a time, I've paid the price.

Even if I've only been in a certain location for 6 months, it's as cheap to buy a year's license in some cases.

Now, in my mind rightly or wrongly I proportionally pay my way for the services that I use well in excess for the period of time I've been in there area, and support the local businesses of that area whilst I am visiting.

So I sleep easy about such things.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Paul's Nulife4-2

[bassplayer]

 

It is arrogant of us boaters to think we are paying even the majority of the money required to maintain the system.

Of course we know that (why use the word arrogant other than to attempt to wind me up?). At least for the next few years, the tax payer is subsidising CRT . It's just that most of us boaters are contributing through tax and boat licence fees. Walkers, cyclists, anglers etc may only be providing funds through tax (unless they also own a boat on CRT waters or donate to CRT...just to cover bases!).

[Paul C]

Of course we know that (why use the word arrogant other than to attempt to wind me up?). At least for the next few years, the tax payer is subsidising CRT . It's just that most of us boaters are contributing through tax and boat licence fees. Walkers, cyclists, anglers etc may only be providing funds through tax (unless they also own a boat on CRT waters or donate to CRT...just to cover bases!).

 

Or to put it another way:

 

Boaters using CRT canals etc: fund CRT through tax and boat licence

non-boating canal users: fund CRT through tax

those who don't use canals: still fund CRT through tax

[Robbo]

Run wire shark against this site and ping the IP addresses and all is revealed!!

Ha ha, take it you don't know any thing about IT either! If you do you've absolutely no idea what wireshark can do.

[Delta9]

[churchward]

Of course we know that (why use the word arrogant other than to attempt to wind me up?). At least for the next few years, the tax payer is subsidising CRT . It's just that most of us boaters are contributing through tax and boat licence fees. Walkers, cyclists, anglers etc may only be providing funds through tax (unless they also own a boat on CRT waters or donate to CRT...just to cover bases!).

 

 

Good I am glad you agree. Non boaters could also be contributing via charitable donations or "friends" of CRT.

 

It was you who said ....

 

Do I feel guilty that I don't pay council tax? No. Why? ...because (as hinted earlier) all boaters are subsiding the general public's free use of CRT land and water for walking, cycling, fishing etc.

 

 

I did not say "It is arrogant of us boaters to think we are paying even the majority of the money required to maintain the system." to wind you up I have no wish to offend you. We enjoy a canal system paid for by many people including a third of the costs from us boaters but we are not paying for everyone else to enjoy it for free. It is closer to the opposite we are being subsidised.

 

We should not be concerned with the non-boater users of the canal as they do pay one way or the other much in the same way as non-CCers should not be concerned that Ccers do not pay Council Tax. As an aside I do think that some kind of grant from the government should continue to be paid to CRT as this is likely the best way to make sure all who wish to use the inland waterways are contributing to its upkeep in some way.

Edited January 4, 2015 by churchward

[gaggle]

Some perspective is required. Chasing a few boats for CT is about as useful as sewing a new button on some trousers with the arse ripped out.

 

 

Chasing a few boats for council tax , from what I read on here for some its nothing to do with council tax and more to do with just chasing a few boats , generally boats without a home mooring , it does not seem to matter if they genuinely c,c or hang around a certain area , as far as some posters are concerned they pay for moorings themselves and therefore everyone has to pay , this council tax crap is just another thing for them to try and bash c,c people / liveaboards with.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

.............., it does not seem to matter if they genuinely c,c or hang around a certain area , as far as some posters are concerned they pay for moorings themselves and therefore everyone has to pay , this council tax crap is just another thing for them to try and bash c,c people / liveaboards with

 

I cannot see any evidence of "CC Bashing", if anything just the opposite - this has been (in general) a thread about the application of CT - look at post #117 if you think that is "CC Bashing" then you have a problem.

 

Quote

 

The VOA accept that unless a boat stays pretty much in one place it is not subject to CT

Summary :

CCers do not and should not pay CT

CMers in certain circumstances should pay CT (on their mooring and boat)

Liveaboards with a permanent residential mooring should pay CT (as a minimum on their moorings, and possibly also on the boat depending on movement pattern, and dependent upon returning to the same mooring)

[Hawkmoth]

No, I think you misunderstand the purpose of that document which is primarily about ensuring people from those communities have equality of access to Health Care services. It's guidance for those that were commissioning Health Care services (Primary Care Trusts) back in 2009.

 

It is not about preferential treatment in hospital waiting rooms where as I said clinical priority normally takes precedent.

Can I refer you to post #86. Admittedly I read the first few pages and came to the same conclusion as you, but it seems i wasn't thorough enough.

Bob

[b0atman]

As I understand it the majority of us boaters are paying one third of the canal upkeep whilst the government subsidises the rest .

Now after a number of years the government subsidy may stop and our licence fee may increase threefold to cover the loss of revenue.

This would mean that boaters would be wholly paying for the upkeep of the CRT system BUT would still be expected to give access to cyclists walkers etc.

Yes theoretical but may become reality.

[Hawkmoth]

As I understand it the majority of us boaters are paying one third of the canal upkeep whilst the government subsidises the rest .

Now after a number of years the government subsidy may stop and our licence fee may increase threefold to cover the loss of revenue.

This would mean that boaters would be wholly paying for the upkeep of the CRT system BUT would still be expected to give access to cyclists walkers etc.

Yes theoretical but may become reality.

When that happens I don't think even the rich would be able or willing to fork out the required readies to keep the system working.

Can you imagine the cost per boat? Whew!

Bob

[b0atman]

Surely if we are paying for 1/3rd now my licence will go from £900 to £2,700 per year or less than £60 per week.

[boathunter]

 

I cannot see any evidence of "CC Bashing", if anything just the opposite - this has been (in general) a thread about the application of CT - look at post #117 if you think that is "CC Bashing" then you have a problem.

 

Quote

 

The VOA accept that unless a boat stays pretty much in one place it is not subject to CT

Summary :

CCers do not and should not pay CT

CMers in certain circumstances should pay CT (on their mooring and boat)

Liveaboards with a permanent residential mooring should pay CT (as a minimum on their moorings, and possibly also on the boat depending on movement pattern, and dependent upon returning to the same mooring)

Not a biggy Alan, but you managed somehow to put someone elses words in my mouth, post 135.

[churchward]

As I understand it the majority of us boaters are paying one third of the canal upkeep whilst the government subsidises the rest .

Now after a number of years the government subsidy may stop and our licence fee may increase threefold to cover the loss of revenue.

This would mean that boaters would be wholly paying for the upkeep of the CRT system BUT would still be expected to give access to cyclists walkers etc.

Yes theoretical but may become reality.

According to values published for a period ending in 2013 the total annual expenditure was around £96m and boaters paid £24.5m the government paid in aprox £29m and the balance was made up of donations and income from property investments and other commercial ventures.

 

On that basis your £900 licence would need to become between £2000 - £3500 depending on what happens to the property investments/business ventures and if they bring a similar income. If they do it will be the something like the lower value plus inflation effecting the need for the total budget to rise.

 

A source of some of these values can be found here.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/3684.pdf

[Alan de Enfield]

Not a biggy Alan, but you managed somehow to put someone elses words in my mouth, post 135.

 

Apologies if somehow someones words have got into 'your' post I quoted.

 

It look like :- You made a post (#134) where you quoted Gaggle, you did not post anything except Gaggles 'statement'.

 

When I "Quoted" it, because you had made no comment, it took Gaggles post and put it within your name.

 

My post #135 is in response to Gaggles statement, and nothing to do with Boathunter.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[boathunter]

Hmm. Weird!

Never mind, I'm happy now I've pointed it out.

[bassplayer]

Good I am glad you agree. Non boaters could also be contributing via charitable donations or "friends" of CRT.

 

It was you who said ....

 

 

I didn't say "....'only' boaters subsidise the general public's free use of CRT waters and land" which I think was your interpretation. I also mentioned that non boaters could be donating to CRT in the same post (trying to cover my bases...but failed!). All trivial of course as I think we do both agree on the subject.

 

Going off topic a bit...maybe much of the grief we all get on this forum is down to misinterpretation and, maybe more importantly, not reading things properly before commenting. I'm not getting at you churchward as I have done it myself. It's not easy though when the thread is dozens of pages long! It's sometimes easier for us to stand on a soap box and not listen....

[Hawkmoth]

deleted for sily mistake

 

 

Surely if we are paying for 1/3rd now my licence will go from £900 to £2,700 per year or less than £60 per week.

That may sound reasonable to you, but, with the raised fees will come fewer boats. This will lead to an inevitable downward spiral of higher fees and fewer boats.

The illogical conclusion will be one very rich (but now a bit poorer) boater owning or at least paying for, the canal system.

Bob

Edited January 4, 2015 by lyraboat

[bassplayer]

That may sound reasonable to you, but, with the raised fees will come fewer boats. This will lead to an inevitable downward spiral of higher fees and fewer boats.

The illogical conclusion will be one very rich (but now a bit poorer) boater owning or at least paying for, the canal system.

Bob

....which leads us to the 'playground for the rich' fears. It's all about fair sharing really. Money is not always the best measure of someone's value in this world.

[churchward]

I didn't say "....'only' boaters subsidise the general public's free use of CRT waters and land" which I think was your interpretation. I also mentioned that non boaters could be donating to CRT in the same post (trying to cover my bases...but failed!). All trivial of course as I think we do both agree on the subject.

 

Going off topic a bit...maybe much of the grief we all get on this forum is down to misinterpretation and, maybe more importantly, not reading things properly before commenting. I'm not getting at you churchward as I have done it myself. It's not easy though when the thread is dozens of pages long! It's sometimes easier for us to stand on a soap box and not listen....

Indeed it is easy to misinterpret we can all do it from time to time but my original post commenting on yours was not a misinterpretation, you said

 

Do I feel guilty that I don't pay council tax? No. Why? ...because (as hinted earlier) all boaters are subsiding the general public's free use of CRT land and water for walking, cycling, fishing etc

I was pointing out the thought that we as "all boaters" were subsidising anyone is false and in fact the "general public" is not getting "free use" as they (the tax payers) are putting in collectively more than boaters are.

 

As you rightly pointed out in your clarifying post that subsidy will go under present agreements. We are all going to be in shtook then as I don't see the gap caused being filled by donations or other revenue streams.

 

Still, no problem I still don't see it is any issue that CCers don't pay Council Tax. I was not having a go at you just trying to say that you did not need any justification other than CCers are not eligible to pay Council Tax but us boaters are not subsidising anyone. Have a pleasant evening.

Edited January 4, 2015 by churchward

[floatsyourboat]

 

So why can't we have the off-topic squabbling deleted from the thread? It's OFF TOPIC and in contravention of the forum guidelines.

 

The petty squabbling spoils the threads again and again, and the absence of any downward pressure on the primary culprits just encourages them to feel free to do it all the more.

 

MtB

you do your fair share of the stirring Mike famously with your almost funny sense of humour!

Ha ha, take it you don't know any thing about IT either! If you do you've absolutely no idea what wireshark can do.

best off sending me a message Robbo we can speak about packets and your get and put info there its not really relevant to the thread

 

I recently had a wonderful debate with some hippy / anarchist punk types, you know the sort who hate 'the man' and most certainly Thatcher.

 

They said that it was unfair that they paid council tax and that I was exempt, I did point out of course that they do utilise a lot more services than myself and that while that was the case, I did also feel that a more suitable taxation system should be used - mainly a per person charge rather than a per residential tax, that way everyone would be contributing to the local taxation a 'fair share'.

 

They all agreed and said that was a much fairer way of taxation.

Lol excellent !

I only just had the heart to point out that they agree with the poll tax that they so vehemently opposed.

Edited January 4, 2015 by floatsyourboat

[floatsyourboat]

You really need to start checking your facts or maybe I missed the £1 billion we gave India this year, could you be so kind as to provide a link so I can update myself. Oh and uk does have a space programme they are at the forefront of the European Space Programme

He sighs and think why bother!

Previously India now Europe?

Does that not tell you something?

[floatsyourboat]

I know there is a good deal of poverty in the UK. I do have my eyes open.

 

I also use my brain and don't just take any opportunity to grind my axe or get on my hobby horse. You seem to be just ranting about random thoughts whilst making wildly mistaken assumptions about me. you are just making sweeping statements and generalisations.

 

This is not a discussion that is going to go anywhere sensible. So I will stop but do feel free to carry on, on your own.

 

What you are talking about is not in context with the discussion in the thread.

its find I understand change makes you uncomfortable because you don't have any answers and are clear fe by fear.

How many food banks are there now?

It's a bloody mess and me paying for services at point of contact will not make someone else go without.

How on earth am I making sweeping statements?

If you are self employed then you will already know the government already has in place a system that can charge and deduct as appropriate and believe me it works extremely efficiently when you owe them money.

The mess they have made with managing the welfare system and the use of Atos is the reason for poverty in a rich country when it suits them to go to war with any tom dick or harry not my ideas of change and equality...