Towpath Users

[Guest]

No, you've had all the response you're going to get . . . . . all you need now is to find someone with enough time and patience to try and help you to understand it.

Pray why? When I already do.

 

Goodnight though, I have a busy day tomorrow.

[Paul C]

But we're not discussing the proportion of taxpayers that use the canal towpath, the question is how much each taxpayer contributes to the upkeep in comparison with each boat owner.

If you can't understand something as simple as that, then working out the difference will seem pointless to you.

 

You're right to say that each boater pays much more than each taxpayer but you're wrong to say each tax payer doesn't contribute anything. Given the size of the Government rant vs the licence income from boaters, each is a significant proportion so I don't think its fair to put to one side the government contribution because its spread out very thinly amongst the (taxpaying) general public.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

You're right to say that each boater pays much more than each taxpayer but you're wrong to say each tax payer doesn't contribute anything. Given the size of the Government rant vs the licence income from boaters, each is a significant proportion so I don't think its fair to put to one side the government contribution because its spread out very thinly amongst the (taxpaying) general public.

Nevertheless, in real terms, the loonies on bikes individually pay only a tiny fraction of one penny each p.a. (via taxes they pay) for the privilege of behaving irresponsibly and making a dangerous nuisance of themselves on canal towpaths, as they also do on the roads.

[Paul C]

Nevertheless, in real terms, the loonies on bikes individually pay only a tiny fraction of one penny each p.a. (via taxes they pay) for the privilege of behaving irresponsibly and making a dangerous nuisance of themselves on canal towpaths, as they also do on the roads.

 

I think you need new batteries in your calculator.

[cotswoldsman]

Nevertheless, in real terms, the loonies on bikes individually pay only a tiny fraction of one penny each p.a. (via taxes they pay) for the privilege of behaving irresponsibly and making a dangerous nuisance of themselves on canal towpaths, as they also do on the roads.

Tony I think you need to step back and look at the bigger picture. In the example given by the OP this is extra money (£20 million) and comes from council tax (TfM) it is being used to upgrade a stretch of canal that for years has had very little spent on it and the locals for years have used as a great place to dump rubbish. Hopefully with this upgrade the locals might start taking some pride in their local canal

[KevMc]

Don't forget that boaters are tax payers too so our licence fee is on top of the same contribution we make as other taxpayers.

Nuff said

[cotswoldsman]

Don't forget that boaters are tax payers too so our licence fee is on top of the same contribution we make as other taxpayers.

Nuff said

So in this case DeanS gets it 3 ways. His licence, tax and he pays council tax in Manchester

[Graham Davis]

Nevertheless, in real terms, the loonies on bikes individually pay only a tiny fraction of one penny each p.a. (via taxes they pay) for the privilege of behaving irresponsibly and making a dangerous nuisance of themselves on canal towpaths, as they also do on the roads.

 

And how have you calculated what amount they pay?

It doesn't matter if it is one penny or a thousand pounds, every one is a contributor to CaRT's coffers through the general taxation system. And as I have pointed out not all cyclists behave in that manner, so you are, as usual, making inaccurate and unfounded generalistions to continue your pointless anti-CaRT tirade.

And you still haven't answered my earlier questions!

[Tony Dunkley]

 

And how have you calculated what amount they pay?

It doesn't matter if it is one penny or a thousand pounds, every one is a contributor to CaRT's coffers through the general taxation system. And as I have pointed out not all cyclists behave in that manner, so you are, as usual, making inaccurate and unfounded generalistions to continue your pointless anti-CaRT tirade.

And you still haven't answered my earlier questions!

 

Nor do I have intention of doing so.

[churchward]

I've have never claimed any such thing . . . . . are you on the same stuff as Dog House, both of you appear to be having the same problem with your reading.

Yes you did say that as follows in post #5

 

I wonder if the only people who actually pay to use the towpath, ie. boat owners, will regard this as an 'improvement' when they've just been run over, or into, and injured by some loony on a bike ?

So carry on wriggling you are just digging a larger hole for yourself. Don't bother with "there is a difference between pay toward and pay to use" either, it won't wash.

Edited February 12, 2015 by churchward

[Graham Davis]

 

Nor do I have intention of doing so.

 

And that reply exactly sums up why your tirade is worthless.

As soon as someone asks you for details on how to solve the problem you can't.

 

Here are the questions again if you've forgotten them:

 

What do you SENSIBLY suggest?

Would you like pay points on all entrances?

What has the fact that I don't own a boat got to do with it?

Would you prefer it if only boat owners contributed to this Forum?

[Tony Dunkley]

Yes you did say that as follows in post #5

 

So carry on wriggling you are just digging a larger hole for yourself. Don't bother with "there is a difference between pay toward and pay to use" either, it won't wash.

 

So, you can't distinguish between 'pay toward'( via taxes) and 'pay to use' ( by buying a boat Licence).

 

The logical extension of your reasoning is that as a taxpayer 'paying toward' everything the Government spends your taxes on, you must believe that you are 'paying to use' everything that those taxes are spent on. . . . . . . just give that a little thought, you might want to reconsider who should stop digging.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

And that reply exactly sums up why your tirade is worthless.

As soon as someone asks you for details on how to solve the problem you can't.

 

Here are the questions again if you've forgotten them:

 

What do you SENSIBLY suggest?

Would you like pay points on all entrances?

What has the fact that I don't own a boat got to do with it?

Would you prefer it if only boat owners contributed to this Forum?

 

Shut up.

[b0atman]

Minorities as in most things cause the most grievance

e.g hell for leather cyclists, irresponsible dog owners & continuous moorers in popular spots.

Towpaths do need improving but traffic calming will eventually come .

[Graham Davis]

 

Shut up.

 

Oh dear!!

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Towpaths do need improving but traffic calming will eventually come .

 

 

Maybe in the interests of heritage and historical authenticity, C&RT could install cycle speed humps that look like piles of horseshit.

[DeanS]

So in this case DeanS gets it 3 ways. His licence, tax and he pays council tax in Manchester

 

and I have 2 boats, so I pay 2 licences, tax and council tax ;-)

 

Shut up.

 

 

I'd suggest that all parties who can't have a constructive polite debate, stop debating, to save Mods from babysitting this thread. Much appreciated!

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

I'd suggest that all parties who can't have a constructive polite debate, stop debating, to save Mods from babysitting this thread. Much appreciated!

 

That's what I was suggesting too.

[gaggle]

Not all UK taxpayers walk or ride the system though, so it's a pointless excercise even trying to work it out.

330.000,000 visitors suggests a fair wack of them do walk or ride the system

[Dreadnaught]

Surely the most effective solution to curb the speedsters would be to integrate the equivalent of sped-humps, half-pipe channels or rumble strips or is that too cheap and easy?

[b0atman]

or be green and plant more hawthorn hedging

[churchward]

 

So, you can't distinguish between 'pay toward'( via taxes) and 'pay to use' ( by buying a boat Licence).

 

The logical extension of your reasoning is that as a taxpayer 'paying toward' everything the Government spends your taxes on, you must believe that you are 'paying to use' everything that those taxes are spent on. . . . . . . just give that a little thought, you might want to reconsider who should stop digging.

But we are not talking about everything else but the access to the Towpath. In that context the amount of grant on behalf of taxpayers from Defra amounts to the same thing. All the income to CRT be it from boaters, taxpayers or anything else is paying for all of us to use the Towpath. CRT are holding and maintaining the Waterways under its wing on behalf of the nation not just boaters remember. So any money paid to them is to support that access so the taxpayer is paying towards and for the use of the towpath.

 

You are for just trying to hide the fact you made a rash statement for dramatic effect and don't like being corrected.

[Midnight]

Surely the most effective solution to curb the speedsters would be to integrate the equivalent of sped-humps, half-pipe channels or rumble strips or is that too cheap and easy?

 

presumably when these schemes are at the planning stage CaRT have to produce a risk assessment which should identify the likelihood of an accident and put in measures to reduce the risk. Such a document would make interesting reading especially if the risk level isn't reasonably assessed. In which case CaRT could be in trouble following a serious accident.

[cotswoldsman]

330.000,000 visitors suggests a fair wack of them do walk or ride the system

How many people is that?

[Guest]

330.000,000 visitors suggests a fair wack of them do walk or ride the system

 

Considering the UK population is 64.1 Million, not all of whom will be tax payers, thats going some for sure.

Edited February 12, 2015 by The Dog House