Canal & River Trust sets out plans to review boat licensing

[Wanderer Vagabond]

16 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Why should the idea of flat rate taxation be transferred to other taxes and can you suggest a method which spreads the council part of taxation better than a poll tax?

A point I should have mentioned when somebody was suggesting the poor family would have to stump up more which they can't afford.  There is a big assumption being made that 2x poll tax will exceed 1x council tax.   It may well be less.  If we take the example above of 9 people in 3 houses.  Suppose the council tax on each house was £1000 the hard up family would be paying £1000.  However if you split the £3000  between 9 the family would pay £666.66 (or in the case of the example above only £333.33 as it is a single occupant).   So they would be better off.

Council tax is intended as a fee for local services etc unlike income tax which should be used to level out differences in wealth.

You ask me why the flat rate taxation should be transferred to other taxes, well my question would be why not? (I'm not recommending it by the way) if it is such a 'fair' means of taxation (which it isn't). As one who pays quite a lot in Council Tax in an area in which I am now rarely living, I am quite content with the current council tax arrangements. It is my choice to pay the level that I do and if I wanted to reduce my liabilities I'd either sell the property altogether or move somewhere smaller, simples really. If on the other hand we had the crap Poll Tax I could avoid it altogether as a liveaboard by selling my house, so no council would get anything at all from me, fair? perhaps not.

With your comparisons between the poorer families and the wealthier one's, you seem to ignore the fact that if they are significantly poor they will probably be living on a sink estate somewhere, and under the Poll Tax they would be paying the same rate as a multimillionaire living in a gated community, fair? perhaps not.

 

And finally if your view of income tax is to level out the differences in wealth then you have a bizarre idea of how it should work. If you want to 'level out the differences' then the ultimate goal would be for everyone to be earning the same, I think you may well be on your own with that one.  The purpose of income tax is to finance the services that Government should be providing (Health,Elderly care, Armed Forces,Police,Fire Service,etc.etc) not to prevent anyone becoming wealthy. I might agree with the Marxist principle of '..from each according to their ability....", and I also agree with the principle of the top management of companies only being paid a given multiple of the lowest paid worker in their organisation, but to try to 'level out the differences in wealth' is always going to be a non-starter for me.

[andy4502]

On 20/02/2017 at 13:12, dogless said:

My experience of consultation is that it's a period during which they allow people to express their opinions, before the do EXACTLY what they planned all along, but now being able to blame us.

 

Rog

Have to agree with this, only hope is that the plan is fair and workable......chances of this?

[Steilsteven]

On 03/03/2017 at 17:43, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Lets go for the straw man argument then shall we? At what point have I ever said,"....one has simply to look at someone else's boat to know exactly what their income is..." or even anything remotely like it, the straw man is clearly alive and well then.

The 'radical' suggestion that I made was that a small boat is likely to be cheaper than a big boat, hardly that controversial I wouldn't have thought. For some who can only afford a small boat it seems eminently reasonable that they should also be able to keep their licensing cost down by having a cheaper licence. A valid argument would be that you can put 4 small cruisers into a broad lock that will only take one broad beam so, under those circumstances, they are only using a quarter of the volume of water so they could argue that you should be paying 4 times as much as them to use the system (4 x 25' boat licence (£567.86) = £2271.44 as opposed to the £1024.27 that a full length broad beam (if such a thing exists) will pay for 2017/2018. Sounds to me like it is the longer boat owner that is getting the bargain

Never mind the 'straw man' rubbish, that was basically what you were saying.

Oh dear, the volume of water argument, I suggest that you do a search on that subject and besides, you are missing the point that a licence is required regardless of whether the boat moves or not. Of course all 25' narrow boats wait at every lock until three others turn up before entering don't they?

If charging by area is adopted the difference in cost of a licence for my barge over that of the same length narrow boat at 2017 prices would be £700. Please tell me what advantages, over and above the owner of the narrow boat,that I shall receive from Canal and Rivers Trust that represent value for money for the additional cost?

Keith

 

[GUMPY]

9 hours ago, Bee said:

Or what about the council worker living in a tiny 2 bed terrace with wife and 3 v. young children getting by on one wage who suddenly has to pay poll tax for 2 adults and doubles what he had to pay in rates. Not a hope of paying that lot and ended up having to borrow to keep the bailiffs out. Meanwhile the property developer in the big house down the lane saw his rates disappear and he just paid one lot of poll tax. I remember working out that we could lose the gas if we kept the electric. Can never forgive Portillo for that even if he does like trains now.

Cobblers

I was at the time of poll tax living with my wife and two children in an ex council two bedroom house, I was very happy as compared to the rates poll tax was LESS, yes thats right it was cheaper. 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Loddon

[Steilsteven]

On 03/03/2017 at 17:48, Machpoint005 said:

The longer the boat, the more of a visitor mooring it takes up. Isn't that sufficient justification for a sliding scale of licence fees?

No but it might be justification for charging fees at visitor moorings though.

Keith

 

[Jerra]

3 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

You ask me why the flat rate taxation should be transferred to other taxes, well my question would be why not? (I'm not recommending it by the way) if it is such a 'fair' means of taxation (which it isn't).

There is IMO a huge difference between a yearly payment for services provided by a local council and general taxation.  Hence a flat rate is to me (obviously not to you) acceptable just like a flat rate for other services e.g. a standard rail fare.

As one who pays quite a lot in Council Tax in an area in which I am now rarely living, I am quite content with the current council tax arrangements. It is my choice to pay the level that I do and if I wanted to reduce my liabilities I'd either sell the property altogether or move somewhere smaller, simples really. If on the other hand we had the crap Poll Tax I could avoid it altogether as a liveaboard by selling my house, so no council would get anything at all from me, fair? perhaps not.

As fair as it currently is for liveaboards who are not paying council tax and yet using the services of a local council.

With your comparisons between the poorer families and the wealthier one's, you seem to ignore the fact that if they are significantly poor they will probably be living on a sink estate somewhere, and under the Poll Tax they would be paying the same rate as a multimillionaire living in a gated community, fair? perhaps not.

You seem to ignore the fact that the council tax in areas with gated communities will have higher council spending and hence a higher poll tax than sink estates.  Also as Loddon points out the poll tax was cheaper for him so the wealthy (or all those working sons mentioned earlier) must have been making up the difference.

 

And finally if your view of income tax is to level out the differences in wealth then you have a bizarre idea of how it should work. If you want to 'level out the differences' then the ultimate goal would be for everyone to be earning the same,

So you are suggesting that the 50% tax (and 95% tax as I think it once was) wasn't an attempt to take more from the rich bringing their income down and making them pay a disproportionate proportion of costs.  In other words an attempt to level things out a bit.

I think you may well be on your own with that one.  The purpose of income tax is to finance the services that Government should be providing (Health,Elderly care, Armed Forces,Police,Fire Service,etc.etc) not to prevent anyone becoming wealthy. I might agree with the Marxist principle of '..from each according to their ability....", and I also agree with the principle of the top management of companies only being paid a given multiple of the lowest paid worker in their organisation, but to try to 'level out the differences in wealth' is always going to be a non-starter for me.

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

3 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

Never mind the 'straw man' rubbish, that was basically what you were saying.

Oh dear, the volume of water argument, I suggest that you do a search on that subject and besides, you are missing the point that a licence is required regardless of whether the boat moves or not. Of course all 25' narrow boats wait at every lock until three others turn up before entering don't they?

If charging by area is adopted the difference in cost of a licence for my barge over that of the same length narrow boat at 2017 prices would be £700. Please tell me what advantages, over and above the owner of the narrow boat,that I shall receive from Canal and Rivers Trust that represent value for money for the additional cost?

Keith

 

That was nothing like anything I was saying except in your mind, but moving on.........

So if there is no material advantage in having a broad beam boat, could you tell me why you have one? Bit more space perhaps??

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

You ask me why the flat rate taxation should be transferred to other taxes, well my question would be why not? (I'm not recommending it by the way) if it is such a 'fair' means of taxation (which it isn't).

There is IMO a huge difference between a yearly payment for services provided by a local council and general taxation.  Hence a flat rate is to me (obviously not to you) acceptable just like a flat rate for other services e.g. a standard rail fare.Have you travelled by train recently? Can you tell me exactly what a 'standard' fare is? as an example the fares from Birmingham to London on Monday vary between £25.50 and £70 so you probably haven't chosen a particularly good example, UK train fares are probably the most complex in Europe

As one who pays quite a lot in Council Tax in an area in which I am now rarely living, I am quite content with the current council tax arrangements. It is my choice to pay the level that I do and if I wanted to reduce my liabilities I'd either sell the property altogether or move somewhere smaller, simples really. If on the other hand we had the crap Poll Tax I could avoid it altogether as a liveaboard by selling my house, so no council would get anything at all from me, fair? perhaps not.

As fair as it currently is for liveaboards who are not paying council tax and yet using the services of a local council.As stated, I currently pay a substantial amount of Council Tax for a property that I rarely live, my choice, much the same as your anecdotal little old widow chooses to stay in a house too big for her needs. If she cannot afford it, move, like I would have to do if I couldn't afford my Council Tax.

With your comparisons between the poorer families and the wealthier one's, you seem to ignore the fact that if they are significantly poor they will probably be living on a sink estate somewhere, and under the Poll Tax they would be paying the same rate as a multimillionaire living in a gated community, fair? perhaps not.

You seem to ignore the fact that the council tax in areas with gated communities will have higher council spending and hence a higher poll tax than sink estates.  Also as Loddon points out the poll tax was cheaper for him so the wealthy (or all those working sons mentioned earlier) must have been making up the difference.For an easily checkable example, look up Robin Hood Gardens  in Tower Hamlets, which happens to be in the same London Borough as Bow Quarter (about 2 miles apart) one being a gated community and the other being a dump, so how is the spending in these two areas in the same borough going to differ? And one anecdotal example of someone being better off under Poll Tax does not make it a fair tax.

 

And finally if your view of income tax is to level out the differences in wealth then you have a bizarre idea of how it should work. If you want to 'level out the differences' then the ultimate goal would be for everyone to be earning the same,

So you are suggesting that the 50% tax (and 95% tax as I think it once was) wasn't an attempt to take more from the rich bringing their income down and making them pay a disproportionate proportion of costs.  In other words an attempt to level things out a bit. You will find that the top tax rate is 45% not 50% and are you saying that a 95% rate of tax was a good idea? it just encouraged (even more) tax evasion. if you think that a Tory Government has any interest at all in 'levelling things out' you clearly live on a different planet to me

I think you may well be on your own with that one.  The purpose of income tax is to finance the services that Government should be providing (Health,Elderly care, Armed Forces,Police,Fire Service,etc.etc) not to prevent anyone becoming wealthy. I might agree with the Marxist principle of '..from each according to their ability....", and I also agree with the principle of the top management of companies only being paid a given multiple of the lowest paid worker in their organisation, but to try to 'level out the differences in wealth' is always going to be a non-starter for me.

 

[WotEver]

4 hours ago, Loddon said:

Cobblers

I was at the time of poll tax living with my wife and two children in an ex council two bedroom house, I was very happy as compared to the rates poll tax was LESS, yes thats right it was cheaper. 

It was cheaper for swmbo and I too. Not by much, but a little cheaper. 

[Slim]

8 hours ago, WotEver said:

It was cheaper for swmbo and I too. Not by much, but a little cheaper. 

And myself and my wife

[Momac]

The poll tax was  along time ago. But I recall the poll tax , for us as a couple, was approximately double the previous years rates. Instant inflation. A couple living in a big house would  not have been so significantly affected.

When it changed to council tax it did not reduce.

Changes in this system were used as a means to bump up the charges considerably.

Coming back to the subject of this thread I would suggest it is  safer to stick with the existing system. You can be sure any change will increase revenue for the C&RT.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by MartynG

[MtB]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

Coming back to the subject of this thread I would suggest it is  safer to stick with the existing system. You can be sure any change will increase revenue for the C&RT.

 

Yes and widebeams are sitting ducks to pay it. I think CRT have decided to charge according to deck area and this is the charade of 'consultation' they feel obliged to waste money going through to justify it. 

It would be more honest to just introduce their new licence fee regime and tell people to lump it. 

Oh, and another thought. Can you imagine the storm of protest if the EA announced they were going to copy the CRT licencing model and charge only according to length. How UNFAIR would everyone say THAT is?!!!!

Edited March 5, 2017 by Mike the Boilerman

[alan_fincher]

24 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Yes and widebeams are sitting ducks to pay it. I think CRT have decided to charge according to deck area and this is the charade of 'consultation' they feel obliged to waste money going through to justify it.

I'm far from convinced this is the case.

You overlook the fact that CRT regularly put forward some proposal or another, often employing third party consultants, and using large amounts of time and money for surveys and open meetings.

In several of these I have been involved in the proposal either gets completely ditched, or at least 80% to 90% ditched, with very little of the original intent left in the end result.

I actually think there is a great deal of support for the "by area" model of charging, (though I concede if I owned a wide-beam I might not support it!)

Do i actually think "by area" charging will be an unwatered down outcome of this review?  Probably not, based on past experiences.

Do I think it will actively discourage people from filling up canals with boats to which they are ill suited?  Almost certainly not.  If you can afford £80K to £150K of boat to make your home, you will almost certainly not be deterred by licence costs maybe 50% higher than for an equivalent length narrow boat.

Would I support it as a fairer system regardless?  Probably, though my mind is far from fixed on the subject, and I will follow any reasoned debate on the topic, before taking a firmer view.

Edited March 5, 2017 by alan_fincher
Typo

[Bee]

I think that one thing that was definitely true about poll tax was that it was divisive and people can still get cross about it - I can and I will never change my mind about the way it affected us. That was a long time ago as well. Now we are divided again over Brexit. That one should run and run and one lot will never persuade the other lot to change their minds. Seems that almost everything, including CRT charges is divisive these days and what is an affordable and fair charge for the well heeled is ruinous and unfair for the rest. Never mind taking back control, I'd like to take back some of my money that the wealthy have seized. To the barricades anybody? Where did I put my tin hat?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

I'm far from convinced this is the case.

You overlook the fact that CRT regularly put forward some proposal or another, often employing third party consultants, and using large amounts of time and money for surveys and open meetings.

In several of these I have been involved in the proposal either gets completely ditched, or at least 80% to 90% ditched, with very little of the original intent left in the end result.

I actually think there is a great deal of support for the "by area" model of charging, (though I concede if I owned a wide-beam I might not support it!)

Do i actually think "by area" charging will be an unwatered down outcome of this review?  Probably not, based on past experiences.

Do I think it will actively discourage people from filling up canals with boats to which they are ill suited?  Almost certainly not.  If you can afford £80K to £150K of boat to make your home, you will almost certainly not be deterred by licence costs maybe 50% higher than for an equivalent length narrow boat.

Would I support it as a fairer system regardless?  Probably, though my mind is far from fixed on the subject, and I will follow any reasoned debate on the topic, before taking a firmer view.

This consultation was supposed to be because the current system of licensing is 'too complex' (a debatable point). I'm not really convinced that having to calculate the area of the boat in any way simplifies it. I seem to remember when I first went onto the Thames being concerned as to exactly how to calculate the area but then they just made a rough estimate based on the length of the boat anyway.

Looking at the full picture, as boaters, we are currently having to supply slightly less that 20% of CRT income. Accepting the inevitability of that, the debate becomes how much should we individually pay? I am reasonably happy with the current system since if I pay less then someone else (wide beams?) is going to have to pay more. I could adopt the selfish approach and cheer this on, but don't really feel the inclination to do so. I may become more animated when CRT start to increase the percentage of total income that I'm expected to above the current level, but I'm quite relaxed about it at the moment.

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

This consultation was supposed to be because the current system of licensing is 'too complex' (a debatable point). I'm not really convinced that having to calculate the area of the boat in any way simplifies it.

My first thought too was this is a first class bit of NewSpeak. There is no way a new system will be less complex. Whatever they introduce, my money is on it being considerably MORE complex. 

 

5 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 I seem to remember when I first went onto the Thames being concerned as to exactly how to calculate the area but then they just made a rough estimate based on the length of the boat anyway.

No, it is a rough estimate looked up on a grid of lengths and beams. You look up your length on one axis, your beam on the other and this gives you the chargeable deck area. Very simple.

 

7 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Looking at the full picture, as boaters, we are currently having to supply slightly less that 20% of CRT income. Accepting the inevitability of that, the debate becomes how much should we individually pay? I am reasonably happy with the current system since if I pay less then someone else (wide beams?) is going to have to pay more. 

I suspect no-one will pay less. The whole point is to come up with ways to increase the 20% you mention.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

No, it is a rough estimate looked up on a grid of lengths and beams. You look up your length on one axis, your beam on the other and this gives you the chargeable deck area. Very simple.

 

It is still a very rough estimate though since the shape of boats has quite a lot of variation. There are boats that are a lot squarer at the back than mine so they will get a bit of 'free' deck area

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

It is still a very rough estimate though since the shape of boats has quite a lot of variation. There are boats that are a lot squarer at the back than mine so they will get a bit of 'free' deck area

 

Thats right, and the accompanying Thames Conservancy (when I had a Thames licence) made it abundantly clear they didn't charge according to actual deck area, they charged according to a notional deck area looked up on their chart. They would not entertain appeals questioning deck area calculation. Their chart was the charing basis. A rectangular boat costs the same as a boat shaped boat the same length and beam.

[Momac]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

No, it is a rough estimate looked up on a grid of lengths and beams. You look up your length on one axis, your beam on the other and this gives you the chargeable deck area. Very simple.

If measured on true plan area  all narrowboats will probably now , on careful scrutiny and use of an elastic tape measure, become an average  6ft wide . Nothing on the waterways will exceed 7ft average width after the calculation of area has accounted  for the very narrow/pointy bow section of a cruiser type boat.  With few exceptions  I suspect.

That's such a modest range of widths the C&RT may as well stick with the length only as a measure for the purposes of the license  (or should it be Toll ).

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

11 minutes ago, MartynG said:

If measured on true plan area  all narrowboats will probably now , on careful scrutiny and use of an elastic tape measure, become an average  6ft wide . Nothing on the waterways will exceed 7ft average width after the calculation of area has accounted  for the very narrow/pointy bow section of a cruiser type boat.  With few exceptions  I suspect.

That's such a modest range of widths the C&RT may as well stick with the length only as a measure for the purposes of the license  (or should it be Toll ).

 

Possibly good in theory, fails miserably in practice. To do that you then have to set up a network of Toll houses to collect the payment, all of which will then need to be manned at the expense of the licence payers, so we have to pay for an army of toll collectors, not sure I'm keen on that idea since it will inevitably increase costs

[MtB]

27 minutes ago, MartynG said:

If measured on true plan area  all narrowboats will probably now , on careful scrutiny and use of an elastic tape measure, become an average  6ft wide . Nothing on the waterways will exceed 7ft average width after the calculation of area has accounted  for the very narrow/pointy bow section of a cruiser type boat.  With few exceptions  I suspect.

 

I've read that several times are can't extract any meaning from it. Just back from the pub I imagine!

[Momac]

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I've read that several times are can't extract any meaning from it. Just back from the pub I imagine!

If people have to self declare the beam of their boat they may fib about it - or round the dimension down quite a bit in order to pay a lower license fee.

I don't think there is in reality a huge variation in the average width of boats - with some exceptions. My cruiser is wide in the middle but on average over its full length not much wider than a narrowboat.

[Momac]

4 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Possibly good in theory, fails miserably in practice. To do that you then have to set up a network of Toll houses to collect the payment, all of which will then need to be manned at the expense of the licence payers, so we have to pay for an army of toll collectors, not sure I'm keen on that idea since it will inevitably increase costs

I am suggesting a better word for the license may be a toll. I am not suggesting the toll is collected as you suggest .

On the broads the 'license'  is called  a  'toll'.

[MtB]

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

If people have to self declare the beam of their boat they may fib about it -

So what's the difference? What stops them fibbing about the length now?

(I've often wondered this.)

[Drayke]

How many boaters do you think give the true length of their boat to include fenders? Also if you wish to include the width, most boats have side fenders that would also need to be included in the calculation, even if they are removable. Then you have different size fenders and so it goes on and on.