March of the Widebeams

[dogless]

23 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Whether it's on the invoice or not matters not a jot, it's money into CRT's coffers. And they don't spend any of it on "the water inside the marina", that's the marina's problem which they pay for out of the £3000.

 

You made it personal, so I told you what I paid. Lots of people with EOG or farm moorings or online CART-owned moorings pay more than this. Some boat clubs (and cheap marinas) may well pay less -- and some expensive marinas or moorings will pay considerably more. But everyone who is a HMer pays more to CART than CCers do, in some cases much more.

 

So if you want to save money by not having an HM and CCing instead, that's absolutely fine by me, fill yer boots, don't spend several grand paying for a mooring -- that's your choice.

 

But as a result you're contributing less to stopping the canals falling into disrepair than HMers are, and since you use the same locks and canals that's not fair, you're effectively being subsidised by HMers.

 

That's the real justification for a CC surcharge. You might not like it because for years you've been getting your canal fix on the cheap, now CART are correcting that. Fair's fair... 😉 

That's all nonsense.

 

You choose and pay for a mooring and all the services the mooring provides, because like everyone else, you've looked around and chosen based on cost, accessibility, services etc. 

 

You wanted a mooring and you took one for your own reasons.

 

That the mooring provider's business arrangement requires them to make a contribution to C&RT played no part in your choices, it was an accidental consequence. You've paid the required fee for your mooring and attendant services and nothing extra.

 

Some folks don't need or want a mooring as they choose to travel and consequentially they pay for the services they receive via their licence fee.

 

Rog

 

 

[dmr]

The bad news is that its going to get worse.

The new labour government is already making cuts, including to railway projects that would have significant economic and environmental benefit, so the chances of them finding more money for the canals is almost zero.

The options are canal closures and continuing neglect of the rest of the system, or somebody paying a lot more money, and boaters are the only real target.

[5239]

1 minute ago, dogless said:

That's all nonsense.

 

You choose and pay for a mooring and all the services the mooring provides, because like everyone else, you've looked around and chosen based on cost, accessibility, services etc. 

 

You wanted a mooring and you took one for your own reasons.

 

That the mooring provider's business arrangement requires them to make a contribution to C&RT played no part in your choices, it was an accidental consequence. You've paid the required fee for your mooring and attendant services and nothing extra.

 

Some folks don't need or want a mooring as they choose to travel and consequentially they pay for the services they receive via their licence fee.

 

Rog

 

 

Thing is I’ve quite accepted that I’ll now be paying more. Its now kind of so what? 🤷‍♀️ who cares. 

What rubs me is the excuses made (not necessarily by CRT) but some folk in here. 

 

To be told I’ve had it easy and not been contributing to the coffers because I want it cheap it’s quite an insult. When the same guy uses the system more than a lot of non home moorers but …well anyway, whatever. 
 

Now, I have absolutely no objection to home moorers wizzing about. It’s great. There’s more than a few on here where I like to hear of their travels. 
 

This has driven me to Wetherspoons. 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, dmr said:

The bad news is that its going to get worse.

The new labour government is already making cuts, including to railway projects that would have significant economic and environmental benefit, so the chances of them finding more money for the canals is almost zero.

The options are canal closures and continuing neglect of the rest of the system, or somebody paying a lot more money, and boaters are the only real target.

someone told me today the winter heating allowance will be means tested !?

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

Wow hang on,

because IanD has chosen to use marinas I have to pay to match. 
 

why doesn’t he go harangue the boat clubs where moorers pay less than him,

why doesn’t he match his £300 pittance with someone paying £3000 somewhere else. 
 

The extra service is from CRT for they provided the water for his boat to sit off of the canal. 
Weren’t that all the big argument you’ve all had with Higgs?

 

Perhaps if folk don’t like paying then they should vote with their feet and leave. 
 

Let’s not forget this 9% is what the marina pays on its capacity. 9% is not part of a boater’s invoice. 
 

The fact remains the 9% is paid to CRT.  It isn't a question of mooring prices etc it is simple a CCer pays a licence fee, somebody who chooses to moor pays a licence fee + 9%.

 

So one pays CRT more for exactly the same service.  Is there any reason why the fees shouldn't be leveled up?  Would you be happy if marinas didn't pay CRT but boaters with a home mooring paid through a licence as CC are going to have to?

 

P.S.  The fact the 9% is on capacity means that in marinas which aren't full boaters are paying more than 9% as the marinas income comes from the mooring fees mainly.

[dogless]

Claiming how worthy you are for paying extra to C&RT is nonsense.

 

You pay what your mooring providers fees are no more, no less.

 

I believe ALL licence holders fees should have increased to be fairer, less divisive and raise more cash than singling groups out.

 

We'll never agree, but please don't claim virtue for paying more to C&RT.

 

Rog

[matty40s]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

 

 

P.S.  The fact the 9% is on capacity means that in marinas which aren't full boaters are paying more than 9% as the marinas income comes from the mooring fees mainly.

That is the marinas fault for not having a good business plan, overenthusiastic projections, or just crap management who put people off. 

[MtB]

19 minutes ago, dmr said:

The bad news is that its going to get worse.

The new labour government is already making cuts, including to railway projects that would have significant economic and environmental benefit, so the chances of them finding more money for the canals is almost zero.

The options are canal closures and continuing neglect of the rest of the system, or somebody paying a lot more money, and boaters are the only real target.

 

I fear you're right. And peering even further into the future, I foresee CRT simply running out of money to pay for the upkeep of the navigation and the most expensive-to-maintain canals simply being left to rot in favour of the canals with highest traffic. Especially hire boat traffic. At this point CRT will possibly stop tinkering at the edges of the licence fees, grasp the nettle and double or triple fees for all boaters. An exodus of leisure boaters will result but live-aboards however are captive as so few of them own a house as well as a boat, and will just have to suck it up as they'll have no alternative except perhaps become van-lifers.

 

The net result will be a much-reduced core of track being used by a far higher density of boats, which is probably ultimately a good thing as CRT will be able to concentrate resources on the canals with highest use. 

[dmr]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I fear you're right. And peering even further into the future, I foresee CRT simply running out of money to pay for the upkeep of the navigation and the most expensive-to-maintain canals simply being left to rot in favour of the canals with highest traffic. Especially hire boat traffic. At this point CRT will possibly stop tinkering at the edges of the licence fees, grasp the nettle and double or triple fees for all boaters. An exodus of leisure boaters will result but live-aboards however are captive as so few of them own a house as well as a boat, and will just have to suck it up as they'll have no alternative except perhaps become van-lifers.

 

The net result will be a much-reduced core of track being used by a far higher density of boats, which is probably ultimately a good thing as CRT will be able to concentrate resources on the canals with highest use. 

 

It could be worse than this, if the density of boats increases too much, and especially the lower market end of the liveaboard section, then the canal will become less attractive to both hire boaters and leisure boaters so boat numbers will decline even more in a vicious circle. I don't think I would pay much more than I pay now just to cruise round a very crowded four counties ring.

[Jerra]

12 minutes ago, matty40s said:

That is the marinas fault for not having a good business plan, overenthusiastic projections, or just crap management who put people off. 

I never suggested it wasn't.  However the fact remains that even in a fully occupied marina a moorer pays more to CRT for exactly the same service.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

It could be worse than this, if the density of boats increases too much, and especially the lower market end of the liveaboard section, then the canal will become less attractive to both hire boaters and leisure boaters so boat numbers will decline even more in a vicious circle. I don't think I would pay much more than I pay now just to cruise round a very crowded four counties ring.

 

What? You would get a home mooring??!!! 

 

😃

But extending this line of thought, if everyone just moored up on the towpath on the un-maintained canals, as they would have to as moving would become impossible, ghettos would develop. Pay yer licence fee and stay on yer boat ostensibly waiting for the stoppages to get fixed, which they never will. 

 

Ever looked at the history of the Surrey council moorings on the Basy at Woodham? There, unused wooden narrowboats were lined up on the little-used canal and converted to residences with the blessing of the authorities. I wonder if Angela Rayner has thought of THAT as a short cut to her (unachievable in my opinion) goal of building 370,000 houses a year from now until eternity? 

 

 

[5239]

1 minute ago, dmr said:

 

It could be worse than this, if the density of boats increases too much, and especially the lower market end of the liveaboard section, then the canal will become less attractive to both hire boaters and leisure boaters so boat numbers will decline even more in a vicious circle. I don't think I would pay much more than I pay now just to cruise round a very crowded four counties ring.

the density has definitely increased,

Ive seen it increase in the short time I’ve been on the water,

Just imagine how annoyed you’d be if you’d put a fortune into having a boat built to find its only a ditchcrawling tube where you have to take your chances mooring up just like all the other poor sods. 
Annoyed enough to have the paupers driven off the waterways by pricing them out and actively encouraging animosity towards them. 
Nah, no one’d do that would they? 🤔
 

 

[LadyG]

8 hours ago, Jerra said:

I find this a strange attitude.  Margret Thatcher (who incidentally I disliked greatly) suggested it would be fair if everyone paid the same i.e. a poll tax.

 

It was shot down in flames and yet here are boaters suggesting what is in effect the same thing.

It was shot down in flames because most adults did not pay CT, and they objected to pay for the services they previously enjoyed for nothing.

[matty40s]

16 minutes ago, LadyG said:

It was shot down in flames because most adults did not pay CT, and they objected to pay for the services they previously enjoyed for nothing.

Council Tax hadnt been invented then.

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Council Tax hadnt been invented then.

 

Quite. Council Tax emerged from the wreckage of the Poll Tax.

 

 

[dmr]

12 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Quite. Council Tax emerged from the wreckage of the Poll Tax.

 

 

 

But before council tax there were rates which were much the same thing. Poll tax was indeed a poll tax but got watered down to be a replacement for rates but probably less fair (I can't remember exactly how rates worked). The whole thing was a political move to turn everybody into a tory voter rather than a decent and fair way to fund services.

[MtB]

Just now, dmr said:

But before council tax there were rates which were much the same thing.

 

No so totally they were not!

 

Poll Tax was payable by every adult, just for existing and breathing the oxygen. Rates were payable only by property owners. My dad for example was liable for rates but not my mum. 

 

Dunno if tenants renting had to pay rates. I suspect not. 

 

 

[David Mack]

16 minutes ago, dmr said:

Poll tax was indeed a poll tax but got watered down to be a replacement for rates but probably less fair (I can't remember exactly how rates worked).

The rates were based on the rateable value of the property (which was a crude proxy for property value). Rates were payable by owner occupiers, but the rates on rented property were payable by the landlord (so effectively included in the rent). The poll tax (officially the Community Charge) introduced two significant changes. Firstly it was paid by all adults, so for the first time those who rented their homes, and adult children living at home with their parents, were required to contribute directly to local authority costs (and of course rents didn't come down to reflect the fact landlords were no longer paying rates). And secondly it was a flat rate per head (on the basis that the services provided by local authorities cost broadly the same whether delivered to those in cheap or expensive, rented or owned homes).

Inevitably it was unpopular with those newly caught in the net, and there was a widespread feeling that the flat rate was unfair, compared with the rates which had to some extent reflected the payers means.

After protests the government was forced to back down and introduce the current Council Tax. CT is something of a middle way between the Rates and the Poll Tax in that it is payable by both owner occupiers and renters, but is (crudely) graded by property value, and there is a discount for single adult households, but no extra cost for households with 3 or more adults.

Edited July 30, 2024 by David Mack

[matty40s]

23 hours ago, Paringa said:

You will have to go to one of the marinas. Don't wait until you get to Molesey, that EA one is not working either.

Indeed..

[Jerra]

11 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Quite. Council Tax emerged from the wreckage of the Poll Tax.

 

 

Council Tax is basically "rates" under a different name.  All properties were paying rates either directly or through payment to a landlord.

11 hours ago, MtB said:

 

No so totally they were not!

 

Poll Tax was payable by every adult, just for existing and breathing the oxygen. Rates were payable only by property owners. My dad for example was liable for rates but not my mum. 

 

Dunno if tenants renting had to pay rates. I suspect not. 

 

 

To me that was the point of the poll tax.   You could under the rates have a single person in one end of a semi and family of four adults in the other end.  To me much fairer that the single person pays a fee and each person in the other house pays the same fee, after all they all make use of the same services.

[Tacet]

11 hours ago, David Mack said:

The rates were based on the rateable value of the property (which was a crude proxy for property value). Rates were payable by owner occupiers, but the rates on rented property were payable by the landlord (so effectively included in the rent). 

Rates were a taxing occupation of property - so both tenants and owner occupiers were liable.

  You could, of course, strike a deal with the landlord so that it paid the rates and the cost was reflected in the rent.

 

You could do the same with Council Tax if you felt so inclined.

17 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Council Tax is basically "rates" under a different name.  All properties were paying rates either directly or through payment to a landlord.

To me that was the point of the poll tax.   You could under the rates have a single person in one end of a semi and family of four adults in the other end.  To me much fairer that the single person pays a fee and each person in the other house pays the same fee, after all they all make use of the same services.

It depends on whether you view Council Tax (or tax generally) as a mechanism for recovering the cost of providing services to each individual or whether it is a redistribution of wealth arrangement.

 

In your example of fairness, the multi millionaire pays the same as the poorest person in the district.

[Jerra]

13 minutes ago, Tacet said:

You could do the same with Council Tax if you felt so inclined.

It depends on whether you view Council Tax (or tax generally) as a mechanism for recovering the cost of providing services to each individual or whether it is a redistribution of wealth arrangement.

 

In your example of fairness, the multi millionaire pays the same as the poorest person in the district.

From the point of view of paying for local services I consider it paying for something you get.

 

Wealth distribution is dealt with by other taxes.  Simply I think different taxes for different purposes.

 

I suppose you could also argue that to a certain extent a "Poll tax" type situation does at a lower level redistribute wealth.  In my previous example assuming all individuals earn similar three will have passed on wealth they previously hung on to.

[IanD]

14 hours ago, dogless said:

Claiming how worthy you are for paying extra to C&RT is nonsense.

 

You pay what your mooring providers fees are no more, no less.

 

I believe ALL licence holders fees should have increased to be fairer, less divisive and raise more cash than singling groups out.

 

We'll never agree, but please don't claim virtue for paying more to C&RT.

 

Rog

 

I'm not claiming any virtue, just recognising the fact that CCers contribute less to CART finances -- which maintain the canals that we all use -- than HMers because of either the 9% levy for marinas, or the EOG fee, or the big chunk CART receive from farm moorings, or the entire sum they get from online moorings. My £300pa contribution -- which I don't mind paying in the slightest! -- is much smaller than many of these other sums, I'm just using it as an example.

 

In my view this justifies the CC surcharge on the grounds of "fairness", CCers who use the canals should make the same contribution to CART funds as HMers do.

 

In your view (I assume you're a CCer?) everyone paying more -- not just you (and widebeam owners) -- is "fairer".

 

These two views are diametrically opposed, and we're never going to agree.

Edited July 31, 2024 by IanD

[PaulJ]

1 hour ago, matty40s said:

Indeed..

As you are approaching Teddington thought Id share my photo of the two dolphins I passed at Kew earlier this year with you.

This should be proof to Cathy that professional photographers are very much still needed 😀

Good to run into you as always..

[Peanut]

Competition for the fisherman.

[dogless]

38 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I'm not claiming any virtue, just recognising the fact that CCers contribute less to CART finances -- which maintain the canals that we all use -- than HMers because of either the 9% levy for marinas, or the EOG fee, or the big chunk CART receive from farm moorings, or the entire sum they get from online moorings. My £300pa contribution -- which I don't mind paying in the slightest! -- is much smaller than many of these other sums, I'm just using it as an example.

 

In my view this justifies the CC surcharge on the grounds of "fairness", CCers who use the canals should make the same contribution to CART funds as HMers do.

 

In your view (I assume you're a CCer?) everyone paying more -- not just you (and widebeam owners) -- is "fairer".

 

These two views are diametrically opposed, and we're never going to agree.

No I have a mooring (not that it's relevant) but unlike yourself I was suggesting what I felt would have been the most even and least divisive way of raising extra cash with ALL boaters contributing.

 

And I say again, you pay your mooring fees ... nothing more nothing less.

 

To claim reflected glory because the mooring provider's contract requires THEM  to pay C&RT a fee, is as ridiculous as claiming you make charitable contributions because having paid your mooring fee the provider  buys their shirts in a charity shop. 

 

We disagree ... I can live with that, and as it happens C&RT have selected your preferred way of raising extra funds 👍🏻

 

In a nutshell I believe there was a better, fairer, more productive way and you don't.

 

Rog

Edited July 31, 2024 by dogless