Government to Tax Pleasure boats

[poter]

Ok thats it! stuff em all!

Just seen this, no no, not in the Daily Mail, but Feb issue of PBO,
Sarah Norbury writes:

"Just after our news pages went to press came the worring news that Trinity House is calling for 'The mandatory licensing of all leisure craft with compulsory training of their owners'......
This is in a strategy document 2020 The Vision...."

This goverment and its departments are now really starting to p#ss me of. What with the tax increases etc. etc. I am for the very first time writing to my MP, as I really feel this is going to far.

Yes there is a lot more to the artical & maybe the RYA will have some influence but I am going to stick my pennys worth in anyway.

I trust all leisure boat owners will do the same.


poter.


<hr width=100% size=1>Just read TCM post on the BVI, thats cheered me up.

 

[bob_tyler]

Trinity House probably were influenced directly by a well know stealth tax thief to put the idea forward.

One day someone will put a price on his head and he will end up like Saddam.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[poter]

Ohhh! that would be nice.

Why is this lot even in power? I thought they were suposed to work for us?

poter


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Heckler]

work for us?

get real.
yacht =wealth = jealousy = rich = tax em = more to throw at fat, sports wear wearing, single parent, slobbish, dont want to work tossers.

people like me are used to being talked about as if we are strange creatures from another planet but mark my words the chatterati class have got it coming and all i can say is that to all who voted for this lot serves you right
it will get worse before it gets better
stu
card carrying member of the newly revived party

<hr width=100% size=1>http://www.beneteau-owners-association.org.uk

 

[webcraft]

If everyone would just get voluntarily trained - eg ICC or Day Skipper as a minimum - then maybe we could circumvent this and avoid the licensing part.

I'm not so sure that pressure is coming entirely from the government - I think insurers might be lobbying for this.

I'm equally sure that we need to get sailing craft separated in HM gov's and the public's mind from fast powerboats and PWCs. The RYA aren't really helping here by being everything to all (boat)men.

Foaming at the mouth and writing to your MP will do absolutely no good - unless of course your MP has a boat.

- Nick


<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>

 

[peterb]

Re: work for us?

I suspect that the real pressure is coming from elsewhere.

The UK is very unusual, if not unique, in relying on the light dues from shipping to pay for lights and buoyage. Elsewhere lights and buoyage are paid for out of general taxation. Shipping lines feel that it is wrong for them to be lumbered with paying for buoyage used by small craft, and I suspect that the pressure is really aimed at reducing the burden on shipping by getting rid of light dues altogether. The trouble is that it probably won't work that way.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bigmart]

I think you are fooling yourself if you think the motivation for this is anything other than for the financial advantage of some cash strapped govenment department. the most frightening thing is when you consider how much thay will have to charge to make a justifyable difference. After the costs of setting up the system, collection & enforcement I would guess that you could easily be looking at a personal Licensing fee of over £1000 per annum. Just think of the mass exodus from boating, as a passtime, that would cause & the consequential loss of tax revenue. I wonder if it will ever happen.

By the way Sonsy, who are this newly revived lot. All I see is yet another load of wasters prepared to say anything to get themselves voted in! I know its old but How do you tell a politician is lying? His lips are moving.

What we need is a good old fashioned dictatorship & I'm just the man for the job.

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

hinterland-less MP\'s

One solution is to make RYA certs a bit more sexy. Dayskipper? I think not for anyone who can control and berth the thing. Coastal skipper likewise sounds like a bit of a wimp, much preferring the shallow end of the swimming pool. As a DOT agent, the RYA shoud immediately follow the example of HGV test certificates, and make all graduates Yachtmaster Class 3 (not dayskip) or 2 (not coastal skip) or class 1. I am happy to discuss the matter over a Oceanlord Breakfast Special in a covenient marina, mine's a large tea and 5 sugars, ten-four.

Seriosuly, praps a minimum ICC above a certain hp (50 hp? ) else higher insurance would be a suitable sop and surely no hardship for most.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[poter]

<If everyone would just get voluntarily trained - eg ICC or Day Skipper as a minimum - then maybe we could circumvent this and avoid the licensing part.>

100pcnt. agree and we should push this now, as I am sure the government look at the pleasure boating industry with hunger, thinking that they are missing out on a few tax dollars.

I am not to sure in my own mind where the pressure is coming from, but you can be sure, that one of tone's or gordon's men will take it up and see it as a way to get one over the rich pleasure boaters. Same as fox hunting, it will become a rally cry from urban city dwellers who have no idea what is involved.
You can also bet that some green liberal will also take up banning boating because we pollute the environment.

It’s also a wonder the HSE have not got involved as it’s not a 100% safe form of travel.

I think I will bring my sailing off date forward a couple of years!


poter



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Shanty]

There's something about this that doesn't ring true. The story seems to be that Trinity House wants registration for pleasure craft so they can charge them light dues ............ so how does compulsory training sneak into this? The only relevant training I can think of, is training in writing cheques.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[windandwave]

If you don\'t do someting about it, you\'ve no right to complain...

Seriously, the only thing which will stop the spread of bureaucracy is determined resistance. It costs next to nothing in terms of time or money to email, fax or write to (a) your local mp (b) the relevant minister and (c) the specific unit responsible for nonsense such as this. If one quarter the readership of this forum were to do the above then there is a realistic chance of making a difference.

Generally, the sprawling state is out of control. Government exists primarily to perpetuate itself and to expand its functions at the expense of (a) your pockets and more importantly (b) your civil liberties. Nanny-statism is a particular example (smoking in public places has been banned here in Ireland and the wearing of lifejackets made compulsory) while taxpayers are being squeezed dry to pay for government follies (on your side of the water, you might like to consider the Millennium Dome farce). There is a developing public mood that enough is enough.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[poter]

Yup.
Exactly the point Sarah Norbury made in her editorial.

poter

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

and where does government taxation creep into this. Trinity House want to charge leisure boaters. They are not a Government body, they are a corporation (effectively a private company) with a royal charter to charge commercial shipping light dues to fund their work

<hr width=100% size=1> I asked an economist for her phone number....and she gave me an estimate

 

[tcm]

You are defending TH rather heavily? The compny has a charter to hold a monopoly to charge fees, and enforce their payment, as the renue can enforce income tax for example. Nobody else can pinch their business, or compete. That is to all intents and purpose a government body, surely? Okay, a quango perhaps?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

I'm noty defending them at all. Just pointing out the fact that Trinity House are not a government body, so this charge should not be confused with government taxation. There have been complaints across the forums that the government are imposing another stealth tax.

There's nothing of the sort in actuallity. A corporation are proposing new charges on leisure boaters. Department of transport have asked some consultants to look at the economic affects. Nothing is decided, it's just a proposal.

The government is connected as follows (from TH website):
The General Lighthouse Authorities are:-
The Corporation of Trinity House, known as Trinity House Lighthouse Service
England, Wales, Channel Islands and Gibraltar
The Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, known as the Northern Lighthouse Board Scotland and the Isle of Man
The Commissioners of Irish Lights, known as Irish Lights All of Ireland

The costs of the GLAs’ services are met from the General Lighthouse Fund (GLF) which derives its income mainly from light dues which are charged on commercial shipping calling at United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland ports. Charges are in direct proportion to the costs of the services provided, with Exchequer funding. This is regulated by the Secretary of State for Transport who has a duty to ensure the effective management of the GLF and enable the GLAs to provide adequate aids to navigation at the optimum cost; a statutory body known as the Lights Advisory Committee which is made up of shipping and ports’ representatives is consulted by the Department for Transport on certain financial matters relating to the GLF.

<hr width=100% size=1> I asked an economist for her phone number....and she gave me an estimate

 

[TheBoatman]

I think that T.House, the insurers and the Government are on a winner here, they can each blame the others for the idea? Say that there is a "massive groundswell of opinion" to licence boating, quote figures (probably from the RNLI,MCA) about the number of incidents involving boats each year c/w with associated costs.
That licencing would immediately solve all the problems and to do this all "rich boat owners" should be made to pay. After all, is it not this Governments saying (ethos) that those who "use the system, should pay for it"
It appears to me that boaters are being drawn into the Governments "hunting, shooting, fishing sect, i.e we are all Tory voting, rich ba***ds that can easily afford to pay, the majority of us drive cars and are always speeding, therefore we suffer the "camaras". We all drink to much so they have introduced a law which can mean we get nicked if we move a boat a few feet to allow someone to leave a mooring!
If anyone wanted to see "big brother in operation" then look no further than this Government. They won't be happy until we give all that we earn to them and they will "allow" us an allowance to live on.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer the following senario, we must all wear grey ollies, drive grey boats/cars, live in grey houses, work in grey jobs, attend grey hospitals and most of all accept grey existances, only then will be be considered true Socialist Brits.

GOD HELP US ALL?

And before anyone comments, I have no idea on whether I've spelt grey (gray) right<s>

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[windandwave]

>They are not a Government body

The term "Government" is often used, but has limited usefulness in law. (Although I like the definition of government as "people with more guns that you.") As a term of art it is normally restricted to the cabinet, but also has other meanings, including a reference to the executive as a whole.

Instead, we normally draw a distinction between public and private action in particular contexts. The two most important of these are in domestic administrative law and EU law where we have the concept of public authorities or "emanations of the state", which are subject to certain rules not applicable to private entities.

The determining factors for such bodies include whether they are established by the state, whether they are carrying out functions of a public nature, or are clothed with powers over and above those applicable to ordinary commercial relations between private entities.

Applying the above criteria to Trinity House, it is quite clear that they would be considered by the courts to be a public authority and/or emanation of the state. As such, they cannot be considered to be on the same footing as a private company.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

It's something of a grey area, but various merchant shipping acts have devolved responsibility from the government to an autonomous entity, Trinity House and the other GLA's

What I was clarifying was that the government in the guise of Tony Blair and the Chancellor, were using another stealth tax mechanism. This is not the case, a largely autonomous body are looking at ways to move forwards.

Far more interesting in the document which proposed the changes, is the acknowledgment that things like the intensity and colour of navigational lights need to be looked at as many are almost indistinguishable from background lights in urban areas, and a consideration that traditional AtoN (Aids to Navigaton) might need to be reconsidered with the advent of new technology

"Conversely, the widespread reliance on GPS as the primary means of position fixing means that mariners now deliberately navigate closer inshore and often nearer to hazards. This can take place at night, in reduced visibility and under inclement weather and sea conditions.

This increased reliance may mean that the GLAs will need to provide additional Aids to Navigation within these areas in order to mitigate risk.

The forecast growth of ECDIS and IBS will further compound this trend and will become more extreme as additional systems such as GALLILEO, GPSIII and a rejuvenated GLONASS come on stream.

The conspicuity of traditional AtoN is increasingly affected by the proliferation of urban developments around our coastline and the further growth in offshore industries including windfarms and other renewable energy sources. In the past the GLAs have tended to focus on the range of lights. However, intensity is of more relevance in order to ensure that the user can discriminate the lights seen easily from this background lighting. This may result in the need for light intensity and/or colour to be increased or changed in certain instances.

Developments in hull form and propulsion mean that vessels are travelling at higher speeds necessitating differing light characteristics such as longer flash characters, shorter overall periods and greater divergence.

Should an IMO mandated terrestrial navigation system, such as LORAN C, be established in the area for which the GLAs are responsible it should provide an acceptable back up to GNSS.
At that stage significant reduction in traditional AtoN can be safely achieved with resulting cost savings.

These combined factors mean that the GLAs have to continually review the service provided.

Traditional AtoN remain vital and relevant for the safety of navigation. However, the mix, location and type may alter."

<hr width=100% size=1> I asked an economist for her phone number....and she gave me an estimate

 

[qsiv]

So, mass exodus.. marinas and mooring pressure disappears, prices will have to drop to keep people in marinas, so perhaps no net change.

The sad thing is that £1,000 a year will make no difference to some, but will squeeze the budget conscious boat owner. As always the little man will get hurt most.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BlueSkyNick]

Your point on both forums is well made, in that Trinity House are not a government department, but they are still regulated by the DoT, I believe.

Bearing in mind this morning's news, I don't want the government to have any influence over pleasure boating whatsoever. ie

- Major roadworks on the M25 from J12 to J15 for the next 2 years
- all trains in and out of Waterloo either cancelled or seriously disrupted, due to engineering work at Wimbledon.

What a way to start the New Year !

Keep the government as far away from boating as possible - its the only form of transport we can enjoy !!

<hr width=100% size=1>Great News - The evenings are now drawing out!