Government to Tax Pleasure boats

Sexy titles

That's a good idea tcm, there's a magazine article about this, praps you should read it and have a chat with the writer.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Trinity House cost controls

For what is essentially an engineering organisation charged with placing lights and keeping them burning, TH seems to live pretty high on the hog. It has a city HQ just behind the Tower of London, its 'tenders' look more like private (and very substantial) yachts, it has a weird and probably very anachronistic 'board of directors' consisting of the so-called elder brethern, most of whom seem to be pensioned-off senior RN officers with no experience of running modern commercial operations. I know a commissioner for Irish Lights (junior brother to TH) who describes it as the best club he has ever belonged to.

Before it starts to talk about taxing yachtsmen, it should look at turning itself into a 21st century organisation, not a 16th century one.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>
 
In fact .....

Your local HM charges you to use the harbour ........ in that is the levy for lights and upkeep of various items

OK it doesn't cover it fully as they are expensive to maintain etc. But Trinity House is a voice on this and has no power to implement actions. Trouble is though, whatever they may have writtem /advised would most likely be accepted by Govt. of the day ........


<hr width=100% size=1>Nigel ...
Bilge Keelers get up further ! I came - cos they said was FREE Guinness !
/forums/images/icons/cool.gif
 
The fact that TH are not a government organisation does not alter the concept that safety at sea & therefore the lights etc. are ultimately a government responsibility. Most countries accept this & fund the maintenance of these facilities from the national purse. The fact that the British Government choose to contract out this to TH & they are seeking to obtain funding from leisure boaters effectively means that this is a back door tax!

We're realy arguing about semantics when we should be getting together to fight the thieving B'stards.

As for those who keep wittering on about the acceptance of licencing ought to read some of the previous posts regarding the stupidity of such ideas.

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: work for us?

What bouyage used by small craft? The bouys in the river Blackwater are paid for by the council. I've heard there are a lot of bouys up at Harwich but we get there by counting piers and Martello towers. I'm going to be seriously peeved if Gordon the thief and his pals start taxing me to pay for the South Falls Bouy or similar. What the hell are they doing with the money?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Couldn't agree more re' compulsion, as more people get 'bits of paper I can see compulsion coming in under the catch all banner of "As a significant number of boat owners have already taken training we'll compell the rest", (all in the interest of safety of course) Training, yes! But you watch the costs go through the roof the day it becomes compulsary. Re the T.H issue, It's not so many years ago that many bouys/lights were removed. We will end up paying towards a system that is probably not as good as it was, or at least not aimed at the pleasure user. All IMHO of course. Mick.

<hr width=100% size=1>"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me."
 
Re: Trinity House cost controls

Wasn't Samuel Pepys Master of Trinity House and didn't he rewrite its Charter in the 17th Century after he reformed the Royal Navy into an efficient and effective organisation?
Yet another gyroscope in the cemetery.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Forumites may remember that about a year ago, there was a "consultation" exercise regarding charging leisure users for the use of navigation lights.
I obtained all of the papers from Trinity house and the entire exercise was ,imho, a fudge from start to finish and the application of charges to pleasure boaters was inevitable.

What I found particulalrly galling (apart from a streadfast refusal of anyone at TH to answer genuine queries) was:-

1. That the financial shortfall TH was bleating about was undoubtedly because the pratts reduced the fees charged to commercial shipping in the mid 1990's. One of tonies Cronies must have interests in a shipping line!

2. One of the other reasons TH is short of cash is the realisation that they have a massive unfunded pensions liability.

3.That TH seemed to think that ships that regularly came to UK ports should get a discount under the mind-numbing naievty that the discounts would be passed on to consumers.

4. That TH seemed to accept that fishing vessels, those captains of conservation, also deserved a discount because they knew their areas so well ( and had GPS) so didnt need the lights.

5. That in true Tony Bliar tradition, totally misrepresented statistics to state that the majority of leisure ssailors would not object to paying light dues.


This is not a matter of revenue generation because the costs associated with any scheme will be enormous but it is to do with empire buiding and it will give some stuffed shirt in the civil service cause to push his chest out in pride because his department has just gone up by 50 members of staff (all at our expense). .....and it will get him to his knighthood faster.

It is also to do with governments nanny state mentality and meely-mouthed attitudes to promoting what they believe should be a classless society and, as has already been pointed out on this forum, sailors are rich barstewards and deserve to be clobbered.

The sooner this lot get voted out the better




<hr width=100% size=1>My drinking team has a sailing problem
 
It may be our best defense against TH if our representative bodies (RYA?) were to let it be known that we would welcome licensing because we could then demand the institution of Lighting/Buoyage specifically to suit leisure boating, as would be our right if we were paying for the service.

That should frighten them off.

As for qualification/licensing of boat drivers, for want of a better term, it is already well documented that the safety record in UK illustrates the fact that, not only is this uneccessary, it would propably have a negative effect on to safety.

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Why not?

They tax your clothes, your house, your trip to work, your holiday even medicines.

Why on earth a pastime like sailing should be exempt when staples of life are taxed I can't imagine.

The other thing is they (HMG) are starting to act the bully boy. Last night in one ad break on TV I was threatened, and thats what it is, about untaxed cars and late self assessment. It's commonplace to be threatened about your TV license. Who on earth do they think they're talking to? Oh! I remember. They're talking to the people who can't be arsed to go to the poles and vote them out.

This appathy has seen the snowballing of taxes, creative rip off's and theft of our national resources beyond the wildest dreams of say a Ted Heath or a Harold Wilson. If your pips arn't squeeking yet well wait until the unicycle that is our economy hits the floor.

But don't winge about proposed "a yachting tax". God knows there's serious thing to whinge about already.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Who decides what nav marks / lights are actually required?

We have two can buoys marking the channel to Fortrose Harbour. The only people who use this channel are yotties, and the very occasional inshore fishng boat. It is doubtful whether these marks are really justifiable. However, NLB not only maintain them, they recently fitted them with lights. Goldplating or what?

Maybe the GLA should be required to cut its cloth to fit its means. If commercial shipping doesn't want to pay for them, and yotties by & large don't need most of them, maybe we should have fewer nav marks?


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Perhaps government will sort of creep in to do the nasty bit that happens to you if you don't pay.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Link to the report

Here's the link for all to have a read

Complete the Consumer Survey <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mssa.org.uk>http://www.mssa.org.uk Marine Service Standards Assistance
 
A couple of points to highlight

In the Conclusion is the following :

"The Marine Navigation Plan to 2015 was published in 1997 and is now superseded by this document. In drafting this future strategy the three GLAs have concluded that the current level of service - in visual, radar and radio aids to navigation - is unlikely to significantly change, to any great degree, for the foreseeable future."


Also from the conculsion

The mandatory licensing of all leisure craft with compulsory training of their
owners/operators, similar to that required of all light aircraft pilots and road users.


But this seems based upon the text at the begining of the document...

"It is recognised that the widespread reliance on Global Navigation Satellite Systems
as the primary means of position fixing has encouraged Mariners to navigate in areas where, and under conditions in which, they had not previously ventured. For example, close inshore, at night and in reduced visibility. The recognised vulnerabilities of GNSS to interference must be taken into consideration when determining future AtoN provision.
Any future strategy also needs to take into account the evolving shipboard practices and training requirements of seafarers. Traditional navigational skills appear to sometimes be superseded by over reliance on new technological advances (for example the Electronic Chart Display Information System (ECDIS) and Integrated Bridge Systems (IBS). AtoN servicee providers must continuously re-examine the level of requirements and delivery to take account of these changes."

So who are they really pointing the finger at ? Are they saying that leisure boaters cause accidents or are irresponsible in terms of navigation? Are they having a dig because there is not sailing license, as there is a driving license for cars and that we are such an incapable lot we can’t get from A to B safely?

This comes back to a similar point about drinking and sailing – we all protested and I agree, who gets into a boat, often worth far more than your average car and rips up the water ways.


<hr width=100% size=1>Complete the Consumer Survey <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mssa.org.uk>http://www.mssa.org.uk</A> Marine Service Standards Assistance
 
The previous study into this concluded that it wasnt worth making yotties pay as there weren't enough of them to justify the collection costs. The implication therefore, is that at some point yachting will become popular enough to outweigh this cost, and we can all then be used as a new source of taxation (aka Car owners).

Personally, I blame Bavaria. If they would just raise their prices, all us HR owners could have the marinas to ourselves, and the government would give up trying to make us pay tax....

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top