Report pushes for light dues and registration for leisure boaters

[mjcp]

You honestly believe that??? Lets look at revenue from speed cameras. Plenty of it but do I see nice smooth roads? Do I heck! They're downright dangerous.
The money is absorbed in enforcement and the rest just absorbed.

Car Tax and Fuel Tax continue to rise with no benefit seen by the motorist.

I firmly believe you're rose tinted specs are fogged over if you believe the average boater will actually see any benefit from this.

Plenty of safety cameras though, and a fair few of them now have their revenues ring fenced specifically for road safety projects so not quite the cash cow into black hole you suggest (though with 6 points I con-cure there are too many of them.)

MJCP

 

[mjcp]

What a daft post.

Fire, police, hospitals are used by everyone, lights and marks provided by Trinity House are used by a tiny minority.

As the the Welsh assembly, your right there, a big waste of money and laughed out loud when I read Plaid Cymru's election manifesto that declared they would cancel Trident and bring the Army back for Afghanistan. How are they going to do that after being elected to a toy assembly?

As to our harbour dues being reduced, you are having a laugh, we already have the most expensive leisure harbour dues in the United Kingdom.

Fire, police, hospitals are used by everyone - as pointed out I have not used any of the above since 1994, therefore on the previous poster's logic, I shouldn't have to pay for these as I don't use them... Oh, but wait, the services ARE available if I need them, I should pay realy! ... ditto Navaids ARE available should boats need them, therefore boats should pay too! QED.

MY view is that £100 p/a is not unreasonable. Some other people may feel that is too much or too cheap. Most seem to think that they shouldn't pay anything on the basis that they haven't used them "at all" (see above) and some seem to think the discussion is about a boating skills license !?!

10-15 years ago, I did a lot of cat sailing and wouldn't use such lights, now I sail bigger boats and on occasion DO use them... I therefore think there should be some differentiation between the type of craft and/or boating being do and if any fees should be due (dingy = no, boats rigged for use at night = yes, coded/commercial boats = yes (do they already pay?) )

In short, I think £100 boat tax for boats of a size capable of needing to use such Navaids is fair. I would NOT think a sliding scale ala road tax in relation to size/engines etc on NON commercial use boats would be fair. It is on that basis and that basis alone that I may concede and join an "anti light tax" type group.

mjcp

 

[Robin]

We DO pay for the lights and navaids that we use most because these are provided by local harbour authorities and paid for by our harbour dues. BIG ships are the prime users of the offshore 9Trinity House) buoyage and lights and should continue fund those as they do now.

We are in danger of paying for something we don't use much if at all these days whilst none of it is put in places to be of real use to us anyway. All that can ever be called in reality is an additional tax.

Lets look at what aids there used to be that were really useful to small boats. There was RDF, VHF Lighthouses and Decca, none of which exist anymore, taken away because they are no longer justified for big ship use. Lighthouses too are now endangered in favour of AIS 'virtual' ones. So that leaves us with deepwater buoyage like in the Channel or the Traffic Separation Schemes, once again these are all for big ships not us.

 

[timbartlett]

Much worse than it looks!

Forget £100! that's just the entry level figure...
I'm still working my way through the Atkins report, page by page, but found this on page 154:-

A major practical advantage of a compulsory registration scheme is that the rate of charge could be increased, from a level of £100 (beyond which too many owners might register abroad) to (say) £250, which would have a significant impact on revenue and would also pay for the registration scheme.

On the same page the report admits that a "fair" rate for a "medium to large" pleasure craft (of 15 GRT !!) would be about £1.50 !!

 

[Ubergeekian]

MY view is that £100 p/a is not unreasonable.

Is it reasonable to charge a trailer sailer who does a dozen days a year the same as liveaboard or a charter yacht on the Solent? And how on earth could it possibly be enforced?

Incidentally, those with a long memory may recall that when the Tories first suggested the Poll Tax, they said it would be a very reasonable £100 per head per annum ...

 

[mjcp]

Is it reasonable to charge a trailer sailer who does a dozen days a year the same as liveaboard or a charter yacht on the Solent? And how on earth could it possibly be enforced?

Incidentally, those with a long memory may recall that when the Tories first suggested the Poll Tax, they said it would be a very reasonable £100 per head per annum ...

The rest of my post specifically addressed this: small craft such as a Dingy = No, a craft rigged for night use = yes, charter/commercial/coded = Yes (if not already collected from them currently). most trailer sailors I would think fall in the first section...

The above also makes collection very easy... collect as part of the mooring fee on a daily pro rata basis, hence if you are abroad, you don't pay, if you anchor for free somewhere, you don't pay, if Johny foreigner comes over, he does pay etc.

Also no need for an army of collectors as they are already in place, they just need to do a simple return once a month/quarter much like VAT (but simpler as it is Number of fees days' collected X daily rate). For those on a P.A. charged mooring a flat rate discount of XX or XXX days is assumed for times when not on the mooring.

PS the poll tax was a tax per person living in a house, not a tax on the house = a much more fair system....

mjcp

 

[Deleted member 36384]

A Vanity Press

But what they have done (obviously successfully!) is ratcheted up the taxes and eaten away at our liberties without (most of) us actually noticing.
When, I wonder, are we (in general) going to realise what is going on, stop being so bloody supine, and get off our arses, and start making life difficult and/or unpleasant and/or expensive for the bastards?
Yes, it will involve some effort. But the longer we leave it, the more difficult it will be.

I would observe timbartlett that the first rule of capitalism is to charge the maximum that the market can stand which seems to be the same rule applied by our Government for fiscal taxation streams (where they can get away with it).

Your point on the charges in the Atkins report is very valid as is Ubergeekian's observation on the Poll Tax initial charge and I suspect that these charges will come our way.

I am afraid that we are long past the point of doing something as a collective in this country, preferring to leave it up to someone else and stick to our own personal status quo while still expecting change, or worse, abdicate our responsibility to defend a position to the RYA.

I shall in my small way write to the RYA expressing my position and requesting that they take this up and in time my own MP as well. If there is such a campaign to put the position of no payment for leisure sailors I will support that.

I have been on the receiving end of Atkins twice now. They are part of an insidious process wrapped up in optimisation and efficiency studies but who always work to a hidden brief (which is obvious) i.e. "how much can we charge" or "I need to run my operations at this cost, what will it take." They are lazy management consultants that come up with all too predictable answers. Of course they wrap it up in all sorts of statistics and markets comparisons but in the end of the day its always charge more, sack more; a vanity press.

In short folks I think these charges will come our way and it will be a tuff fight to stop them. Rich yachties not paying their way, the press will have a field day!

 

[Alcyone]

I didn't miss the point, I just didn't want to get into one of your interminably long 'discussions'.

No probs. Have a good weekend and enjoy the boat if you get out. Cheers.

 

[Ubergeekian]

The rest of my post specifically addressed this: small craft such as a Dingy = No, a craft rigged for night use = yes, charter/commercial/coded = Yes (if not already collected from them currently). most trailer sailors I would think fall in the first section...

That's about who should pay, not how much they should pay, which was my point. Why should someone who sails for a few days a year pay as much as someone who sails almost ever day?

Then there are geographical differences - why should someone in a practically unlit area of Scotland pay the same as someone sailing out of the Hamble or Yarmouth?

The above also makes collection very easy... collect as part of the mooring fee on a daily pro rata basis, hence if you are abroad, you don't pay, if you anchor for free somewhere, you don't pay, if Johny foreigner comes over, he does pay etc.

It would be a nightmare to collect and administer millions of payments of 30p. I suppose, though, that marinas and harbours could be charged per berth per year, and the CEC could rake in the same per mooring.

PS the poll tax was a tax per person living in a house, not a tax on the house = a much more fair system....

The fairness came from the idea of people paying for the services they use. See my points above about frequency of use and quality of provision ...

 

[fireball]

Ah - but if you put it in the same context as Road Fund Licence which is a standard levy based on the vehicle but not the usage ...


As I said earlier - I do not have any particular issue with contributing towards NavAids that we could use. I do have issue with the potential levels of contribution and the (for TB's benefit ) thick end of the infinate wedge we're currently at in the ever increasing interferrence by government in our leisure activities - all just to raise a few £'s and create a few more jobs/laws ...

Thinking about collection of contributions - one method that could be appropriate is to tag onto current berthing/mooring fees/licences - then a sliding scale could be attributed - those with larger boats being far more likely to use the TH NavAids and therefore contribute the most ...
As it would be part of the existing collection method it would not require huge bodies of 'public servants' to police it - thus enabling maximum revenue to go to the intended use rather than sucked up in Admin.

 

[Channel Ribs]

As it would be part of the existing collection method it would not require huge bodies of 'public servants' to police it - thus enabling maximum revenue to go to the intended use rather than sucked up in Admin.

Yeah, right.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

... one method that could be appropriate is to tag onto current berthing/mooring fees/licences ....

Just like the price of fuel. The actual cost is low but all the tax makes it high. The marina will add on a fee for processing the tax and years later someone will produce a chart showing that the cost of marina fees is quite low if it was not for all these additional charges. Once such a system was up and running the flood gates will be open to make charges via this mechanism by any agency. TEP disposal charge, marine environment protection levy, waste management charge, Air Sea Rescue contingency levy, carbon levy on Motor Boats, Sea Horse funds, Admiralty Survey levy.

The wedge gets to the point where it hurts. Sailing is expensive and it will just become prohibitively expensive for more than a few.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Ah - but if you put it in the same context as Road Fund Licence which is a standard levy based on the vehicle but not the usage ...


As I said earlier - I do not have any particular issue with contributing towards NavAids that we could use. I do have issue with the potential levels of contribution and the (for TB's benefit ) thick end of the infinate wedge we're currently at in the ever increasing interferrence by government in our leisure activities - all just to raise a few £'s and create a few more jobs/laws ...

Thinking about collection of contributions - one method that could be appropriate is to tag onto current berthing/mooring fees/licences - then a sliding scale could be attributed - those with larger boats being far more likely to use the TH NavAids and therefore contribute the most ...
As it would be part of the existing collection method it would not require huge bodies of 'public servants' to police it - thus enabling maximum revenue to go to the intended use rather than sucked up in Admin.

And then factor in liveaboards, boats that are not used, boats that are moored on rivers, but may just venture out, then are the thousands of trailed boats that are not associated with marinas and even privately moored and docked boats - there are several private docks in my area - and then you have the marina owner who now is expected to conduct more tax collection on behalf of the government, which still comes at a cost and switches the admin cost on to them.

Oh yes, how are you going to deal with visiting foreign boats? Let them off Scott free and simply encourage more British boats to be registered offshore?

But at the end of the day, the government will have won an entire new subsection of society that can be fined and criminalised, which is what I really object to.

I ain't broke and it doesn't need fixing.

 

[fireball]

And then factor in liveaboards, boats that are not used, boats that are moored on rivers, but may just venture out, then are the thousands of trailed boats that are not associated with marinas and even privately moored and docked boats - there are several private docks in my area - and then you have the marina owner who now is expected to conduct more tax collection on behalf of the government, which still comes at a cost and switches the admin cost on to them.

I would hazard a guess that most boats pay a licence to use a harbour they launch into, slipway fee, mooring/berth or licence to maintain their own ... there would be a few that don't meet those criteria - but then it's hardly a catchall system. Yes it would put additional admin on those that collect fees - but for the annual invoices it's 1 line ... and cannot be that tricky to add to the bill ... as for paying over, then there are already mechanisms to pay tax bills .. just add it to that - I'm not saying no additional admin - just minimum. I didn't say it was a fair tax either ...

Oh yes, how are you going to deal with visiting foreign boats? Let them off Scott free and simply encourage more British boats to be registered offshore?

Pretty much, yes ... Although why the Scotts should be free .... . Anyway - despite the historic 'cheaper' berths abroad, there is still plenty who choose to moor in this country. Visitors who bring their cars to this country do not pay RFL do they ...

But at the end of the day, the government will have won an entire new subsection of society that can be fined and criminalised, which is what I really object to.

I ain't broke and it doesn't need fixing.

Don't disagree (other than has been previously stated - it isn't new) ... Dunno about being broke ... we are ... but before I agreed to a Light Dues for leisure I would want to know the impact of removing Navaids that would be funded by the tax ...
I quite happily use some as landmarks - ie Nab Tower & Needles channel marks (or are they funded by Ports & Soton Harbours?) - but that is about it ... and I wouldn't be over worried if they weren't there - as long as the chartplotter can identify the channels !!

 

[mjcp]

Sometimes the cynicism and NIMBYisum of the population of this country overwhelms me...

mjcp

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Sometimes the cynicism and NIMBYisum of the population of this country overwhelms me...

mjcp

It's not that. I just object to paying a tax for something I don't use. Trinity House is a service provided for mainly commercial ships and it seems to be a lot of effort to raise something not much more that £6m a year, which in government terms is a tiny sum.

However, I am more than happy for you to pay my share as you seem so keen on it.

 

[mjcp]

We (the people) got all bent out of shape re MP's expenses... the solution is a Quango that costs more per year than the original Expenses bills...

There would seem to be a shortage of funds to provision these NavAids, a simple solution is a £100 tax/charge on (almost all) leisure boat users.

However, a vocal bunch put their oar in and we end up with either a Quango to charge based on how saw the light on a given day or some other odd solution needing a correspondingly higher charge to pay for its enforcement.

Or we lose more lights etc.

£100 is £8 an change a month, the more we complicate it, the more it will cost when brought in (I'm sure it will be, in some form, eventually) Lets keep it simple and take the lead in its implementation, eg flat rate based on moorings, registration, insurance or someother already established collection method.

mjcp

 

[fireball]

Seems a strange stance to take ...

Argue about paying at all and it will cost us more so Payup and don't question it - just accept at face value ....

Hmm ... I thought we were supposed to be in a democratic country and 'interested parties' consulted before major changes are brought about ... but I'm sure we could just follow your leadership instead .... which of your accounts would you like me to direct my salary to?

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Or just take the insignificant sum of £6m out of general taxation, as it is now, and prevent another tier of bureaucracy developing.

Hang on, we will need another tax to pay for the MCA, another for the RAF rescue, one for the police boats who board boats in the Thames and not to forget a UKBA agency 'boarding fee'.

I've said I pay over £100 already for the lights and marks I use and going by your reasoning, even though you don't use my harbour trust's marks, I think you should contribute towards them.

I could go on, but I am bored with this now.

 

[fireball]

I could go on, but I am bored with this now.

That's the problem with you moboers in your stinkpots ... you want to get there quickly and cannot just amble all day without getting anywhere like us 'proper' boaters ...