What Would You Pay Extra Tolls For?

[Paul]

25 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Agreed but why? In regard to dredging the costs really have spiraled, largely down to illogical disposal policies that have resulted in mud sometimes being transported some miles from where it was dredged. 

The spoil disposal is a good point but there are many others. Environmental and Health and Safety laws make things more expensive. Once upon a time an overhanging branch would be cut off by a man with a saw, dropped into the river, towed to a suitable place and dragged onto the bank and either cut up or left to rot. The man doing the work would make sure it was safe. Nowadays the same operation involves risk assessment, environmental impact report, liability insurance. There are many more similar examples. 

Some of this is perhaps BA policy, much of it is not.

That said, I don't doubt that there is profligacy and waste as there is in the health service (your average hospital nowadays seems to to employ almost as many managers as doctors) and every other area of public spending. 

[dnks34]

18 minutes ago, Paul said:

Always happy to oblige.

"Acronym applied to people who advocate a policy or process but object to it's implementation in such a way that it might impact upon them directly or require sacrifice on their part"

Fits like a glove.

No it doesnt........

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Paul said:

I knew at the time that my post would not be popular with the NIMBY element amongst boat owners, but the fact remains the broads navigation has to be paid for. Go back thirty years and you had thousands of hire boats paying the incremental toll versus hundreds of private boats, mostly owned by people local to the area paying the standard rate. During that time we have come full circle with the number of private boats far outweighing the hire boats. I have looked a number of times to see if the number of boats tolled on the broads is increasing or decreasing, but the authority are not good at making historical data public. Perhaps an FOI request at some point in the future will satisfy my curiosity. 

At the same time, the cost of maintaining the navigation has spiraled. Something has to give, we either pay for it to be maintained properly or we accept what we get. Just the same situation we are in with the health service, education, emergency services,armed forces etc. We have ever increasing expectations but when it comes to funding those expectation we are less forthcoming. That is general to society as a whole, not just the boating fraternity. We are no longer happy to drive Mondeos and watch Match of the Day on a 24 inch TV, we want BMW's, Porsche's or Mercedes Benz's and live football on huge screens. Society has become more affluent because we spend more of our money on ourselves, and less maintaining the infrastructure supporting it. At some point, that has to change. 

So, how does that relate to the OP? Quite simply, before we consider what "extras" we would pay more for we have to look at supporting the basics, dredging, navigation, operational cost (yes, I know we all hate it, but it is there, and has to be paid for).

 

Some of use are quite happy with out lot as it were, I consider iv a very healthy life / work balance as life is for living your only here once and spending it working go material possessions is not my kettle of fish I'd rather spend it enjoying my life and not  worrying about paying for things I defiantly don't need .

[dnks34]

I think its the local authority CEOs wanting the BMWs & Porsche’s (or was it Jaguar’s on lease) and they are probably quite happy for it to be paid for by joe public. 

[grendel]

16 hours ago, Paul said:

The best thing the BA could do with tolls is increase all rates to those currently paid by hire boats. I understand the fallacy is that hire boats should pay more because they are in use more, but the harsh fact is that the explosion of privately owned boats over the last twenty years has caused massive damage to the infrastructure with the need for an ever increasing number of private moorings to accommodate boats which are often only used a handful of times each year

this post contradicts itself, in one breath you blame the damage to the infrastucture on the explosion of private boats, but then go on to say they are rarely used.

If a boat is on a private mooring and is not used, then it doesnt impact the public moorings available, the real story is that more and more public moorings have been lost through disrepair and high rents demanded by land owners.

certainly some moorings that were made available by reciprocal agreements between hire yards have been lost, but then if a hire yard closes, then the  number of hire boats reduces, if every hire yard has enough spaces for all of their boats, when some are out on hire, there must be spaces available, and the same for all the other yards, so really the only factor is the number of public moorings available.

[LondonRascal]

To my mind, it is not about paying more it is about being accountable for what is currently collected. It need not be in hefty reports and so on, it can be really much more easy - sharing with vigor the work that is going on with money we all have paid in through Tolls.

I don't think it would be that hard to have the Broads Authority engage more with the people using the rivers through Forums like this and Facebook - at least then we would all have a very clear understanding of what has been going on, and see some progress.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, Paul said:

We are no longer happy to drive Mondeos and watch Match of the Day on a 24 inch TV, we want BMW's, Porsche's or Mercedes Benz's and live football on huge screens. Society has become more affluent because we spend more of our money on ourselves, and less maintaining the infrastructure supporting it. At some point, that has to change. 

I have singled out these two sentences from a post which I agree with entirely.

I can be considered a NIMBY since I would like the Broads to be the same place that I grew up in, in the 1950s. 

But it cannot be like that any more. The infrastructure that supported it, has gone. So we must look objectively at how we are now going to manage our environment in order to get the best that we want from it. If this means paying more money, as Paul suggests, then fine, as long as we can also put procedures and controls in place to ensure that our money is spent wisely.

So it comes back to the same question - can we rely on an un-elected QUANGO to do the best for us, in the foreseeable future?

[vanessan]

1 hour ago, Paul said:

I knew at the time that my post would not be popular with the NIMBY element amongst boat owners, but the fact remains the broads navigation has to be paid for.

Paul - could you please explain where nimbyism comes into this debate? Perhaps also explain why you think that there is a reticence to paying for broads navigation. Nowhere have I seen anyone complaining of having to contribute towards navigation, just one or two grumbles about the way the income is spent.  

Having just read Vaughan’s post, which crossed with this one, I think I understand a bit better. I would still like an answer to the question anyhow.

[dnks34]

I cant agree that it needs to cost more and the suggestion that a private boat toll should be the same as a commercial toll will only reduce the overall toll income when 100s maybe 1000s of private boat owners either move their boat elsewhere or attempt to sell it if they can find someone foolish enough to take on the responsibility of paying such an extortionate level of toll for a private vessel. 

We could look at it another way, maybe the hire yards are getting a good deal considering the return they get on letting a boat for a week, should they be paying more.

The smaller yards it may hurt but I bet the bigger yards can well afford it.  

We need to get past this acceptance of everything always costing more in this country, we are like sheep, its just a smoke screen and while there are folk daft enough to believe it things will continue to get more and more and more expensive.

The people who are not bothered by this obviously have the deepest pockets. 

[Paul]

20 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I can be considered a NIMBY since I would like the Broads to be the same place that I grew up in, in the 1950s. 

I stand co-accused, and offer no defence. The best we can hope for is to leave an environment for our children and their children that they can enjoy just as much as we did, albeit different. 

If the argument that things should not cost more were true then we would all be paying tuppence for a loaf and buying a house for £1500.

As for nimbyism I thought the definition was quite self explanatory, however if further explanation is needed then I shall do my best. I would like a better health service, you stand more chance of seeing a unicorn in our village than a GP. I would like my children to be educated in a class with twenty children, like I was, rather than the thirty two there are at his school. I would like a Policeman walking around the village watching out for everyone as there was when I was a kid. 

My parents paid 30% income tax to fund all of that, with very little tax free allowance. If a political party formed and said "we will return to those standards, but we will increase income tax by 10p in the pound and half personal allowances would I vote for them? No. That is nimbyism. 

The  flip side of that is the street we live in. When the houses here were built in 1980 not every household owned a car. Those that did would have Ford Escorts, Cortinas, Vauxhall what evers.  Exotic in those days was a Datsun. Walk up the street now and you'll see a liberal sprinkling of Range Rovers, two Mercedes convertibles, countless E classes and 5 series an odd Tesla and five caravans. We can afford these luxuries because we pay less towards the general good. Would we sacrifice that for more ambulances, probably not. It doesn't stop me complaining about the poor GP provision or overcorwded school. That is nimbyism.

[Guest]

It doesn't need extra cost , all it needs is spending wisely , the tolls this yr went up to increase things slightly and it wasn't that much , but what I do see on virtually a day to day basis throughout the year is waste and lots of it , that needs to stop asap 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Paul said:

I stand co-accused, and offer no defence. The best we can hope for is to leave an environment for our children and their children that they can enjoy just as much as we did, albeit different. 

If the argument that things should not cost more were true then we would all be paying tuppence for a loaf and buying a house for £1500.

As for nimbyism I thought the definition was quite self explanatory, however if further explanation is needed then I shall do my best. I would like a better health service, you stand more chance of seeing a unicorn in our village than a GP. I would like my children to be educated in a class with twenty children, like I was, rather than the thirty two there are at his school. I would like a Policeman walking around the village watching out for everyone as there was when I was a kid. 

My parents paid 30% income tax to fund all of that, with very little tax free allowance. If a political party formed and said "we will return to those standards, but we will increase income tax by 10p in the pound and half personal allowances would I vote for them? No. That is nimbyism. 

The  flip side of that is the street we live in. When the houses here were built in 1980 not every household owned a car. Those that did would have Ford Escorts, Cortinas, Vauxhall what evers.  Exotic in those days was a Datsun. Walk up the street now and you'll see a liberal sprinkling of Range Rovers, two Mercedes convertibles, countless E classes and 5 series an odd Tesla and five caravans. We can afford these luxuries because we pay less towards the general good. Would we sacrifice that for more ambulances, probably not. It doesn't stop me complaining about the poor GP provision or overcorwded school. That is nimbyism.

Paul I'm sorry but where were wages in comparison to £1500.00 homes and loaf for tuppence ? Everything is relative , are you seriously saying ybst the true cost of living has dropped significantly ? I don't see that in any form of life's infrastructure .

[TheQ]

9 minutes ago, Paul said:

I stand co-accused, and offer no defence. The best we can hope for is to leave an environment for our children and their children that they can enjoy just as much as we did, albeit different. 

If the argument that things should not cost more were true then we would all be paying tuppence for a loaf and buying a house for £1500.

As for nimbyism I thought the definition was quite self explanatory, however if further explanation is needed then I shall do my best. I would like a better health service, you stand more chance of seeing a unicorn in our village than a GP. I would like my children to be educated in a class with twenty children, like I was, rather than the thirty two there are at his school. I would like a Policeman walking around the village watching out for everyone as there was when I was a kid. 

My parents paid 30% income tax to fund all of that, with very little tax free allowance. If a political party formed and said "we will return to those standards, but we will increase income tax by 10p in the pound and half personal allowances would I vote for them? No. That is nimbyism. 

The  flip side of that is the street we live in. When the houses here were built in 1980 not every household owned a car. Those that did would have Ford Escorts, Cortinas, Vauxhall what evers.  Exotic in those days was a Datsun. Walk up the street now and you'll see a liberal sprinkling of Range Rovers, two Mercedes convertibles, countless E classes and 5 series an odd Tesla and five caravans. We can afford these luxuries because we pay less towards the general good. Would we sacrifice that for more ambulances, probably not. It doesn't stop me complaining about the poor GP provision or overcorwded school. That is nimbyism.

I don't know where you live but you certainly wouldn't see that range of cars anywhere where I live, I don't think I've ever seen a Tesla., I've a 10 year old Kia and a 34 year old landrover.

Putting Hire charge boats back to 3X would hardly make a difference to hire boat companies when divided by 30 weeks hire a year. Putting my Broads tax up to 3 X would mean I'd probably have to sell my boat... if I could find a buyer.

As for those tax levels remember there have been hidden  and not so hidden other taxes, VAT  Is now 20% instead of 15%, National insurance is now 12% instead of 10% and of course we now pay tax on red fuel. Our actual over all tax burden hasn't changed that much.

Children were in classes of 30+ when I was at school in portacabins.

I think that some on here (not accusing you Paul), have lost contact with the real wages of most people, the average in the UK is around £26,000. That's the average, most people will earn much less as it only takes a few footballers to push the average up a lot.

Ps I Have never earned over the National Average in the UK...even with overtime...

[ExSurveyor]

If I were to move my Calypso from the EA controlled river Medway back to The Broads,  the toll would be just under 100 pounds more expensive.

The EA maintain and have recently rebuilt numerous locks,  banks and also regularly dredge the rivers.

That is value for money.

 

 

[Paul]

28 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

what I do see on virtually a day to day basis throughout the year is waste and lots of it , that needs to stop asap 

I doubt anyone would argue with that, certainly not me, if you ever find a way to do it stand for parliament, I'd vote for you. Like inflation, fiscal wastage is nothing new. IIRC it was the main reason for the privatisation of British Rail and British Leyland. Did it make any difference? Not much from what I've seen, certainly in respect of our railways. 

 

32 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

Paul I'm sorry but where were wages in comparison to £1500.00 homes and loaf for tuppence ? Everything is relative

Of course it is, but my comment was in response to a statement that we should not accept that prices increase, nothing to do with the cost of living which is a different issue altogether. As an aside, in 1970 the average weekly wage was £32, a loaf of bread 9p. By 2013 average wage was £425 and a loaf £1.30. Work that out and the average person could buy just about as many loaves in 2013 as he could in 1970. In 1970 a mini would set you back £600, 18 weeks wages. I won't compare with a modern mini as it is not a fair match, but at £7000 a Dacia Sanderos would cost around 15 weeks wages. Other than houses the cost of living hasn't changed that much, which highlights that fact that the increase in the standard of living shows how much more we spend on ourselves.

 

9 minutes ago, TheQ said:

I've a 10 year old Kia and a 34 year old landrover.

So, a two car family! (sorry, I can't find an evil grin smiley to insert here!)

 

[Paul]

24 minutes ago, TheQ said:

Ps I Have never earned over the National Average in the UK...even with overtime...

You and me too!

[Paul]

24 minutes ago, TheQ said:

VAT  Is now 20% instead of 15%,

I'm showing my age here, I remember VAT at 8%. One of the first things that Margaret Thatcher's government did in 1979 was to increase it to 15%

[dnks34]

We all look at things in different ways but if the cars on Pauls street are anything to go by (i cant see where he said whats on his drive) I think its fairly safe to assume that those not bothered by the cost of things are the ones who obviously dont need to worry about it.

My take on it is, if youve a Tesla on your drive you either work for the council or your living on credit........

 

[ExSurveyor]

The biggest influence on perceived well being is the easy availability of recent cheap credit compared to the 1970's.

Some people forget that credit has to be paid back.

The shiny cars are mostly on some form of lease or are company cars.

[Paul]

38 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

(i cant see where he said whats on his drive

In the interest of fairness, I will disclose that the vehicle on my driveway is a fourteen year old Honda CRV which is rapidly approaching 200k miles. It will be changed shortly, either for a Volvo, Mercedes or BMW. Crikey, will that mean I become bourgeois nouveau riche? And whatever it is, the new car, shiny or otherwise will be paid cash as has always been my way, twenty bob in the pound and all that.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Paul said:

I'm showing my age here, I remember VAT at 8%. One of the first things that Margaret Thatcher's government did in 1979 was to increase it to 15%

OK so who introduce 20% vat ? , but yes in 79 interest rates for a few weeks moves every day n seriously affected income and expenditure , one can't blame one government for rates increases they have been under the same party at an all time low for decade's , now obviously that's political n not allowed so more D's edit as required but I'm talking about the waste by BA that if they combatted that then tolls would be reasonable and the infatructure grow , that said I wouldn't want the job of deciding what gets done and what doesn't , and I don't see why I need to pay more for people who demand something that boating is nothing to do with , a boat is a house mine is but it doesn't need all the stuff found in a modern house to work , say for instance BA want to increase told to create more electric points for basically hire craft then I'm voting no way iv already heard BA's tourism officer asking for more posts , the exactly same posts that most properly built boats don't need , time the hire boat industry got smarter the rest of us have .

[Paul]

2 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

that said I wouldn't want the job of deciding what gets done and what doesn't

Crikey Ricardo, don't make such comments in open forum, I can see the new job ad going up on the BA website anyday now.

"A new position exists for a suitable person to decide what get's done and what doesn't ....." 

Of course, the what doesn't column would increase considerably to fund the additional salary.

[Paul]

And for the avoidance of any doubt and to dispel any concerns of the mods that my post might be political my reference to the government of 1979 was in no way politically biased. I distrust all of the scheming, self interested low life, regardless of which colour tie they wear on newsnight. 

 

[Chelsea14Ian]

On 17/04/2018 at 05:47, Chelsea14Ian said:

Before they were to charge me and others more.I think they need to review what and where they spend our money .Then put in a costed plan of any increases.

Don't have a problem paying my fair share a different matter if they were to increase just because I have my own boat.What I would sugest those that want to pay over the odds

Go ahead I am sure BA would be happy

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Paul said:

And for the avoidance of any doubt and to dispel any concerns of the mods that my post might be political my reference to the government of 1979 was in no way politically biased. I distrust all of the scheming, self interested low life, regardless of which colour tie they wear on newsnight. 

 

Actually Paul I ment my own post which has a bit of political eminent within it