These are circular arguments which mean nothing. Adrian is quite right there is elasticity in any fee or tax structure. The time frame is the only question. If people cant afford the fees then the ultimate end will be the crushing of boats. However along the way all your other points will happen. All boats will be devalued because there will be no demand. First new boats sales will tale off then resale prices will fall. Some will be dragged up on the hard until they cant afford to stay, they will be neglected, then they will be crushed. Supply and demand are economic realities we cannot get around. High fees effect demand. Any organization that charges fees will eventually hit a wall beyond which demand will drop radically if the fees are too high. At which time fees will be forced down because revenues are dropping. The sad part is that many many people get hurt along the way. Earlier arguments I have heard on this list about spreading the fees more fairly amongst all the users is in my opinion the stronger argument. If there is no way of realistically collecting fees from tow path users such as cyclist and pedestrians etc. then at least monitor the use and hold the governments feet to the fire on their obligation to kick in based on the benefits to the general public, environmental benefits, tourism from abroad etc..
Nick (a hopefully more reasonable and balanced Canadian) _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Millin Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [canals-list] Re: Working narrowboats to pay the £50 "broad" beam surcharge?! (XP) Adrian wrote: snipped: > If you really want BW to use "willingness to pay", then you must > surely support the idea of BW raising its charges on all boats > (irrespective of beam) to the level that maximises its revenue. That > would surely remove a lot of boats from the waterways. Hey, that > would help deal with lock queues, eh? I'm not sure from where you get the idea that raising licences and charges until the pips squeak will ever *remove* a significant number of boats from the waterway. If BW raises charges to the point that there is a significant reaction from boaters then those boaters can do the following: 1. Crush their boat, losing any capital that the may have otherwise recouped by selling it. Unlikely scenario. 2. Move their boat abroad. Unlikely in sufficient numbers to really affect the UK and revenue stream. 3. Lift their boat on to the land and not use it. Unlikely due to the space required and the charges that they will incur for storage of an unusable asset. 4. The next option is that more people don't bother to licence their boat. A very likely scenario but one that does not physically remove any boats from the water, it merely reduces BW's revenue. 5. What a massive hike in charges WILL do is to reduce the numbers of boats coming onto the water and we've already seen evidence of more builders going bust (whether through lack of orders or business incompetence though, I'm not qualified to say). This is not a removal, it is a reduction of the rate of increase. It will also significantly affect the aforesaid builders and other businesses offering services to boaters. So, in no way will increased charges result in a significant drop in the numbers of boats currently on the water and this is where BW think that they can get away with it. IMO though the major shift will be towards number 4 and BW have proved themselves unwilling or unable to do anything to significantly control/remove unlicensed boats despite the recent high-profile spin that they have been feeding us. What they will be able to do if their charges encourage yet more people to go unlicensed, when they cannot control those that already do so now, presents a very worrying scenario for the future. Roger No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1675 - Release Date: 9/18/2008 9:01 AM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
