Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 06-17-2015, 03:51 PM   #1
Guru
 
Heron's Avatar
 
City: Cypress Landing Marina (NC)
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Heron (2)
Vessel Model: '88 Cape Dory 28 Flybridge #115
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,084
NC Boaters Alert - New $72-$1300 Annual Coastal Boat Fee Proposed

North Carolina boaters, please review and respond to our elected (gerrymandered) representatives.
Thanks,

BoatUS Government Affairs - NC Boaters Alert - New $72-$1300 Annual Coastal Boat Fee Proposed
__________________
Advertisement

__________________
Steve
Heron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 05:05 PM   #2
Guru
 
Off Duty's Avatar
 
City: Tampa
Country: USA
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 843
Wow. Another fee.
Now you must understand, that this is NOT a tax, but simply a fee to make boating in your state safer and more pleasant. ..right?
__________________

__________________
"I'm the only one who has removed half a brain, but if you went to Washington, you'd think someone beat me to it"...Dr. Ben Carson 08-06-2015
Off Duty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 05:57 PM   #3
Guru
 
City: Satsuma FL
Country: United States
Vessel Name: No Mo Trawla
Vessel Model: Hurricane SS188
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Off Duty View Post
Wow. Another fee.
Now you must understand, that this is NOT a tax, but simply a fee to make boating in your state safer and more pleasant. ..right?

So how is this fee different than any other tax? They probably call it a fee so voters don't have to approve it. Guvmutt beautycrats can approve fees.

Gee, I am sounding more and more like FF.
Donsan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 06:40 PM   #4
Guru
 
kthoennes's Avatar
 
City: Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Xanadu
Vessel Model: Mainship 37 Motor Yacht
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 857
When the Coast Guard instituted that $26 annual boat documentation fee and we had a long discussion on here, a lot of posters thought we were ridiculous to get worked up over a measly $26. I agreed, puny amount of money by itself and not worth any heartburn by itself, but (1) it won't stay $26 and we all know that, and (2) the real issue is cumulative taxes and fees - everything from property taxes to sales taxes to registration fees to doc renewal fees to...fees like that proposal.
kthoennes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 07:02 PM   #5
Guru
 
O C Diver's Avatar
 
City: Fort Myers, FL... Summers in Crisfield, MD
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Slow Hand
Vessel Model: Cherubini Independence 45
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,820
State of NC will be doing / is doing a bunch of dredging that the army corps of engineers won't do (Oregon Inlet for one). They are making an effort to keep their inlets open and passable. Guess the state sees this as a user fee to cover dredging done for the benefit of boaters. While I applaud the state for picking up where the feds have stopped, funding new expenditures with generated revenue, and responding to the problem in a relatively timely manner, it seems that NC boaters will pay a disproportionately high amount as the majority of users are quite likely out of state boaters. Clearly dredging Oregon Inlet was important to the state's fishing industry and tourism on the Outer Banks; it's sad that a more reasonable revenue generation couldn't have been proposed.

Ted
__________________
Blog: mvslowhand.com
I'm tired of fast moves, I've got a slow groove, on my mind.....
I want to spend some time, Not come and go in a heated rush.....
"Slow Hand" by The Pointer Sisters
O C Diver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 07:39 PM   #6
Guru
 
Off Duty's Avatar
 
City: Tampa
Country: USA
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by O C Diver View Post
.... Clearly dredging Oregon Inlet was important to the state's fishing industry and tourism on the Outer Banks;....Ted
Ted,

That's it right there.

Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining. Dredging, keeping ports and waterways open is as important and beneficial to the states as it is to the recreational boater! Possibly more so.

I'm one of the "what part of NO NEW TAXES did you not understand? " people.

Until our elected officials can get a grip on unbridled spending, pork barrel projects and special interest funding, I'll NEVER support a new tax, period! Call it a "fee", tack it onto a veterans, emergency services or teachers, bill (that's how they rimmed a new stadium down our throats here), I don't care. I'll vote against it.

It starts with one "small fee", then ends up lord knows where?

Obviously my original response was an attempt at sarcasm.

While I have no dog in this hunt, my son just moved to N.C.
He's not a boat owner yet, but I'll pass this along to he and his girlfriend and their family.

I wish you guys the best defeating this proposal.

OD
Off Duty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 07:58 PM   #7
Guru
 
City: NC
Country: US
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 636
Thank you for posting this information.

I sent an email and added the simple fact that we are looking to buy a bigger boat as a liveaboard and that we will be looking to live in a low cost area. If NC imposes such a high fee we will simply live somewhere else....

Later,
Dan
dannc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 10:05 PM   #8
Guru
 
O C Diver's Avatar
 
City: Fort Myers, FL... Summers in Crisfield, MD
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Slow Hand
Vessel Model: Cherubini Independence 45
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Off Duty View Post
Ted,

That's it right there.

Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining. Dredging, keeping ports and waterways open is as important and beneficial to the states as it is to the recreational boater! Possibly more so.

I'm one of the "what part of NO NEW TAXES did you not understand? " people.

Until our elected officials can get a grip on unbridled spending, pork barrel projects and special interest funding, I'll NEVER support a new tax, period! Call it a "fee", tack it onto a veterans, emergency services or teachers, bill (that's how they rimmed a new stadium down our throats here), I don't care. I'll vote against it.

It starts with one "small fee", then ends up lord knows where?

Obviously my original response was an attempt at sarcasm.

While I have no dog in this hunt, my son just moved to N.C.
He's not a boat owner yet, but I'll pass this along to he and his girlfriend and their family.

I wish you guys the best defeating this proposal.

OD
While I'm with you on no new taxes, would you have preferred to either not do the dredging letting the inlet become unpassable or run a deficit because of increased spending? I would guess 90% of NC residents see no benefit to the dredging as it doesn't impact them and consider it pork barrel spending to cater to a special interest group. Feels kind of weird to be on the receiving end of special interest spending.

Ted
__________________
Blog: mvslowhand.com
I'm tired of fast moves, I've got a slow groove, on my mind.....
I want to spend some time, Not come and go in a heated rush.....
"Slow Hand" by The Pointer Sisters
O C Diver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 10:27 PM   #9
Guru
 
Off Duty's Avatar
 
City: Tampa
Country: USA
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by O C Diver View Post
While I'm with you on no new taxes, would you have preferred to either not do the dredging letting the inlet become unpassable or run a deficit because of increased spending? I would guess 90% of NC residents see no benefit to the dredging as it doesn't impact them and consider it pork barrel spending to cater to a special interest group. Feels kind of weird to be on the receiving end of special interest spending.

Ted
Thanks for the alternate viewpoint Ted.
I don't see it as a special interest, as the state sees benefit to the dredging via commercial fishing and tourism. If that's such a windfall, then why tax the pleasure/recreational boaters even further than they already are?

I guess my point is, if I need to do something to my home or business to make it livable or profitable, then I'll forego excess spending on other less necessary projects for a bit until I get it done.

Triage might be a better way to look at it?
What's most important to the state in the terms of commercialism (tourism, fishing, etc), and public safety? Does the inlet becoming impassable create a safety concern for the state or cause a significant loss of income from tourism/commercial fishing dollars?
__________________
"I'm the only one who has removed half a brain, but if you went to Washington, you'd think someone beat me to it"...Dr. Ben Carson 08-06-2015
Off Duty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 10:52 PM   #10
Guru
 
kthoennes's Avatar
 
City: Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Xanadu
Vessel Model: Mainship 37 Motor Yacht
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 857
Whenever new fees are proposed we almost always hear the same rationale: that xyz service or project is certainly worthwhile, so it's only appropriate and reasonable that the users pay for it. The piece that is always missing from that argument is that the users already pay taxes and fees. I see the 2015 North Carolina State budget is nearly $22 billion. In other words boaters and all the other taxpayers of NC already pay 22 billion dollars, but that's apparently still not enough to do some dredging.
kthoennes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2015, 10:55 PM   #11
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,265
Do you not pay property taxes on your boat and berth? If so, shouldn't the tax be applied to all property owners? And if not, you're a special case paying taxes for the benefit of a few which may or not benefit you.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 06:51 AM   #12
Guru
 
O C Diver's Avatar
 
City: Fort Myers, FL... Summers in Crisfield, MD
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Slow Hand
Vessel Model: Cherubini Independence 45
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,820
Maybe I'm not being clear, I dislike the one large pot theory where the state takes as much as they can and ends up spending it on (IMO) frivolous BS. The alternative is to make the recipients of the benefit pay a substantial portion. In this situation, an increase in the residential rental tax for those counties who benefit from the tourism, an increase in license fee for commercial fisherman, and the increase to recreational boaters might have been more reasonable as the lower fees would have been shared by more who benefit.

Ted
__________________
Blog: mvslowhand.com
I'm tired of fast moves, I've got a slow groove, on my mind.....
I want to spend some time, Not come and go in a heated rush.....
"Slow Hand" by The Pointer Sisters
O C Diver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 10:38 AM   #13
Guru
 
City: NC
Country: US
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthoennes View Post
Whenever new fees are proposed we almost always hear the same rationale: that xyz service or project is certainly worthwhile, so it's only appropriate and reasonable that the users pay for it. The piece that is always missing from that argument is that the users already pay taxes and fees. I see the 2015 North Carolina State budget is nearly $22 billion. In other words boaters and all the other taxpayers of NC already pay 22 billion dollars, but that's apparently still not enough to do some dredging.
And the forecast is that there will be a budget surplus in the next fiscal year. Will I get a my tax money back if there is a budget surplus?

Later,
Dan
dannc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 10:51 AM   #14
Enigma
 
RT Firefly's Avatar
 
City: Slicker?
Country: Bumpkin?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,996
Greetings,
Mr. dann. " Will I get a my tax money back if there is a budget surplus?" Nope, for the same reason you don't get those taxes that are applied to education back even if you don't have children.
__________________
RTF
RT Firefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 10:54 AM   #15
Guru
 
Off Duty's Avatar
 
City: Tampa
Country: USA
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannc View Post
And the forecast is that there will be a budget surplus in the next fiscal year. Will I get a my tax money back if there is a budget surplus?

Later,
Dan
Lol brother.
Yeah, let's see how that works itself out...
Off Duty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 10:56 AM   #16
Guru
 
Off Duty's Avatar
 
City: Tampa
Country: USA
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by O C Diver View Post
Maybe I'm not being clear, I dislike the one large pot theory where the state takes as much as they can and ends up spending it on (IMO) frivolous BS. The alternative is to make the recipients of the benefit pay a substantial portion. In this situation, an increase in the residential rental tax for those counties who benefit from the tourism, an increase in license fee for commercial fisherman, and the increase to recreational boaters might have been more reasonable as the lower fees would have been shared by more who benefit.

Ted

Ok I gotcha now.
agreed.

A user fee based upon use and the derivative of said usage.

Makes sense, so it'll probably never happen :-(.
Off Duty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 10:57 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Capt. Jon's Avatar
 
City: Alabama
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Waypoint
Vessel Model: Californian 48' CPMY
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by O C Diver View Post
While I'm with you on no new taxes, would you have preferred to either not do the dredging letting the inlet become unpassable or run a deficit because of increased spending? I would guess 90% of NC residents see no benefit to the dredging as it doesn't impact them and consider it pork barrel spending to cater to a special interest group. Feels kind of weird to be on the receiving end of special interest spending.

Ted
I'm a little lost here. Do not all the people of NC benefit from deep water dredging? Here along the GICW there is tons of commerce. Does not take long to realize that here large quantities of coal, oil and other goods move along the GICW. Since there are tons of coal fired power plants down south barges are the cheapest form of transport.

Federal dollars normally fund dredging projects. Don't the elected politicians who reside in DC bear some responsibility for insuring that commerce is allowed to flow between the states?
Capt. Jon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 02:24 PM   #18
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Jon View Post
I'm a little lost here. Do not all the people of NC benefit from deep water dredging? Here along the GICW there is tons of commerce. Does not take long to realize that here large quantities of coal, oil and other goods move along the GICW. Since there are tons of coal fired power plants down south barges are the cheapest form of transport.

Federal dollars normally fund dredging projects. Don't the elected politicians who reside in DC bear some responsibility for insuring that commerce is allowed to flow between the states?
yes but ACOE projects are linked to commercial tonnage per year...at least they were....thus some areas get more attention and higher priority.

for years reasonable people have tried to show how recreational dollars and taxes often dwarf the commercial traffic...falls on deaf ears all to often.
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 02:44 PM   #19
TF Site Team
 
Larry M's Avatar
 
City: JAX, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Hobo
Vessel Model: Krogen 42-120
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,745
If I was a marina owner or had a marine business in NC I would be lobbing against the fees. That on top of the property taxes makes it even more expensive to keep a boat there.
Larry M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2015, 03:02 PM   #20
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,920
BoatUS is the best defense so far...


Anyone who is not a member (even if you are a Sea Tow or other assistance towing member...it is OK to support BoatUS main and foundation...I do enthusiastically because of stuff like this) support BoatUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Their lobby has been effective through the years at many anti boating legislation.


Personal involvement at all levels wont hurt either.
__________________

psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012