NC Boaters Alert - New $72-$1300 Annual Coastal Boat Fee Proposed

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
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?
 
Off Duty said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
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
 
O C Diver said:
.... Clearly dredging Oregon Inlet was important to the state's fishing industry and tourism on the Outer Banks;....Ted
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
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
 
Off Duty said:
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
Click to expand...
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. :blush:

Ted
 
O C Diver said:
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. :blush:

Ted
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
kthoennes said:
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.
Click to expand...

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? :nonono:

Later,
Dan
 
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.
 
dannc said:
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? :nonono:

Later,
Dan
Click to expand...

Lol brother.
Yeah, let's see how that works itself out...
 
O C Diver said:
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
Click to expand...


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 :-(.
 
O C Diver said:
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. :blush:

Ted
Click to expand...

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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Capt. Jon said:
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?
Click to expand...

There in lies the problem. Historically federal dollars funded the dredging projects. Federal dollars have either remained stagnant or been reduced. As such dredging more resembles bandaid work, take care or the stuff on the surface and postpone major work. In a number of places the ICW and nearby inlets need surgery. The funds aren't there, so the army corps now has to decide what can be fixed with a bandaid and which items have to be abandoned. Earlier this spring the feds said they didn't have the money to fix Oregon Inlet, so they abandoned it. Then the the Coast Guard said it's unsafe in it's current condition and either closed it or threatened to close it. So the state on NC had to step in.

Yes the federal government should maintain the waterways and inlets just as they should maintain the interstate hiway system. We fund both through our taxes, but the money gets spent elsewhere.

Ted
 
psneeld said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed!:thumb::thumb:
 
O C Diver said:
There in lies the problem... We fund both through our taxes, but the money gets spent elsewhere. Ted
Click to expand...

Dang skippy, and we need to hold those that waste our tax dollars accountable.
Unfortunately, it'll probably never happen. :nonono:
 
Off Duty said:
Dang skippy, and we need to hold those that waste our tax dollars accountable.
Unfortunately, it'll probably never happen. :nonono:
Click to expand...

I'm with off duty. no new taxes or fees or charges or whatever until the government can get a handle on the money they already have. there is too much money going to bs projects colleges and universities to do stupid studies and a whole buttload of money going overseas for who knows what.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Alaskan Sea-Duction
  • Locked
Washington State Boat Taxes Could Double
4 5 6
Replies
171
Views
17K
Peter B
P
menzies
New Bahamian Entry Fees
Replies
12
Views
2K
diver dave
diver dave
kwmeyer13
Help Fight the Nassau County Fire Marshal
Replies
0
Views
527
kwmeyer13
kwmeyer13
Alaskan Sea-Duction
Important Message foe PNW Boaters
Replies
16
Views
2K
etnad2
E
R
What kind of boat should you buy?
Replies
11
Views
891
FlyWright
FlyWright

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom