Listen up Canadians! Canada Proposes new tax for boaters!

[OldDan1943]

Had the boat been reported stolen.

 

[SteveK]

Had the boat been reported stolen.

Both were reported stolen, but they were only looking for one as the other burned, so was found.

 

[Creek]

I guess I am the contrarian here except for OldDan1943. My belief is that naming fees for a popular cause is just window dressing for another way to raise money that usually does little to nothing to remedy the problem it proposes to address. And OldDan is right - $10 is likely only the beginning.

I am for keeping as much government out of the boating arena as possible - we have enough of government in every other area of our lives. Mostly, government does little more than impose rules and regulations that are only followed by law abiding people (i.e. not the owners of derelect boats) and almost nothing to address the problem they propose to correct. Let's keep the government and additional fees out of boating.

 

[Mia]

Thank you for that. Very interesting read. Not a big amount and about time.

 

[Slider70]

New Tax On Boats

This is simply another tax grab dressed up under a 'do gooder' title. Every time a boat sells it is required to pay a tax in Canada. To not pay those taxes is a crime that the government should deal with. There are many avenues to collect these taxes.

These taxes can significant over the life of the vessel. On my particular vessel, over it's life to date, it has sold four times. Approximately $39,500 was paid in taxes on these sales. It tells us that vessel sales have increase 0ver 20% in the last two years. That is a lot of taxes paid!

I guess what the government does with that money is their business but to turn around and tell me that all citizens are burden with the cost of recovering derelict vessels is a bit of a stretch.

The government needs to redirect some of the sales taxes collected on boat sales into a fund to complete this objective.

Ya, $10 is not much but watch. This will keep climbing as the government is never happy for long with any fee.

 

[Leo Reise]

I read through most of the comments. Couple of things to note in Canada.
First - a registered boat is proof of ownership. Transport Canada has a query - type in the Official Number, Owners name, or vessel name. If currently registered, all the details will be there. A licensed boat, the license is not proof of ownership, only that the person applied for and received a number which they put on both sides of the bow. That said, the person to whom the licence was issued is in a data base an can be obtained.
Anyone buying a boat better check they are purchasing it from a legitimate owner.

To the “tax” every few years, the owner of a register vessel is contacted by Transport Canada to verify name, address etc. By responding, records are marked current. This is a free service so a charge of $10 or $20 is not a hardship. We pay 5 times that amount annually for a licence sticker.

 

[Prudence]

In what way do I have any liability for other peoples boats? If you ask me it would just encourage people to abandon their boats, they know someone else will pay to have it disposed of.

 

[twistedtree]

In what way do I have any liability for other peoples boats? If you ask me it would just encourage people to abandon their boats, they know someone else will pay to have it disposed of.

You are already paying to clean up the junk boats through you general taxes. More narrowly focus fees shift the financial burden more towards the people who utilize the service. In this case, boaters pay for boaters' bad behavior.

 

[slowgoesit]

Posts have been edited to remove totally unrelated content. Folks, let's please stick with the subject, shall we? Thanks. TF Site Team

 

[SteveandZoila]

My mother told me when a was young,"

Once the camel's nose is under the edge of the tent, it is difficult to keep the camel out of the tent.

$10 will increase

"Once they in act a fee or tax, even if its low, they will never get rid of it and it will go up"

Are we not still paying some temporary tax from some war in the 1800's?

 

[OldDan1943]

"Once they in act a fee or tax, even if its low, they will never get rid of it and it will go up"

Are we not still paying some temporary tax from some war in the 1800's?

Yes, the Fed income tax was to pay off the debt of WW1

 

[twistedtree]

But you guys are arguing that there should be no publicly funded anything because if you give them a nickle, they will want a dime. So we should not have any publicly funded anything?


Also, in this more specific instance, you are saying that all the derelict boats should be left in place? Is that really what you want? And if you do want them to be removed, how will it be funded? Don't say the owners who left the boat behind in the first place because that clearly isn't going to happen.

 

[OldDan1943]

But you guys are arguing that there should be no publicly funded anything because if you give them a nickle, they will want a dime. So we should not have any publicly funded anything?


Also, in this more specific instance, you are saying that all the derelict boats should be left in place? Is that really what you want? And if you do want them to be removed, how will it be funded? Don't say the owners who left the boat behind in the first place because that clearly isn't going to happen.

Starts out at $10. Then other projects, $20 and and and.
IMO, cut back on the other programs and redirect the money to the removal of boats. After that has been completed, redirect the money where ever you want.

 

[SteveK]

Is the defund police movement over? It relates to enforcement of this idea and all others that require it.
Here we keep hearing about there are only two officers for this huge area, they cannot be everywhere. So we have boating rules but no manpower to enforce them.

 

[AKDoug]

Part of the problem is that the tax is only on boaters, largely responsible boat owners who would never dump a vessel. If it's to benefit everyone, tax everyone. It's like the tax for abandoned car removal, it only taxes responsible car owners to address the problem.

My fix would be to shift the responsibility of the seller to register the buyer, so the new owner would be responsible if anything winds up abandoned. Is that too easy to be considered?

RT hit the nail on the head...

 

[twistedtree]

Part of the problem is that the tax is only on boaters, largely responsible boat owners who would never dump a vessel. If it's to benefit everyone, tax everyone. It's like the tax for abandoned car removal, it only taxes responsible car owners to address the problem.

My fix would be to shift the responsibility of the seller to register the buyer, so the new owner would be responsible if anything winds up abandoned. Is that too easy to be considered?

RT hit the nail on the head...

The whole issue of registrations not being updated is largely separate from the issue of abandoned boats. Not entirely, but plenty of boats get abandoned with properly transferred ownership. The owner is just nowhere to be found, or has no money or assets to address the abandoned boat.


Wouldn't mandatory insurance place the cost squarely in the lap of the now uninsured boat owner?

 

[Prudence]

How am I more responsible than anyone else in the country just because I own a boat. My boat ownership has nothing to with criminals dumping boats. Of course derelict boat should be removed.

 

[AKDoug]

I don't understand the insurance reference, as far as I know insurance doesn't cover recovery of an abandoned boat.

With abandoned cars, they are purchased with cash largely by people who have no intention to insure them as they are uninsurable due to their driving records. Irresponsible people doing irresponsible things, with no regard for their actions anyway.

 

[twistedtree]

I don't understand the insurance reference, as far as I know insurance doesn't cover recovery of an abandoned boat.

With abandoned cars, they are purchased with cash largely by people who have no intention to insure them as they are uninsurable due to their driving records. Irresponsible people doing irresponsible things, with no regard for their actions anyway.

I think the liability part does cover it. At least mine always has. In many ways it’s the biggest exposure one has aside from the actual hull value. And with a low value hull, many will understandably forgo hull coverage instead choosing to take the risk. I think it’s their choice if they want to risk losing the boat, but not an option for them to leave it for someone else to clean up or remove. That’s where mandatory liability insurance comes in, forcing people to be responsible for their abandoned junk - or not buy a boat in the first place. This is what the new WA regulation is aimed at. You can argue the line they drew at 40 year old boats, but it’s a step in the right direction to force people to take full responsibility for what they do rather than leave it for the rest of us to clean up.

 

[SteveK]

Part of the problem is that the tax is only on boaters, largely responsible boat owners who would never dump a vessel. If it's to benefit everyone, tax everyone. It's like the tax for abandoned car removal, it only taxes responsible car owners to address the problem.

My fix would be to shift the responsibility of the seller to register the buyer, so the new owner would be responsible if anything winds up abandoned. Is that too easy to be considered?

RT hit the nail on the head...

That would require applying common sense.

The whole issue of registrations not being updated is largely separate from the issue of abandoned boats. Not entirely, but plenty of boats get abandoned with properly transferred ownership. The owner is just nowhere to be found, or has no money or assets to address the abandoned boat.
Wouldn't mandatory insurance place the cost squarely in the lap of the now uninsured boat owner?

IF an owner of an abandoned boat can be found then the GOV can apply penalties the same as they do now, garnish income until debt paid.
Point well made was if title is changed by seller, buyer is now known and in Canada at least you get to pay purchase tax.

 

[OldDan1943]

That would require applying common sense.


IF an owner of an abandoned boat can be found then the GOV can apply penalties the same as they do now, garnish income until debt paid.
Point well made was if title is changed by seller, buyer is now known and in Canada at least you get to pay purchase tax.

IF only this problem could be turned over to the IRS. They can find anyone

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. OD. In Canada, we have the IRS equivalent Revenue Canada. They've obviously found me. I get calls every week from a rather stern agent demanding I pay monies owed to the government. I always counter with "Take it out of the tax refund you guys have owed me for last year." Evidently, different department....or the poor man just can't figure that one out.

 

[BruceK]

Greetings,
Mr. OD. In Canada, we have the IRS equivalent Revenue Canada. They've obviously found me. I get calls every week from a rather stern agent demanding I pay monies owed to the government. I always counter with "Take it out of the tax refund you guys have owed me for last year." Evidently, different department....or the poor man just can't figure that one out...

Is he asking for payment in I Tunes vouchers?

 

[SteveK]

Is he asking for payment in I Tunes vouchers?

They are considering accepting BitCoin

 

[SteveK]

Greetings,
Mr. OD. In Canada, we have the IRS equivalent Revenue Canada. They've obviously found me. I get calls every week from a rather stern agent demanding I pay monies owed to the government. I always counter with "Take it out of the tax refund you guys have owed me for last year." Evidently, different department....or the poor man just can't figure that one out.
/QUOTE]
Otherwise known as CRA. A call came in and we put it on speaker phone. 5 people listening all thought it was for them as no names were given in the arrest warrant.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. SV. Aw snap. I forgot they changed the name. Thanks. Must have been when I wasn't paying attention..

 

[grahamdouglass]

A little information about Canadian federal registry. I bought and transferred registry of my boat in 2007. At the time the boat had a chattel mortgage on it. I received a letter from the credit union that held the mortgage, stating they had no more interest in the vessel and when I paid my fee, in person at the office in downtown Vancouver there was no mention of the mortgage on my vessel. Several years latter they changed the format of the online vessel registry search and when you look up your vessel now, any encumbrances (liens or mortgages) against the boat are shown. At the time I bought my vessel and for several years after I bought my vessel this wasn't the case. I occasionally check my boat and one year a lien appeared against it. It was the old lien that had not been properly cleared off of the title.
After I contacted the broker I bought the boat from and the credit union that had the mortgage, it took them a couple of months to clear my boat of any encumbrances on the vessel registry. So a lesson to be followed is to have the money held in trust till a clear title appears on the vessel registry.

Also, there was a nice lady that looked after the vessel registry in Vancouver. I remember talking to her in 2002 when I was looking to buy a vessel. She was very personable, very hands on and knew everything and any thing about registered vessels. She talked to me about a vessel I was thinking of buying. I forgot her name but she was well known in the marine community. By the time I bought my vessel in 2007 she had retired and now everything is handled on line from Ottawa. When you call them or email them they say they will get back to you in 3 to 5 days.

 

[BruceK]

Greetings,
Mr. SV. Aw snap. I forgot they changed the name. Thanks. Must have been when I wasn't paying attention..

Good Grief! Aussie Parliamentarians (ex)Joe Hockey(was our US Ambassador), Peter Dutton (aka Mr. Potato Head) and Kevin Andrews(total prick,soon to be "ex",sits to the right of Genghis Khan).

 

[CaptTom]

My fix would be to shift the responsibility of the seller to register the buyer, so the new owner would be responsible if anything winds up abandoned..

Interesting idea. As a seller, I'd want to be protected from the risk of the new owner never registering, then abandoning, the boat.

Then again, if I have a signed bill of sale, don't I already have that? If "they" come knocking on my door asking about a boat I previously owned, I'd just show them that.

Would selling through a broker absolve the seller of this responsibility?

I have no idea. I've never had anything like this happen. But now I'm wondering.

 

[SteveK]

Interesting idea. As a seller, I'd want to be protected from the risk of the new owner never registering, then abandoning, the boat.

Then again, if I have a signed bill of sale, don't I already have that? If "they" come knocking on my door asking about a boat I previously owned, I'd just show them that.

Would selling through a broker absolve the seller of this responsibility?

I have no idea. I've never had anything like this happen. But now I'm wondering.

Think about it. Your record keeping must be flawless to be able to find a piece of paper 10 years later, thumb drives kept in safe place just in case.
I use 10 years as any boat I have sold would have lasted another 10 years.
Suppose the boat is resold 3 times before being abandoned.
I really like the seller register the buyer, once and done.