Click for Trinity Click for McKinna Click for Lurssen Click for Westport Click for Gulfstream

Killing more boating jobs

Discussion in 'General Yachting Discussion' started by MistrCoffe, Mar 20, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MistrCoffe

    MistrCoffe New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    Messages:
    18
    Well I want to put this out there, but based on reading other posts I hope this doesn't become a partisan bash thread. Really it is an all politician issue, especially in this case. The new Dem Gov in CT is taxing to pay the bills from 16 years of Rep leadership so both parties are handling taxes both in collecting and spending poorly. The result is in the link I attached to an accurate article about new taxes that I think will kill a lot of jobs. I find it easy to understand why so many people leave CT. One man in business on the shore for 65 years says this may finally do him in. He has long time clients already bailing to RI. Seems as though politicians think anyone in boating has a wealth of disposable income, they don't care that all boaters aren't Paul Allen.

    http://articles.courant.com/2011-03..._1_sales-tax-luxury-tax-personal-property-tax
  2. NYCAP123

    NYCAP123 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,975
    Boaters make easy targets. Most do have more wealth than the average Joe as exemplified by them having toys like boats. It was always a rich man's sport until the last 15 years or so when easy credit made it easy for a lot of people to get into trouble. Must say, I always got a kick out of the expression "tax and spend" in referring to the Dems. The GOP has been no slouch in that regard. Doesn't matter who's in office. They all Tax and Spend like it was someone else's money...oh yeah, it is.:eek: There will be major changes in this industry over the next several years. Most of the marginal budgets will be out. Time for some rethinking about how this business is conducted.
  3. C4ENG

    C4ENG Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    568
    Charleston is trying to charge boats property taxes that had been docked in the harbor for longer than X amount of time. Now the boats that where getting taxed just simply avoid the area or stay for the amount of time they do not get taxed for. It's the smaller business people who really feel the pain of the penny wise pound foolish sort of gov decisions.
  4. MistrCoffe

    MistrCoffe New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    Messages:
    18
    Chas

    I used to live in Chas area and I know they had property tax on boats, rv's, motorcycles etc. Back then they didn't charge visitors, just residents.
  5. NYCAP123

    NYCAP123 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,975
    That's exactly the point. At what point do you consider a visitor a resident. A lot of states are struggling with that, and it's usually relative to the length of their season. Many states may feel that if you can get a boat to pay the tax, then they will be a resident and keep their work (and spending) there. Not an easy decision.
  6. MistrCoffe

    MistrCoffe New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    Messages:
    18
    Confused

    My opinion and 4.00 will get you a bad cup of coffee you can't pronounce, but if a person doesn't have their domicile in that state then they would be a tourist. Someone who lives in Lauderdale or Newport could conceivably spend months there, especially if work they need done on their boat can be done at a good price. Maybe they have work done during the Spoleto Festival, then the owner, guests and crew are not only spending in the marina but in town. Taxing the boat when they don't maintain a residence there would just make them choose somewhere else (as long as it wasn't an emergency repair, and that would be a kick in the pants to need emergency work done and get taxed as a resident). I don't see the politicians logic. In Charleston a lot of revenue comes from tourists and the tourist type taxes like on hotel rooms, and the sales tax on their spending. To drive the ones with enough money to own and operate a boat that travels to different states seems counter productive.
  7. NYCAP123

    NYCAP123 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,975
    You forget that many use their boats as vacation homes, which will stay in one location for many months if not all year. If he lived in Montana and had a vacation home in Charleston he'd pay tax on that one as well. Same for the boat. He can put whatever hailing port he wants on the back, but if he spends more than X number of days in a port, that's his defacto home port. If he doesn't feel attached to a place enough to pay their tax he can always go somewhere else and pay their tax. Try Maine some time.:) All very simple. I don't see Charleston's docks going empty any time soon.
  8. Bayside Bert28

    Bayside Bert28 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    371
    Unfortunately, in the United States, it is now "The Government vs. the People"

    On the side of the Government is our massive military machine, the unions, big business, all of the federal and state workers and everybody receiving an entitlement. On the side of "the people" is for the most part, everybody else.

    That might add up to enough voters (on the side of the government) that reducing the size of government will never happen. The government and corruption will continue to grow.

    Or, we could reduce the size of government and corruption (lobbyists, revolving door jobs) and save our country.

    Rand Paul speaks for me. I employ 50 people in the USA. I'm spending over $500k per year on frivolous lawsuits and ridiculous regulation. The smaller and less significant the business in a state, the more burdensome the regulation in most cases.

    I have two lawsuits currently going on where the plaintiff and the plaintiff's counsel are family members or best friends. On the one case, we made a statutory mistake by sending the second letter first. This results in a $1000 dollar violation under the law. The plaintiff counsel wants 4.7 million because the system allows him to bleed us for years in attorney fees so my insurance company will settle for big bucks. The system is so screwed up I could cry.

    The system works for me in one way ... by stifling competition. I don't need to worry about competition too much because it's becoming harder and harder for a small business to make it in the USA.

    I live in Maryland where the governor wants to encourage building a bunch of wind farms. He is offering that "we the people (suckers) pay double or triple for electricity generated by the wind farms. Guess who stands to make tens of millions off the deal? His former Chief of Staff, Michael Enright who now works for a wind farm consulting group. Truly sick and perfectly legal under the law that the politicians wrote to benefit the politicians and those on the side of ... government!!!!!

    Mike
  9. NYCAP123

    NYCAP123 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,975
    You're talking tort reform. Not happening while the GOP holds the majority. These days you have a choice of being very rich or very poor. Anywhere in the middle will be like laying on a bed of nails. I used to say that if you hire one employee, you might as well hire 10 for the hassles involved. These days it's more like be chief cook and bottle washer or hire 200.
  10. colintraveller

    colintraveller Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    199
    I forsee what happens here .. Owners will not pay the fees or taxes whereby you will see owners simply leaving there boat at Anchor off shore far enough from the berths .

    At Greenock on the Clyde Estuary not far from Inverkip Marina I 've always remember seeing numerous small boats simply left at anchor by there owners because it's cheaper all around , and safe enough to deter oppertunist because there is no chance of walking to them from riverside at low tide
  11. NYCAP123

    NYCAP123 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,975
    Nobody's going to leave their boat unattended at anchor for any length of time, and most municipalities require permits, etc. to drop a mooring (and charge for it). They also limit where and how many moorings can be dropped. People do take moorings to save money, but there is a price. Your boat's not connected to shore power (battery charger, a/c), and you can only wash it down with the amount of water in your tank which you'll have to take the time to go to a dock to fill. Then we have the dink or launch you need to get to the boat which also makes it a little more inconvenient to hang out on the boat for a couple of hours. Oh, and speaking of cleaning, seagulls love boats on moorings.:eek:
  12. Pascal

    Pascal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,398
    "You're talking tort reform. Not happening while the GOP holds the majority"

    It s not going to happen because of the senate and because our Community Organizer in Chief will veto it! Are you forgetting that before becoming a world class traveler on our dime, he was an attorney?

    Can't touch unions and the lawyer lobby, combined they are the back bone of the DNC

    Obviously some states get it... Like Florida. If Charleston enforces their insane property tax law on visiting boats, more will head further south
  13. NYCAP123

    NYCAP123 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,975
    You seem to have developed a selective memory. The last time Tort reform (and the line item veto for that matter) were issues was under the Clinton administration, but he couldn't get the support from Congress nor the Senate. Between his and the current administration there was 8 years of a Republican administration with a Republican controlled Senate & Congress during which these things were never mentioned and our national debt soared to unheard of heights resulting in the collapse of our economy.
    This is not the forum for politics, but it is also not the forum for revisionist history. Bush was the biggest disgrace this country has faced since Trickey Dick.
  14. Loren Schweizer

    Loren Schweizer YF Associate Writer

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,269
    Like everything in this life, it all comes down to economics, i.e., "follow the money".

    CT need to emulate FL. Many years ago, a study was done to show that if boats after a sale got to spend more time in the state (not paying the sales tax), the more money went into the local economy--repairs, hotel rooms, meals, parts, hookers (kidding!), etc.--it actually paid to not kick out the geese that were laying golden eggs all over South Fla. That was the "10-to-90" ruling.

    Same deal for the more recent $18K max tax. Better to collect beaucoup smaller taxes than to watch it all go to foreign entities/flagging.

    Gotta appeal to the folks who understand $$$$$$.
  15. Old Phart

    Old Phart Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,311
    Does the term lame duck ring any bells?

    Obama is anti-war (Iraq) and Libya is a figment of my imagination. ;)

    Speaking of jobs...

    Just curious as to the effect on charter activity for the Med.

    How happy would somebody be seeing a Libyan jet (military type) heading for their yacht moored in Nice? (France was the first credited with downing a Libyan jet, I believe.)
  16. C4ENG

    C4ENG Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    568
    I am very curious myself to see how many vessel decide not to cross over for the med season this summer. Last year when the Iceland volcanoes where shutting down the air traffic, I thought there would be a big impact on charters and vessels operating over there, but it did not seem to, or at least from what I saw while working there last year.
  17. Pascal

    Pascal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,398
    "This is not the forum for politics, but it is also not the forum for revisionist history. Bush was the biggest disgrace this country has faced since Trickey Dick."

    ROFL! why because he kept us safe and didn't appologize to the wolrd on a daily basis?

    disgrace? let's look at the most recent 3 democratic presidents shall we? clinton and all his scandals (not just his personal life but you seem to have forgoten his chinese connections and the number of his friends who either died or ended up in jail...)... Carter who turned this great country into a joke for teh rest of the world to disrespect... and Obama who after only 2 years is now challenging Carter for the worst president title!
  18. NYCAP123

    NYCAP123 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,975
    OK, politics it is. Bush kept us "safe" by getting us involved in a war using 9/11 as an excuse, except he went after a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. He lied to our citizens, congress and the United Nations about "Weapons Of Mass Destruction" that didn't exist, and never did go after the person responsible for 9/11, and he totallly destabilized that part of the world. As a result of that tens of thousands of our sons and daughters, husbands and wives have died, or been physically and mentally maimed, not to mention the number of innocent Iraqi civilians who have since died. He then bragged that he had it set up that we'd be stuck in that quagmire for the next 100 years. Every time he slipped in the polls he declared a hightened security alert, and sabatoged his own party member (McCaine) to keep him from being a challenger. Bush is a draft dodging coward and bully. Please! As for clinton's "scandals", he had a piece on the side just like virtually every president before him. Big deal! Power is an aphrodesiac. At least it wasn't a page or a guy in a bathroom stall like his detractors. He also ended his term with a surplus in the budget (do you remember that word 'surplus'? It's been a long time since we heard that word.)
  19. zudnic

    zudnic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    114
    Its not just the federal government in the states. Have a vacation and work property in WA. Local county via the public utility borrowed $100 of millions, maybe even a billion, with very few middle class jobs and small population nor the demand for their excess power output. $60 to $80 million so every house could have fiber. Made a big deal about giving Yahoo huge tax incentives to house their server farms in the county. Um, server farms don't need many employee's. Total waste. Then as a business we had to deal with first the county and then the state. Both hassles that still make me question having a property and business in the area. Add in the federal government and than maybe we start talking real money. Doesn't matter who is running things, its the bi-partisan minions who run government agencies from top down to the bottom.
  20. zudnic

    zudnic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    114
    Oh on the mooring to avoid paying. Canada, like Britain (I believe), the provinces and city don't have jurisdiction over the waterways; here its the federal government. Up until 2006 you could anchor for free in false creek, right in the heart of downtown Vancouver. Took the city years to get the Federal government via Transport Canada to change the rules in the creek. Still a few good places to anchor for free in British Columbia:

    From Vancouver Sun Aug 06:

    100 boats is a lot, and in this recession wouldn't be surprised if people did this in the states.

    new rules:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page