AMSA cost recovery
As a boat owner, I have just received an email in relation to AMSA bringing in some cost recovery. Here is some text from the email:
In the future, if you own or operate a vessel you may be required to pay a levy. The proposed levy model and expected charges for the next five years are now available. Does anyone on this site have information regarding any cost recovery proposals or increases in relation to aviation? |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 10030745)
As a boat owner, I have just received an email in relation to AMSA bringing in some cost recovery. Here is some text from the email:
The email directed me to this link with further information. Does anyone on this site have information regarding any cost recovery proposals or increases in relation to aviation? |
Sir Angus, bless his soul, spent some $100 million of Australian Taxpayers money on an unsuccessful search for an Aircraft in the Indian Ocean. This I'm told was the proceeds of a surplus from the Aviation Fuel Tax which was found to be too hard to pay back to those who over paid it. I don't believe China outlaid as much despite their operating costs of a boat. Nobody knows how much Malaysia paid, or was billed for the search, or at least I can't find out, and compensation to families doesn't count.
Perhaps if AMSA had utilized this packet of money on its own domestic responsibilities people like you and I wouldn't suddenly have to "stump up" for our boats. We are only sailing in the areas of AMSA allocated waters, the same as every round the world racer does. Many of which have used the service, none of which have had to pay a toll to cross through. Payment for services rendered is not objectionable, but unless somebody has hindsight or foreseeability, this is just another charge. I challenge the AMSA Legal office to explain to me again the concept of foreseeability in law. I know they read this forum. |
Appears to apply to commercial vessels...Kaz
|
Originally Posted by kaz3g
(Post 10030822)
Appears to apply to commercial vessels...Kaz
|
Bless his sole. What have fish to do with the discussion?
|
Originally Posted by StickWithTheTruth
(Post 10030840)
You mean those with a survey and not necessarily commercial. Two different things. Some vessel owners like to have their vessels under current survey for a wealth of reasons.
"In the future, if you own or operate a domestic commercial vessel you may be required to pay a levy. This levy is charged to recover the costs of delivering national system services. The levy will be charged annually to the holder of vessel permissions, including: Certificate of survey Non-survey approval (EX02) Restricted C approval (EX40), or A holder of another exemption that allows the vessel to operate." I actually understand that there are people who have their vessel in survey but do not use it for commercial purposes. I used to operate a Govt vessel offshore and held a Marine Board Victoria Certificate to do so. Govt vessels must be in survey. Kaz |
Commercial it seems. There appears to be a tonnage of fuel, which thankfully leaves me out despite my boat being on the Australian Register. On reading, it is a Tax which goes to consolidated revenue not necessarily AMSA.
|
Dick,
You know the age old story. If it flies, floats or xxxxx then rent it! You have have failed dismally on all counts! |
Dick is right and now we have another version of a tax levied because they can.
Thin edge of the wedge stuff. Watch the bracket creep on this. Next aircraft... |
They are just testing the waters on this.
They have all of you, and you all are registered to it already! Anyone with a 406 will contribute. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:46. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.