Prev: Wiltshire gang jailed for 'half UK's caravan thefts'
Next: Compare the Market dot com are pants.
From: JNugent on 15 Mar 2010 09:35 Adrian wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com>: >> If those "costs" include specifically-targeted spite taxes > And what "specifically-targeted spite taxes" affect 4x4s? The one that immediately springs to mind is the differentially-higher charge that some London Borough(s) boasts/boast of making for a residents' parking permit*. Higher for a vehicle in the Range-Rover class than for (say) a Jag or a Roller on the basis of spite and grandstanding (however dressed up as something else). There may be others. The irrational attitude of some - especially of some of those in authority - to these vehicles is odd. [*Not that I am in any sense a fan of residents' parking schemes or similar pre-emptions.]
From: Adrian on 15 Mar 2010 09:40 JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> If those "costs" include specifically-targeted spite taxes >> And what "specifically-targeted spite taxes" affect 4x4s? > The one that immediately springs to mind is the differentially-higher > charge that some London Borough(s) boasts/boast of making for a > residents' parking permit*. Higher for a vehicle in the Range-Rover > class than for (say) a Jag or a Roller on the basis of spite and > grandstanding (however dressed up as something else). Care to provide any link to show that - say - a CR-V would be noticeably differently priced to - say - a Mondeo? No, thought not. Again, you seem to be confusing CO2-based pricing differences with this notional "4x4 spite tax"
From: JNugent on 15 Mar 2010 09:48 Adrian wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >>>> If those "costs" include specifically-targeted spite taxes > >>> And what "specifically-targeted spite taxes" affect 4x4s? > >> The one that immediately springs to mind is the differentially-higher >> charge that some London Borough(s) boasts/boast of making for a >> residents' parking permit*. Higher for a vehicle in the Range-Rover >> class than for (say) a Jag or a Roller on the basis of spite and >> grandstanding (however dressed up as something else). > > Care to provide any link to show that - say - a CR-V would be noticeably > differently priced to - say - a Mondeo? No, thought not. > > Again, you seem to be confusing CO2-based pricing differences with this > notional "4x4 spite tax" Perhaps others are. I merely report what they say. There are plenty of LBR committee reports on the internet wherein residents of that borough complain that they are being penalised for having a 4x4 (no, I don't why they "need" them either, but it has never been a requirement of ownership). As an example of the semi-braindead attitude I refer to, I can do no better than offer you: <http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23614365-tame-londons-4x4-parking-road-hogs.do>
From: Adrian on 15 Mar 2010 09:56 JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>> If those "costs" include specifically-targeted spite taxes >>>> And what "specifically-targeted spite taxes" affect 4x4s? >>> The one that immediately springs to mind is the differentially-higher >>> charge that some London Borough(s) boasts/boast of making for a >>> residents' parking permit*. Higher for a vehicle in the Range-Rover >>> class than for (say) a Jag or a Roller on the basis of spite and >>> grandstanding (however dressed up as something else). >> Care to provide any link to show that - say - a CR-V would be >> noticeably differently priced to - say - a Mondeo? No, thought not. >> >> Again, you seem to be confusing CO2-based pricing differences with this >> notional "4x4 spite tax" > Perhaps others are. I merely report what they say. Nice cop-out. > There are plenty of LBR committee reports on the internet wherein > residents of that borough complain that they are being penalised for > having a 4x4 (no, I don't why they "need" them either, but it has never > been a requirement of ownership). > > As an example of the semi-braindead attitude I refer to, I can do no > better than offer you: > > <http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23614365-tame- londons-4x4-parking-road-hogs.do> Yep, thought Richmond would be the one you'd mention. It's CO2-based. Nothing to do with "4x4s". http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/transport_and_streets/ motor_vehicles_roads_and_parking/parking/car_parking_permits/ residents_parking_permits.htm or http://snipurl.com/uunt "The cost of permits are based on: <snip> * The engine carbon dioxide emissions or cylinder capacity of the vehicle <snip>"
From: boltar2003 on 15 Mar 2010 10:05
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:35:04 +0000 JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >The irrational attitude of some - especially of some of those in authority - >to these vehicles is odd. Not at all odd. Its just another example of cynical and generally useless politicians going after easy targets to appease a vocal minority of eco nutters instead of tackling real problems. Most people in cities who own large cars are likely to be middle class, ergo reasonably well off and hence a good source of income from fines/charges/taxes etc. B2003 |