Call for bicycles to be licensed
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Wiltshire gang jailed for 'half UK's caravan thefts'
Next: Compare the Market dot com are pants.
From: JNugent on 15 Mar 2010 20:36 Clive George wrote: > On 15/03/2010 18:25, Adrian wrote: >> Nick Finnigan<nix(a)genie.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >> were saying: >> >>>> But, please, stop confusing that "liking" for a "need" - and accept >>>> that an inevitable corollory of that liking is going to be increased >>>> running costs - due to the fact that their inherent design requirements >>>> mean they tend to be big, heavy, thirsty vehicles - which inevitably >>>> means increased taxation due to the fact they emit more CO2 and use >>>> more fuel - after all, it's not exactly a secret that CO2 has been used >>>> as the basis for vehicle taxation for a decade, and that fuel has been >>>> taxed for one hell of a lot longer. >> >>> Although I think Chelsea Tractor Man claims to emit less CO2 than >>> your >>> 2.0 petrol car >> >> <shrug> I wouldn't know. There's no official CO2 figures for my car. > > Though if it did, it would happily demonstrate the lack of a 4x4 tax. I > see JNugent has now dropped his claim there was one. I never said that there *was* one specifically devoted to 4x4s. Those are words which someone else tried to put into my mouth. I pointed out that if the owners of 4x4s were to complain about the spite/envy taxes which are levied on them (the question of whether they are levied upon the owners of other sorts of expensive and large cars is irrelevant), I would find myself in some sympathy with them. There *is* a system of spite/envy/playing to the gallery taxes on more expensive cars, often reported as a "4x4 tax".
From: Adrian on 16 Mar 2010 04:03 JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > I pointed out that if the owners of 4x4s were to complain about the > spite/envy taxes which are levied on them (the question of whether they > are levied upon the owners of other sorts of expensive and large cars is > irrelevant), I would find myself in some sympathy with them. It's hard to be sympathetic, since there ARE NO SUCH TAXES. They don't exist. > There *is* a system of spite/envy/playing to the gallery taxes on more > expensive cars, often reported as a "4x4 tax". <sigh> No, there isn't. Not even close to being. Not when you can buy £90,000 cars with 4wd that cost <£200 to tax, and £26,000 cars with 2wd that cost >£400 to tax. And, before you ask, both are brand new, 2010 model year, four door saloons (not "4x4s"/SUVs/Chelsea Tractors), from mainstream volume manufacturers.
From: JNugent on 16 Mar 2010 05:07 Adrian wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >> I pointed out that if the owners of 4x4s were to complain about the >> spite/envy taxes which are levied on them (the question of whether they >> are levied upon the owners of other sorts of expensive and large cars is >> irrelevant), I would find myself in some sympathy with them. > > It's hard to be sympathetic, since there ARE NO SUCH TAXES. They don't > exist. > >> There *is* a system of spite/envy/playing to the gallery taxes on more >> expensive cars, often reported as a "4x4 tax". > > <sigh> No, there isn't. Not even close to being. > > Not when you can buy £90,000 cars with 4wd that cost <£200 to tax, and > £26,000 cars with 2wd that cost >£400 to tax. Even if they were the only examples of the extra taxation levied on motor cars in the classes referred to (they aren't, as previous reference to Richmond, where envy and spite rule, has shown), that would be enough.
From: Adrian on 16 Mar 2010 05:12 JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> I pointed out that if the owners of 4x4s were to complain about the >>> spite/envy taxes which are levied on them (the question of whether >>> they are levied upon the owners of other sorts of expensive and large >>> cars is irrelevant), I would find myself in some sympathy with them. >> It's hard to be sympathetic, since there ARE NO SUCH TAXES. They don't >> exist. >>> There *is* a system of spite/envy/playing to the gallery taxes on more >>> expensive cars, often reported as a "4x4 tax". >> <sigh> No, there isn't. Not even close to being. >> >> Not when you can buy £90,000 cars with 4wd that cost <£200 to tax, and >> £26,000 cars with 2wd that cost >£400 to tax. > Even if they were the only examples of the extra taxation levied on > motor cars in the classes referred to (they aren't, as previous > reference to Richmond, where envy and spite rule, has shown), that would > be enough. You seem to be missing the point by such a wide margin that I can only assume it's deliberate.
From: JNugent on 16 Mar 2010 05:35
Adrian wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >>>> I pointed out that if the owners of 4x4s were to complain about the >>>> spite/envy taxes which are levied on them (the question of whether >>>> they are levied upon the owners of other sorts of expensive and large >>>> cars is irrelevant), I would find myself in some sympathy with them. > >>> It's hard to be sympathetic, since there ARE NO SUCH TAXES. They don't >>> exist. > >>>> There *is* a system of spite/envy/playing to the gallery taxes on more >>>> expensive cars, often reported as a "4x4 tax". > >>> <sigh> No, there isn't. Not even close to being. >>> >>> Not when you can buy £90,000 cars with 4wd that cost <£200 to tax, and >>> £26,000 cars with 2wd that cost >£400 to tax. > >> Even if they were the only examples of the extra taxation levied on >> motor cars in the classes referred to (they aren't, as previous >> reference to Richmond, where envy and spite rule, has shown), that would >> be enough. > > You seem to be missing the point by such a wide margin that I can only > assume it's deliberate. I am treating your points in the same way that you are treating mine. |