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: Adrian on 16 Mar 2010 05:36 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. By pointing out the factual errors and proving the case? No, I don't think you are, y'know.
From: JNugent on 16 Mar 2010 05:49 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. > > By pointing out the factual errors and proving the case? > > No, I don't think you are, y'know. You have pointed out no errors in anything I have said.
From: Adrian on 16 Mar 2010 06:05 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. >> By pointing out the factual errors and proving the case? >> >> No, I don't think you are, y'know. > You have pointed out no errors in anything I have said. Apart from there being "a system of spite/envy/playing to the gallery taxes" which just don't exist - together with one specific example which is nothing of the kind - and your sympathy for people complaining about non-existant taxes?
From: JNugent on 16 Mar 2010 06:25 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. > >>> By pointing out the factual errors and proving the case? >>> >>> No, I don't think you are, y'know. > >> You have pointed out no errors in anything I have said. > > Apart from there being "a system of spite/envy/playing to the gallery > taxes" which just don't exist - together with one specific example which > is nothing of the kind - and your sympathy for people complaining about > non-existant taxes? What? There has been so much public hot air expended over the last few years (not only in these newsgroups) about "gas guzzlers", "4x4s", "Chelsea Tractors" and their owners/drivers - often "supported" by completely erroneous claims about their footprint - that spite and envy are the mildest of accusations one could make. It frequently seems to run as far as sheer malice. One would not be far out in ascribing some of it to hysteria. You have already stated that larger vehicles are subject to higher taxation. Added to that, we have Richmond's discriminatory charging for parking permits on the basis of a characteristic which has nothing to do with parking, as well as Mad Ken's plan to charge the owners of "4x4s" more - a lot more - for the "privilege" of driving in the capital. These things are not non-existent (except for Mad Ken's plan, which the people of London aborted for him).
From: Adrian on 16 Mar 2010 07:31
JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> That £90k 4wd saloon car with <£200 tax is considerably physically >> larger than the £26k 2wd saloon car with >£400 tax. > They're both more expensive to tax than a small car. Apart from they're not. A tax disc for that £90k large saloon is cheaper than for some Vauxhall Corsas. >> I've stated that taxation has nothing to do with vehicle price. Because >> it doesn't. > No-one said it did (directly). You have read that into what *was* said. You explicitly said that it was a tax on expensive cars. >> I've stated that taxation has nothing to do with the number of driven >> wheels. Because it doesn't. > Again, no-one said it did. You have read that into what *was* said. It's been stated to be a tax on 4x4s - no, not by you, although you have certainly strongly implied agreement with it - and you have said you have sympathy with 4x4 owners who claim it to be. >> There's also a little (and, again, we can argue about the merits, but - >> again - I'm sure we'd agree) detail in the Congestion Charge scheme >> that means that £90k 4wd large saloon would actually cost you NOTHING >> for the Congestion Charge - the exact same price as for a £60k gurt big >> 4wd "Chelsea Tractor" from the same range. > Not sure what you mean there. Simple. You can drive that £90k 4x4 large saloon car around London all day every day and not pay a penny in Congestion Charge, quite legally. Same for a £60k "Chelsea Tractor". |