From: MasonS on
On 13 Dec, 20:57, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote:

> > Like I said before, which he conveniently ignored. A multi millionaire
> > cyclist could pay more in VAT on his new yacht than the Medway
> > Highwayman will ever pay in taxes in his whole life. That's a low
> > estimate.
>
> That last factette is possibly, perhaps even probably, true.
>
> What's its relevance?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It means that he would have paid vastly more to the Govt tax pot that
pays for the roads, than the Medway Highwayman would pay in all of his
taxes in his lifetime. However, if Medway Man happens to meet said
cycling millionaire on the roads, he will instantly *assume* that
because he has a "tax disc" in his window, he therefore has the right
to be on the road, but the millionaire lacking said bit of paper is a
freeloading sponger, when the exact opposite is true. That's how
narrow (but sadly typical) his viewpoint is.

--
Simon Mason
From: JNugent on
MasonS(a)BP.com wrote:

> JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote:

>>> Like I said before, which he conveniently ignored. A multi millionaire
>>> cyclist could pay more in VAT on his new yacht than the Medway
>>> Highwayman will ever pay in taxes in his whole life. That's a low
>>> estimate.

>> That last factette is possibly, perhaps even probably, true.
>> What's its relevance?

> It means that he would have paid vastly more to the Govt tax pot that
> pays for the roads, than the Medway Highwayman would pay in all of his
> taxes in his lifetime. However, if Medway Man happens to meet said
> cycling millionaire on the roads, he will instantly *assume* that
> because he has a "tax disc" in his window, he therefore has the right
> to be on the road, but the millionaire lacking said bit of paper is a
> freeloading sponger, when the exact opposite is true. That's how
> narrow (but sadly typical) his viewpoint is.

You see, I think his problem lies with an attitude by which some people
systematically seek to deny that the owners, operators and drivers/riders of
motor vehicles ("motorists" for short) pay a lot of extra taxes (extra to all
the other taxes one might pay) levied on vehicle use which are not levied on
other people and other activities. This denial seems to be adhered to in an
effort to "prove" that motorists somehow don't pay for roads, and that they
pay (in motoring taxes) several times more than is expended on the roads is
somehow unconnected with the roads.

You can see his problem, surely? Do you think that "proving" that he (and
other drivers) don't pay for roads handsomely with knobs on is some sort of
clever contribution to debate?
From: MasonS on
On 13 Dec, 21:31, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote:
> > JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> >> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote:
> >>> Like I said before, which he conveniently ignored. A multi millionaire
> >>> cyclist could pay more in VAT on his new yacht than the Medway
> >>> Highwayman will ever pay in taxes in his whole life. That's a low
> >>> estimate.
> >> That last factette is possibly, perhaps even probably, true.
> >> What's its relevance?
> > It means that he would have paid vastly more to the Govt tax pot that
> > pays for the roads, than the Medway Highwayman would pay in all of his
> > taxes in his lifetime. However, if Medway Man happens to meet said
> > cycling millionaire on the roads, he will instantly *assume* that
> > because he has a "tax disc" in his window, he therefore has the right
> > to be on the road, but the millionaire lacking said bit of paper is a
> > freeloading sponger, when the exact opposite is true. That's how
> > narrow (but sadly typical) his viewpoint is.
>
> You see, I think his problem lies with an attitude by which some people
> systematically seek to deny that the owners, operators and drivers/riders of
> motor vehicles ("motorists" for short) pay a lot of extra taxes (extra to all
> the other taxes one might pay) levied on vehicle use which are not levied on
> other people and other activities. This denial seems to be adhered to in an
> effort to "prove" that motorists somehow don't pay for roads, and that they
> pay (in motoring taxes) several times more than is expended on the roads is
> somehow unconnected with the roads.
>
> You can see his problem, surely? Do you think that "proving" that he (and
> other drivers) don't pay for roads handsomely with knobs on is some sort of
> clever contribution to debate?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If you add on enviromental damage, the vast costs incurred by the NHS
to treat accident victims, days off sick due to motoring injuries,
noise pollution, diseases caused by air pollution, reduced quality of
life caused by nearby roads and the attendant traffic, the cost of the
emergency services tied up with enforcing traffic laws and scraping
dead bodies off the road, the loss of a main breadwinner and many,
many other costs to society, the amount of tax taken from the average
driver does in no way pay for even a half of the entire cost to
society. The last time I checked it was about 25% of the cost.
--
Simon Mason
From: JNugent on
MasonS(a)BP.com wrote:

> JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote:
>>> JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>>> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote:

>>>>> Like I said before, which he conveniently ignored. A multi millionaire
>>>>> cyclist could pay more in VAT on his new yacht than the Medway
>>>>> Highwayman will ever pay in taxes in his whole life. That's a low
>>>>> estimate.

>>>> That last factette is possibly, perhaps even probably, true.
>>>> What's its relevance?

>>> It means that he would have paid vastly more to the Govt tax pot that
>>> pays for the roads, than the Medway Highwayman would pay in all of his
>>> taxes in his lifetime. However, if Medway Man happens to meet said
>>> cycling millionaire on the roads, he will instantly *assume* that
>>> because he has a "tax disc" in his window, he therefore has the right
>>> to be on the road, but the millionaire lacking said bit of paper is a
>>> freeloading sponger, when the exact opposite is true. That's how
>>> narrow (but sadly typical) his viewpoint is.

>> You see, I think his problem lies with an attitude by which some people
>> systematically seek to deny that the owners, operators and drivers/riders of
>> motor vehicles ("motorists" for short) pay a lot of extra taxes (extra to all
>> the other taxes one might pay) levied on vehicle use which are not levied on
>> other people and other activities. This denial seems to be adhered to in an
>> effort to "prove" that motorists somehow don't pay for roads, and that they
>> pay (in motoring taxes) several times more than is expended on the roads is
>> somehow unconnected with the roads.
>> You can see his problem, surely? Do you think that "proving" that he (and
>> other drivers) don't pay for roads handsomely with knobs on is some sort of
>> clever contribution to debate?

> If you add on enviromental damage, the vast costs incurred by the NHS
> to treat accident victims, days off sick due to motoring injuries,
> noise pollution, diseases caused by air pollution, reduced quality of
> life caused by nearby roads and the attendant traffic, the cost of the
> emergency services tied up with enforcing traffic laws and scraping
> dead bodies off the road, the loss of a main breadwinner and many,
> many other costs to society, the amount of tax taken from the average
> driver does in no way pay for even a half of the entire cost to
> society. The last time I checked it was about 25% of the cost.

Oh... just when we could have made progress... you start with the makey-up
numbers "argument".

<wearily>

OK... where did you "check" that? You know they aren't accepted on the basis
of mere assertion, and I hope you (or whoever gave you the "figures") aren't
just making them up.

PS: What's all this "- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -" business?
From: NM on
On 13 Dec, 21:53, "Mas...(a)BP.com" <Mas...(a)BP.com> wrote:
> On 13 Dec, 21:31, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mas...(a)BP.com wrote:
> > > JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> > >> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote:
> > >>> Like I said before, which he conveniently ignored. A multi millionaire
> > >>> cyclist could pay more in VAT on his new yacht than the Medway
> > >>> Highwayman will ever pay in taxes in his whole life. That's a low
> > >>> estimate.
> > >> That last factette is possibly, perhaps even probably, true.
> > >> What's its relevance?
> > > It means that he would have paid vastly more to the Govt tax pot that
> > > pays for the roads, than the Medway Highwayman would pay in all of his
> > > taxes in his lifetime. However, if Medway Man happens to meet said
> > > cycling millionaire on the roads, he will instantly *assume* that
> > > because he has a "tax disc" in his window, he therefore has the right
> > > to be on the road, but the millionaire lacking said bit of paper is a
> > > freeloading sponger, when the exact opposite is true. That's how
> > > narrow (but sadly typical) his viewpoint is.
>
> > You see, I think his problem lies with an attitude by which some people
> > systematically seek to deny that the owners, operators and drivers/riders of
> > motor vehicles ("motorists" for short) pay a lot of extra taxes (extra to all
> > the other taxes one might pay) levied on vehicle use which are not levied on
> > other people and other activities. This denial seems to be adhered to in an
> > effort to "prove" that motorists somehow don't pay for roads, and that they
> > pay (in motoring taxes) several times more than is expended on the roads is
> > somehow unconnected with the roads.
>
> > You can see his problem, surely? Do you think that "proving" that he (and
> > other drivers) don't pay for roads handsomely with knobs on is some sort of
> > clever contribution to debate?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> If you add on enviromental damage, the vast costs incurred by the NHS
> to treat accident victims, days off sick due to motoring injuries,
> noise pollution, diseases caused by air pollution, reduced quality of
> life caused by nearby roads and the attendant traffic, the cost of the
> emergency services tied up with enforcing traffic laws and scraping
> dead bodies off the road, the loss of a main breadwinner and many,
> many other costs to society, the amount of tax taken from the average
> driver does in no way pay for even a half of the entire cost to
> society. The last time I checked it was about 25% of the cost.
> --
> Simon Mason

More makee uppee numbers, care to post a breakdown of the costs?