Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Peter Grange on 14 Dec 2009 12:50 On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:40:27 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: >> On 14 Dec, 15:44, Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:15:42 +0000, ChelseaTractorMan >>> >>> <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:14:23 +0000, Peter Grange >>>> <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>> I was responding to "Cyclists don't pay VED". I am a cyclist, I pay >>>>> VED. The End. >>> >>>> Not the end. VED is charged to car owners, if a car owner happens to >>>> cycle that does not demonstrate anything at all. Stupid point. >>> >>> Not stupid at all. Pedantic maybe, but I'm trying to get through to a >>> man who wants me to pay a tax that doesn't exist. How stupid is that? >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Pete - The Tax Paying Driving Licence Owning Cyclist >> >> Not only that, he wants to create a *new tax* that will costs millions >> in admin and which will charge its recipients precisely nothing. > >Who said I wanted to charge cyclists nothing? I want the freeloaders to pay >their share. Well that's all right then, because we do, as defined by HMG. > >> That's beyond stupid. > > >It never fails to amaze me how cyclists make things up.
From: The Medway Handyman on 14 Dec 2009 12:50 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 14 Dec, 13:41, Halmyre <flashgordonreced...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 12 Dec, 20:33, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> Halmyre wrote: >>>>> Would it be OK if all of country's millions of bicycles, which >>>>> would be in VED band A (Fee = �0), got a stamped round bit of >>>>> paper from the Post Office and stuck it on their frames? Would >>>>> that do it for you? >> >>>> Why would/should bicycles be in band A? (Answers of "because I'm a >>>> cyclist and say so", accompanied by hysterics and foot-stamping, >>>> are not acceptable). >> >>> Zero vehicle emmissions. VED is based on vehicle emmisions. And >>> Zero is considerably less than required to be in band B >> >> You see the bold type at the top of this web page? >> >> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehic... >> >> "The cost of vehicle tax for cars, motorcycles, light goods vehicles >> and trade licences" >> >> As far as I am aware, bicycles don't fall into any of those >> categories. >> >> -- >> Halmyre > > "How to Tax Your Vehicle", eh? > > Double the reason why they don't attract VED then. The Govt doesn't > even class them as vehicles. Medway Highwayman *will* be upset. So, in your desperate attempt to avoid admitting you are a freeloader, you are now trying to claim a push bike isn't a vehicle? -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 14 Dec 2009 12:52 Keitht wrote: > Adrian wrote: > >> >> A bike MOT would also increase business for local bike shops, of >> course. > > > And put places like Toys R Us and Argos out of the bike business - > along with so many others that would fail even if brand new. The UK's largest toy retailers. Proves that bikes are for kids, not adults. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: MasonS on 14 Dec 2009 12:53 On 14 Dec, 17:48, Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:25:57 +0000, Judith M Smith > > > > > > <judithmsm...(a)live.co.uk> wrote: > >On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 04:17:30 -0800 (PST), "Mas...(a)BP.com" > ><Mas...(a)BP.com> wrote: > > ><snip> > > >>Yes, but since none of these proposals is ever going to be made law - > >>we have no interest. > > >Oh really - and you know that how? > > >My MP was certainly interested. > > I did invite you to share his/her response some time ago. I'm sure she was overjoyed at receiving a standard acknowledgement letter pp'd by the MP's secretary designed to fob off any eccentric "outraged of Tunbridge Wells" types. -- Simon Mason
From: The Medway Handyman on 14 Dec 2009 12:54
Peter Grange wrote: > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:39:32 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" > <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> Adrian wrote: >>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled >>> happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> >>>>> Would it be OK if all of country's millions of bicycles, which >>>>> would be in VED band A (Fee = �0), got a stamped round bit of >>>>> paper from the Post Office and stuck it on their frames? Would >>>>> that do it for you? I wouldn't mind if it made van drivers gave >>>>> me more respect on the road. >>> >>>> No, not really. They would have to pay a fee to cover the >>>> inconvenience of admin. >>> >>> Why does that apply to one form of zero-charge VED, yet not to >>> others? >>> >> Because zero rated cars still have number plates, so the pokice can >> check they have insurance & trace them when they break traffic laws. >> >>> Or do you think that all zero-charge VED should pay an >>> "inconvenience of admin" fee? >> >> No, they pay enough in VAT & fuel duty to cover it. > > Hang on, we had the VAT argument already. In your strange world VAT on > bikes doesn't count, so wht does it on cars? Because its a hell of a lot more innit. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist |