From: Peter Grange on
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:18:12 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com>
wrote:

>On 14 Dec, 21:39, "The Medway Handyman"
><davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Peter Grange wrote:
>> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:54:24 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
>> > <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> Peter Grange wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:39:32 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
>> >>> <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Adrian wrote:
>> >>>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(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.
>>
>> > So what was your argument against the millionaire paying more tax
>> > then?
>>
>> The percentage of VAT is the same, but 15% on a �100 push bike and 15% on a
>> �10,000 car are vastly different sums of money.
>>
>> I didn't have an argument about millionaire cyclists.
>>
>> --
>> Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
>
>Show me a millionaire cyclist, I'll bet you can count them on the
>fingers of one hand.
And your point is?
From: Peter Grange on
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:37:47 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
<davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>MasonS(a)BP.com wrote:
>> On 14 Dec, 17:54, "The Medway Handyman"
>> <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Peter Grange wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:39:32 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
>>>> <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(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- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Ah, we are making progress now. So the millionaire cyclist who pay for
>> his new yacht and incurs more in VAT than you will earn in your entire
>> life, is more entitled to use the road than you?
>
>No idiot boy, he pays the same fee for using the road as I do.
>
>>
>> Game, set and match.
>
>Only in your deranged mind.

So, let's get this straight. You say a motorist who payed more vat on
a car than a cyclist payed on his bike (which is true in most, but not
all, cases) has more right to use the road, even if they both paid
zero VED, but someone who paid more vat on his yacht than the motorist
paid on his car has no more right to use the road?

--

Pete - The Tax Paying Driving Licence Owning Cyclist
From: Conor on
In article <s8kei51bek0l3i279mngkhhtih03cl4739(a)4ax.com>, Peter Grange
says...

> There speaks a non-cyclist who has never bothered to look. Show me a
> car that can reach efficiency percentages in the high 90s then come
> back and we'll talk about "rudimentary engineering".

So the human powering the bike is 90% efficient?

--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: Conor on
In article <a6kei5d4a3v84o0cvc6acm83jacqmt9b46(a)4ax.com>, Peter Grange
says...

> The ones they sell there perhaps. Few of the regular cyclist posters
> here would ride such things.

No, they're too stupid for that. They pay �3000 for something that does
the same thing and no better. At least when you buy a Rolls Royce, you
can see what your money has got you compared to a Citroen 2CV.

--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: Peter Grange on
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:39:40 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
<davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Peter Grange wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:54:24 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
>> <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> So what was your argument against the millionaire paying more tax
>> then?
>
>The percentage of VAT is the same, but 15% on a �100 push bike and 15% on a
>�10,000 car are vastly different sums of money.

You really have no idea do you. I would no more ride a �100 bike than
you would use a Trabant van to run your business. Try and stay on the
same planet.

>
>I didn't have an argument about millionaire cyclists.

Except to say that a motorist has more right to be on the road than a
cyclist because he (in the majority of cases) pays more vat than the
cyclist, but the millionaire who paid more vat than the motorist
doesn't have an equally greater right than the motorist.

--

Pete - The Tax Paying Driving Licence Owning Cyclist