Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: The Medway Handyman on 15 Dec 2009 16:17 Phil W Lee wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered > Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:40:27 GMT the perfect time to write: > >> 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. > > So you'll be supporting moves to raise motoring taxes to a level that > accurately reflects the costs to the taxpayer of providing the > facilities they make necessary then? I'd support moves to change motoring taxes to a level that reflects the costs of roads - because them us motorists would all get a rebate. > > That way, the costs to the general taxpayer of providing motoring > facilities would be zero, They already are. > and the excess general tax could be > redirected to providing far better cycling facilities, as well as > enabling a massive reduction in general taxation. Spoken like a true sponging freeloader. Get tax paying motorists to provide facilities to cyclists who don't pay to use th eroads. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 15 Dec 2009 16:20 Keitht wrote: > Happi Monday wrote: >> The Medway Handyman wrote: >> >>> >>> Janet & John see Simple Simon. >>> They call him Simple Simon because he's a bit thick. >>> Simple Simon thinks horses are vehicles! >>> Simple Simon thinks shoes are vehicles! >>> Simple Simon thinks children's toys are vehicles! >>> See Janet & John laugh at Simple Simon for making a prat out of >>> himself again. >> >> I confess, if you're as good at handymaning as you are at comedy, I'd >> use your services :-) > > Dunno, if that's his finished work I'd go elsewhere. You certainly would. Being a cyclist you wouldn't want to pay the going rate for the job. You'd just whinge & expect someone else to pay. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 15 Dec 2009 16:36 Keitht wrote: > NM wrote: >> On Dec 15, 11:27 am, Keitht <KeithT> wrote: >> >>> BUT - as with bikes, there is a market for cheap and cheerful cars. >>> Possibly the same market. >>> Cars that are barely, if at all, mechanically sound on the roads are >>> also those that are not insured or taxed or have MOT's. >>> They may look O.K. but . . . >>> >>> -- >>> Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle >> >> Bit like most cycles then, no insurance, no tax, unsafe. > > bait noted and ignored ;-) Which roughly translated means "Doh!" -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 15 Dec 2009 16:41 Peter Grange wrote: > 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? No I don't say that. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 15 Dec 2009 16:42
MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 15 Dec, 09:53, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >> In article <q4mei59akbtu18cbavblv4nu1tsuhh4...(a)4ax.com>, Peter Grange >> says... >> >>> 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? >> >> BWAHAHAHA...someone who has to resort to the argument of the right to >> use a boat on a road has well and truly lost the argument. > > > Dear oh dear, do you honestly think there is a dept. at HM Treasury > which separates the VAT from new boats from the VAT from car tyres, so > that the right pound coin can go to road building? I'm afraid Medway > Highwayman well and truly shot himself in the foot by bringing in VAT > to his old "road tax" argument. When did I bring VAT into it, other than in your deranged mind? -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist |