Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: The Medway Handyman on 16 Dec 2009 14:31 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 15 Dec, 21:42, "The Medway Handyman" > <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> Mas...(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- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > You said car drivers pay more VAT on their cars that a cyclist pays on > their bikes. Which they do. The same percentage, but on larger sums, so the amount is higher. > > I quote: > >>>> 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? > > > Medway Highwayman said! > **Because its a hell of a lot more innit.** > > Medwayman admits that a cyclist who pay more VAT than him does not > need to pay admin costs for a �0 VED disc. Could you translate that into English please. No rush, wait till you're sober. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 16 Dec 2009 14:34 Peter Grange wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:41:05 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" > <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> 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. > > Read your posts. You have said that VAT on a car is "more innit", and > you have said that the millionaire pays the same VED so has no more > right to the road. VAT is more on a car because a car costs more than a push bike. The mythical millionaire cyclists <chuckles> pays the same Road Tax so has the same right to use the road. Cyclists pay no road tax, so have no right to use the road. Simples -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: mileburner on 16 Dec 2009 14:34 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message news:LP2dnS_bW-O_g7TWnZ2dnUVZ8nli4p2d(a)pipex.net... > Or was it totally meaningless, because based only on the irrational belief > of some that people shouldn't be allowed to drive their children to > school, drive a van for a living, drive a taxi for living, etc, etc, etc? These things are usually based a very simple measure, and in this case it is the opinion that said drivers often drive like c**ts. It's a bit like "we asked 100 people... and our survey said: ..."
From: The Medway Handyman on 16 Dec 2009 14:36 Phil W Lee wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered > Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:44:14 GMT the perfect time to write: > >> Peter Grange wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Do stop making things up. Everyone whos pays road tax has the right >> to use the road. Those who don't pay it, don't. > > The law is almost exactly the reverse of that. > Not that the law seems to mean anything to you. Would you like to elaborate on that? What crime are you going to accuse me of next? -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 16 Dec 2009 14:37
Peter Grange wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:44:14 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" > <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> Peter Grange wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Do stop making things up. Everyone whos pays road tax has the right >> to use the road. Those who don't pay it, don't. > > You're entitled to your opinion, which is all that is. My opinion is > that you are either a troll or gobsmackingly ignorant. My opinion is that you are a freeloading, sponging cyclist who will go to any lengths to try & justify not paying his way. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist |