The Budget - Bad News for Motorists

[Simon Jester]

Now the personal tax limit has been raised it means the vast majority of motorists pay no income tax.

Road damage is the fourth power of axle loading.

How do motorists plan to reimburse cyclists?

[jnugent]

On 16/03/2016 22:29, Simon Jester wrote:
>
> Now the personal tax limit has been raised it means the vast majority of motorists pay no income tax.

It's only going to £11,000 pa.

Even you earn more than that, I expect.

> Road damage is the fourth power of axle loading.
> How do motorists plan to reimburse cyclists?

Do HMRC calculate income tax on the basis of vehicle weight?

Maybe on your planet.

[Simon Jester]

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 4:02:05 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 16/03/2016 22:29, Simon Jester wrote:
> >
> > Now the personal tax limit has been raised it means the vast majority of motorists pay no income tax.
>
> It's only going to £11,000 pa.
>
> Even you earn more than that, I expect.
>
> > Road damage is the fourth power of axle loading.
> > How do motorists plan to reimburse cyclists?
>
> Do HMRC calculate income tax on the basis of vehicle weight?
>
> Maybe on your planet.

Motoring taxes only pay for 60% of the motorway budget.
The other 30 Billion is payed out of general taxation.
Since the average motorists will no longer be paying any tax how will they compensate those who fund the lifestyle they choose , i.e. cyclists?

[jnugent]

On 17/03/2016 20:39, Simon Jester wrote:

> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 4:02:05 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 16/03/2016 22:29, Simon Jester wrote:
>
>>> Now the personal tax limit has been raised it means the vast majority of motorists pay no income tax.
>
>> It's only going to £11,000 pa.
>> Even you earn more than that, I expect.

>>> Road damage is the fourth power of axle loading.
>>> How do motorists plan to reimburse cyclists?

>> Do HMRC calculate income tax on the basis of vehicle weight?
>> Maybe on your planet.

> Motoring taxes only pay for 60% of the motorway budget.
> The other 30 Billion is payed out of general taxation.

Do you class the circa 300% tax on fuel as something other than a
motoring tax?

Let me guess...

It can't be a motoring tax because you buy 0.1l or petrol per annum for
your cigarette lighter and another for your barbecue?

> Since the average motorists will no longer be paying any tax how will they compensate those who fund the lifestyle they choose , i.e. cyclists?

There you go again.

What makes you think... er... better make that "suppose"... that the
average motorist (however defined) has an income of less than, or no
more than, £10,500 pa?

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 17 March 2016 20:39:05 UTC, Simon Jester wrote:

>
> Motoring taxes only pay for 60% of the motorway budget.
> The other 30 Billion is payed out of general taxation.
> Since the average motorists will no longer be paying any tax how will they compensate those who fund the lifestyle they choose , i.e. cyclists?

I just paid £1400 in council tax for roads that I am not trashing.

[MrCheerful]

On 17/03/2016 20:39, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 4:02:05 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 16/03/2016 22:29, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>
>>> Now the personal tax limit has been raised it means the vast majority of motorists pay no income tax.
>>
>> It's only going to £11,000 pa.
>>
>> Even you earn more than that, I expect.
>>
>>> Road damage is the fourth power of axle loading.
>>> How do motorists plan to reimburse cyclists?
>>
>> Do HMRC calculate income tax on the basis of vehicle weight?
>>
>> Maybe on your planet.
>
> Motoring taxes only pay for 60% of the motorway budget.
> The other 30 Billion is payed out of general taxation.
> Since the average motorists will no longer be paying any tax how will they compensate those who fund the lifestyle they choose , i.e. cyclists?
>

Can you suggest where your figures can be checked?
Motorists put in around 28 billion a year, so are you saying that the
overall budget on Motorways is in the region of 75 billion a year? If
so then you are seriously confused.

[Simon Jester]

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:01:10 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

> Can you suggest where your figures can be checked?

VED raises £6 billion a year, that is the only specific motoring tax.

> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year,

Can you suggest where your figures can be checked?

[Simon Jester]

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 8:47:51 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

> Do you class the circa 300% tax on fuel as something other than a
> motoring tax?
>

Fools duty is not a percentage of the pump price.

> Let me guess...
>
> It can't be a motoring tax because you buy 0.1l or petrol per annum for
> your cigarette lighter and another for your barbecue?

I smoke the occasional Gurkha Black Dragon, they go well with caviar and Vodka.
As a cyclist I have to pay the same pump price as a motorist when I buy fuel.

[MrCheerful]

On 17/03/2016 21:29, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:01:10 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
>
>> Can you suggest where your figures can be checked?
>
> VED raises £6 billion a year, that is the only specific motoring tax.
>
>> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year,
>
> Can you suggest where your figures can be checked?
>

The rest of the 28 billion comes mainly from fuel duty. It is simple to
look up such things, the government sites can be difficult to negotiate,
but wikipedia has a simple version. If you do a quick google for
something like' uk government income from fuel duty' you will easily
find the information you are trying to evade.

The telegraph puts the income from motorists per year at 35 billion
(which is the total of fuel duty and ved in round terms),
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11197224/David-Cameron-Roads-revolution-will-create-new-lanes-for-motorways.html

The TOTAL transport department budget per year is under 10 billion.
(page 15) so the spend on motorways is nowhere near that.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209279/PU1524_IUK_new_template.pdf

[Simon Jester]

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:05:29 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

> The rest of the 28 billion comes mainly from fuel duty.

So not a motoring specific tax.
Thank you for proving my point.

[MrCheerful]

On 17/03/2016 22:13, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:05:29 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
>
>> The rest of the 28 billion comes mainly from fuel duty.
>
> So not a motoring specific tax.
> Thank you for proving my point.
>

What or whom do you imagine uses the fuel?

[Simon Jester]

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:52:21 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:


> What or whom do you imagine uses the fuel?

So you agree it is not a motoring specific tax.
Anyone who buys fuel pays the same tax regardless of the vehicle they use or the purpose of their purchase.

Once again I thank you for proving my point.

[TMS320]

"MrCheerful" > wrote

> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...

I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits.

[Simon Jester]

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 12:13:16 AM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
> "MrCheerful" > wrote
>
> > Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...
>
> I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits.

Many years ago when I lived in Milton Keynes there were complaints from motorists because they could not park directly outside the Job Centre. Some of them had to walk nearly 100 yards. Scandalous.

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:52:21 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
> On 17/03/2016 22:13, Simon Jester wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:05:29 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
> >
> >> The rest of the 28 billion comes mainly from fuel duty.
> >
> > So not a motoring specific tax.
> > Thank you for proving my point.
> >
>
> What or whom do you imagine uses the fuel?

I do, for my lawnmower.

I always enjoy cycling to my local petrol station with a petrol can on my flatbed trailer, queuing up for a pump, and filling my can.

[MrCheerful]

On 17/03/2016 23:20, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:52:21 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
>
>
>> What or whom do you imagine uses the fuel?
>
> So you agree it is not a motoring specific tax.
> Anyone who buys fuel pays the same tax regardless of the vehicle they use or the purpose of their purchase.
>
> Once again I thank you for proving my point.
>

Who buys the fuel?

[MrCheerful]

On 18/03/2016 00:31, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:52:21 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
>> On 17/03/2016 22:13, Simon Jester wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:05:29 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
>>>
>>>> The rest of the 28 billion comes mainly from fuel duty.
>>>
>>> So not a motoring specific tax.
>>> Thank you for proving my point.
>>>
>>
>> What or whom do you imagine uses the fuel?
>
> I do, for my lawnmower.
>
> I always enjoy cycling to my local petrol station with a petrol can on my flatbed trailer, queuing up for a pump, and filling my can.
>

and how many billions of litres a month are bought by non driving people?

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:29:06 -0000, Simon Jester > wrote:

>
> Now the personal tax limit has been raised it means the vast majority of motorists pay no income tax.
>
> Road damage is the fourth power of axle loading.
>
> How do motorists plan to reimburse cyclists?

We pay petrol tax and car tax. Why do we have to pay income tax, and what has this to do with cyclists?

--
"I am returning this otherwise good typing paper to you because someone has printed gibberish all over it and put your name at the top." -- English Professor, Ohio University

[Simon Jester]

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 12:58:22 AM UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:29:06 -0000, Simon Jester > wrote:
>
> >
> > Now the personal tax limit has been raised it means the vast majority of motorists pay no income tax.
> >
> > Road damage is the fourth power of axle loading.
> >
> > How do motorists plan to reimburse cyclists?
>
> We pay petrol tax and car tax. Why do we have to pay income tax, and what has this to do with cyclists?
>
> --

We pay income tax to fund the war against Napoleon.

[jnugent]

On 17/03/2016 22:13, Simon Jester wrote:

> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:05:29 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

>> The rest of the 28 billion comes mainly from fuel duty.

> So not a motoring specific tax.
> Thank you for proving my point.

Oh, you use a tenth of a litre a year in your cigarette lighter, don't you?

So it can't be a motoring tax.

Even if the tax were increased tenfold, you would still insist that it
was not a tax on the use of motor vehicles.

How queer.

[jnugent]

On 17/03/2016 23:20, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:52:21 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
>
>
>> What or whom do you imagine uses the fuel?
>
> So you agree it is not a motoring specific tax.
> Anyone who buys fuel pays the same tax regardless of the vehicle they use or the purpose of their purchase.
>
> Once again I thank you for proving my point.

....says the chain-smoker who uses so much petrol in his lighter.

[jnugent]

On 18/03/2016 00:11, TMS320 wrote:

> "MrCheerful" > wrote

>> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...

> I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits.

Some; there's no doubt about that.

Especially when you consider the cases of people supllied with
Motability vehicles.

And if you (correctly) class Retirement Pension as a benefit, some more.

[jnugent]

On 17/03/2016 21:39, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 8:47:51 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>
>> Do you class the circa 300% tax on fuel as something other than a
>> motoring tax?
>>
>
> Fools duty is not a percentage of the pump price.
>
>> Let me guess...
>>
>> It can't be a motoring tax because you buy 0.1l or petrol per annum for
>> your cigarette lighter and another for your barbecue?
>
> I smoke the occasional Gurkha Black Dragon, they go well with caviar and Vodka.
> As a cyclist I have to pay the same pump price as a motorist when I buy fuel.

Quite so.

[jnugent]

On 17/03/2016 20:59, Alycidon wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 March 2016 20:39:05 UTC, Simon Jester wrote:
>
>>
>> Motoring taxes only pay for 60% of the motorway budget.
>> The other 30 Billion is payed out of general taxation.
>> Since the average motorists will no longer be paying any tax how will they compensate those who fund the lifestyle they choose , i.e. cyclists?
>
> I just paid £1400 in council tax for roads that I am not trashing.#

Is that all?

[paul george]

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 2:05:28 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:


>
> ...says the chain-smoker who uses so much petrol in his lighter.

Says the Liverpudlian (AKA Thieving Scally) who had Smoking Education classes in school.

[John Smith[_7_]]

MrCheerful > wrote:
> On 17/03/2016 21:29, Simon Jester wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:01:10 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
>>
>>> Can you suggest where your figures can be checked?
>>
>> VED raises £6 billion a year, that is the only specific motoring tax.
>>
>>> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year,
>>
>> Can you suggest where your figures can be checked?

> The rest of the 28 billion comes mainly from fuel duty. It is simple to
> look up such things, the government sites can be difficult to negotiate,
> but wikipedia has a simple version. If you do a quick google for
> something like' uk government income from fuel duty' you will easily
> find the information you are trying to evade.

When our thick unemployed handyman was still posting here - before I chased
him from the group - he used to claim that the psychopaths contributed more
to the exchequer than they received.

Needless to say, utter rubbish. I have posted the figures. The psychopath
is a net drain on the public purse.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[jnugent]

On 18/03/2016 03:47, Paul George wrote:

> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 2:05:28 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

>> ...says the chain-smoker who uses so much petrol in his lighter.

> Says the Liverpudlian (AKA Thieving Scally) who had Smoking Education classes in school.

You're getting even more desperate, eh?

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote
> On 18/03/2016 00:11, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> "MrCheerful" > wrote
>
>>> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...
>
>> I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits.
>
> Some; there's no doubt about that.
>
> Especially when you consider the cases of people supllied with Motability
> vehicles.

....even when it has resulted from excessive chip consumption.

> And if you (correctly) class Retirement Pension as a benefit, some more.

....tax credits, in work benefit, jobless benefit, housing benefit...

[jnugent]

On 18/03/2016 14:27, TMS320 wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote
>> On 18/03/2016 00:11, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "MrCheerful" > wrote
>
>>>> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...
>
>>> I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits.
>
>> Some; there's no doubt about that.
>
>> Especially when you consider the cases of people supllied with Motability
>> vehicles.
>
> ...even when it has resulted from excessive chip consumption.
>
>> And if you (correctly) class Retirement Pension as a benefit, some more.
>
> ...tax credits, in work benefit, jobless benefit, housing benefit...

Perhaps you think benefit income should all be paid in kind? Groceries
and household cleaning matreials, maybe? Or perhaps in vouchers marked
"No tobacco, no alcohol, no petrol"?

Suggest it to your MP. Please feel free to take all the credit for the idea.

Do let us know how you get on.

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote
> On 18/03/2016 14:27, TMS320 wrote:
>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>> On 18/03/2016 00:11, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "MrCheerful" > wrote
>>
>>>>> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...
>>
>>>> I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits.
>>
>>> Some; there's no doubt about that.
>>
>>> Especially when you consider the cases of people supllied with
>>> Motability
>>> vehicles.
>>
>> ...even when it has resulted from excessive chip consumption.
>>
>>> And if you (correctly) class Retirement Pension as a benefit, some more.
>>
>> ...tax credits, in work benefit, jobless benefit, housing benefit...
>
> Perhaps you think benefit income should all be paid in kind? Groceries and
> household cleaning matreials, maybe? Or perhaps in vouchers marked "No
> tobacco, no alcohol, no petrol"?

I merely pointed out that a 28 billion pot contains recycled benefits.

> Suggest it to your MP. Please feel free to take all the credit for the
> idea.
>
> Do let us know how you get on.

Why would I put your ideas to my MP?

[jnugent]

On 18/03/2016 22:26, TMS320 wrote:
> "JNugent" > wrote
>> On 18/03/2016 14:27, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>> On 18/03/2016 00:11, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> "MrCheerful" > wrote
>>>
>>>>>> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...
>>>
>>>>> I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits.
>>>
>>>> Some; there's no doubt about that.
>>>
>>>> Especially when you consider the cases of people supllied with
>>>> Motability
>>>> vehicles.
>>>
>>> ...even when it has resulted from excessive chip consumption.
>>>
>>>> And if you (correctly) class Retirement Pension as a benefit, some more.
>>>
>>> ...tax credits, in work benefit, jobless benefit, housing benefit...
>>
>> Perhaps you think benefit income should all be paid in kind? Groceries and
>> household cleaning matreials, maybe? Or perhaps in vouchers marked "No
>> tobacco, no alcohol, no petrol"?
>
> I merely pointed out that a 28 billion pot contains recycled benefits.
>
>> Suggest it to your MP. Please feel free to take all the credit for the
>> idea.
>
>> Do let us know how you get on.
>
> Why would I put your ideas to my MP?

What?

It's *your* idea.

Not mine at all.

I have no objection whatsoever to people using their benefits to run a car.

That's you, that is.

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:57:55 -0000, Simon Jester > wrote:

> On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 12:58:22 AM UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:29:06 -0000, Simon Jester > wrote:
>>
>> > Now the personal tax limit has been raised it means the vast majority of motorists pay no income tax.
>> >
>> > Road damage is the fourth power of axle loading.
>> >
>> > How do motorists plan to reimburse cyclists?
>>
>> We pay petrol tax and car tax. Why do we have to pay income tax, and what has this to do with cyclists?
>
> We pay income tax to fund the war against Napoleon.

No, it's for the Oxbridge snooty **** to eat caviare.

--
Sexy Sharon's sister saw saucy Sally swiftly suck seventy six soldiers sons.

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote
> On 18/03/2016 22:26, TMS320 wrote:
>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>> On 18/03/2016 14:27, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>> On 18/03/2016 00:11, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> "MrCheerful" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...
>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits.
>>>>
>>>>> Some; there's no doubt about that.
>>>>
>>>>> Especially when you consider the cases of people supllied with
>>>>> Motability vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> ...even when it has resulted from excessive chip consumption.
>>>>
>>>>> And if you (correctly) class Retirement Pension as a benefit, some
>>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> ...tax credits, in work benefit, jobless benefit, housing benefit...
>>>
>>> Perhaps you think benefit income should all be paid in kind? Groceries
>>> and
>>> household cleaning matreials, maybe? Or perhaps in vouchers marked "No
>>> tobacco, no alcohol, no petrol"?
>>
>> I merely pointed out that a 28 billion pot contains recycled benefits.
>>
>>> Suggest it to your MP. Please feel free to take all the credit for the
>>> idea.
>>
>>> Do let us know how you get on.
>>
>> Why would I put your ideas to my MP?
>
> What?
>
> It's *your* idea.
>
> Not mine at all.

The attributions quite clearly put your name against the idea. Though no
doubt you will continue to argue that stating a fact is evidence of some
sort of hidden agenda

> I have no objection whatsoever to people using their benefits to run a
> car.

Bully for you. A fact is a fact, irrespective of opinion. It's just an
inconvenient one for the "motorists pay lots of tax" argument.

> That's you, that is.

What is?

[jnugent]

On 19/03/2016 01:11, TMS320 wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote
>> On 18/03/2016 22:26, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>> On 18/03/2016 14:27, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>>> On 18/03/2016 00:11, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> "MrCheerful" > wrote
>
>>>>>>>> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...
>
>>>>>>> I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits.
>
>>>>>> Some; there's no doubt about that.
>>>>>> Especially when you consider the cases of people supllied with
>>>>>> Motability vehicles.
>
>>>>> ...even when it has resulted from excessive chip consumption.
>
>>>>>> And if you (correctly) class Retirement Pension as a benefit, some
>>>>>> more.
>
>>>>> ...tax credits, in work benefit, jobless benefit, housing benefit...
>
>>>> Perhaps you think benefit income should all be paid in kind? Groceries
>>>> and household cleaning matreials, maybe? Or perhaps in vouchers marked
>>>> "No tobacco, no alcohol, no petrol"?
>
>>> I merely pointed out that a 28 billion pot contains recycled benefits.
>
>>>> Suggest it to your MP. Please feel free to take all the credit for the
>>>> idea.
>>>> Do let us know how you get on.
>
>>> Why would I put your ideas to my MP?
>
>> What?
>> It's *your* idea.
>
>> Not mine at all.
>
> The attributions quite clearly put your name against the idea. Though no
> doubt you will continue to argue that stating a fact is evidence of some
> sort of hidden agenda

Don't be even dafter than you usually are.

You raised the "problem" of people spending benefit income on what you
call "motoring" (but which sensible call "travel").

I have no problem with the concept at all (I'd even said so).

I was merely positing measures which *you* might like to see in order to
prevent the spending of benefit income on things of which you clearly
don't approve.

>> I have no objection whatsoever to people using their benefits to run a
>> car.

> Bully for you. A fact is a fact, irrespective of opinion. It's just an
> inconvenient one for the "motorists pay lots of tax" argument.

?????

>> That's you, that is.

> What is?

The poster who is concerned about benefit income being used for travel
costs of course!

Silly!

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote
> On 19/03/2016 01:11, TMS320 wrote
>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>> On 18/03/2016 22:26, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>> On 18/03/2016 14:27, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>>>> On 18/03/2016 00:11, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>> "MrCheerful" > wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...
>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits.
>>
>>>>>>> Some; there's no doubt about that.
>>>>>>> Especially when you consider the cases of people supllied with
>>>>>>> Motability vehicles.
>>
>>>>>> ...even when it has resulted from excessive chip consumption.
>>
>>>>>>> And if you (correctly) class Retirement Pension as a benefit, some
>>>>>>> more.
>>
>>>>>> ...tax credits, in work benefit, jobless benefit, housing benefit...
>>
>>>>> Perhaps you think benefit income should all be paid in kind? Groceries
>>>>> and household cleaning matreials, maybe? Or perhaps in vouchers marked
>>>>> "No tobacco, no alcohol, no petrol"?
>>
>>>> I merely pointed out that a 28 billion pot contains recycled benefits.
>>
>>>>> Suggest it to your MP. Please feel free to take all the credit for the
>>>>> idea.
>>>>> Do let us know how you get on.
>>
>>>> Why would I put your ideas to my MP?
>>
>>> What?
>>> It's *your* idea.
>>
>>> Not mine at all.
>>
>> The attributions quite clearly put your name against the idea. Though no
>> doubt you will continue to argue that stating a fact is evidence of some
>> sort of hidden agenda
>
> Don't be even dafter than you usually are.
>
> You raised the "problem" of people spending benefit income on what you
> call "motoring" (but which sensible call "travel").
>
> I have no problem with the concept at all (I'd even said so).
>
> I was merely positing measures which *you* might like to see in order to
> prevent the spending of benefit income on things of which you clearly
> don't approve.

Then you admit you are the originator. If the chancellor reads this
newsgroup it might provide ideas for his next budget. (But if you have
raised it, it is unlikely those around him have not already contemplated how
to implement something like it.)

>>> I have no objection whatsoever to people using their benefits to run a
>>> car.
>
>> Bully for you. A fact is a fact, irrespective of opinion. It's just an
>> inconvenient one for the "motorists pay lots of tax" argument.
>
> ?????

You don't know the difference between fact and opinion..?

>>> That's you, that is.
>
>> What is?
>
> The poster who is concerned about benefit income being used for travel
> costs of course!

Which poster is this? Provide a quote.

> Silly!

Oh, you certainly are.

[jnugent]

On 19/03/2016 15:01, TMS320 wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote
>> On 19/03/2016 01:11, TMS320 wrote
>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>> On 18/03/2016 22:26, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>>> On 18/03/2016 14:27, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>>>>> On 18/03/2016 00:11, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "MrCheerful" > wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...
>
>>>>>>>>> I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits.
>
>>>>>>>> Some; there's no doubt about that.
>>>>>>>> Especially when you consider the cases of people supllied with
>>>>>>>> Motability vehicles.
>
>>>>>>> ...even when it has resulted from excessive chip consumption.
>
>>>>>>>> And if you (correctly) class Retirement Pension as a benefit, some
>>>>>>>> more.
>
>>>>>>> ...tax credits, in work benefit, jobless benefit, housing benefit...
>
>>>>>> Perhaps you think benefit income should all be paid in kind? Groceries
>>>>>> and household cleaning matreials, maybe? Or perhaps in vouchers marked
>>>>>> "No tobacco, no alcohol, no petrol"?
>
>>>>> I merely pointed out that a 28 billion pot contains recycled benefits.
>
>>>>>> Suggest it to your MP. Please feel free to take all the credit for the
>>>>>> idea. Do let us know how you get on.
>
>>>>> Why would I put your ideas to my MP?
>
>>>> What?
>>>> It's *your* idea.
>>>> Not mine at all.
>
>>> The attributions quite clearly put your name against the idea. Though no
>>> doubt you will continue to argue that stating a fact is evidence of some
>>> sort of hidden agenda
>
>> Don't be even dafter than you usually are.
>> You raised the "problem" of people spending benefit income on what you
>> call "motoring" (but which sensible call "travel").
>> I have no problem with the concept at all (I'd even said so).
>> I was merely positing measures which *you* might like to see in order to
>> prevent the spending of benefit income on things of which you clearly
>> don't approve.
>
> Then you admit you are the originator

....of assistance to you in order to heklp you sort out your confused
thinking on the subject.

> If the chancellor reads this
> newsgroup it might provide ideas for his next budget. (But if you have
> raised it, it is unlikely those around him have not already contemplated how
> to implement something like it.)

I didn't expect you to know that arrangements for the payment and method
of payment of social security benefits are the responsibility of the
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Relatively knowledgeable persons know that.

Less informed people would naturally make the bogus connection: "money -
Treasury - Chancellor"

>>>> I have no objection whatsoever to people using their benefits to run a
>>>> car.
>
>>> Bully for you. A fact is a fact, irrespective of opinion. It's just an
>>> inconvenient one for the "motorists pay lots of tax" argument.
>
>> ?????
>
> You don't know the difference between fact and opinion..?

Your opinion appears to be that people should not (or not be allowed to)
spend benefit income on travel.

That is indicated by your early musing:

Someone else said: "Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...".

And you took up the baton: "I wonder how much of that is just recycled
benefits".

Some of it definitely IS "recycled benefits" in the form of benefit
income being used for the exact purpose for which it is paid. But you
must have known that (you surely cannot be *that* uninformed!) and your
concerns must be about general income-supporting benefit being used for
the running of motor vehicles.

It is reasonable to assume, given the context, that you "think" it
devalues the £28,000,000,000 referred to be the previous poster. If you
didn't think so, your question would have been 100% irrelevant.

>>>> That's you, that is.
>
>>> What is?
>
>> The poster who is concerned about benefit income being used for travel
>> costs of course!
>
> Which poster is this? Provide a quote.

How about "I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits"?

>> Silly!
>
> Oh, you certainly are.

You're not only silly but also childish. And malevolent, as we have seen
recently.

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote
> On 19/03/2016 15:01, TMS320 wrote:
>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>> On 19/03/2016 01:11, TMS320 wrote
>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>> On 18/03/2016 22:26, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>>>> On 18/03/2016 14:27, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>>>>>> On 18/03/2016 00:11, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "MrCheerful" > wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Some; there's no doubt about that.
>>>>>>>>> Especially when you consider the cases of people supllied with
>>>>>>>>> Motability vehicles.
>>
>>>>>>>> ...even when it has resulted from excessive chip consumption.
>>
>>>>>>>>> And if you (correctly) class Retirement Pension as a benefit, some
>>>>>>>>> more.
>>
>>>>>>>> ...tax credits, in work benefit, jobless benefit, housing
>>>>>>>> benefit...
>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps you think benefit income should all be paid in kind?
>>>>>>> Groceries
>>>>>>> and household cleaning matreials, maybe? Or perhaps in vouchers
>>>>>>> marked
>>>>>>> "No tobacco, no alcohol, no petrol"?
>>
>>>>>> I merely pointed out that a 28 billion pot contains recycled
>>>>>> benefits.
>>
>>>>>>> Suggest it to your MP. Please feel free to take all the credit for
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> idea. Do let us know how you get on.
>>
>>>>>> Why would I put your ideas to my MP?
>>
>>>>> What?
>>>>> It's *your* idea.
>>>>> Not mine at all.
>>
>>>> The attributions quite clearly put your name against the idea. Though
>>>> no
>>>> doubt you will continue to argue that stating a fact is evidence of
>>>> some
>>>> sort of hidden agenda
>>
>>> Don't be even dafter than you usually are.
>>> You raised the "problem" of people spending benefit income on what you
>>> call "motoring" (but which sensible call "travel").
>>> I have no problem with the concept at all (I'd even said so).
>>> I was merely positing measures which *you* might like to see in order to
>>> prevent the spending of benefit income on things of which you clearly
>>> don't approve.
>>
>> Then you admit you are the originator
>
> ...of assistance to you in order to heklp you sort out your confused
> thinking on the subject.
>
>> If the chancellor reads this
>> newsgroup it might provide ideas for his next budget. (But if you have
>> raised it, it is unlikely those around him have not already contemplated
>> how
>> to implement something like it.)
>
> I didn't expect you to know that arrangements for the payment and method
> of payment of social security benefits are the responsibility of the
> Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
>
> Relatively knowledgeable persons know that.
>
> Less informed people would naturally make the bogus connection: "money -
> Treasury - Chancellor"

Relevance. Absolutely nothing.

>>>>> I have no objection whatsoever to people using their benefits to run a
>>>>> car.
>>
>>>> Bully for you. A fact is a fact, irrespective of opinion. It's just an
>>>> inconvenient one for the "motorists pay lots of tax" argument.
>>
>>> ?????
>>
>> You don't know the difference between fact and opinion..?
>
> Your opinion appears to be that people should not (or not be allowed to)
> spend benefit income on travel.

It is a charactistic in political arguments that when a question is raised
about some delicate matter, the immediate reply is that the questioner must
be against whatever it is.

> That is indicated by your early musing:
>
> Someone else said: "Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...".
>
> And you took up the baton: "I wonder how much of that is just recycled
> benefits".
>
> Some of it definitely IS "recycled benefits" in the form of benefit income
> being used for the exact purpose for which it is paid. But you must have
> known that (you surely cannot be *that* uninformed!) and your concerns
> must be about general income-supporting benefit being used for the running
> of motor vehicles.
>
> It is reasonable to assume, given the context, that you "think" it
> devalues the £28,000,000,000 referred to be the previous poster. If you
> didn't think so, your question would have been 100% irrelevant.

Of course it devalues the £28,000,000,000.

>>>>> That's you, that is.
>>
>>>> What is?
>>
>>> The poster who is concerned about benefit income being used for travel
>>> costs of course!
>>
>> Which poster is this? Provide a quote.
>
> How about "I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits"?

That is my quote. I expected you to find a quote expressing an opinion.

[jnugent]

On 23/03/2016 09:36, TMS320 wrote:
> "JNugent" > wrote
>> On 19/03/2016 15:01, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>> On 19/03/2016 01:11, TMS320 wrote
>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>>> On 18/03/2016 22:26, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>>>>> On 18/03/2016 14:27, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>> On 18/03/2016 00:11, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "MrCheerful" > wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some; there's no doubt about that.
>>>>>>>>>> Especially when you consider the cases of people supllied with
>>>>>>>>>> Motability vehicles.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...even when it has resulted from excessive chip consumption.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And if you (correctly) class Retirement Pension as a benefit, some
>>>>>>>>>> more.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...tax credits, in work benefit, jobless benefit, housing
>>>>>>>>> benefit...
>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps you think benefit income should all be paid in kind?
>>>>>>>> Groceries
>>>>>>>> and household cleaning matreials, maybe? Or perhaps in vouchers
>>>>>>>> marked
>>>>>>>> "No tobacco, no alcohol, no petrol"?
>>>
>>>>>>> I merely pointed out that a 28 billion pot contains recycled
>>>>>>> benefits.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Suggest it to your MP. Please feel free to take all the credit for
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> idea. Do let us know how you get on.
>>>
>>>>>>> Why would I put your ideas to my MP?
>>>
>>>>>> What?
>>>>>> It's *your* idea.
>>>>>> Not mine at all.
>>>
>>>>> The attributions quite clearly put your name against the idea. Though
>>>>> no
>>>>> doubt you will continue to argue that stating a fact is evidence of
>>>>> some
>>>>> sort of hidden agenda
>>>
>>>> Don't be even dafter than you usually are.
>>>> You raised the "problem" of people spending benefit income on what you
>>>> call "motoring" (but which sensible call "travel").
>>>> I have no problem with the concept at all (I'd even said so).
>>>> I was merely positing measures which *you* might like to see in order to
>>>> prevent the spending of benefit income on things of which you clearly
>>>> don't approve.
>>>
>>> Then you admit you are the originator
>>
>> ...of assistance to you in order to heklp you sort out your confused
>> thinking on the subject.
>>
>>> If the chancellor reads this
>>> newsgroup it might provide ideas for his next budget. (But if you have
>>> raised it, it is unlikely those around him have not already contemplated
>>> how
>>> to implement something like it.)
>>
>> I didn't expect you to know that arrangements for the payment and method
>> of payment of social security benefits are the responsibility of the
>> Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
>>
>> Relatively knowledgeable persons know that.
>>
>> Less informed people would naturally make the bogus connection: "money -
>> Treasury - Chancellor"
>
> Relevance. Absolutely nothing.
>
>>>>>> I have no objection whatsoever to people using their benefits to run a
>>>>>> car.
>>>
>>>>> Bully for you. A fact is a fact, irrespective of opinion. It's just an
>>>>> inconvenient one for the "motorists pay lots of tax" argument.
>>>
>>>> ?????
>>>
>>> You don't know the difference between fact and opinion..?
>>
>> Your opinion appears to be that people should not (or not be allowed to)
>> spend benefit income on travel.
>
> It is a charactistic in political arguments that when a question is raised
> about some delicate matter, the immediate reply is that the questioner must
> be against whatever it is.
>
>> That is indicated by your early musing:
>>
>> Someone else said: "Motorists put in around 28 billion a year...".
>>
>> And you took up the baton: "I wonder how much of that is just recycled
>> benefits".
>>
>> Some of it definitely IS "recycled benefits" in the form of benefit income
>> being used for the exact purpose for which it is paid. But you must have
>> known that (you surely cannot be *that* uninformed!) and your concerns
>> must be about general income-supporting benefit being used for the running
>> of motor vehicles.
>>
>> It is reasonable to assume, given the context, that you "think" it
>> devalues the £28,000,000,000 referred to be the previous poster. If you
>> didn't think so, your question would have been 100% irrelevant.
>
> Of course it devalues the £28,000,000,000.
>
>>>>>> That's you, that is.
>>>
>>>>> What is?
>>>
>>>> The poster who is concerned about benefit income being used for travel
>>>> costs of course!
>>>
>>> Which poster is this? Provide a quote.
>>
>> How about "I wonder how much of that is just recycled benefits"?
>
> That is my quote. I expected you to find a quote expressing an opinion.

What an amazing wriggle.