two-wheeled scum murdering pedestrians again

On 09/04/2011 09:24, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 9, 9:07 am, Tony wrote:

Who is the owner of Janet's car, because it is the owner who is
responsible for paying VED, where that money comes from does not matter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That would be John, the cyclist who pays the VED.
The driver, Janet pays zilch - the cyclist pays it all.

--
Simon Mason

At last, you agree that the owner (John) pays a specific tax/duty to
enable use of the car on the road- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am glad that you finally agree that the cyclist, John pays all of
the tax and that the main driver, Janet pays bugger all and yet it is
she who does all of the road damage and pollution. The cyclist John is
heavily subsidising the driver Janet, just as all of the other non
drivers do who pay any sort of tax.

I thank you.

You are often as hilarious as you are just above, and one of the funnier
aspects of it is that you don't even know it.

What on Earth do you think you are "proving" with your increasingly weird
"reasoning"?

On 09/04/2011 10:05, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 09/04/2011 09:38, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 9, 9:36 am, Tony wrote:
On 09/04/2011 09:24, Simon Mason wrote:





On Apr 9, 9:07 am, Tony wrote:

Who is the owner of Janet's car, because it is the owner who is
responsible for paying VED, where that money comes from does not
matter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That would be John, the cyclist who pays the VED.
The driver, Janet pays zilch - the cyclist pays it all.

--
Simon Mason

At last, you agree that the owner (John) pays a specific tax/duty to
enable use of the car on the road- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am glad that you finally agree that the cyclist, John pays all of
the tax and that the main driver, Janet pays bugger all and yet it is
she who does all of the road damage and pollution. The cyclist John is
heavily subsidising the driver Janet, just as all of the other non
drivers do who pay any sort of tax.

I thank you.

--
Simon Mason

And I am glad that you agree with me, don't forget the question was
about the owner of the car.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The cyclist is the owner - you've got it!
--
Simon Mason

Did I ever argue otherwise?

Why would a "cyclist" own a car?

On Apr 9, 10:05*am, Tony Dragon wrote:
And I am glad that you agree with me, don't forget the question was
about the owner of the car.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The cyclist is the owner - you've got it!
--
Simon Mason

Did I ever argue otherwise?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not sure what you were arguing for or against. It just seems to be
beyond the wit of a lot of motorists that a cyclist can and does pay
all of the costs associated with owning a car while rarely using it
himself. Looking from behind a windscreen yer average Great British
Driver will see Janet in her car and imagine that she is taxed to the
hilt and has paid an "extra tax" to use "her" car on the road plus all
of the other costs. Cycling John however is a "freeloader" who doesn't
have to pay any car related costs, whereas in reality, the exact polar
opposite is true.

He pays everything and hardly drives.
She pay nothing at all and drives everywhere.

--
Simon Mason

"francis" wrote

So you agree that a cycle owner does not have to pay a specific tax to
allow a cycle to be used on the roads, at last.

The argument is not about whether or not a cycle owner has to pay tax on the
bike.

The argument put forward by some is that there is some kind of unfairness in
a scheme that allows people to choose how much tax they want to pay.

On Apr 9, 11:57*am, "DavidR" wrote:
"francis" wrote

So you agree that a cycle owner does not have to pay a specific tax to
allow a cycle to be used on the roads, at last.

The argument is not about whether or not a cycle owner has to pay tax on the
bike.

The argument put forward by some is that there is some kind of unfairness in
a scheme that allows people to choose how much tax they want to pay.

Exactly.
If I choose to drink - I have to accept I will have to pay duty on the
alcohol - my choice.
If I choose to smoke - I have to accept I will have to pay duty on the
tobacco - my choice.
If I choose to gamble - I have to accept I will have to pay a tax on
the bet/winnings - my choice.

If I drive, however, I can now choose to buy a motor vehicle that
incurs no Vehicle Excise Duty at all, whereas in the above examples
there are no such "loopholes" for light drinkers or occasional
punters.

--
Simon Mason

On 09/04/2011 12:09, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 9, 11:57 am, wrote:
wrote

So you agree that a cycle owner does not have to pay a specific tax to
allow a cycle to be used on the roads, at last.

The argument is not about whether or not a cycle owner has to pay tax on the
bike.

The argument put forward by some is that there is some kind of unfairness in
a scheme that allows people to choose how much tax they want to pay.

Exactly.
If I choose to drink - I have to accept I will have to pay duty on the
alcohol - my choice.
If I choose to smoke - I have to accept I will have to pay duty on the
tobacco - my choice.
If I choose to gamble - I have to accept I will have to pay a tax on
the bet/winnings - my choice.

If I drive, however, I can now choose to buy a motor vehicle that
incurs no Vehicle Excise Duty at all, whereas in the above examples
there are no such "loopholes" for light drinkers or occasional
punters.

Tell you what...

I'd be fascinated to learn how your Road Tax-lite car can run on tax-free
petrol as well.

On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 03:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason wrote:

On Apr 9, 10:05*am, Tony Dragon wrote:
And I am glad that you agree with me, don't forget the question was
about the owner of the car.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The cyclist is the owner - you've got it!
--
Simon Mason

Did I ever argue otherwise?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not sure what you were arguing for or against. It just seems to be
beyond the wit of a lot of motorists that a cyclist can and does pay
all of the costs associated with owning a car while rarely using it
himself. Looking from behind a windscreen yer average Great British
Driver will see Janet in her car and imagine that she is taxed to the
hilt and has paid an "extra tax" to use "her" car on the road plus all
of the other costs. Cycling John however is a "freeloader" who doesn't
have to pay any car related costs, whereas in reality, the exact polar
opposite is true.

He pays everything and hardly drives.
She pay nothing at all and drives everywhere.



Are you just ****ing stupid - or can you really not comprehend what people are saying?

Did you have to take an IQ test before you got a job?


--
Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
A total disreagrd for the well-being of vulnerable road users.

On Apr 9, 5:55*pm, Judith wrote:

Did you have to take an IQ test before you got a job?


No - they were more concerned with whether I could make it to work on
time more than anything else. I did not have to show any
qualifications, my references seemed to be enough.

Tip - you have still got "disreagrd" in your sig for me, that is twice
I've pointed that out.
--
Simon Mason

On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 11:22:03 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 09/04/2011 09:24, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 9, 9:07 am, Tony wrote:

Who is the owner of Janet's car, because it is the owner who is
responsible for paying VED, where that money comes from does not matter.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That would be John, the cyclist who pays the VED.
The driver, Janet pays zilch - the cyclist pays it all.

--
Simon Mason

At last, you agree that the owner (John) pays a specific tax/duty to
enable use of the car on the road- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am glad that you finally agree that the cyclist, John pays all of
the tax and that the main driver, Janet pays bugger all and yet it is
she who does all of the road damage and pollution. The cyclist John is
heavily subsidising the driver Janet, just as all of the other non
drivers do who pay any sort of tax.

I thank you.

You are often as hilarious as you are just above, and one of the funnier
aspects of it is that you don't even know it.

What on Earth do you think you are "proving" with your increasingly weird
"reasoning"?


That he is indeed Simple.


--
Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
A total disreagrd for the well-being of vulnerable road users.

"JNugent" wrote in message

Tell you what...

I'd be fascinated to learn how your Road Tax-lite car can run on tax-free
petrol as well.

Brew you own diesel.