two-wheeled scum murdering pedestrians again

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.

At to paying for VED etc, as I read it the zero rated vehicles were
the exceptions, being in the minority.

Why are they exceptions? Why aren't Band M cars the exceptions. They are
both just lines in the same table of VED charges. I know, it's because if
they weren't you'd have to agree you don"t have to pay a specific tax to
drive a car on the road and admitting that would never do.

"Vehicle tax rates for cars registered on or after 1 March 2001 are split
into 13 bands* depending on CO2 emissions. The amount you'll pay depends on
which band your car is in. The lower a car’s emissions, the lower the
vehicle tax payable on it."
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring...le/DG_10012524

* N.B. 13 bands not 12 bands plus exceptions.

--
Tony

On 8 Apr 2011 11:49:36 GMT, Tony Raven wrote:

snip


Well to my mind a cycle owner does not pay a specific tax to allow a
cycle to use the road, feel free to correct me.

Neither do 2 million car owners. It's only the socially irresponsible ones
who insist on paying the tax so they can drive a more polluting car that
do.


You mean like Porky, who for some reason has just been bragging that he has recently bought a second
hand Volvo V70 - well yep - he is socially irresponsible - but not as bad as his mother and father
were.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:17:39 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason wrote:


Here we go again.

See Janet in her car.
It's a band F car.
Janet has never paid a penny in VED, fuel duty or VAT on fuel,
repairs, insurance, MOTs, yada yada yada.
Janet's cycling husband pays all of it.
Therefore cyclist and bicycle owner, John pays all of the tax that
goes with owning and running a car.
The driver Janet pays nothing at all and never has.
Janet is, in the common parlance, a freeloading motoring scum who pays
nothing towards running a car.
Janet's cycling husband is called Simon - or Simples as most people know him.
Simples is a ****wit.
--
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 7 apr, 18:37, "
wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:46*pm, Sedentary IgnorantPopulist









wrote:
On 6 apr, 20:38, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 06/04/2011 18:55, Simon Mason wrote:

On Apr 6, 6:14 pm, The Medway
wrote:
On 05/04/2011 18:59, Simon Mason wrote:

On Apr 5, 6:51 pm, The Medway
wrote:

Same here, plus 300 quid on two tyres.
But in the black/white world of the Medway Man and his ilk, cyclists
do not own cars or drive. They are *all* non tax paying, law breaking
scum, so I was trying to keep things simple. ;-)

You obviously need to keep things simple.

Cyclists are sponging freeloaders when they cycle. *When driving they
have paid an 'extra' tax for using that vehicle on the road. *When
cycling they have not paid an 'extra' tax to use that vehicle on the road.

Even you should be able to grasp that.

See Janet in her car.
Janet has never paid a penny for fuel, VED, tyres, MOTs, insurance,
repairs etc in her life.
Her cycling husband John has paid every last penny of it all.
Janet is a free loading driving scum.

Did you take evening classes in being a thick ****?

The point is that 'someone' paid the EXTRA tax so she could drive on the
road.

Correct - I do.
She doesn't.

Cyclists don't pay an EXTRA tax.

The person who actually paid the VED on Janet's car is a cyclist.
Therefore a cyclist has paid the extra tax.
Simple enough now?

A cyclist has paid the EXTRA tax so a CAR can be used on the road NOT A
****ING PUSH BIKE.

Retard.

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

You is so right Davey, I luv yer! it shoold be illeagle to use a
kids'toy (bike) if you have pyed your road tacx - you shoold be maid
to drive - youre wright.

This cyclist cut me up yesterday and I called him a tacx free ****er.
he said he had a car: I punched him in the face. I said Dave says you
shoold be ****ing innit then.

Keep up your ecxellant work Dave: I woold vote for yeah.

Would you agree that the owner of a car has to pay a specific tax/duty/
etc(s) to enable him to use the car on the road (forget the
exceptions)?

Would you agree that the owner of a bicycle does not have to pay a
specific tax/duty/etc(s)c to enable him to use the bicycle on the road
(forget the exceptions)?

There are no exceptions - merely a tax rate of zero.
Tax is not "earmarked" - the money goes into the general receipts of
the government. Therefore no-one pays a tax specifically to use a
road. The taxing of a car is a pre-requisite to its being allowed on
the road and not a specific payment for road use. In fact, the
spending upon roads is not covered by VED and non-car users subsidise
car users in regard to government spending on roads.
Are you suggesting that, by dint of having paid VED, a car-driver has
more right to be on the road than a cyclist?

On 08/04/2011 07:17, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 8, 6:48 am, Tony wrote:
On 08/04/2011 06:29, Rob Morley wrote:





On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:15:33 +0100
Tony wrote:

On 07/04/2011 18:29, Tony Raven wrote:
...@r ocketmail.com
wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:46 pm, Sedentary IgnorantPopulist

Would you agree that the owner of a car has to pay a specific
tax/duty/ etc(s) to enable him to use the car on the road (forget
the exceptions)?

No, I use a Band A car where no VED is payable.

Would you agree that the owner of a bicycle does not have to pay a
specific tax/duty/etc(s)c to enable him to use the bicycle on the
road (forget the exceptions)?

No equivalent to VED no, but then they class as Band A if you did
want to classify them so it would be zero anyway.

Was the question to difficult?

Apparently the answer was.

Before I get jumped on by the pedants, I will reply again.

The answer was evasive, the question asked was not personal to him.
But he seems to agree that a bicycle owner/user does not pay.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here we go again.

See Janet in her car.
It's a band F car.
Janet has never paid a penny in VED, fuel duty or VAT on fuel,
repairs, insurance, MOTs, yada yada yada.
Janet's cycling husband pays all of it.
Therefore cyclist and bicycle owner, John pays all of the tax that
goes with owning and running a car.
The driver Janet pays nothing at all and never has.
Janet is, in the common parlance, a freeloading motoring scum who pays
nothing towards running a car.

--
Simon Mason

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.

On 08/04/2011 08:01, Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011,
On Apr 7, 6:29 pm, Tony wrote:

[possibly Thomas wrote, but I've scrambled the attributions]:
Would you agree that the owner of a car has to pay a specific
tax/duty/ etc(s) to enable him to use the car on the road
(forget the exceptions)?

No, I use a Band A car where no VED is payable.


Oh dear, did I say you, no, I said the owner of a car.
Did I say forget the exceptions, yes.
Do you want to try again, or do you want to try another wriggle?

Do you really think the answer to the question "Do you have to pay tax
to use a car for which you have to pay tax?" is a useful way to
advance the debate?

Well no, but that was not the question.


You could prove that no cyclists pays income tax: "Ignoring all the
cyclists that pay income tax, how much income tax does the average
cyclist pay?" Or you could prove that every motorist is properly
insured: "Ignoring the ones that aren't properly insured, how many
motorists don't have valid insurance?"

In general, as a matter of principle, no you do not need to pay a
specific tax to use a car on the road.

For some particular cars, yes you do have to pay a specific tax to use
that car on the roads. As it happens there are more particular
examples that do than that don't, but since a large number don't it
cannot be a fundamental principle that cars need to have tax paid on
them.

regards, Ian SMith

Good, glad we agree that most car owners pay a specific tax to enable
that car to use the roads.

On 08/04/2011 11:52, Tony Raven wrote:
wrote:

so the majority of car owners pay road tax.

Probably but since none of them actually needs to, one must assume they are
happy to voluntarily pay that tax so they can drive a bigger more polluting
car.


Thank you for agreeing, the question of course was not about if they
chose to pay it.

On 08/04/2011 12:03, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 8, 11:52 am, Tony wrote:
wrote:
so the majority of car owners pay road tax.

Probably but since none of them actually needs to, one must assume they are
happy to voluntarily pay that tax so they can drive a bigger more polluting
car.

--
Tony

Indeed. I pay £245 a year for the privilege and I hardly ever use it.
Is there a way of me getting a rebate for not wearing out the bit of
road that I am entitled to wear out, having supposedly "paid for it"?

--
Simon Mason

Nobody said that you paid for it.

On 08/04/2011 16:03, Front Mech wrote:
On 7 apr, 18:37, "
wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:46 pm, Sedentary IgnorantPopulist









wrote:
On 6 apr, 20:38, The Medway
wrote:

On 06/04/2011 18:55, Simon Mason wrote:

On Apr 6, 6:14 pm, The Medway
wrote:
On 05/04/2011 18:59, Simon Mason wrote:

On Apr 5, 6:51 pm, The Medway
wrote:

Same here, plus 300 quid on two tyres.
But in the black/white world of the Medway Man and his ilk, cyclists
do not own cars or drive. They are *all* non tax paying, law breaking
scum, so I was trying to keep things simple. ;-)

You obviously need to keep things simple.

Cyclists are sponging freeloaders when they cycle. When driving they
have paid an 'extra' tax for using that vehicle on the road. When
cycling they have not paid an 'extra' tax to use that vehicle on the road.

Even you should be able to grasp that.

See Janet in her car.
Janet has never paid a penny for fuel, VED, tyres, MOTs, insurance,
repairs etc in her life.
Her cycling husband John has paid every last penny of it all.
Janet is a free loading driving scum.

Did you take evening classes in being a thick ****?

The point is that 'someone' paid the EXTRA tax so she could drive on the
road.

Correct - I do.
She doesn't.

Cyclists don't pay an EXTRA tax.

The person who actually paid the VED on Janet's car is a cyclist.
Therefore a cyclist has paid the extra tax.
Simple enough now?

A cyclist has paid the EXTRA tax so a CAR can be used on the road NOT A
****ING PUSH BIKE.

Retard.

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

You is so right Davey, I luv yer! it shoold be illeagle to use a
kids'toy (bike) if you have pyed your road tacx - you shoold be maid
to drive - youre wright.

This cyclist cut me up yesterday and I called him a tacx free ****er.
he said he had a car: I punched him in the face. I said Dave says you
shoold be ****ing innit then.

Keep up your ecxellant work Dave: I woold vote for yeah.

Would you agree that the owner of a car has to pay a specific tax/duty/
etc(s) to enable him to use the car on the road (forget the
exceptions)?

Would you agree that the owner of a bicycle does not have to pay a
specific tax/duty/etc(s)c to enable him to use the bicycle on the road
(forget the exceptions)?

There are no exceptions - merely a tax rate of zero.

So in that case he pays zero ( one of the exceptions)

Tax is not "earmarked" - the money goes into the general receipts of
the government.

Has anybody said otherwise?

Therefore no-one pays a tax specifically to use a
road. The taxing of a car is a pre-requisite to its being allowed on
the road and not a specific payment for road use.

Good so you agree that the payment is a pre-requisite for using the
vehicle on the road (being allowed use the road0

In fact, the
spending upon roads is not covered by VED and non-car users subsidise
car users in regard to government spending on roads.

Whether that is right or wrong, that was not the questio.

Are you suggesting that, by dint of having paid VED, a car-driver has
more right to be on the road than a cyclist?

Read the question, did I suggest that, I think not.

Tony Dragon wrote:
On 08/04/2011 11:52, Tony Raven wrote:
wrote:

so the majority of car owners pay road tax.

Probably but since none of them actually needs to, one must assume
they are happy to voluntarily pay that tax so they can drive a
bigger more polluting car.


Thank you for agreeing, the question of course was not about if they
chose to pay it.

it is also a question of economics, you can tax a car you already own for a
100 years (at the present rate), for the same cost as buying a new tax
exempt car, so there is no incentive. unless you do very high mileages
there is also no advantage financially in getting a more economical (fuel
wise) car.
I did the figures for a friend of mine: he had bought a new prius, I showed
him how he could have saved a load of money by buying and using a secondhand
Rolls Royce instead.