Times Letters

Quoted message said:

DavidR said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Cyclists, purely because they are cyclists, do not pay more tax than
non-cyclists, yet are provided with facilities and privileges on the
public road, whether they want them or not, which are /only/ for the use
of cyclists - it is like abolishing all motoring taxes and providing
motorways out of general taxation. OTOH motorists, who pay all the same
taxes as cyclists do, also pay, purely because there /are/ motorists,
taxes on top of all the others, equivalent to about 10% of the national
tax revenue.

Where do you get the idea that motorists & cyclists are a different
species?

exactly, it is a false dichotomy. People pay into the general taxation
pot. Facilites of various kinds are payed for out of this pot. People
are entitled to use these facilities subject to fulfilling any
qualifying requirements.

If motoring taxes were abolished and cycling taxes were introduced to
replace them would cyclists support the building of motorways
exclusively for motorists' use?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

If motoring taxes were abolished and cycling taxes were introduced to
replace them would cyclists support the building of motorways
exclusively for motorists' use?

If the amount of money was proportional (ie the proportion of 'cycle
tax' allocated to non cyclists was equivalent to the proportion of
'motor tax' allocated to non motorists, then you'd be able to build a
motorway all the way from London to .. er .. about 100m after it
started.

...d

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If motoring taxes were abolished and cycling taxes were introduced to
replace them would cyclists support the building of motorways
exclusively for motorists' use?

Pay attention troll, how many cyclists on this group support the building on
"cycle facilites" in their present format or have demanded them in any
format?

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

If motoring taxes were abolished and cycling taxes were introduced to
replace them would cyclists support the building of motorways
exclusively for motorists' use?

If the amount of money was proportional (ie the proportion of 'cycle
tax' allocated to non cyclists was equivalent to the proportion of
'motor tax' allocated to non motorists,

Practically all of it then? How many miles of motorway were built this
year?

Quoted message said:

then you'd be able to build a
motorway all the way from London to .. er .. about 100m after it
started.

No, didn't we work out in a recent thread that the tax collected from
VED and fuel duty was enough for about 3000 miles of 3-lane motorway per
year?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

DavidR said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote

>Cyclists, purely because they are cyclists, do not pay more tax than
>non-cyclists, yet are provided with facilities and privileges on the
>public road, whether they want them or not, which are /only/ for the use
>of cyclists - it is like abolishing all motoring taxes and providing
>motorways out of general taxation. OTOH motorists, who pay all the same
>taxes as cyclists do, also pay, purely because there /are/ motorists,
>taxes on top of all the others, equivalent to about 10% of the national
>tax revenue.

Where do you get the idea that motorists & cyclists are a different
species?

exactly, it is a false dichotomy. People pay into the general taxation
pot. Facilites of various kinds are payed for out of this pot. People
are entitled to use these facilities subject to fulfilling any
qualifying requirements.

If motoring taxes were abolished and cycling taxes were introduced to
replace them would cyclists support the building of motorways
exclusively for motorists' use?

Are you off on your "tax bananas" trip again? there will never be any
such thing as a cycling tax (apart from VAT and the taxes we already
pay). Motorists are an easy tax target, as are smokers, drinkers,
shoppers, people who buy insurance, air passengers, workers etc etc.

Peter B said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If motoring taxes were abolished and cycling taxes were introduced to
replace them would cyclists support the building of motorways
exclusively for motorists' use?

Pay attention troll,

Ahem.

Quoted message said:

how many cyclists on this group support the building on
"cycle facilites" in their present format or have demanded them in any
format?

Were /you/ paying attention - I did say "whether they want them or not".
They are provided - you may well be ungrateful.

--
Matt B

MartinM said:

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

DavidR wrote:

>"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote
>
>
>>Cyclists, purely because they are cyclists, do not pay more tax than
>>non-cyclists, yet are provided with facilities and privileges on the
>>public road, whether they want them or not, which are /only/ for the use
>>of cyclists - it is like abolishing all motoring taxes and providing
>>motorways out of general taxation. OTOH motorists, who pay all the same
>>taxes as cyclists do, also pay, purely because there /are/ motorists,
>>taxes on top of all the others, equivalent to about 10% of the national
>>tax revenue.
>
>Where do you get the idea that motorists & cyclists are a different
>species?

exactly, it is a false dichotomy. People pay into the general taxation
pot. Facilites of various kinds are payed for out of this pot. People
are entitled to use these facilities subject to fulfilling any
qualifying requirements.

If motoring taxes were abolished and cycling taxes were introduced to
replace them would cyclists support the building of motorways
exclusively for motorists' use?

Are you off on your "tax bananas" trip again?

Merely commenting on some sanctimonious letters we were referred to at
the top of this thread, one of which sought to imply that cyclists
somehow paid their way.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Merely commenting on some sanctimonious letters we were referred to at
the top of this thread, one of which sought to imply that cyclists
somehow paid their way.

--
Matt B

It seems you're implying that cyclists don't pay their way. What
exactly is it that they don't pay for?

Matt B said:

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

If motoring taxes were abolished and cycling taxes were introduced to
replace them would cyclists support the building of motorways
exclusively for motorists' use?

If the amount of money was proportional (ie the proportion of 'cycle
tax' allocated to non cyclists was equivalent to the proportion of
'motor tax' allocated to non motorists,

Practically all of it then? How many miles of motorway were built this
year?

Not all motor allocated tax is spent on motorways. Much is spent on
shared use facilities, which are only so expensive because they are
constructed to take motor traffic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

then you'd be able to build a
motorway all the way from London to .. er .. about 100m after it
started.

No, didn't we work out in a recent thread that the tax collected from
VED and fuel duty was enough for about 3000 miles of 3-lane motorway per
year?

That is not the point. You missed the word proportional. If the same
amount was spent on motorways as is spent on cycle facilities you'd
just about get to 100m if you were lucky.

VED doesn't quite cover the direct costs of road construction (both new
and maintenance)

Cyclists pay fuel duty as well in the form of VAT on consumables for
which it is applicable.

...d

David Martin said:

Cyclists pay fuel duty as well in the form of VAT on consumables for
which it is applicable.

No they don't, the VAT is only at the same rate as the VAT motorists pay
on fuel. /After/ they have paid the VAT motorists pay fuel duty, and
then they pay VAT on the fuel duty too! Fuel is one consumable which is
taxed three times!!!

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

David Martin said:

Cyclists pay fuel duty as well in the form of VAT on consumables for
which it is applicable.

No they don't, the VAT is only at the same rate as the VAT motorists pay
on fuel.

I think you will find they do pay VAT. They also pay insurance duty (if
they have insurance). And if they have stopped at the pub, they pay
duty on that too (which motorists don't to the same degree, or not
legally anyway)

Quoted message said:

/After/ they have paid the VAT motorists pay fuel duty, and
then they pay VAT on the fuel duty too! Fuel is one consumable which is
taxed three times!!!

You pay fuel duty and VAT on the whole package. That makes taxing
twice, not three times (therwise you'd be paying VAT on VAT).

This double counting of yours does lead you to some wrong conclusions.

...d

LSMike said:

Matt B said:

Merely commenting on some sanctimonious letters we were referred to at
the top of this thread, one of which sought to imply that cyclists
somehow paid their way.

It seems you're implying that cyclists don't pay their way. What
exactly is it that they don't pay for?

How much do cyclists compulsorily pay, which they /only/ pay because
they /are/ cyclists, and which they wouldn't pay if they weren't
cyclists for *anything*?

--
Matt B

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

David Martin said:

Cyclists pay fuel duty as well in the form of VAT on consumables for
which it is applicable.

No they don't, the VAT is only at the same rate as the VAT motorists pay
on fuel.

I think you will find they do pay VAT.

Yes, My "no they don't" was for fuel duty which you incorrectly claimed
they pay.

Quoted message said:

They also pay insurance duty (if
they have insurance).

How is that specific to cyclists then?

Quoted message said:

And if they have stopped at the pub, they pay
duty on that too (which motorists don't to the same degree, or not
legally anyway)

Hehe.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

/After/ they have paid the VAT motorists pay fuel duty, and
then they pay VAT on the fuel duty too! Fuel is one consumable which is
taxed three times!!!

You pay fuel duty and VAT on the whole package. That makes taxing
twice, not three times (therwise you'd be paying VAT on VAT).

They pay VAT on the fuel price, which /would/ be fair if it were 5% like
it is for other fossil fuels, but it isn't as it is 17.5%. They also
pay VAT at, currently, 17.5% on the fuel duty, having, of course, paid
the fuel duty.

Quoted message said:

This double counting of yours does lead you to some wrong conclusions.

No double counting, just triple taxing - VAT on the fuel, duty on the
fuel, VAT on the duty.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

LSMike said:

Matt B said:

Merely commenting on some sanctimonious letters we were referred to at
the top of this thread, one of which sought to imply that cyclists
somehow paid their way.

It seems you're implying that cyclists don't pay their way. What
exactly is it that they don't pay for?

How much do cyclists compulsorily pay, which they /only/ pay because
they /are/ cyclists, and which they wouldn't pay if they weren't
cyclists for *anything*?

I think you are missing the point; cyclists pay for roads in the same
way that non-drivers/cyclists who happen to work smoke drink buy
VATable goods etc do. Are you also proposing that pedestrians pay some
sort of PED, as far more is spent on pavements alongside roads than
so-called cycle facilites?. The reason motorists are clobbered for tax
is that they are a soft target, like drinkers and smokers.

MartinM said:

Matt B said:

LSMike said:

Matt B wrote:

>Merely commenting on some sanctimonious letters we were referred to at
>the top of this thread, one of which sought to imply that cyclists
>somehow paid their way.

It seems you're implying that cyclists don't pay their way. What
exactly is it that they don't pay for?

How much do cyclists compulsorily pay, which they /only/ pay because
they /are/ cyclists, and which they wouldn't pay if they weren't
cyclists for *anything*?

I think you are missing the point; cyclists pay for roads in the same
way that non-drivers/cyclists who happen to work smoke drink buy
VATable goods etc do. Are you also proposing that pedestrians pay some
sort of PED, as far more is spent on pavements alongside roads than
so-called cycle facilites?. The reason motorists are clobbered for tax
is that they are a soft target, like drinkers and smokers.

Not to mention passengers in motor vehicles who don't pay fuel tax,
VED, speeding fines or such like but free load on the poor put upon
motorist. Make 'em all get out and walk..

...d

MartinM said:

Matt B said:

LSMike said:

Matt B wrote:

>Merely commenting on some sanctimonious letters we were referred to at
>the top of this thread, one of which sought to imply that cyclists
>somehow paid their way.

It seems you're implying that cyclists don't pay their way. What
exactly is it that they don't pay for?

How much do cyclists compulsorily pay, which they /only/ pay because
they /are/ cyclists, and which they wouldn't pay if they weren't
cyclists for *anything*?

I think you are missing the point;

No, I think /you/ are. Cyclists pay no more than non-cyclists yet
potentially benefit a lot more.

Quoted message said:

cyclists pay for roads in the same
way that non-drivers/cyclists who happen to work smoke drink buy
VATable goods etc do.

Yes, but do NOT pay the extra that motorists have to.

Quoted message said:

Are you also proposing that pedestrians pay some
sort of PED, as far more is spent on pavements alongside roads than
so-called cycle facilites?.

No, I'm just stating a fact about cyclists. I'm not suggesting cyclists
/should/ pay more either ,just pointing out that they don't, whereas
motorists do.

Quoted message said:

The reason motorists are clobbered for tax
is that they are a soft target, like drinkers and smokers.

Precisely, and it is for that oppressive and unjust reason that many
motorists feel hard done by.

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

DavidR said:

Where do you get the idea that motorists & cyclists are a different
species?

Where do /you/ get the idea that I've got that idea?

Because you talk about the unfairness of "motorists" paying tax and
"cyclists" not.

I am a person that has been offered a choice to make some of my journeys
free of tax. Some people choose not to use it and then complain about it.
That's
whingeing, not unfairness.

David Martin said:

Not to mention passengers in motor vehicles who don't pay fuel tax,
VED, speeding fines or such like but free load on the poor put upon
motorist. Make 'em all get out and walk..

On a tangent; I was once told that in Sweden all passengers with
driving licences sharing a car with a drunk driver get done; or it may
have been any that were sober, can anyone confirm this?

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

The reason motorists are clobbered for tax
is that they are a soft target, like drinkers and smokers.

Precisely, and it is for that oppressive and unjust reason that many
motorists feel hard done by.

well they have a choice, as do drinkers and smokers

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Precisely, and it is for that oppressive and unjust reason that many
motorists feel hard done by.

Which is a separate issue to cyclists and what they do or don't pay.
As a motorist of 35 years I'm well aware that many motoring facilities are
poor but cyclists don't figure in this, in fact most of my delays are on
roads from which cyclists are prohibited.