UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,431
Default Bodywork

On 9 Feb 2019 09:34:30 GMT, Marland
wrote:

Jim K.. wrote:


Time to invest in a dashcam with a proper full parking mode, so I can
prove who it was and 'cut their gollies off'(or the female equivalent).

It's not diy, but there is a national franchise chain called Chips Away.
Locally they give god results.


What does He drive these days?


Don’t know but his son would have a something like a Nissan Qashqai,
......because it is a crossover.

I though he was 'heard in the streets in his Triumph (so obviously had
a working flux capacitor). ;-)

Cheers, T i m
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default Bodywork

In article ,
soup wrote:
On 09/02/2019 15:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
soup wrote:


Cyclists pay as much tax as motorists.


Bollox. No VED,


What if they have a car?


What if they have two? They can't be used at the same time.

and no taxation on their fuel.


Mm no vat on hobnobs and flapjacks (the go to 'fuel' of cyclists
everywhere).


Then the motorist pays that in addition.


But are you saying OAPs pay no tax? I've got news for you...


How did you get OAPs from anything I 'said'?


Because my post was mainly about some councils saying they could no longer
afford free travel for OAPs. The bit you chose to ignore.

--
*IF A PARSLEY FARMER IS SUED, CAN THEY GARNISH HIS WAGES?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default Bodywork

In article ,
wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 4:04:50 PM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
soup wrote:
On 09/02/2019 13:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
And cyclists
get 'free' use of the roads too.


Really Dave that old canard?


Cyclists pay as much tax as motorists.


Bollox. No VED, and no taxation on their fuel.


Bollox - their fuel is FOOD, which is usually taxed.
Even bottled water is taxed.


Local roads are paid for out of COUNCIL TAX, so when you drive into
another county, a non driving cyclist who pays that council tax is
paying for the upkeep of the roads that YOUR car is damaging.


Not all roads within a council area are paid for out of council tax. And
those direct ones - where they are more likely to provide cycle lanes -
also more likely to be paid for by national funds. Oh - making those main
roads less attractive to general traffic is likely to force it onto side
roads. An argument which seems to have won in the north London cycle
highway debate.

Also, if you drive one of these, you pay £0 VED anyway.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dy-I1CqXQAAEgf_.jpg


Ok then. Abolish all taxes specific to road vehicles. Like VED and the
extra taxes on petrol and diesel. Then you'd have a level playing field.

--
*Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #44   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default Bodywork

In article ,
Jim K.. wrote:
soup Wrote in message:
On 09/02/2019 15:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
soup wrote:


Cyclists pay as much tax as motorists.


Bollox. No VED,


What if they have a car?

and no taxation on their fuel.


Mm no vat on hobnobs and flapjacks (the go to 'fuel' of cyclists
everywhere).



But are you saying OAPs pay no tax? I've got news for you...


How did you get OAPs from anything I 'said'?


plowgrabbing at straws & stereotypes, same as usual...


Thanks for confirming you either didn't read or understand my post. No
surprise there.

--
*A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #45   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default Bodywork

In article ,
Jim K.. wrote:
"Mark" Wrote in message:

"soup" wrote in message
...

Looks like the scuff was so gentle that there is no damage to the
actual metalwork but there is a piece of paint transference.


if you car has clear lacquer finish as most do its going to be hard to
remove the paint transference without damaging your clear coat if car
is newish you would be best to take to a bodyshop and pay for it to
be done or if you must diy Tcut put it on with cotton bud let dry then
rub off


?
Have you ever used T cut?


Obviously not. ;-)

--
*I used to be a banker, but then I lost interest.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.


  #46   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default Bodywork

In article ,
Jim K.. wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
Jim K.. wrote:
soup Wrote in message:
On 09/02/2019 15:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
soup wrote:

Cyclists pay as much tax as motorists.

Bollox. No VED,

What if they have a car?

and no taxation on their fuel.

Mm no vat on hobnobs and flapjacks (the go to 'fuel' of cyclists
everywhere).



But are you saying OAPs pay no tax? I've got news for you...

How did you get OAPs from anything I 'said'?


plowgrabbing at straws & stereotypes, same as usual...


Thanks for confirming you either didn't read or understand my post. No
surprise there.


Yawn


Tired at this time of day? You need to get that seem to. After the
optician.

--
*Geeks shall inherit the earth *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,157
Default Bodywork

On 10/02/2019 14:05:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jim K.. wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
Jim K.. wrote:
soup Wrote in message:
On 09/02/2019 15:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
soup wrote:

Cyclists pay as much tax as motorists.

Bollox. No VED,

What if they have a car?

and no taxation on their fuel.

Mm no vat on hobnobs and flapjacks (the go to 'fuel' of cyclists
everywhere).



But are you saying OAPs pay no tax? I've got news for you...

How did you get OAPs from anything I 'said'?

plowgrabbing at straws & stereotypes, same as usual...

Thanks for confirming you either didn't read or understand my post. No
surprise there.


Yawn


Tired at this time of day? You need to get that seem to. After the
optician.


Do you suffer from Aspergers? You seem to take an expression too
literally. Perhaps counselling would help? Have you approached your
doctor on this subject?


  #48   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 855
Default Bodywork

"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
Jim K.. wrote:
soup Wrote in message:
On 09/02/2019 15:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
soup wrote:

Cyclists pay as much tax as motorists.

Bollox. No VED,

What if they have a car?

and no taxation on their fuel.

Mm no vat on hobnobs and flapjacks (the go to 'fuel' of cyclists
everywhere).



But are you saying OAPs pay no tax? I've got news for you...

How did you get OAPs from anything I 'said'?


plowgrabbing at straws & stereotypes, same as usual...


Thanks for confirming you either didn't read or understand my post. No
surprise there.


Yawn
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 855
Default Bodywork

"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
soup wrote:
On 09/02/2019 15:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
soup wrote:


Cyclists pay as much tax as motorists.


Bollox. No VED,


What if they have a car?


What if they have two? They can't be used at the same time.


Which makes SFA difference from a taxation POV, Duhve


--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
  #50   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 855
Default Bodywork

"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
Jim K.. wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
Jim K.. wrote:
soup Wrote in message:
On 09/02/2019 15:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
soup wrote:

Cyclists pay as much tax as motorists.

Bollox. No VED,

What if they have a car?

and no taxation on their fuel.

Mm no vat on hobnobs and flapjacks (the go to 'fuel' of cyclists
everywhere).



But are you saying OAPs pay no tax? I've got news for you...

How did you get OAPs from anything I 'said'?

plowgrabbing at straws & stereotypes, same as usual...

Thanks for confirming you either didn't read or understand my post. No
surprise there.


Yawn


Tired at this time of day?


No Duhve tired of your boring repertoire of predictably ****-poor
ripostes.

Have you got your EU passport renewed ready for "das move"?
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/


  #51   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Bodywork

On 10/02/2019 13:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Because my post was mainly about some councils saying they could no longer
afford free travel for OAPs. The bit you chose to ignore.


No I didn't I didn't post any of the OAP stuff as it had nothing to do
with my reply. May be a bit beyond your comprehension but only the bits
being replied to get quoted. That way the size of the message doesn't
grow and grow like some troll posts seem to .
For clarification I am NOT calling you a troll merely stating that some
troll posts grow and grow and... in size as they include side points,
whole side threads, extraneous guff and ad hominems


  #52   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,061
Default Bodywork

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 4:04:50 PM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
soup wrote:
On 09/02/2019 13:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
And cyclists
get 'free' use of the roads too.

Really Dave that old canard?

Cyclists pay as much tax as motorists.

Bollox. No VED, and no taxation on their fuel.


Bollox - their fuel is FOOD, which is usually taxed.
Even bottled water is taxed.


Local roads are paid for out of COUNCIL TAX, so when you drive into
another county, a non driving cyclist who pays that council tax is
paying for the upkeep of the roads that YOUR car is damaging.


Not all roads within a council area are paid for out of council tax. And
those direct ones - where they are more likely to provide cycle lanes -
also more likely to be paid for by national funds. Oh - making those main
roads less attractive to general traffic is likely to force it onto side
roads. An argument which seems to have won in the north London cycle
highway debate.


The only roads paid for nationally are the Trunk Road and motorways.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
  #53   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default Bodywork

In article ,
Jim K.. wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
soup wrote:
On 09/02/2019 15:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
soup wrote:


Cyclists pay as much tax as motorists.


Bollox. No VED,


What if they have a car?


What if they have two? They can't be used at the same time.


Which makes SFA difference from a taxation POV, Duhve


All a red herring ignoring that cyclists don't pay for the use of roads in
the same way as other vehicles.

--
*The older you get, the better you realize you were.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #54   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default Bodywork

In article ,
charles wrote:
Not all roads within a council area are paid for out of council tax. And
those direct ones - where they are more likely to provide cycle lanes -
also more likely to be paid for by national funds. Oh - making those main
roads less attractive to general traffic is likely to force it onto side
roads. An argument which seems to have won in the north London cycle
highway debate.


The only roads paid for nationally are the Trunk Road and motorways.


Then there are trunk roads running through towns.

--
*A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Bodywork

On 11/02/2019 00:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

All a red herring ignoring that cyclists don't pay for the use of roads in
the same way as other vehicles.


Sigh. NO-ONE PAYS (directly) FOR THE ROADS.

There are no hypothecated taxes in the UK

Really Dave, trotting out old debunked (many times) statements.

Just because you say ' it over and over and ... does not make it true it
just makes you seem a tad 'uneducated'.



  #56   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,175
Default Bodywork

In article ,
soup writes:
On 11/02/2019 00:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

All a red herring ignoring that cyclists don't pay for the use of roads in
the same way as other vehicles.


Sigh. NO-ONE PAYS (directly) FOR THE ROADS.

There are no hypothecated taxes in the UK

Really Dave, trotting out old debunked (many times) statements.

Just because you say ' it over and over and ... does not make it true it
just makes you seem a tad 'uneducated'.


It's true that fuel/vehicle taxes are not ring-fenced, but fuel/vehicle
taxes have typically been raising about 5 times the cost of building and
maintaining roads, although in last few years due to additional spend on
many road capacity programs, that's reduced to under 4 times but should
be more than amply recovered.

Indeed, building roads to get more vehicles running on them is one of
the most profitable investments the government can make in terms of
making a direct return on investment.

The only other investment the government can make which comes even close
is generating tourism by spending on royal family events, which is about
the same return on investment, but typically realised over 2 years,
rather than over 30 years for increases in road capacity.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  #57   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default Bodywork

In article ,
soup wrote:
All a red herring ignoring that cyclists don't pay for the use of
roads in the same way as other vehicles.


Sigh. NO-ONE PAYS (directly) FOR THE ROADS.


It all comes from that magic money tree then?

Any other silly comments you want to make?

Like the TV licence not paying for the BBC? Because you pay that for the
honour of owning a TV set, whether you watch BBC or not.

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #58   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,938
Default Bodywork

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
soup wrote:
All a red herring ignoring that cyclists don't pay for the use of
roads in the same way as other vehicles.


Sigh. NO-ONE PAYS (directly) FOR THE ROADS.


It all comes from that magic money tree then?

Any other silly comments you want to make?

Like the TV licence not paying for the BBC? Because you pay that for the
honour of owning a TV set, whether you watch BBC or not.


I've just had an age related refund:-)


--
Tim Lamb
  #59   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Bodywork

On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 5:11:08 PM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
soup wrote:
All a red herring ignoring that cyclists don't pay for the use of
roads in the same way as other vehicles.


Sigh. NO-ONE PAYS (directly) FOR THE ROADS.


It all comes from that magic money tree then?

Any other silly comments you want to make?

Like the TV licence not paying for the BBC? Because you pay that for the
honour of owning a TV set, whether you watch BBC or not.


I read once that the money generated by safety camera fines was ringfenced for paying for more cameras, which is the ONLY way drivers directly fund road infrastructure. The rest just goes into a big pot along with taxes on booze, fags and gambling etc.

  #60   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
ARW ARW is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,161
Default Bodywork

On 08/02/2019 18:04, soup wrote:

Time to invest in a dashcam with a proper full parking mode, so I can
prove who it was and 'cut their gollies off'(or the female equivalent).



By female equivalent I presume you mean Polyfilla her crack?

--
Adam


  #62   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Bodywork

On 11/02/2019 15:23, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
fuel/vehicle
taxes have typically been raising about 5 times the cost of building and
maintaining roads,


Whilst Jammie dodgers have increased by only three times .
Right your turn to go with 'stuff that may or may not be connected'

  #63   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Bodywork

On 11/02/2019 17:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
soup wrote:
All a red herring ignoring that cyclists don't pay for the use of
roads in the same way as other vehicles.


Sigh. NO-ONE PAYS (directly) FOR THE ROADS.


It all comes from that magic money tree then?



Just because there is no specific road fund does not mean the roads
aren't paid for with money raised by taxation.

An analogy of the situation I heard was that all taxes are just put into
ONE pile any and all moneys needed
(subject to budgets, that money existing etc)are taken from this pile .
There are NO specific piles paid
into by specific taxes.


Like the TV licence not paying for the BBC? Because you pay that for the
honour of owning a TV set, whether you watch BBC or not.


Non sequitur there. The TV license is not a tax.



  #64   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Bodywork

On 11/02/2019 19:47, ARW wrote:
On 08/02/2019 18:04, soup wrote:

Time to invest in a dashcam with a proper full parking mode, so I can
prove who it was and 'cut their gollies off'(or the female equivalent).


By female equivalent I presume you mean Polyfilla her crack?


I don't know, is it?

  #65   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,451
Default Bodywork

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 19:47:18 +0000, ARW wrote:

On 08/02/2019 18:04, soup wrote:

Time to invest in a dashcam with a proper full parking mode, so I can
prove who it was and 'cut their gollies off'(or the female equivalent).



By female equivalent I presume you mean Polyfilla her crack?


In some communities, I believe a needle and thin cord is preferred.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor


  #66   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default Bodywork

In article ,
soup wrote:
Sigh. NO-ONE PAYS (directly) FOR THE ROADS.


It all comes from that magic money tree then?



Just because there is no specific road fund does not mean the roads
aren't paid for with money raised by taxation.


An analogy of the situation I heard was that all taxes are just put into
ONE pile any and all moneys needed
(subject to budgets, that money existing etc)are taken from this pile .
There are NO specific piles paid
into by specific taxes.


Quite. So why are cyclists exempt from paying tax on that activity while
other road users ain't?

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #67   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Bodywork

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 12:24:03 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Quite. So why are cyclists exempt from paying tax on that activity while
other road users ain't?


Same as these cars which don't pay anything either - they don't pollute enough.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dy-I1CqXQAAEgf_.jpg

There are about 2000000 vehicles that are VED exempt including mine as I am registered disabled.
  #68   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Bodywork

On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 10:13:58 PM UTC, soup wrote:

An analogy of the situation I heard was that all taxes are just put into
ONE pile any and all moneys needed
(subject to budgets, that money existing etc)are taken from this pile .
There are NO specific piles paid
into by specific taxes.


Indeed. So a hard drinking smoker who gambles on the geegees a lot who doesn't drive either will pay FAR more into the pot than the owner of one of these.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dy-I1CqXQAAEgf_.jpg
  #70   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default Bodywork

In article ,
wrote:
Quite. So why are cyclists exempt from paying tax on that activity while
other road users ain't?


Same as these cars which don't pay anything either - they don't pollute enough.


Nice try - but taxing on pollution has entered the game rather late on.

At one time, cycling too and from work etc was restricted to only a few.
Mainly school kids.

It now seems to be a life style choice of many - and they are demanding
lots of alterations to roads specifically for cyclists. So in these days
of austerity - especially with most councils - why shouldn't they
contribute towards that?

--
*ONE NICE THING ABOUT EGOTISTS: THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.


  #71   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default Bodywork

In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 10:13:58 PM UTC, soup wrote:

An analogy of the situation I heard was that all taxes are just put
into ONE pile any and all moneys needed (subject to budgets, that
money existing etc)are taken from this pile . There are NO specific
piles paid into by specific taxes.


Indeed. So a hard drinking smoker who gambles on the geegees a lot who
doesn't drive either will pay FAR more into the pot than the owner of
one of these.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dy-I1CqXQAAEgf_.jpg


How many red herrings do you have?

--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Bodywork

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 11:27:08 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
It now seems to be a life style choice of many - and they are demanding
lots of alterations to roads specifically for cyclists. So in these days
of austerity - especially with most councils - why shouldn't they
contribute towards that?


In what way?
By paying a tax that does not exist?
  #73   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39,563
Default Bodywork

On 12/02/2019 08:12, wrote:
On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 12:24:03 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Quite. So why are cyclists exempt from paying tax on that activity while
other road users ain't?


Same as these cars which don't pay anything either - they don't pollute enough.



Er no.
They have been nade tax exempt cos otherwise no one would buy them

'pollution' is just an excuse.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dy-I1CqXQAAEgf_.jpg

There are about 2000000 vehicles that are VED exempt including mine as I am registered disabled.



--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal
  #74   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Bodywork

On 12/02/2019 11:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Quite. So why are cyclists exempt from paying tax on that activity while
other road users ain't?


Same as these cars which don't pay anything either - they don't pollute enough.


Nice try - but taxing on pollution has entered the game rather late on.

At one time, cycling too and from work etc was restricted to only a few.
Mainly school kids.

It now seems to be a life style choice of many - and they are demanding
lots of alterations to roads specifically for cyclists. So in these days
of austerity - especially with most councils - why shouldn't they
contribute towards that?


What like drivers of motorised vehicles don't. I have told you Dave
just because you 'say' (or even imply something) over and over and...,
does not make it true.

  #75   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Bodywork

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:25:18 PM UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/2019 08:12, wrote:
On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 12:24:03 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Quite. So why are cyclists exempt from paying tax on that activity while
other road users ain't?


Same as these cars which don't pay anything either - they don't pollute enough.



Er no.
They have been nade tax exempt cos otherwise no one would buy them

'pollution' is just an excuse.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dy-I1CqXQAAEgf_.jpg


The more you pollute the atmosphere in a car the more tax you pay.
The more beer you drink, the more tax you pay.
The more fags you smoke, the more tax you pay.
The more you eat take away food the more tax you pay.

Here's where it all goes.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzNMeEyX4AAlYHL.jpg

Hardly news.


  #76   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
ARW ARW is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,161
Default Bodywork

On 11/02/2019 22:16, soup wrote:
On 11/02/2019 19:47, ARW wrote:
On 08/02/2019 18:04, soup wrote:

Time to invest in a dashcam with a proper full parking mode, so I can
prove who it was and 'cut their gollies off'(or the female equivalent).


By female equivalent I presume you mean Polyfilla her crack?


I don't know, is it?


I also don't know. However a Google search of John Wayne Bobbitt finds
that he was in a news article 3 hours ago in the Mirror newspaper.


--
Adam
  #77   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Bodywork

wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote


It now seems to be a life style choice of many - and they are
demanding lots of alterations to roads specifically for cyclists.
So in these days of austerity - especially with most councils -
why shouldn't they contribute towards that?


In what way?
By paying a tax that does not exist?


He's saying that there should be a tax that cyclists have to pay, to
pay for all that road modification that only cyclists benefit from.

Problem with that line is that its just as true of footpaths and its
even harder to tax pedestrians based on how much they use then.

Not as hard with cars and trucks because there is at least the fuel
tax which has some relation to how much you use the roads, but
doesnt distinguish between the trucks that do the most damage
to the roads, and the cars which dont do much at all relatively.

  #78   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 147
Default Bodywork

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:13:20 +0000, soup wrote:

On 12/02/2019 11:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Quite. So why are cyclists exempt from paying tax on that activity while
other road users ain't?


Same as these cars which don't pay anything either - they don't pollute enough.


Nice try - but taxing on pollution has entered the game rather late on.

At one time, cycling too and from work etc was restricted to only a few.
Mainly school kids.

It now seems to be a life style choice of many - and they are demanding
lots of alterations to roads specifically for cyclists. So in these days
of austerity - especially with most councils - why shouldn't they
contribute towards that?


What like drivers of motorised vehicles don't. I have told you Dave
just because you 'say' (or even imply something) over and over and...,
does not make it true.


Most cyclists are also car drivers.
In the groups I ride with only one is not a car driver.



--
Regards, Paul Herber
http://www.paulherber.co.uk/

  #79   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Bodywork

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 7:30:33 PM UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote


It now seems to be a life style choice of many - and they are
demanding lots of alterations to roads specifically for cyclists.
So in these days of austerity - especially with most councils -
why shouldn't they contribute towards that?


In what way?
By paying a tax that does not exist?


He's saying that there should be a tax that cyclists have to pay, to
pay for all that road modification that only cyclists benefit from.


I agree.
Let's call it council tax.
Same money pot as for speed humps and pothole repairs.

  #80   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,175
Default Bodywork

In article ,
Paul Herber writes:
Most cyclists are also car drivers.
In the groups I ride with only one is not a car driver.


I think that might be true in areas like the home counties where
there are lots of leasure cyclists (like your "groups").
It certainly isn't true in London where most cyclists can't drive,
and cycle to work or as part of their work, not as "groups".
That probably applies in the other large cities in the UK too.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Car bodywork Spray paint on timber? Arthur 51 UK diy 6 July 14th 09 01:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"