Cyclists should be banned off certain roads
- Thread starter Bodgeitandleggit
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Forgive me if this point has already been mentioned.
All the cyclists I know, and I know quite a few are car drivers as well. So not only do they all have the experience of bring on both sides of the argument, they also all pay what you anti cyclists prefer to call "road tax", in some cases several times over, because several vehicles are owned. If they are commuting on their bikes they are reducing congestion and pollution by cars.
You however, may be driving a zero rated "road tax" car and are therefore contributing nothing to the roads and plenty to congestion.
All the cyclists I know, and I know quite a few are car drivers as well. So not only do they all have the experience of bring on both sides of the argument, they also all pay what you anti cyclists prefer to call "road tax", in some cases several times over, because several vehicles are owned. If they are commuting on their bikes they are reducing congestion and pollution by cars.
You however, may be driving a zero rated "road tax" car and are therefore contributing nothing to the roads and plenty to congestion.
Road tax doesn't pay for roads anyway.
Anymore than vat on biscuits pays for more biscuits.
It all goes into one pot, that is divided out based on need.
Cyclists reduce road wear and tear, so it's silly to argue "they should pay their fair share", that would actually mean giving them a rebate.
Anymore than vat on biscuits pays for more biscuits.
It all goes into one pot, that is divided out based on need.
Cyclists reduce road wear and tear, so it's silly to argue "they should pay their fair share", that would actually mean giving them a rebate.
"Hypothecation" is the word your looking for
Sponsored Links
Yeah, I know it's not "road tax", it's "vehicle excise duty" and I know it doesn't pay for roads either. I was just trying to make a point to the anti cyclists on their terms!
Because the basis of the Treasury is not to collect what it needs, but to screw as much as possible out of the population.
It also helps to make what you actually pay in tax, in total, as opaque as possible.
It also helps to make what you actually pay in tax, in total, as opaque as possible.
For what purpose?
Do you agree that we need [refuse collection] in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living in our society, Dex?
For the same reason people used to pay tax based on the number of windows their house had, just a way to collect money.
As you well know, part of the tax ends up being spent on roads.
Roads don't grow on trees you know
Nope.
It all goes into one pot, like one joint account, it doesn't go into a special "road bank", it just feeds into the general government revenue stream.
The "pay your way" argument is an utterly retarded argument made by stupid people.
Want to apply that same logic to healthcare, welfare, schooling. What if I pay lot's more tax than you, do I get blue lights on my car so I can jump traffic, after all, you are paying your way much less than I am, scab.
The varying rates of vehicle excise duty can be used to encourage people to use cars that are cleaner though. That's been a real boon to me and to my two sons.
When cars cost thousands, and fuel several hundred or thousands a year.
I am not convinced a difference of a hundred pounds or so will have any real bearing on peoples choice of car.
Also electric cars and new cars are the ones that get the lower rates, poor people tend not to have either, so I see it as a distinctly unfair tax.
Yes.
You ARE out of touch. I'm not well off. I've just bought a 12 yr old Skoda for £1700. The tax is less than that of the previous VW Polo, Of COURSE the amount of tax is a deciding factor when every penny counts.
Sponsored Links