4x4 Tax

MichaelB said:

which they would care about but
given the fact they cook food for a living they are too thick to
realise. I love my neighbours 🙄 .

Can you spell snob?

Your claim that people in the catering industry are thick would have been
easier to read and less ironic if you had made the point succinctly and
eloquently.

Quoted message said:

My point being that I dont think these hardcore morons, who need their
4x4s because they have nothing else to fulfill their esteem needs
with

Congratulations. You've just realised that people need status symbols. Now
think of ways to stop 4x4s being so. That would be helpful.

My only strategy for doing so is currently to select (shiny) 4x4s (as well
as vehicles with their driving lights on, and other ones perceived by me too
be cocky) as the most favoured vehicle for letting me in to the right hand
lane of the motorway when driving. I've not found spilling bile on
uk.rec.cycling to be helpful yet.
--
Ambrose

Paul Boyd said:

Paul - [censored] said the following on 22/03/2006 09:15:

Quoted message said:

To my mind having no VED, but an increase on petrol/diesel taxation
would be a fairer way of increasing revenue than increasing taxation
on different classes of vehicle. That way, if I drive the 4x4 I
pay more to do so.

The bit about no VED is fine, but we do already have a massive tax
that is based on how much fuel you use - the bigger your car, the
more tax you pay. I can't remember the exact figure, but petrol is
taxed at something like 350-400% (compared to VAT at 17.5%)

47p per litre duty on fossil fuels. (27p per litre for fuels of biological
origin)

Quoted message said:

What bugs me is not so much the increases in taxes on motoring, but
the reasoning that this extra revenue will be used to make things
better, such as providing better public transport. If the money
really was spent on visible improvements, I wouldn't mind, but it
isn't so I do!

Please provide concrete examples of motor vehicle taxation being used to
fund better public transport.

I also currently have a long motorway commute (see I's posts passim.)
Strangely enough, I see a huge amount of expenditure on the M6 at the
moment. Like hundreds of workers working 24/7 using huge amounts of energy.
I haven't had many problems with public transport recently, either.
--
Ambrose

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

Quoted message said:

I hear Gordon Brown and his aides are likely to be putting up 4x4 road
tax today. Good but not good enough.

The chances of them putting up the tax beyond the cost of a tank of
fuel is unlikely I think. Even if it goes up to £200 its not enough to
stop people, who must put £200 of fuel in those things per week, buying
another 4x4.

It seems Gordo has done the following...

"Cars with the lowest rate of emissions would pay no vehicle excise duty but
the 1% of most polluting cars would pay £210"

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4832848.stm

Cheers, helen s

MichaelB said:

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:48:47 +0000, Phil Clarke
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It was widely reported as a tax on 4x4's because, IMHO, a new tax on
Lamborghinis and Aston Martins wouldnt sell as many newspapers.

Is the right answer.

I dont think so. There are far more antisocial 4x4s than
Lambourghinis on the roads. That is the right answer.

Please state your reasoning for 4x4s being antisocial. You seem to be taking
this as axiomatic.

Following on from that, please link it to cycling.

Note that there are correct arguments in support of both statements. I'm
merely helping your academic ability.
--
Ambrose (BSc, MSc and perfectly aware that that's nothing special.
Particularly in present company.)

MichaelB said:

He is one. It was a statement not an insult.

both were then.

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Paul Boyd said:

Paul - [censored] said the following on 22/03/2006 09:15:

Quoted message said:

To my mind having no VED, but an increase on petrol/diesel taxation
would be a fairer way of increasing revenue than increasing taxation
on different classes of vehicle. That way, if I drive the 4x4 I
pay more to do so.

The bit about no VED is fine, but we do already have a massive tax
that is based on how much fuel you use - the bigger your car, the
more tax you pay. I can't remember the exact figure, but petrol is
taxed at something like 350-400% (compared to VAT at 17.5%)

47p per litre duty on fossil fuels. (27p per litre for fuels of
biological origin)

Yes. The tax on a 90p litre of diesel is 60.5p. The untaxed price of
29.5p has to be multiplied by 305% (three hundred and five percent) to
arrive at the price we pay, or if we use the same method which gives VAT
as 17.5% fuel tax (duty+vat + vat) is currently 205% for a 90p litre.

--
Matt B

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:18:35 -0000, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email hidden]> said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I dont think so. There are far more antisocial 4x4s than
Lambourghinis on the roads. That is the right answer.

Quoted message said:

Please state your reasoning for 4x4s being antisocial. You seem to be taking
this as axiomatic.

Um, I think the claim could be supported by reference to the relative
sales figures of Lambos an Chelsea tractors, even before allowing for
the fact that the MTBF of the average Lambo is measured in minutes :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

In article <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy,

you know? () said:

Um, I think the claim could be supported by reference to the relative
sales figures of Lambos an Chelsea tractors, even before allowing for
the fact that the MTBF of the average Lambo is measured in minutes :-)

I am given to understand that, since being Borged by The Germans, things
are much better in that regard, although since the average distance
covered by one is about eight hundred yards, this may be moot...

When my grate frend gNick was working on the transmission of the Bugatti
Veyron, they had a Diablo in the place, which they dismantled to see how
The Experts had done it. The quality of the manufacture thereof, he
said, had cured him of any desire to take even a brief ride therein.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Barley, barley, barley, world cruise. You never see a farmer on a bike.

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:18:35 -0000, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email hidden]> said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I dont think so. There are far more antisocial 4x4s than
Lambourghinis on the roads. That is the right answer.

Quoted message said:

Please state your reasoning for 4x4s being antisocial. You seem to
be taking this as axiomatic.

Um, I think the claim could be supported by reference to the relative
sales figures of Lambos an Chelsea tractors, even before allowing for
the fact that the MTBF of the average Lambo is measured in minutes :-)

Still, that's not evidence in support of antisocial. There is plenty, and it
would be lovely if MichaelB could be educated in favour of making sensible
rational points about the antisocial qualities of 4x4s (which come down to
height, width, noise, weight and finally, energy innefficiency, with the
first 4 factors being primarily pointless and unnecessary assertions of
social dominance, and the final one being a slap in the face to those who
are worried about excess enery consumption)
--
Ambrose

Ambrose Nankivell said the following on 22/03/2006 13:13:

Quoted message said:

Please provide concrete examples of motor vehicle taxation being used to
fund better public transport.

That is precisely my point - there isn't any.

Quoted message said:

Strangely enough, I see a huge amount of expenditure on the M6 at the
moment. Like hundreds of workers working 24/7 using huge amounts of
energy. I haven't had many problems with public transport recently, either.

Well, at least someone seems to be getting their money's worth.

The M6 is nowhere near here, and neither is London, and not a lot is
happening hereabouts. We can't even get money for 7.5T limit signs to
stop HGV's using a totally inappropriate route through a local village.
At work, we are recruiting, and at least two people have been unable
to accept a job offer because they can't get here by public transport.
We are on an industrial estate on a main road, yet there are no buses
within half a mile (I know that isn't far!!!!), and even then not early
enough to get here for 8am. One of them could have cycled in, mind!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

In article said:

Pyromancer said:

Quoted message said:

The chances of them putting up the tax beyond the cost of a tank of
fuel is unlikely I think. Even if it goes up to £200 its not enough

to

Quoted message said:

stop people, who must put £200 of fuel in those things per week,

buying

Quoted message said:

another 4x4.

What have you got against farmers?

Nothing. Farmers dont live in cities.

Had you been talking about in-city congestion charges, that might have
been relevent. People who don't live in cities still pay VED and fuel
tax for road vehicles.

To those who read the top and bottom lines remember this: YOU ARE

I will try to be more civil from now on. I know the best way to convince someone is not to be aggressive and crude in your arguement but I'm not really interested in convinceing just a handful of people on a cycling forum who I probably dont like as individuals anyway so I'd rather just cause an arguement and have a rant.

I have an issue, personally, with why somebody's reasoning is not valid purely because it is not beautifully written. I could put a lot of energy into an excellent eloquent response and keep people like you, Ambrose, happy but it shouldn't matter how well written an arguenment is but how well formed it is. Furthermore I dislike people using platitudes and words like, well, platitudes when you could simple write 'worn out phrases' in place of said word etc... Adding words which people mightn't understand or use in informal language doesn't make you any more correct in what you say it just makes you look like you either you particularly enjoy writting like that or you think looking like you have an english degree will make you sound clever.

Basically that is why I dont go in for fancy wording.

As far as the snobbery issue is concerned what really is ironic is that they are snobs and so am I. The are snobbish about possesions and wealth and I am snobbish about intellectual ability. Whereas they feel happy about owning some expensive vehicle and would be mortified to be seen in my little city car (I know they tell me this) I would be horrified if I wasn't doing some worthy research or winning races. The problem I have is that before I went to uni and started racing I didn't have this means to fulfill my needs and I wanted fancy stuff too. I moved on and this makes me a particular snob because the nice stuff and wealth is in my past and is not important to me.

To those who read everything remember this: not

Back to the 4x4 issue. What really bothers me about these cars is that people justify them by saying they want to keep their kids safe. They do not appreciate that 4x4s make the roads a more dangerous place. True a small car vs. an SUV is going to come off worse and you can show this really easily, mathematically, using the principles of conservation of momentum and energy. A 4x4 face off has no obvious safety advantages.

The thing is you only need a 4x4 because there are 4x4s on the road. You would be just as well off in a Volvo estate if there were no SUVs about. Whats even worse is that when one of these cars has an accident it is going to do a huge amount of damaged to whatever it hits because it will carry several times more energy than a small car. Plus they are particularly dangerous to pedestriana.

To argue a 4x4 is a safe vehicle is wrong. They may offer some safety advantages to the occupants in a small number of vehicle to vehicle accidents but to everyone else they are a serious hazard - and dont forget everyone is a pedestrian at some point. This is why I say they are selfish and this is why those cars should be taxed disproportionately highly because of their anti-social nature. Individuals wont just give them up because people are selfish it. If one person has one then they can argue they need one for their safety. If nobody has one then this arguement doesn't work.

I dont really care that much about the environment. I dont like people so I dont care if they wipe themselves out 🙂

Now read this: A [censored]

Paul Boyd said:

Ambrose Nankivell said the following on 22/03/2006 13:13:

Quoted message said:

Please provide concrete examples of motor vehicle taxation being
used to fund better public transport.

That is precisely my point - there isn't any.

Oops. I meant "Please provide examples of people _promising_ to spend motor
vehicle taxation on public transport." Sorry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Strangely enough, I see a huge amount of expenditure on the M6 at the
moment. Like hundreds of workers working 24/7 using huge amounts of
energy. I haven't had many problems with public transport recently,
either.

Well, at least someone seems to be getting their money's worth.

The M6 is nowhere near here, and neither is London, and not a lot is
happening hereabouts.

How about the M1 or M8, both of which are getting work done? Or are you away
from urban areas?

Quoted message said:

We can't even get money for 7.5T limit signs to
stop HGV's using a totally inappropriate route through a local
village.

Can't get money, or can't get the traffic restriction order passed?

Quoted message said:

At work, we are recruiting, and at least two people have
been unable to accept a job offer because they can't get here by
public transport. We are on an industrial estate on a main road, yet
there are no buses within half a mile (I know that isn't far!!!!),
and even then not early enough to get here for 8am. One of them
could have cycled in, mind!

On the other hand, it could be looked at as the fault of the people who
chose to locate the company there. After all, the availability of employees
is an important factor in locating a site.

My employers are also located in a similar site. The upside of it was that
it was a gorgeous ride in when I lived locally. And if I were able to take
the train, it would be a gorgeous but longish ride from the station.

The result, of course, is lots of 10 year old cars parked all over the place
(in the case of the buildings that use low amounts of space per worker. The
one where I work is warehousing/light industrial, so generally fairly low
employee density), interspersed with the odd posh car that belongs to one of
the people who decided to locate there.
--
Ambrose

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At work, we are recruiting, and at least two people have
been unable to accept a job offer because they can't get here by
public transport. We are on an industrial estate on a main road, yet
there are no buses within half a mile (I know that isn't far!!!!),
and even then not early enough to get here for 8am. One of them
could have cycled in, mind!

On the other hand, it could be looked at as the fault of the people who
chose to locate the company there. After all, the availability of
employees is an important factor in locating a site.

My employer has a policy of siting offices near railway stations. I imagine
they pay more rent because of this, but I think it's a good policy.

(They're office rather than factory based though)

cheers,
clive

In article <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy,

you know? () said:

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:18:35 -0000, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email hidden]> said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I dont think so. There are far more antisocial 4x4s than
Lambourghinis on the roads. That is the right answer.

Quoted message said:

Please state your reasoning for 4x4s being antisocial. You seem to be taking
this as axiomatic.

Um, I think the claim could be supported by reference to the relative
sales figures of Lambos an Chelsea tractors, even before allowing for
the fact that the MTBF of the average Lambo is measured in minutes :-)

What I said about Honda UK's web site? I take it back. Lamborghini's
is worse. EXACTLY much worse.

But anyway.

All current production Lamborghinis are also 4x4...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
%VMS-W-IVWORD, unrecognized word "downtime" - check validity and
spelling

Fat car. Fat head.

Email me if you want to buy some "Spray-on Mud". You can use it to cover your fat [censored] of a car in "pseudo-dirt" to convince those rotten [censored]-takers that you're actually a farmer and have a "real need" for that shiny new Range Rover, and that you don't just use it to take the kids to school and to mow down cyclists.

😄

On 22/03/2006 16:09, Ambrose Nankivell said,

Quoted message said:

How about the M1 or M8, both of which are getting work done? Or are you
away from urban areas?

Nope - I'm not even sure where the M8 is - Scotland, isn't it? Depends
on what you call urban, but I live in a seaside town. I do have the M5
running relatively near, and there are works on that currently. But
that is to get more vehicles per mile on, which will increase the
environmental impact. The extra money being taken is supposed to
encourage a decrease in the environmental impact, according to the
politicians. Anyway, it looks like my road tax might actually be going
down, although I'll believe it in April when it's due!

When Prescott got into power, he said that if he hadn't reduced the
number of cars on the road with seven years (I think it was seven), he
will have considered he's failed at his job. Seven years and several
Jaguars later, he said that that statement wasn't actually what he meant.

Quoted message said:

Can't get money, or can't get the traffic restriction order passed?

Our council is supposed to have money left over this year. The problem
is getting them to pull their fingers out rather than working out how
much they can claim in expenses!

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, it could be looked at as the fault of the people who
chose to locate the company there. After all, the availability of
employees is an important factor in locating a site.

No, the cheapness of the rent was the most important factor :-) I do
actually agree with you on this point. The person who chose to locate
there wouldn't know public transport if it ran over him, and thought I
was one step away from being destitute when I turned up for work on my
bike. I guess that's fairly typical!

Just returning back on topic for a minute, why are the media touting
these increases as a 4x4 tax? The new tax bands have nothing to do with
how many wheels are driven, but what the emissions are. I suppose that
just makes less dramatic headlines.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On 22/03/2006 18:29, Paul Boyd said,

Quoted message said:

Anyway, it looks like my road tax might actually be going
down, although I'll believe it in April when it's due!

Whoops - spoke too soon - these new bands only apply to new cars
registered after March 2001.

Oh well...

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Ambrose Nankivell twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

47p per litre duty on fossil fuels. (27p per litre for fuels of biological
origin)

Did he said he would change the rules on straight vegetable oil? Or will
that still be treated as dino-diesel and thus liable for the 47.1p/litre?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

in message <[email hidden]>, Ambrose Nankivell

(') said:

MichaelB said:

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:48:47 +0000, Phil Clarke
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

> It was widely reported as a tax on 4x4's because, IMHO, a new tax on
> Lamborghinis and Aston Martins wouldnt sell as many newspapers.

Is the right answer.

I dont think so. There are far more antisocial 4x4s than
Lambourghinis on the roads. That is the right answer.

Please state your reasoning for 4x4s being antisocial. You seem to be
taking this as axiomatic.

He didn't say that. He didn't say that /all/ 4x4s are antisocial. He said
that the subset of 4x4s which are antisocial is greater than the total
number of Lamborghinis, which seems to me incontrovertible. Of course he
may /believe/ that all 4x4s are antisocial, but he didn't say so.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Iraq war: it's time for regime change...
... go now, Tony, while you can still go with dignity.
[update 18 months after this .sig was written: it's still relevant]