Excellent letter re VED

Puts yet another ignorant driver straight.

QUOTE:
"I AM writing with reference to Mike Underwood's letter (October 31). Roads are paid for out of general taxation and have been since 1937.

This is in recognition that we all use the roads in one way or another. Therefore non-motorists contribute towards their initial cost and maintenance.

What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is currently levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle. Bicycles, like some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons.

Most adult cyclists pay their taxes to HM Treasury just like Mr Underwood, so to pay extra taxes for being environmentally friendly should be a non-starter. Incidentally, cycling is very good for our health and well-being."

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/...d-tax-pot.9466

On 02/11/2015 07:57, Alycidon wrote:

Puts yet another ignorant driver straight.
QUOTE:
"I AM writing with reference to Mike Underwood's letter (October 31). Roads are paid for out of general taxation and have been since 1937.
This is in recognition that we all use the roads in one way or another. Therefore non-motorists contribute towards their initial cost and maintenance.
What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is currently levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle. Bicycles, like some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons.
Most adult cyclists pay their taxes to HM Treasury just like Mr Underwood, so to pay extra taxes for being environmentally friendly should be a non-starter. Incidentally, cycling is very good for our health and well-being."
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/...d-tax-pot.9466

"What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is
currently levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle.
Bicycles, like some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons."

Does anyone know what these "obvious reasons" might be?

And what the "obvious reasons" were when Road Tax was a flat charge,
completely unrelated to "emissions"?

Those days are coming back. When they do, what will be the "obvious
reasons" for cyclists not being charged Road Tax on all their vehicles?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2015 07:57, Alycidon wrote:

Puts yet another ignorant driver straight.
QUOTE:
"I AM writing with reference to Mike Underwood's letter (October 31).
Roads are paid for out of general taxation and have been since 1937.
This is in recognition that we all use the roads in one way or another.
Therefore non-motorists contribute towards their initial cost and
maintenance.
What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is currently
levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle. Bicycles, like
some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons.
Most adult cyclists pay their taxes to HM Treasury just like Mr
Underwood, so to pay extra taxes for being environmentally friendly
should be a non-starter. Incidentally, cycling is very good for our
health and well-being."
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/...d-tax-pot.9466

"What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is currently
levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle. Bicycles, like
some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons."

Does anyone know what these "obvious reasons" might be?

And what the "obvious reasons" were when Road Tax was a flat charge,
completely unrelated to "emissions"?

Those days are coming back. When they do, what will be the "obvious
reasons" for cyclists not being charged Road Tax on all their vehicles?

Because this money will be used to repair damage on existing roads not
caused by bicycles and to build greenfield roads that cyclists
are unlikely to use.

On 03/11/2015 00:33, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2015 07:57, Alycidon wrote:

Puts yet another ignorant driver straight.
QUOTE:
"I AM writing with reference to Mike Underwood's letter (October 31).
Roads are paid for out of general taxation and have been since 1937.
This is in recognition that we all use the roads in one way or another.
Therefore non-motorists contribute towards their initial cost and
maintenance.
What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is currently
levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle. Bicycles, like
some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons.
Most adult cyclists pay their taxes to HM Treasury just like Mr
Underwood, so to pay extra taxes for being environmentally friendly
should be a non-starter. Incidentally, cycling is very good for our
health and well-being."
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/...d-tax-pot.9466

"What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is currently
levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle. Bicycles, like
some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons."

Does anyone know what these "obvious reasons" might be?

And what the "obvious reasons" were when Road Tax was a flat charge,
completely unrelated to "emissions"?

Those days are coming back. When they do, what will be the "obvious
reasons" for cyclists not being charged Road Tax on all their vehicles?

Because this money will be used to repair damage on existing roads not
caused by bicycles and to build greenfield roads that cyclists
are unlikely to use.

Maintenance is one thing (private cars cause negligible wear to roads too).

But what about the considerable cost of provision in the first place?

Or were you under the impression that the Romans were attracted here by
the excellent (for the time) road network provided by God?

On 02/11/15 21:00, JNugent wrote:
On 02/11/2015 07:57, Alycidon wrote:

Puts yet another ignorant driver straight.
QUOTE:
"I AM writing with reference to Mike Underwood's letter (October 31).
Roads are paid for out of general taxation and have been since 1937.
This is in recognition that we all use the roads in one way or
another. Therefore non-motorists contribute towards their initial cost
and maintenance.
What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is
currently levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle.
Bicycles, like some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons.
Most adult cyclists pay their taxes to HM Treasury just like Mr
Underwood, so to pay extra taxes for being environmentally friendly
should be a non-starter. Incidentally, cycling is very good for our
health and well-being."
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/...d-tax-pot.9466


"What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is
currently levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle.
Bicycles, like some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons."

Does anyone know what these "obvious reasons" might be?

I'm guessing vehicle emissions here.

And what the "obvious reasons" were when Road Tax was a flat charge,
completely unrelated to "emissions"?

Probably related to the same charge levied on cigarettes.

Those days are coming back. When they do, what will be the "obvious
reasons" for cyclists not being charged Road Tax on all their vehicles?

I'm guessing again, the government doesn't want to?

This is in recognition that we all use the roads in one way or another.

This would be true even if you lived above a grocery store and never set foot on a public road. In order for you to eat a truck needs to drive down the road to the grocery store.

Two issues are getting blurred here.

1. Everyone's survival depends on public roads even those who don't use them at all [user fees v taxes is some what a mooted issue].

2. The inconvenience of too many commuters on the road.

User fees are regressive by nature and motorists don't have much of a hand to play dealing with the 2rd issue.


Bret Cahill

On 03/11/2015 06:22, Tosspot wrote:
On 02/11/15 21:00, JNugent wrote:
On 02/11/2015 07:57, Alycidon wrote:

Puts yet another ignorant driver straight.
QUOTE:
"I AM writing with reference to Mike Underwood's letter (October 31).
Roads are paid for out of general taxation and have been since 1937.
This is in recognition that we all use the roads in one way or
another. Therefore non-motorists contribute towards their initial cost
and maintenance.
What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is
currently levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle.
Bicycles, like some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons.
Most adult cyclists pay their taxes to HM Treasury just like Mr
Underwood, so to pay extra taxes for being environmentally friendly
should be a non-starter. Incidentally, cycling is very good for our
health and well-being."
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/...d-tax-pot.9466



"What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is
currently levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle.
Bicycles, like some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons."

Does anyone know what these "obvious reasons" might be?

I'm guessing vehicle emissions here.

And what the "obvious reasons" were when Road Tax was a flat charge,
completely unrelated to "emissions"?

Probably related to the same charge levied on cigarettes.

Those days are coming back. When they do, what will be the "obvious
reasons" for cyclists not being charged Road Tax on all their vehicles?

I'm guessing again, the government doesn't want to?

The reasons are so obvious that they have to be guessed at.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2015 00:33, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2015 07:57, Alycidon wrote:

Puts yet another ignorant driver straight.
QUOTE:
"I AM writing with reference to Mike Underwood's letter (October 31).
Roads are paid for out of general taxation and have been since 1937.
This is in recognition that we all use the roads in one way or another.
Therefore non-motorists contribute towards their initial cost and
maintenance.
What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is
currently
levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle. Bicycles, like
some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons.
Most adult cyclists pay their taxes to HM Treasury just like Mr
Underwood, so to pay extra taxes for being environmentally friendly
should be a non-starter. Incidentally, cycling is very good for our
health and well-being."
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/...d-tax-pot.9466

"What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is
currently
levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle. Bicycles, like
some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons."

Does anyone know what these "obvious reasons" might be?

And what the "obvious reasons" were when Road Tax was a flat charge,
completely unrelated to "emissions"?

Those days are coming back. When they do, what will be the "obvious
reasons" for cyclists not being charged Road Tax on all their vehicles?

Because this money will be used to repair damage on existing roads not
caused by bicycles and to build greenfield roads that cyclists
are unlikely to use.

Maintenance is one thing (private cars cause negligible wear to roads
too).

You might want to believe this.

But what about the considerable cost of provision in the first place?

What about it? Roads that have already been build don't need to be built.

Though it seems that (I am quoting one of your posts so presume you have got
the facts right), "every single penny raised by vehicle excise duty will go
into a new road fund to pay exclusively for highways maintenance".

So not actually paying for the roads.

Or were you under the impression that the Romans were attracted here by
the excellent (for the time) road network provided by God?

Absolutely. Having built them FOC His treasury is now getting short of money
because fewer people are going to church. So after speaking to George
Osborne with demands for back payment against a threat to kill first borns,
George needs to raise the cash by taxing his subjects.

On 03/11/2015 21:27, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 03/11/2015 00:33, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2015 07:57, Alycidon wrote:

Puts yet another ignorant driver straight.
QUOTE:
"I AM writing with reference to Mike Underwood's letter (October 31).
Roads are paid for out of general taxation and have been since 1937.
This is in recognition that we all use the roads in one way or another.
Therefore non-motorists contribute towards their initial cost and
maintenance.
What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is
currently
levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle. Bicycles, like
some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons.
Most adult cyclists pay their taxes to HM Treasury just like Mr
Underwood, so to pay extra taxes for being environmentally friendly
should be a non-starter. Incidentally, cycling is very good for our
health and well-being."
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/...d-tax-pot.9466

"What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is
currently levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle.
Bicycles, like some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons."

Does anyone know what these "obvious reasons" might be?
And what the "obvious reasons" were when Road Tax was a flat charge,
completely unrelated to "emissions"?
Those days are coming back. When they do, what will be the "obvious
reasons" for cyclists not being charged Road Tax on all their vehicles?

Because this money will be used to repair damage on existing roads not
caused by bicycles and to build greenfield roads that cyclists
are unlikely to use.

Maintenance is one thing (private cars cause negligible wear to roads
too).

You might want to believe this.

It's true. Damage (strictly: wear - it is designed in) is done by the
heaviest vehicles. Such wear as may be caused by private cars lies well
outside the design life of a road structure.

But what about the considerable cost of provision in the first place?

What about it? Roads that have already been build don't need to be built.

So we never need to build another road?

No motorway extensions to ease traffic bottlenecks? No more bypasses? No
more shorter connections?

Though it seems that (I am quoting one of your posts so presume you have got
the facts right), "every single penny raised by vehicle excise duty will go
into a new road fund to pay exclusively for highways maintenance".

So not actually paying for the roads.

That is a quote (IIRC) from the Chancellor's speech.

It does not claim that the fund will be sufficient for all road-related
purposes. In particular, and as you point out (in response to my already
having pointed it out), it says nothing about paying for the building of
Britain's pressing new highway needs.

That will be charged up to the tens of billions of pounds collected
annually as taxes on *fuel* (with tens of billions left over for other
purposes).

Or were you under the impression that the Romans were attracted here by
the excellent (for the time) road network provided by God?

Absolutely. Having built them FOC His treasury is now getting short of money
because fewer people are going to church. So after speaking to George
Osborne with demands for back payment against a threat to kill first borns,
George needs to raise the cash by taxing his subjects.

"JNugent" wrote
On 03/11/2015 21:27, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message.
On 03/11/2015 00:33, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 02/11/2015 07:57, Alycidon wrote:

Puts yet another ignorant driver straight.
QUOTE:
"I AM writing with reference to Mike Underwood's letter (October 31).
Roads are paid for out of general taxation and have been since 1937.
This is in recognition that we all use the roads in one way or
another.
Therefore non-motorists contribute towards their initial cost and
maintenance.
What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is
currently
levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle. Bicycles,
like
some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons.
Most adult cyclists pay their taxes to HM Treasury just like Mr
Underwood, so to pay extra taxes for being environmentally friendly
should be a non-starter. Incidentally, cycling is very good for our
health and well-being."
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/...d-tax-pot.9466

"What we call road tax is in fact Vehicle Excise Duty, which is
currently levied according to the emissions level of the vehicle.
Bicycles, like some cars, do not pay this for obvious reasons."

Does anyone know what these "obvious reasons" might be?
And what the "obvious reasons" were when Road Tax was a flat charge,
completely unrelated to "emissions"?
Those days are coming back. When they do, what will be the "obvious
reasons" for cyclists not being charged Road Tax on all their
vehicles?

Because this money will be used to repair damage on existing roads not
caused by bicycles and to build greenfield roads that cyclists
are unlikely to use.

Maintenance is one thing (private cars cause negligible wear to roads
too).

You might want to believe this.

It's true. Damage (strictly: wear - it is designed in) is done by the
heaviest vehicles. Such wear as may be caused by private cars lies well
outside the design life of a road structure.

A lot depends on the road type. When frost gets hold it doesn't take much to
destroy a surface but I grant that the outside lane of a motorway doesn't
deteriorate like the inside.

But what about the considerable cost of provision in the first place?

What about it? Roads that have already been build don't need to be built.

So we never need to build another road?

Your phrasing suggested this "road fund" would be paying for roads that have
been built.

There is no doubt that motorists, confused by the principle of paying for
new roads, will complain even louder about cyclists not paying for roads
already paid for.

No motorway extensions to ease traffic bottlenecks? No more bypasses? No
more shorter connections?

You seem forget that major works are carried out to reduce clogging due to
the expansion of *motor* traffic. And when these new motorist funded
motorways and
bypasses are built, will cyclists be alllowed to use them and, if so, would
they want to? (Whatever the theoretical "rights" of cyclists about using
significant roads, it can hardly be claimed that there are many that
exercise those rights.)