Demand for cyclists number plates.

[POAH]

Bloody hell! Tie a knot it it you money grubbing, superbreeding "look how fabulous my swimmers are" ne'er do well!!
I feel a letter to the Guardian coming on........

we are fantastically fertile TBH

 

[Cobra]

we are fantastically fertile TBH

If you have a talent, why not use it, thats what I say

 

[Musicman]

You wrote this

In absolute terms (£s received by the treasury) the very richest may pay more, but relative to their disposable income, they pay less than anyone else and nearly half the proportion of taxes paid by the poorest.

Indeed I did.

Did you miss the bit explaining that in relative terms the poorest pay twice as much tax as the richest, which was the part of your claim I was refuting? There was a table of official statistics and everything setting it out.

I've put it in bold this time in case you've mislaid your spectacles.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Indeed I did.

Did you miss the bit explaining that in relative terms the poorest pay twice as much tax as the richest, which was the part of your claim I was refuting? There was a table of official statistics and everything setting it out.

I've put it in bold this time in case you've mislaid your spectacles.

What about all the middle earners, you know the £40k-£200k PAYE people. Do they avoid their tax, can you explain how 40% is less than 20% or indeed nothing at all?

 

[big soft moose]

You are trolling. What has my offence got to do with 30million other road users, may you please explain.

It has a clear illustrative bearing on your own behavior as a road user - which is directly relevant to your opinion on the rights of the motorist and fast cars uber alles (and mentioning it is not trolling, trolling is taking over a thread on cyclist number plates into a discussion of taxation of the rich purely to cause an argument .. only one person in this thread is guilty of that)

also here

for sure. If you have more money you can live in a better house, live in a nicer area, send your kids to better school, have private healthcare, sit in a nicer carriage on the train with better seats, but still can only drive at 70mph on a motorway and sit in the same jams as people with lesser cars despite paying more in VAT, more in VED, more in everything to have the superior car. Seems to me the roads are the last bastion of that awful marxist fella.

you seem to be implying that rich people should be allowed to drive faster than everyone else ... which is of direct relevance to the fact that you do/did and got stopped for it

I have never said motorists do not drive wrecklessly, please point me in the direction, to state that. Please, rather than just make up stuff.

not in this thread, but in numerous others about the unfairness of the 'dibble' stopping you from going about your business at the speed of light ...

Can you also please tell me where I stated what I earned was, and what my tax liabilities were?

No - but neil asked you and you evaded the question , again you were the one that brought wealth into the discussion

Can you also please explain why cyclists, some who do ride wrecklessly eg running red lights, are not an issue that needs addressed?

Given that ive said in this thread that I agree with that point , i'm not sure why you are making it

 

[Musicman]

Im insured via 3 separate parties.

My home cover (M&S I believe) is one that covers my liability on my bike (the other two are via my club membership and CTC)

I recommend every cyclist be insured, but I don't advocate making it a legal obligation.

Quite. I have 3rd party cover via my membership of the London Cycling Campaign.

 

[SFTPhotography]

It has a clear illustrative bearing on your own behavior as a road user - which is directly relevant to your opinion on the rights of the motorist and fast cars uber alles (and mentioning it is not trolling, trolling is taking over a thread on cyclist number plates into a discussion of taxation of the rich purely to cause an argument .. only one person in this thread is guilty of that)

also here




you seem to be implying that rich people should be allowed to drive faster than everyone else ... which is of direct relevance to the fact that you do/did and got stopped for it



not in this thread, but in numerous others about the unfairness of the 'dibble' stopping you from going about your business at the speed of light ...



No - but neil asked you and you evaded the question , again you were the one that brought wealth into the discussion



Given that ive said in this thread that I agree with that point , i'm not sure why you are making it

Its rude to ask people what they earn and their income. Anyone of any manners would never ask at all? Would you like to put that up on a forum. Why should I tell you and everyone my personal finances, are you telling me yours? All I have said is I do not believe in high personal taxation and high tax on CO2 emissions falls into this.

Given my driving was on a road cyclists aren't even allowed on, I do not see how my motoring offence has a bearing on my view of push bikes as it was on a motorway, which prohibits cyclists.

 

[neil_g]

No - but neil asked you and you evaded the question , again you were the one that brought wealth into the discussion

yup, still waiting on the council tax question (seeing as that funds the upkeep on roads and therefore would be equally relevant to his point that tax contributions = higher road privilege)

 

[big soft moose]

I wouldnt have said that 200k was a middle earner - but yes numerous people in that bracket to avoid their tax , and some people make a living out of helping them to do just that (hence my previous point about BBC employees receiving their pay as 2consultancy fees" in order to only pay 20% dividend tac instead of 40% income.

Another point of note is that you have often said on other threads that you are an avid sup[porter of Ukip - however the ukip tax plan (should they win the next election), according to their deputy leader on jeremy vine last week is to raise the bottom tax bracket in order to benefit the working poor and charge anyone who earns over £100k, 50% income tax. Are we to take it that you would support those measures too ?

 

[big soft moose]

Its rude to ask people what they earn and their income. Anyone of any manners would never ask at all? Would you like to put that up on a forum. Why should I tell you and everyone my personal finances, are you telling me yours? All I have said is I do not believe in high personal taxation and high tax on CO2 emissions falls into this.

I earn just below £27k p/a (doesnt bother me in the slightest to be asked tbh), I'm not asking for a full break dowen of your personal finances just a ball park idea of where you are coming from

Its rude to refer to poor people as scum, but that hasnt stopped you on numerous posts in this thread

 

[SFTPhotography]

Its rude to refer to poor people as scum, but that hasnt stopped you on numerous posts in this thread

You don't think all these junkies that avoid work are anything other than scum?

 

[SFTPhotography]

yup, still waiting on the council tax question (seeing as that funds the upkeep on roads and therefore would be equally relevant to his point that tax contributions = higher road privilege)

Plenty, band H property.

 

[POAH]

You don't think all these junkies that avoid work are anything other than scum?

I'm poor does that make me scum. not everyone with a low income are junkies. you really do have a very jaded view on pretty much everything.

 

[big soft moose]

@big soft moose
Pete, I'm not specifically talking about this thread with my last comments, but every other thread he has started or jumped in on,
regardless of subject, someone will mention his little jaunt around the highlands.
No one can defend his actions, and he has admitted he was wrong.
But to keep referring back to that one instance, could well fall under the "trolling act"

Thats a fair point - but it could also be because of the number of threads where that happens that are about either the unfairness of the speeding laws and/or how dog ownership is worse than dangerous driving.... I've never seen a reference to it in his photo threads

May be we should add sppeeding/dog ownership / and refferences to "dibble" to the verbotten list ?

 

[SFTPhotography]

I'm poor does that make me scum. not everyone with a low income are junkies. you really do have a very jaded view on pretty much everything.

Where did I say that. I refered to those worksky junkie/life on benefits/non working types that we as tax payers continually have to support with no benefit to us or any hope of them working. Yet those of us who work see our incomes slashed in punative taxes whether it be for our nice cars which we work hard to buy, our bigger homes which we worked hard to buy, and for what, extra tax.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Thats a fair point - but it could also be because of the number of threads where that happens that are about either the unfairness of the speeding laws and/or how dog ownership is worse than dangerous driving.... I've never seen a reference to it in his photo threads

May be we should add sppeeding/dog ownership / and refferences to "dibble" to the verbotten list ?

Why would I discuss dogs, speeding, in a thread about photo'. This is an off topic area, you know, where other topics go.

 

[big soft moose]

You don't think all these junkies that avoid work are anything other than scum?

DO you seriously think that everyone on benefits is a junkie, or everyone out of work is evading work ? - you need to get out more if you do , there are lots of honest hardworking people out of work because there basically arent as many jobs as there are people looking for them. Throwing arround terms like "scum" is pretty offensive and seems calculated to raise tempers in reply.

Especially if you are indeed a banker, as its the banking sectors fault that the economy is in this mess in the first place ... a lot of people could apply the "scum" label to those that thought american sub prime debt was a good investment in the first place !

 

[Cobra]

May be we should add sppeeding/dog ownership / and refferences to "dibble" to the verbotten list ?

Or change them to something more appropriate?

 

[SFTPhotography]

DO you seriously think that everyone on benefits is a junkie, or everyone out of work is evading work ? - you need to get out more if you do , there are lots of honest hardworking people out of work because there basically arent as many jobs as there are people looking for them. Throwing arround terms like "scum" is pretty offensive and seems calculated to raise tempers in reply.

I never said that, but you see career non workers, drug types around here, they are scum. If thats offensive, too bad.

Especially if you are indeed a banker, as its the banking sectors fault that the economy is in this mess in the first place ... a lot of people could apply the "scum" label to those that thought american sub prime debt was a good investment in the first place !

How I earn what I earn is of no relevance here.

 

[big soft moose]

Why would I discuss dogs, speeding, in a thread about photo'. This is an off topic area, you know, where other topics go.

I know - that was a reply to chris who seemed to think we were picking on you - what i was saying is that we don't bring the "flying scotsman" incident up in threads which arent relevant to it , and if you don't like it being mentioned perhaps fwer threads about how sppeding is great might be an idea

 

[big soft moose]

How I earn what I earn is of no relevance here.

It is if you're a banker or a politician - because they created the conditions that put these people out of work in the first place ... so to accuse them of being scum if you had a part in throwing them out of work would be more than a little hypocritcial.

 

[SFTPhotography]

It is if you're a banker or a politician - because they created the conditions that put these people out of work in the first place ... so to accuse them of being scum if you had a part in throwing them out of work would be more than a little hypocritcial.

I can assure you I wasn't in banking until after the crisis, I worked with stocks and shares. I've never worked in politics but I think I should. Hell, I've never sacked anyone.

I know - that was a reply to chris who seemed to think we were picking on you - what i was saying is that we don't bring the "flying scotsman" incident up in threads which arent relevant to it , and if you don't like it being mentioned perhaps fwer threads about how sppeding is great might be an idea

Aside from that, what speeding threads have I started that I shouldn't. Its an off topic area, why shouldn't I, or other people start motoring threads. Don't like the subject matter, do not partake. Why not hit ignore on my user CP - that way you will not see what I write?

You just want to use my conviction which a court of your peers has punished me for to beat me down, it will not work. What threads have I started that speeding is great. In your answer I expect you to find links to threads I posted praising speeding?

 

[big soft moose]

Aside from that, what speeding threads have I started that I shouldn't. Its an off topic area, why shouldn't I, or other people start motoring threads. Don't like the subject matter, do not partake. Why not hit ignore on my user CP - that way you will not see what I write?

you are missing the point - i'm not saying you shouldnt or can't discuss speeding , i'm saying that if you do its not trolling if someone brings up the "flying scotsman" incident.

(and i'm not saying bankers sacked anyone - i'm saying they idiotically trashed the economy in blind pursuit of profit - in a many cases acting unethically and occasionally illegally)

 

[neil_g]

I can assure you I wasn't in banking until after the crisis

knew it.

 

[SFTPhotography]

you are missing the point - i'm not saying you shouldnt or can't discuss speeding , i'm saying that if you do its not trolling if someone brings up the "flying scotsman" incident.

(and i'm not saying bankers sacked anyone - i'm saying they idiotically trashed the economy in blind pursuit of profit - in a many cases acting unethically and occasionally illegally)

Tax efficience and tax avoidance? Discuss, very few people illegally dodge tax, they are tax efficient. Theres a moral and legal difference.

The flying scotsman incident, its common knowledge, why do you feel the need to mention my actions over a year ago? Expecially given a thread about bikes when I sped on a motorway?

 

[SFTPhotography]

knew it.

Is that a problem for you that someone works in a bank? Someone has to do it...

 

[Mattyd]

knew it.

After the crisis there where a few articles about how in current banking training (whatever thay might be) there is not training for ethics.

Seems to me that's half of the problem right there.

 

[Musicman]

What about all the middle earners, you know the £40k-£200k PAYE people. Do they avoid their tax, can you explain how 40% is less than 20% or indeed nothing at all?

The numbers and explanation are there, if you cared to look at them.

 

[neil_g]

Is that a problem for you that someone works in a bank? Someone has to do it...

merely saying my hunch was correct.

 

[Cobra]

I know - that was a reply to chris who seemed to think we were picking on you - what i was saying is that we don't bring the "flying scotsman" incident up in threads which arent relevant to it , and if you don't like it being mentioned perhaps fwer threads about how sppeding is great might be an idea

I was Just reminding people of the fact that, although Steve may go off topic sometimes,
but that also largely seems to be in response to being "goaded"
I was just saying personally, I've never once seen him attack anyone on a personal level
but there are plenty of instances of the reverse.
As I always say, attack the post not the poster

And of course if it all gets too much everyone is free (well mods excluded)
to hit the ignore button

But I bet there are also a lot of people out there, that won't for fear of missing out.
And thats not an invite (Everyone) to jump in and list those that are are on your ignore lists
We don't need to know

 

[neil_g]

ignore is all well and good but when 99% of the content is from or replies to quotes of an ignored user the thread gets very confusing without having to click the show post button..

 

[Cobra]

ignore is all well and good but when 99% of the content is from or replies to quotes of an ignored user the thread gets very confusing without having to click the show post button..

Fair point well presented

 

[SFTPhotography]

The numbers and explanation are there, if you cared to look at them.

How is 40% less than 20% on an individual basis and how is it fair on the person who pays 40% tax that others only pay 20%

 

[Mattyd]

how is it fair on the person who pays 40% tax that others only pay 20%

That question sums up the issues I have with libertarians.


You contribute more because you are in a fortunate enough to be in a position to do so. And those less fortunate are not.

 

[Musicman]

How is 40% less than 20% on an individual basis and how is it fair on the person who pays 40% tax that others only pay 20%

[sigh]

It's because you're fixating on the headline rate of Income Tax. Amazingly, that is not the only tax paid by people in this country.

Except this demonstrably false when you take into account indirect taxes, such as VAT. The poorest fifth pay proportionally more of their gross income in taxes than any other group. These taxes all end up in the general pool of taxation

Read the numbers in the ONS table and the rest of my post in that context. You can see what middle income groups pay quite easily.

Maybe even read the ONS paper that I linked to.

Go on, I'll save you even that effort

Impact of indirect taxes

The amount of indirect tax (such as VAT, and duties on alcohol and fuel) each household pays is determined by their expenditure rather than their income. The richest fifth of households paid two and a half times as much indirect tax as the poorest fifth (£8,700 and £3,400 per year, respectively). This reflects higher expenditure on goods and services subject to these taxes by higher income households. However, although richer households pay more in indirect taxes than poorer ones, they pay less as a proportion of their income. This means that indirect taxes act to increase inequality of income.

In 2011/12, the bottom fifth of households paid 29% of their disposable income in indirect taxes, compared with 14% for the richest fifth. These proportions have increased over the last two years, from 27% and 12% respectively, in 2009/10. The rise in the proportion of income paid in indirect taxes over this time period is largely explained by the increases in the standard rate of VAT from 15.0% to 17.5% on 1 January 2010 and 20.0% on 4 January 2011, which have contributed to an increase in the average amount paid in VAT across all income groups. The VAT increases will also have impacted on inflation rates in these years.

When expressed as a percentage of expenditure, the proportion paid in indirect tax declines less sharply as income rises. The bottom fifth of households paid 21% of their expenditure in indirect taxes compared with 17% for the top fifth. The figure for the top fifth is a slight increase on last year, when the proportion was 16%, while the figure for the bottom fifth is broadly unchanged.

 

[SFTPhotography]

That question sums up the issues I have with libertarians.


You contribute more because you are in a fortunate enough to be in a position to do so. And those less fortunate are not.

No, that's what personal allowances are for. 20% is what should apply to all income full stop morally speaking. That's fair. Taking more and more is not fair, just because someone can afford to pay it doesn't make it right

 

[nilagin]

You're having a laugh. Even if it was the same width as the handlebars, let's think about where to mount it..

Seatpost? Nope, you'd be forever bashing some part of your leg on it.

Rear triangle? Nope, it's be stuck out to the side causing a hazard. Let alone a wind brake causing instability.

Doesn't really leave anywhere.

Nice try, now answer the point where I said the plate would only need to be the size of a motorbike plate, not a car plate. My point about the size of the car plate was only in response to the claim motorists would have to give more room to cyclists, which they wouldn't as they wouldn't be increasing the width of the bike.

 

[SFTPhotography]

[sigh]

It's because you're fixating on the headline rate of Income Tax. Amazingly, that is not the only tax paid by people in this country.



Read the numbers in the ONS table and the rest of my post in that context. You can see what middle income groups pay quite easily.

Maybe even read the ONS paper that I linked to.

Go on, I'll save you even that effort

Indirect taxation is a choice based thing like alcohol, tobacco and to an extent road fuel. Income tax adds up when you earn a bit than indirect tax.

 

[neil_g]

Nice try, now answer the point where I said the plate would only need to be the size of a motorbike plate, not a car plate. My point about the size of the car plate was only in response to the claim motorists would have to give more room to cyclists, which they wouldn't as they wouldn't be increasing the width of the bike.

same applies. where would you attach it? seatpost? nope, same issue with clipping the legs. rear triangle? its still going to become a hazard with clipping things. the handlebars are often way above any obstacles, heres an example of the kind of riding myself and a lot of others do. a numberplate on the triangle would be dragging in the bushes here (and some trails are even narrower)..

 

[big soft moose]

Indirect taxation is a choice based thing like alcohol, tobacco and to an extent road fuel. Income tax adds up when you earn a bit than indirect tax.

Except that the poor are paying Vat on things they have to have like food , and clothing ... its only a choice for the rich who have money to blow on luxuries.

No offence but you are suffering from ivory tower syndrome , like a lot of wealthy people you have no idea what its like to be poor - maybe you should try living on £72.40 for everything except housing for a week and see how easy it is (and that doesnt include the fact that many poor people are in private rental housing where the rent exceeds the housing benefit)