Nuxx:2dmp55p1gv9rop86309e1d8i0t18recr48@4ax.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!backlog2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.bt.com!news.bt.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <2dmp55p1gv9rop86309e1d8i0t18recr48@4ax.com> From: "Just zis Guy, you know?"  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,uk.net.news.config Subject: Re: Censorship in uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:26:28 +0100 References:  <05oc55hove7buoe5ol4ubs2fe7p7auf8k1@4ax.com>  <7bpq34F20n748U1@mid.individual.net>  <7bqq99F243karU1@mid.individual.net>     <871voj8jdv.fsf@toy.config> Lines: 39 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:26:52 -0500 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser X-Trace: sv3-BlqzYeHkwBryKRsKv7Zb5242CvCH6Rr7KWbkP7Eyjktp3X2O1RvEonkuI5+jGuKOSiT1pkjYVaaFfC9!gymLJ95TrhRJ2cLub3poh6lkus3VFxmYtDj2NXwwAB+5y7MUHUkhs53JmDb/mYpXgtdxIuFfq15H!LkQ= X-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.39 Bytes: 3524 X-Original-Bytes: 3481 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:7197 uk.net.news.config:56102

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:49:16 +0100, Daniel Barlow  wrote:

>Mark  writes: > >> Why does the "18mpg people carrier" deserve more tax than the "80mpg" >> car apart from the fuel tax? What if the driver of the 80mpg car does >> 4 times the number of annual miles as the lower effeciency car? > >Well, if you're going to address this question thoroughly you need to >consuder the financial and social effects of those journeys. Perhaps >the 80mpg driver is an emergency services driver, and the 18mpg driver >is collections muscle for a loan shark. Perhaps it's the other way >around. But if we take it as read that e.g. taxing HGVs "fairly" >according to axle weight would probably cause economic meltdown and >therefore cannot be done, this arguably points to a deficiency in our >definition of "fair".

The main point with all this is that cagers are so welded to their greenhouses that they'd still be speeding around causing carnage if VED was ten times what it was. I say increase all motoring taxes dramatically: if cagers are so determined to drive no matter how much it costs them, we might as well take full advantage of that and enrich the public purse (at no cost to those who aren't selfishly driving all the time).

That way, drivers would finally be paying something approaching the real cost of their activity. They have an extremely large deficit to make up.

I think it's probably also worth having an "injury tax" which is linked to KSI figures (almost all of which are ultimately the fault of cagers), and a "speed tax" which depends on how many drivers are recorded speeding (not just by cameras and police, but also by SIDs and speed survey devices). It's time the cagers paid their way properly, and anything which makes driving harder (thus discouraging it) cannot fail to be a good thing. -- Guy