On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:53:49 +0100, David Cantrell wrote:

There are bicycles out there on which the purchaser would pay a
considerably higher amount of VAT than they could on a new car.

Really? There exists a bicycle with a price tag over a million quid?

You're not very bright, are you?

Here's a clue. What I _actually_ said equates to some expensive bicycles
cost more than some cheap new cars.

On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:58:25 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

I've certainly never paid VAT on a car purchase - and I've had several
brand new cars.

How did you manage that?

Simple.

No VAT is payable on used cars, unless they've come straight from an
unbroken chain of VAT-registered businesses from new.

I didn't buy the new cars, they were leased company cars, bought by a
VAT-
registered business. So the VAT was promptly reclaimed, and would have
been charged when the car was sold again.

The only person to pay VAT on any car is the first _private_ (or
non-VAT- reg business) owner.

So your justification for saying you've never paid VAT on a car purchase
it that you've never purchased a car.

I've never personally purchased a new car, correct.
I have, however, had several new cars.

ps According to the HMR&C site you'll have been paying 50% of the VAT on
the leasing charge.

Umm, no, because the VAT-registered company which employed me paid the
lease bill, so reclaimed the VAT on the lease cost.

In message , at 13:26:59 on Thu, 25 Jul
2013, Adrian remarked:
I've certainly never paid VAT on a car purchase - and I've had several
brand new cars.

How did you manage that?

Simple.

No VAT is payable on used cars, unless they've come straight from an
unbroken chain of VAT-registered businesses from new.

I didn't buy the new cars, they were leased company cars, bought by a
VAT-
registered business. So the VAT was promptly reclaimed, and would have
been charged when the car was sold again.

The only person to pay VAT on any car is the first _private_ (or
non-VAT- reg business) owner.

So your justification for saying you've never paid VAT on a car purchase
it that you've never purchased a car.

I've never personally purchased a new car, correct.
I have, however, had several new cars.

Yes we get it. You've never purchased a new car, so of course you've not
paid VAT on one.

ps According to the HMR&C site you'll have been paying 50% of the VAT on
the leasing charge.

Umm, no, because the VAT-registered company which employed me paid the
lease bill, so reclaimed the VAT on the lease cost.

Only half of it (today, anyway) according to HMR&C.

Or are you a taxi driver?
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
d wrote:
God almighty , how often is this idiotic excuse going to keep coming up?
ALL vehicles should be taxed.

What cost would you charge each vehicle? In proportion to the damage they
do to roads? In proportion to the pollution they emit? Equally, no matter
what the vehicle?


--
Mike Bristow

In message , at 16:37:38 on Thu,
25 Jul 2013, Mike Bristow remarked:
God almighty , how often is this idiotic excuse going to keep coming up?
ALL vehicles should be taxed.

What cost would you charge each vehicle? In proportion to the damage they
do to roads? In proportion to the pollution they emit?

It's normally some sort of proxy for "as much as they can afford".

eg Bigger and more expensive cars, houses etc, the more the tax is.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Adrian)
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:25:04 -0500, rosenstiel wrote:

There hasn't been any road fund licence for decades either. The renewal
reminder sitting in front of me says "tax disc".

If we're going to be pedantic about terminology, it's actually called
"Vehicle Excise Duty"

I thought that which was why I looked at the missive from the DVLA. They
seem to be adding to the terminological confusion.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

. . . which is why the real way to separate cyclists from other road users is
for cyclists, as much as practicable, to use residential streets and side roads,
and to use main roads only when there is no sensible alternative. Oh, and at
busy junctions for cyclists to dismount and push their bikes.

On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:37:38 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
God almighty , how often is this idiotic excuse going to keep coming up?
ALL vehicles should be taxed.

What cost would you charge each vehicle? In proportion to the damage they
do to roads? In proportion to the pollution they emit? Equally, no matter
what the vehicle?

Equal to the amount of specialist infrastructure they require on the highways.
If cyclists want cycle paths and routes they can pay for them, not expect them
to be funded by local councils or the london assembly.

And whats more I'd insist cyclists had some sort of formal training before
they're allowed on B roads and above. If they want to potter about in their
own backstreets fine, but if they want to ride on a numbered road they need
a license.

--
Spud

On 26/07/2013 06:25, Robin9 wrote:
David Cantrell;138034 Wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:58:39PM +0000, d
wrote:
-
Fair point. I have no issue with cycle paths, the more the merrier as
it
keeps them off the road. Better for all concerned.-

Of course, fitting such things into central London is ... well, we have
a special word for it.

That word is "impossible". All the space is already taken up by narrow
pavements and busy roads.



. . . which is why the real way to separate cyclists from other road
users is
for cyclists, as much as practicable, to use residential streets and
side roads,
and to use main roads only when there is no sensible alternative. Oh,
and at
busy junctions for cyclists to dismount and push their bikes.

The cyclists aren't usually causing a safety risk to other road users.
It would be safer to insist that motorists push their cars round junctions.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 26/07/2013 10:59, d wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:37:38 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
God almighty , how often is this idiotic excuse going to keep coming up?
ALL vehicles should be taxed.

What cost would you charge each vehicle? In proportion to the damage they
do to roads? In proportion to the pollution they emit? Equally, no matter
what the vehicle?

Equal to the amount of specialist infrastructure they require on the highways.
If cyclists want cycle paths and routes they can pay for them, not expect them
to be funded by local councils or the london assembly.

Cyclists don't need specialist infrastructure, other than maybe some
blue arrows on fence posts. Cyclists generally don't want cycle paths
which are designed to get them "out of the way" or exist to enable
someone to tick the "green transport" box.

There is also the risk a charge could backfire. If cyclists did pay, you
could kiss goodbye to demanding they use cycle lanes or stay in the gutter.

And whats more I'd insist cyclists had some sort of formal training before
they're allowed on B roads and above. If they want to potter about in their
own backstreets fine, but if they want to ride on a numbered road they need
a license.

Don't forget pedestrians. Even /children/ are allowed to go pretty much
where they want at the moment, with no tax, training or government
permit whatsoever.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK