On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:45:04 -0000, "Ian Smith"
wrote:


I'd like to believe that. However, I still think we need to start
back at square 1 with taxation based on income, to the exclusion of
all others. Non income based taxation puts a disproportionate load on
those with lower incomes, and are therefore unfair.

What's the point of going to all the trouble of having a consistent
system of *money* and guarding the value of the currency, if poor
people then pay less than the rich for the same goods and services?

Council tax is a
prominent example of this.


It has one advantage that the government wouldn't be able to bezzle
us, won't happen then will it?

DG

On 23 Nov 2003 14:06:40 GMT, (Huge) wrote:


I'd like to believe that. However, I still think we need to start
back at square 1 with taxation based on income, to the exclusion of
all others.

Just so long as it's a flat rate. "Progressive" (I hate that word in this
context) taxation is iniquitious.

That'll never happen, think of all the poor inland revenue employees who
would be made redundant by such simplification.

Never mind the fact that if you ask almost any socialist what they would
prefer.

Penal 'socially equitable' levels of taxation.

or

Flat universal rates which would raise more revenue for the public purse

They will always plump for the 1st option. Socialism cannot exist without
begrudgery, it requires a scapegoat.



greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:34:12 +0000, derek wrote:



What's the point of going to all the trouble of having a consistent
system of *money* and guarding the value of the currency, if poor
people then pay less than the rich for the same goods and services?


One can hijack the electoral system and buy their votes.

Council tax is a
prominent example of this.


It has one advantage that the government wouldn't be able to bezzle
us, won't happen then will it?


Not a hope in hell.



greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

In article ,
says...
Pete Smith you missed the point, not read earlier posts.

We were discussing the proposed satellite / gps tracking and congestion
charging private cars
as proposed by the EU boffins aided and abetted by mad prof. Begg.
(not speed limiters)

Indeed you were. Someone made a comment about something, and Conor thought
they may have been having a go at truck drivers, and I then told him they
probably weren't.

The point was that would they make a law against having "a blown fuse"?
They would probably say that the hardware has to be fitted and functional
at all times.

I then asked Conor (who drives a truck, and who therefore has speed
limiting hardware in the truck) what the legal position would be for him
"to have a blown fuse", and the result is that it needs fixing very soon,
ie the same day. If cars have speed limiters (GPS or otherwise), they will
probably put a law in place to ensure that it is working at all times, and
if it isn't, it needs fixing within hours.

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:05:40 -0000, Conor
wrote:
HGVs have tacho calibration tests every two years and are calibrated to
a far tighter tolerance than a car.
They maybe but how often are the graphs checked by the MOD ? once
every blue moon I would imagine have you ever seen or read about any
HGV driver being prosecuted for speeding on taco evidence alone .

The Ministry Of Defence vehicles are exempt. There's been articles
about HGV drivers being convicted for speeding on tacho evidence alone
quite a few times in Truck & Driver magazine. You can be prosecuted for
speeding up to 12 months from the date of the offence via tachograph
evidence alone. For example if your yard was in an area like mine where
the nearest motorway is 40 miles away in any direction and the tacho
chart showed you doing 56MPH within 40 miles of base you could be
prosecuted and indeed this has happened to individuals. The only
difference is it is done by the Traffic Commissioner and not a local
magistrate. This means the penalties are far higher.

When was the last time your car speedos accuracy was checked?
Can't tell you only had this particular car three months and in any
case the next time I get done for speeding will be my first
even the police are not bothered in the slightest about HGV's
speeding on motor ways .

Thats because they don't speed. Even a recent DfT study showed that.

I know this for a fact I was once driving on the M6 quite a few years
ago before taco's came into being and a HGV over took me at well over
70 MPH I was doing 70 at the time and he was out of sight in no time.
A friend in the car with me took his number and we called in at the
Police station just of the M6 at Samlesbury told the motorway police
that where in there and they just shrugged their sholders and said
what do you want us to do about it go chasing after him ! .
Grant .

Must've been a decade ago. Got anything a little more recent? HGVs have
speed limiters fitted and have by law since around 1994. Any HGV
registered after 1/1/1988 has to have a fully working and certified
speed limiter. A lorry with a defective speedlimiter sticks out like a
sore thumb and the Police DO pull them. Also we are subject ot random
roadside checks at weighbridges etc where Vehicle Inspectorate
officials check the vehicles and tachographs in the drivers possession.


--
Conor

Hi. This is my friend, Jack ****, and you don't know him.

Pete Smith:
then asked Conor (who drives a truck, and who therefore has speed
limiting hardware in the truck) what the legal position would be for him
"to have a blown fuse", and the result is that it needs fixing very soon,
ie the same day. If cars have speed limiters (GPS or otherwise), they will
probably put a law in place to ensure that it is working at all times, and
if it isn't, it needs fixing within hours.

Yes, but it's one thing to enforce it on relatively few trucks, which are
mostly driven by employees who aren't personally bothered anyway.
But how do you compel 20m private car owners to have OPERATIONAL sat / gps
black box in the car which charges them £x.xx for every mile their drive ?
There is no easy way to check and virtually no police on the roads to do it,
IF they come up with a way. Just about the only thing the gov. could do is
to include it in the MOT.
Regards,
Martin

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:05:40 -0000, Conor
wrote:

Car speedos overread up to 10%. It is quite feasible that your actual
speed , not indicated speed, was as low as 55MPH which is 5MPH below
the HGV speed limit. Onmy last wagon, I knew how inaccurate the speedo
was..0.5 MPH at 56MPH because the tyres were part worn.

Or was it on a hill, perhaps? AFAIAA, speed limiters only cause loss
of power. Sudden, involuntary braking could be highly dangerous in
poor road conditions.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.

In article , Richard J.
writes
There is no law against the use of a mobile phone while moving on a
motorway.

Yes, there is. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4)
Regulations 2003.

Which does not forbid the use of a mobile phone while moving on a
motorway. Nor does it forbid the use of a mobile phone while driving on
a motorway.

What I assume
you meant was that the system would not be able to distinguish between
legal and illegal use of a mobile mobile, not that all use was legal.

Whereas you implied that all use of a mobile on a motorway was illegal,
which is arrant nonsense.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Richard
J. writes
There is no law against the use of a mobile phone while moving on a
motorway.

Yes, there is. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment)
(No. 4) Regulations 2003.

Which does not forbid the use of a mobile phone while moving on a
motorway. Nor does it forbid the use of a mobile phone while driving
on
a motorway.

What I assume
you meant was that the system would not be able to distinguish
between legal and illegal use of a mobile mobile, not that all use
was legal.

Whereas you implied that all use of a mobile on a motorway was
illegal, which is arrant nonsense.

It's a semantic issue. What does "There is no law against activity" mean?

(a) activity is lawful in all circumstances, or
(b) There is no law which prohibits activity in general, though specific
forms of activity may be unlawful.

You evidently think it means (b); I think it means (a). I suggest we agree
to differ.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"derek" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:45:04 -0000, "Ian Smith"
wrote:


I'd like to believe that. However, I still think we need to
start
back at square 1 with taxation based on income, to the exclusion of
all others. Non income based taxation puts a disproportionate load
on
those with lower incomes, and are therefore unfair.

What's the point of going to all the trouble of having a consistent
system of *money* and guarding the value of the currency, if poor
people then pay less than the rich for the same goods and services?

My point was that everyone should pay tax proportionally to their
income (same % for all, rich and poor alike), and all other taxes
abolished. I didn't say the poor should pay less than the rich for
goods and services they choose to buy. However, taxes paid directly on
those same goods and services (many essential to life) are a larger %
of the poorer man's income. A level playing field for everyone is all
I propose. Not that I ever expect it to happen!


Council tax is a
prominent example of this.


It has one advantage that the government wouldn't be able to bezzle
us, won't happen then will it?

DG