In message , at 15:26:22 on Tue, 30 Aug
2005, Paul Terry remarked:

My thoughts exactly. The OP was clutching at straws.

Eh? I have no idea whether the cost of car ownership is higher here
than the USA or not - I have no axe to grind either way!

I was merely pointing out, in the context of setting motoring expenses
against tax, that we have the MOT here, just as the American poster
said he has an annual auto inspection (the latter is generally only a
fraction of the cost of an MOT, incidentally).

Is the MOT a "tax", though? We have established that it doesn't incur
sales tax (aka VAT).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

I was merely pointing out, in the context of setting motoring expenses
against tax, that we have the MOT here, just as the American poster
said he has an annual auto inspection (the latter is generally only a
fraction of the cost of an MOT, incidentally).

Is the MOT a "tax", though? We have established that it doesn't incur
sales tax (aka VAT).

I really don't see how it can be, since it's not paid (even indirectly) to
the Exchequer.

It's a fee, set with reference to a maximum chargable, by the garage who
perform the test and payable to the garage. I doubt much (if any) of it is
paid on to VOSA by the garage.

In message , Roland
Perry writes

In message , at 15:26:22 on Tue, 30 Aug
2005, Paul Terry remarked:

My thoughts exactly. The OP was clutching at straws.

Eh? I have no idea whether the cost of car ownership is higher here
than the USA or not - I have no axe to grind either way!

I was merely pointing out, in the context of setting motoring expenses
against tax, that we have the MOT here, just as the American poster
said he has an annual auto inspection (the latter is generally only a
fraction of the cost of an MOT, incidentally).

Is the MOT a "tax", though?

I wouldn't have said so. It is, however an expense that can be set
against tax under certain circumstances (returning to the context of the
original point, once again).

--
Paul Terry

In message , at 17:00:20 on Tue, 30 Aug
2005, Paul Terry remarked:
Is the MOT a "tax", though?

I wouldn't have said so. It is, however an expense that can be set
against tax under certain circumstances (returning to the context of
the original point, once again).

The *original* point was the cost of motoring vs public transport.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:32:39 +0100, Clive
wrote:

I thought they had recently installed two cameras each way on the
Lancashire section?

Must be very recent if they have.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message , Roland
Perry writes

In message , at 17:00:20 on Tue, 30 Aug
2005, Paul Terry remarked:

Is the MOT a "tax", though?

I wouldn't have said so. It is, however an expense that can be set
against tax under certain circumstances (returning to the context of
the original point, once again).

The *original* point was the cost of motoring vs public transport.

So neither the American who mentioned US vehicle inspections, or I who
mentioned MOTs, were right to think that these are related to the cost
of motoring?

Forgive me if I choose no longer to participate in this mind-numbing
pedantry, which appears to have lost the whole thrust of the point and
which has totally ignored what I wrote about the reasons for increased
use of public transport in London.

--
Paul Terry

"Martin Underwood" a@b wrote in
:

There are two ring roads around London.

Three. Besides the M25 and North/South Circulars, there's the inner ring
road, which is currently (almost) co-incident with the outer perimiter of
the congestion charge zone. Much like the North Circ used to be (and the
South Circ still is), it's a collection of roads that happen to form a
circumference around "central" London, rather than being a purpose-built
ring-road.

Iain

In message , at 19:37:09 on Tue, 30 Aug
2005, Paul Terry remarked:
The *original* point was the cost of motoring vs public transport.

So neither the American who mentioned US vehicle inspections, or I who
mentioned MOTs, were right to think that these are related to the cost
of motoring?

They relate to the cost of motoring, but it was wrong for you to include
it in a list of "taxes imposed in the UK".
--
Roland Perry

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...

So neither the American who mentioned US vehicle inspections, or I who
mentioned MOTs, were right to think that these are related to the cost
of motoring?

Forgive me if I choose no longer to participate in this mind-numbing
pedantry, which appears to have lost the whole thrust of the point and
which has totally ignored what I wrote about the reasons for increased
use of public transport in London.

Jeez, guys, take a deep breath, please. I'm almost sorry I posted this
thread.........................I didn't meant to start a war..........

"Iain" wrote in message
...
"Martin Underwood" a@b wrote in
:

There are two ring roads around London.

Three. Besides the M25 and North/South Circulars, there's the inner ring
road, which is currently (almost) co-incident with the outer perimiter of
the congestion charge zone. Much like the North Circ used to be (and the
South Circ still is), it's a collection of roads that happen to form a
circumference around "central" London, rather than being a purpose-built
ring-road.

True. I don't tend to think of Marylebone Road / Euston Road / City Road as
being a ring road, but looking at a map it is. I suppose you could continut
it into south London as Borough Road, Westminster Bridge, Victoria Road,
Park Lane and Edgware Road to get back to the starting point.