mudcheck Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 I am a cyclists and I pay tax, both via a vehicle license on my two cars, Slim you need to do some serious cycling, two cars? thats not very green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 I am a cyclists and I pay tax, both via a vehicle license on my two cars, Slim you need to do some serious cycling, two cars? thats not very green. And your vehicle licenses will display your vehicle registration numbers not a picture of your pushbike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Amazing!!! Another thread about cars and cyclists....A lot of places require bicycle owners to pay a licence fee. IMO vehicle taxes are a form of revenue raising for Treasury so why not inlcude bikes as part of the revenue raising programme? Maybe GBP 10 p.a.? That way cyclists can also feel good that they are contributing to the overall well-being of society - just like car owners already do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Amazing!!! Another thread about cars and cyclists....A lot of places require bicycle owners to pay a licence fee. IMO vehicle taxes are a form of revenue raising for Treasury so why not inlcude bikes as part of the revenue raising programme? Maybe GBP 10 p.a.? That way cyclists can also feel good that they are contributing to the overall well-being of society - just like car owners already do... There's no government in the world that I can find which licenses bicycles. The city of California appears to have a license scheme that's not enforced, which is $10 for four years, hardly 'a lot of places'. I see vehicle licensing primarily as a method of control, it doesn't raise enough cash t be about revenue. I could see cycle licensing to be required if the bike population rose enough to require controlling, the situation in Amsterdam for example would warrant licenses in my view where there's so many bikes dumped on the street that you can't actually find anywhere to chain yours up. Mudcheck, yeah two cars, one's mine, ones the wifes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Depends. You're assuming there's a net gain on motorists, I disagree. I think once you add up the costs, from massive infrastructure capital and running costs, accidents, negative health cost through pollution and obesity, I think cars cost us far more than is raised through either vehicle or fuel duties. Vehicle duty is also pretty insignificant in terms of revenue, the big revenue generator from cars is tax on fuel. If people stopped buying fuel, they wouldn't stop spending that money, they'd spend it on something else and what they spend it on would still be liable for duty. You are forgetting the massive amount of VAT brought in by the auto and insurance industries, as well as the welfare of the people who work in those industries who would be made redundant. The negative health costs, obesity and pollution are well and truly overstated anyway, so I doubt there would be asaving there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 You are forgetting the massive amount of VAT brought in by the auto and insurance industries, as well as the welfare of the people who work in those industries who would be made redundant. The negative health costs, obesity and pollution are well and truly overstated anyway, so I doubt there would be asaving there. No, I'm not forgetting VAT, I covered it earlier. In my opinion people would spend that money on something else. Besides, I pay an awful lot of VAT on my cycling gear addiction too! As for the cost, I reckon losing lives is cost enough given heart disease is the biggest killer in the uk, but the financials don't look good either. £4bn a year just in england to treat obesity related illnesses, plus a cost rise of all other treatment if the patient is obese by around 10%, I don't think that's overstated at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyrotten Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I've read all of the posts on this thread and I'm a bit baffled. We surely can't be suggesting that in order to avoid the road death toll everyone walks or cycles or goes by (God forbid) train, can we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 no jonny slim cares about us .. and just wants us all to be happy healthy cyclists .. simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 No, I'm not forgetting VAT, I covered it earlier. In my opinion people would spend that money on something else. Besides, I pay an awful lot of VAT on my cycling gear addiction too! As for the cost, I reckon losing lives is cost enough given heart disease is the biggest killer in the uk, but the financials don't look good either. £4bn a year just in england to treat obesity related illnesses, plus a cost rise of all other treatment if the patient is obese by around 10%, I don't think that's overstated at all. So, you wont die of heart disease, you will die of something else. If you are lucky enough to make it to a ripe old age, your joints will be so worn out because of all the cycling you will need hip and knee replacements, probably new heart valves too. Cost a heck of a lot more than a 20mg Simvastatin a day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 So, you wont die of heart disease, you will die of something else. If you are lucky enough to make it to a ripe old age, your joints will be so worn out because of all the cycling you will need hip and knee replacements, probably new heart valves too. Cost a heck of a lot more than a 20mg Simvastatin a day! If you seriously want to argue that it's cheaper for the NHS for people to be unhealthy, then you're going to have to do that on your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I don't want to encourage cycle use. I would ban it completely unless the selfish cyclists pay for their own private track to race around like the idiots they are. A fiver a year would not begin to compensate for the accidents and inconvenience they cause. I take it you chose your user name for sarcastic reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 I don't want to encourage cycle use. I would ban it completely unless the selfish cyclists pay for their own private track to race around like the idiots they are. A fiver a year would not begin to compensate for the accidents and inconvenience they cause. I take it you chose your user name for sarcastic reasons? Then you take it wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Regarding cyclists on the road, I think it'd be a good idea to treat the mountain road as a motorway and have all cyclists, horses, 50cc -125cc peds/bikes (infact anything with L plates) banned. Haven't heard of any cyclists having an accident up there yet, but its only going to be a matter of time. Other roads, if you stick to 30mph you'll find cyclists aren't a problem, most are travelling somewhere in the region of 10-15mph, with some reaching 30+ on downhill roads, if you're travelling at 30mph (ie the maximum speed for that area), you'll find you can brake to the cyclists pace within a blink and overtake when/where suitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Regarding cyclists on the road, I think it'd be a good idea to treat the mountain road as a motorway and have all cyclists, horses, 50cc -125cc peds/bikes (infact anything with L plates) banned. Haven't heard of any cyclists having an accident up there yet, but its only going to be a matter of time. Interesting, but why specifically the mountain road, and which bit of it? Just Douglas to Ramsey? What about the bit down to Sulby? What about the round table road? What about the other fast roads with no speed limits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 If there were only cyclists they would have to tax you to make up for all the lost revenue. Depends. You're assuming there's a net gain on motorists, I disagree. I think once you add up the costs, from massive infrastructure capital and running costs, accidents, negative health cost through pollution and obesity, I think cars cost us far more than is raised through either vehicle or fuel duties. Vehicle duty is also pretty insignificant in terms of revenue, the big revenue generator from cars is tax on fuel. If people stopped buying fuel, they wouldn't stop spending that money, they'd spend it on something else and what they spend it on would still be liable for duty. You would be so much more convincing if you didn't own two cars. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.