Still Waiting

[Simon Jester]

for Dave the Lonely Handyman to provide independently verifiable evidence for the £46 billion in 'Motoring Specific taxes' that Dave claims motorists pay every year.

[David Lang]

GIYF.

[Simon Jester]

'I admit I cannot answer your question because in any 'GI'ven 'Y'ear the average cyclist pays more income tax than I earn in 'F'orty years?'

[JNugent]

TRANSLATION:

"Cyclists are all Considerably Richer Than Yow".

[Simon Jester]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 1:11:31 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:


>
> TRANSLATION:
>
> "Cyclists are all Considerably Richer Than Yow".

How does Dave's GIYF translate to that?

Dave is unable or unwilling to provide evidence for his claim that motorists pay £46 billion a year in 'Motoring Specific Taxes', and claims cyclists pay no tax at all.

[JNugent]

On 02/10/2015 01:35, Simon Jester wrote:

> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 1:11:31 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>
>
>>
>> TRANSLATION:
>>
>> "Cyclists are all Considerably Richer Than Yow".
>
> How does Dave's GIYF translate to that?

It doesn't.

It was your "witty" rejoinder by way of construction of "GIYF"...

'I admit I cannot answer your question because in any 'GI'ven 'Y'ear

the average cyclist pays more income tax than I earn in 'F'orty years?'...

...which meant that.

You've snipped it now, of course.

[David Lang]

Indeed. According to the Jester idiot, all cyclists earn £140K a year.

I wonder if he realises how pathetic it makes him look?

[David Lang]

On 02/10/2015 01:35, Simon Jester wrote:

You are either too lazy or too thick to look it up. Or, more likely, both.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"David Lang" <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WryPx.34798$nl4....@fx02.am4...

I'd want more than £140k a year for:
Sitting at the same desk 5 days per week.
Doing the same paperwork 5 days per week.
Watching the same clock 5 days per week.
Seeing the same faces 5 days per week.
Looking at the same 4 walls for 5 days per week.
Taking the same dinner hour 5 days per week.
The list goes on .............................
Only a totally boring wanker could do this, such as a cyclist.

[Simon Jester]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 5:41:25 PM UTC+1, David Lang wrote:

> You are either too lazy or too thick to look it up. Or, more likely, both.

I have looked up your claim that motorists pay £46 billion in 'motoring specific taxes'.
It has been stated many times by David Lang.
David Lang needs to supply independently verifiable evidence to support that claim.

[Simon Jester]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 6:38:43 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

> I'd want more than £140k a year for:

Lucky me.
Both of my employers pay me more than that for doing one job.
+Lecture tours.
+shares.
+pension

[Alycidon]

On Friday, 2 October 2015 19:59:35 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:

>
> Lucky me.
> Both of my employers pay me more than that for doing one job.
> +Lecture tours.
> +shares.
> +pension

I left with a poxy £500k pension pot, took the £125k lump sum and was forced to sell all of my company shares for £30000.

Missed out on £70000 redundancy cheque though.

Gutted.

[Bod]

Bummer! :-)

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Simon Jester" <sj81...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:48fce3e3-e256-4c0f...@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 6:38:43 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

> I'd want more than Ł140k a year for:

Lucky me.
Both of my employers pay me more than that for doing one job.
+Lecture tours.
+shares.
+pension

Bullshit.
Or, would you like to tell us what you do for a living?
Simon did. If there is a reason why you are not as thick as him, I can't see
it.

[Simon Jester]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 8:15:49 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:

> I left with a poxy £500k pension pot, took the £125k lump sum and was forced to sell all of my company shares for £30000.
>
> Missed out on £70000 redundancy cheque though.
>
> Gutted.

Life is hard when you are a Research Professor at a prestigious UK University and your income tax bill is more than Kent Handymen earn.
Then you have the overseas oil company you actually work for pay you the same salary tax free.
Then there is all that expenses paid first class travel for lecturer tours with guaranteed income equal to your salary.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

I think you mispelt "banker".


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[David Lang]

Simon Jester is too thick to find it himself.

[David Lang]

Then no doubt you can supply the details so we can check?

[David Lang]

Then I suggest you stop pretending to be a Research Professor at a
prestigious UK University.

What a tosser.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Kerr Mudd-John" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:op.x5wcp...@dell3100.dlink.com...

Nope, my spelling is correct.

I know the method of sticking a fingers in both corners of the mouth and
saying "I'm a banker".

[Simon Jester]

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 10:20:35 PM UTC+1, David Lang wrote:

> > I have looked up your claim that motorists pay £46 billion in 'motoring specific taxes'.
> > It has been stated many times by David Lang.
> > David Lang needs to supply independently verifiable evidence to support that claim.
> >
>
> Simon Jester is too thick to find it himself.

You made the claim so you need to provide the evidence.
Since you seem incapable of doing basic research I have done my due diligence in this case and can find no record of the £46 billion in 'Motoring Specific Taxes' you claim motorists pay every year.
If you know of any such data please share it.

[JNugent]

Pick the bones out of this lot...

Fuel Tax:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoring_taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom>

The claim found there is just under £26,000,000,000 in 2009. The
government's *own* figures
(<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461726/Jul15_Receipts_Bulletin_v1.pdf>)
is approx. £27,000,000,000 in 2015.

This is subject to VAT at 20%, meaning that the fuel tax take is at
least £32,000,000,000 pa on its own.

Road Tax
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoring_taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom>:

£5,630,000,000 in 2009. Not subject to VAT. Let's assume it hasn't
increased much over the last six years.

£32,000,000,000 + £5,630,000,000 = £37,630,000,000 in round terms.

Then you'd have to add in tolls, "congestion charges", etc. And the tax
charged by too many local authorities in the guise of "parking charges"
(many millions pa in most places). And make an estimate of the VAT on
servicing and spares (surely not a good idea in principle), on parking
charges, etc.

£46,000,000,000 seems well within reach, as I'm sure you'd agree.

[Simon Jester]

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 12:23:27 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

> Pick the bones out of this lot...
>
> Fuel Tax:
>

Not a 'Motoring Specific Tax'
If I want to buy a gallon of petrol I pay the same if I use my bicycle or my car.

>
> Road Tax

Does not exist

> Then you'd have to add in tolls, "congestion charges",

Not motoring specific.
Cyclists and pedestrians have to pay to use the Sandbanks Ferry as well as many others tolls.

[JNugent]

On 03/10/2015 00:50, Simon Jester wrote:

> On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 12:23:27 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

>> Pick the bones out of this lot...

>> Fuel Tax:

> Not a 'Motoring Specific Tax'

What?

> If I want to buy a gallon of petrol I pay the same if I use my bicycle or my car.

...whatever that's supposed to mean.

Are you stupid or just pretending? I hope it's the latter. Nobody,
surely, could actually be as clueless as you are making out.

>> Road Tax

> Does not exist

Don't be so stupid.

>> Then you'd have to add in tolls, "congestion charges",

> Not motoring specific.

What?

> Cyclists and pedestrians have to pay to use the Sandbanks Ferry as well as many others tolls.

Dartford Crossing.
Severn Bridge.
Humber Bridge.
Mersey Tunnels.
(soon to be) Runcorn Bridge.

There are others. Several in Scotland for a start.

And the London "Congestion" Charge raises in excess of £250,000,000 (a
quarter of a billion pounds) just on its own.

It's funny how you've snipped all the figures, isn't it?

[Alycidon]

On Saturday, 3 October 2015 00:50:08 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:

> Not a 'Motoring Specific Tax'
> If I want to buy a gallon of petrol I pay the same if I use my bicycle or my car.

Quite so - if I buy a gallon of petrol for my lawnmower I still have to pay full whack whether I drive or not. Same with oil.

[RJH]

On 01/10/2015 23:38, Simon Jester wrote:

> for Dave the Lonely Handyman to provide independently verifiable evidence for the £46 billion in 'Motoring Specific taxes' that Dave claims motorists pay every year.
>

I'm sure that figure could be verified, eventually.

Have a look at: The future of motoring taxation - A report for The
Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders (SMMT) April 2015

. . . who of course are hardly the last word in objectivity, but it'll
get you in the ballpark.

The key questions, though, include /why/ do motorists pay so much tax,
and where does the tax revenue go?



--
Cheers, Rob

[Mrcheerful]

it pays half the 'benefits' bill

[Bod]

And probably the politicians latest massive pay rise.

[Alycidon]

On Saturday, 3 October 2015 07:59:29 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
>
> Have a look at: The future of motoring taxation - A report for The
> Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders (SMMT) April 2015
>
> . . . who of course are hardly the last word in objectivity, but it'll
> get you in the ballpark.
>
> The key questions, though, include /why/ do motorists pay so much tax,
> and where does the tax revenue go?

Into the big tax pot, like tobacco, gambling and alcohol taxes do. Drinkers are seeing pubs closing in their thousands and yet their taxes amount to £15bn a year - shocking.

[David Lang]

On 03/10/2015 00:06, Simon Jester wrote:

But you are a Research Professor at a Prestigious University. Surely you
can find it?

[David Lang]

On 03/10/2015 00:23, JNugent wrote:
> On 03/10/2015 00:06, Simon Jester wrote:
>
>> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 10:20:35 PM UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
>>
>>>> I have looked up your claim that motorists pay £46 billion in
>>>> 'motoring specific taxes'.
>>>> It has been stated many times by David Lang.
>>>> David Lang needs to supply independently verifiable evidence to
>>>> support that claim.
>
>>> Simon Jester is too thick to find it himself.
>
>> You made the claim so you need to provide the evidence.
>> Since you seem incapable of doing basic research I have done my due
>> diligence in this case and can find no record of the £46 billion in
>> 'Motoring Specific Taxes' you claim motorists pay every year.
>> If you know of any such data please share it.
>
> Pick the bones out of this lot...

Oh Mr Nugent!! I was going to toy with him for a while longer!

[David Lang]

On 03/10/2015 00:50, Simon Jester wrote:

> On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 12:23:27 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>
>> Pick the bones out of this lot...
>>
>> Fuel Tax:
>>
>
> Not a 'Motoring Specific Tax'
> If I want to buy a gallon of petrol I pay the same if I use my bicycle or my car.

Oh dear. Not what I'd expect from a Research Professor at a prestigious
UK University.

In order to use a car you have to put fuel in it. That's clearly a
'Motoring Specific Tax'. In order to use a push bike you don't.

>
>>
>> Road Tax
>
> Does not exist

From the OED;

Definition of road tax in English:
noun

[MASS NOUN] British
A periodic tax payable on motor vehicles using public roads.

From The Cambridge English Dictionary;

"road tax" in British English

road tax
noun [C or U] UK US
› in the UK, a ​tax that you must ​pay on ​your ​vehicle to ​drive it on
the ​roads

Surely, as a Research Professor at a prestigious UK University you're
not going to argue with those sources?

Changing the name of something doesn't make it go away.

>
>> Then you'd have to add in tolls, "congestion charges",
>
> Not motoring specific.
> Cyclists and pedestrians have to pay to use the Sandbanks Ferry as well as many others tolls.

But they don't pay for the vast majority, do they?

What is your subject as a Research Professor at a prestigious UK
University? Wriggling?

[David Lang]

You wouldn't expect a Research Professor to do that, would you?

[David Lang]

On 03/10/2015 07:59, RJH wrote:

It's stolen by the Guvmint.

[Alycidon]

Well, a sweetener was that when I had to sell my company shares in Sep '14 I got £4-50 a share and yesterday they were at £3.50.

[David Lang]

Come on Bod! Keep up, tell us how rich you are!

[Tarcap]

"Alycidon" wrote in message
news:19837371-d11b-41f7...@googlegroups.com...

I'm surprised the share price didn't rocket when you left.
Not least because of all that stuff you used to "liberate".

[Bod]

<puts begging bowl down> Must rush because the soup kitchen closes in 50
minutes.

[Alycidon]

Yes - that rock salt and ammonia ampoules vs the world oil price halving was no contest.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Oh dear. Did you fall for it?

--
Many years ago in Scotland, a new game was invented. It was ruled "Gentlemen Only...Ladies Forbidden"...and thus the word GOLF entered into the English language.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.x5xx9...@red.lan...

Did you try it?
I bet you did.
40 years ago I played along with the joke.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

No, I think I saw it on telly.

--
Interesting fact number 476:
80% of millionaires drive used cars.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.x5x0j...@red.lan...

Then you must watch very old pikey stuff.
I feel like shit as I was up too late last night watching this quality,
educational and intelligent documentary on Sky or something.
I'm a very cultivated gentleman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL39jJN9hHM

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Or I watched it years ago.

> I feel like shit as I was up too late last night watching this quality,
> educational and intelligent documentary on Sky or something.
> I'm a very cultivated gentleman.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL39jJN9hHM

Fucks sake how old is that?

Your arrows are broken sir.

--
The Web brings people together because no matter what kind of a twisted sexual mutant you happen to be, you've got millions of pals out there. Type in "Find people that have sex with goats that are on fire" and the computer will say "Specify type of goat." -- Rich Jeni

[Paul Cummins]

In article <d78hvd...@mid.individual.net>, jenni...@fastmail.fm

(JNugent) wrote:

> The claim found there is just under £26,000,000,000 in 2009. The
> government's *own* figures
> (<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da
> ta/file/461726/Jul15_Receipts_Bulletin_v1.pdf>) is approx.
> £27,000,000,000 in 2015.

How much of that is tax on non-road fuels?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

[JNugent]

On 04/10/2015 01:08, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <d78hvd...@mid.individual.net>, jenni...@fastmail.fm
> (JNugent) wrote:
>
>> The claim found there is just under £26,000,000,000 in 2009. The
>> government's *own* figures
>> (<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da
>> ta/file/461726/Jul15_Receipts_Bulletin_v1.pdf>) is approx.
>> £27,000,000,000 in 2015.
>
> How much of that is tax on non-road fuels?

What sort of uses would that be?

[RJH]

Well, yes, it was a rhetorical question ;-)

Superb site, btw:

http://wheredoesmymoneygo.org


--
Cheers, Rob

[RJH]

On 03/10/2015 08:10, Mrcheerful wrote:

You mean unemployment benefits? It would pay for those many times over .
. .

--
Cheers, Rob

[Mrcheerful]

Try pensions at 75 billion.
The total UK benefits bill is now around 250 billion a year. So
motorists directly pay about a fifth of the UK benefits total.

[Bod]

We pay National Insurance contributions for our basic pensions ?

[David Lang]

Wriggling uses. The idiot is trying the old fuel for my lawnmower/zippo
lighter/camping stove' ploy.

[JNugent]

The old ones are the best, eh?

National "Insurance" comes pretty close to being a Ponzi Scheme.

[Bod]

Ok, but:

National Insurance contributions help to build your entitlement to
certain state benefits, such as the State Pension and Maternity
Allowance. You begin paying National Insurance once you earn more than
£155 a week (this is the figure for the 2015-16 tax year). The amount
you pay depends on how much you earn:
Income Tax and National Insurance - Money Advice Service
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/.../income-tax-and-national-insura...

[JNugent]

On 04/10/2015 14:05, Bod wrote:
> On 04/10/2015 14:02, JNugent wrote:
>> On 04/10/2015 08:30, Bod wrote:
>>> On 04/10/2015 08:26, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> On 04/10/2015 06:28, RJH wrote:
>>>>> On 03/10/2015 08:10, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/10/2015 07:59, RJH wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/10/2015 23:38, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>>>> for Dave the Lonely Handyman to provide independently verifiable
>>>>>>>> evidence for the £46 billion in 'Motoring Specific taxes' that Dave
>>>>>>>> claims motorists pay every year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure that figure could be verified, eventually.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have a look at: The future of motoring taxation - A report for The
>>>>>>> Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders (SMMT) April 2015
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> . . . who of course are hardly the last word in objectivity, but
>>>>>>> it'll
>>>>>>> get you in the ballpark.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key questions, though, include /why/ do motorists pay so much
>>>>>>> tax,
>>>>>>> and where does the tax revenue go?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it pays half the 'benefits' bill
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean unemployment benefits? It would pay for those many times
>>>>> over .
>

>>>> Try pensions at 75 billion.
>>>> The total UK benefits bill is now around 250 billion a year. So
>>>> motorists directly pay about a fifth of the UK benefits total.
>
>>> We pay National Insurance contributions for our basic pensions ?
>
>> The old ones are the best, eh?
>> National "Insurance" comes pretty close to being a Ponzi Scheme.
>
> Ok, but:
>
> National Insurance contributions help to build your entitlement to
> certain state benefits, such as the State Pension and Maternity
> Allowance. You begin paying National Insurance once you earn more than
> £155 a week (this is the figure for the 2015-16 tax year). The amount
> you pay depends on how much you earn:
> Income Tax and National Insurance - Money Advice Service
> https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/.../income-tax-and-national-insura...

Paying NI does indeed "help to build your [theoretical] entitlement"
(subject to a thirty year contribution cap), but it isn't an "account"
in any meaningful sense.

[RJH]

On 04/10/2015 08:30, Bod wrote:

> On 04/10/2015 08:26, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> On 04/10/2015 06:28, RJH wrote:
>>> On 03/10/2015 08:10, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> On 03/10/2015 07:59, RJH wrote:
>>>>> On 01/10/2015 23:38, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>> for Dave the Lonely Handyman to provide independently verifiable
>>>>>> evidence for the £46 billion in 'Motoring Specific taxes' that Dave
>>>>>> claims motorists pay every year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that figure could be verified, eventually.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have a look at: The future of motoring taxation - A report for The
>>>>> Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders (SMMT) April 2015
>>>>>
>>>>> . . . who of course are hardly the last word in objectivity, but
>>>>> it'll
>>>>> get you in the ballpark.
>>>>>
>>>>> The key questions, though, include /why/ do motorists pay so much tax,
>>>>> and where does the tax revenue go?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> it pays half the 'benefits' bill
>>>
>>> You mean unemployment benefits? It would pay for those many times over .
>>> . .
>>>
>>
>> Try pensions at 75 billion.

Well, NI is supposed to cover that. And at over 100B income each year,
it sort of does.

>> The total UK benefits bill is now around 250 billion a year. So
>> motorists directly pay about a fifth of the UK benefits total.
> >

Or half the NHS, etc - choose your hobby horse ;-)

Motorists don't necessarily pay for any one thing - taxation income just
goes in a big pot.

> We pay National Insurance contributions for our basic pensions ?

Yep. But whether the money raised is actually *used* for pensions is
another matter . . .

--
Cheers, Rob

[Bod]

> Well, NI is supposed to cover that. And at over 100B income each year,
> it sort of does.
>
>>> The total UK benefits bill is now around 250 billion a year. So
>>> motorists directly pay about a fifth of the UK benefits total.
>> >
>
> Or half the NHS, etc - choose your hobby horse ;-)
>
> Motorists don't necessarily pay for any one thing - taxation income just
> goes in a big pot.
>
>> We pay National Insurance contributions for our basic pensions ?
>
> Yep. But whether the money raised is actually *used* for pensions is
> another matter . . .
>

I suspect it all goes into the big revenue pot.

[Alycidon]

On Monday, 5 October 2015 08:07:21 UTC+1, RJH wrote:

> Motorists don't necessarily pay for any one thing - taxation income just
> goes in a big pot.

You mean if I have a £1 flutter on the gee gees, the betting tax I pay does not go into oats for the horses? What a swizz.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <d7b95n...@mid.individual.net>, jenni...@fastmail.fm

(JNugent) wrote:

> > How much of that is tax on non-road fuels?
>
> What sort of uses would that be?

Examples include off-net heating and hot water boilers, cookers etc.

Additionally, if this if Fuel taxes, it would include the duty paid on
off-road vehicle fuels, such as red diesel, as well as non-vehicle fuels,
like paraffin, LPG, Mains Gas, and even Electricity.

[JNugent]

On 06/10/2015 11:56, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <d7b95n...@mid.individual.net>, jenni...@fastmail.fm
> (JNugent) wrote:
>
>>> How much of that is tax on non-road fuels?
>
>> What sort of uses would that be?
>
> Examples include off-net heating and hot water boilers, cookers etc.

What? Cooking on petrol?

Are you sure?

Or perhaps on diesel?

> Additionally, if this if Fuel taxes, it would include the duty paid on
> off-road vehicle fuels, such as red diesel, as well as non-vehicle fuels,
> like paraffin, LPG, Mains Gas, and even Electricity.

And they're such a huge proportion, aren't they?

I mean, just everyone uses red diesel ('cos everyone is a farmer).

You reckon that Fuel Duty is levied on electricity round your way, then?

[Judith]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:50:04 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester <sj81...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 12:23:27 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>
>> Pick the bones out of this lot...
>>
>> Fuel Tax:
>>
>
>Not a 'Motoring Specific Tax'
>If I want to buy a gallon of petrol I pay the same if I use my bicycle or my car.
>
>>
>> Road Tax
>
>Does not exist


Oh dear - you really are thick aren't you:

You need to tell the Government that there is no such thing:

22. Road tax will be reformed and the money raised spent on the road network

from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/summer-budget-2015-key-announcements


(www.gov.uk means that it is a Government web-page which you probably don't
know)

[Judith]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 12:15:46 -0700 (PDT), Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 2 October 2015 19:59:35 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>
>>
>> Lucky me.
>> Both of my employers pay me more than that for doing one job.
>> +Lecture tours.
>> +shares.
>> +pension
>
>I left with a poxy £500k pension pot, took the £125k lump sum and was forced to sell all of my company shares for £30000.
>
>Missed out on £70000 redundancy cheque though.
>
>Gutted.

My word - you really are affluent (or is that effluent) - we'd never have
known.



--

Have you noticed how often Mason has to tell us how affluent he thinks he is
I think he may be insecure.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 00:49:20 +0100, Simon Jester <sj81...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 11:59:46 PM UTC+1, David Lang wrote:
>> On 01/10/2015 23:38, Simon Jester wrote:
>> > for Dave the Lonely Handyman to provide independently verifiable
>> > evidence for the £46 billion in 'Motoring Specific taxes' that Dave
>> > claims motorists pay every year.
>> >

>> GIYF.
>
> 'I admit I cannot answer your question because in any 'GI'ven 'Y'ear the average cyclist pays more income tax than I earn in 'F'orty years?'

The average cyclist cycles because he cannot afford a car.

--
The Red Cross just knocked on my door and asked if we could contribute towards the floods in Lebanon.
I said we'd love to, but our garden hose only reaches the driveway.

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 8 October 2015 13:56:09 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

>
> The average cyclist cycles because he cannot afford a car.

True.

This cyclist is so poor that he had to slum it to Scotland in this old thing as he cannot afford a car.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03363/Portal-Abramovich-_3363602d.jpg

[Bod]

The poor thing, such a small yacht.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Oh look, Simon re-uses the same example from another country that he did last time.

--
The German for nipple is "Brustwarze" - or "breast wart".

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 8 October 2015 15:55:54 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 15:22:20 +0100, Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 8 October 2015 13:56:09 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The average cyclist cycles because he cannot afford a car.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > This cyclist is so poor that he had to slum it to Scotland in this old thing as he cannot afford a car.
> >
> > http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03363/Portal-Abramovich-_3363602d.jpg
>
> Oh look, Simon re-uses the same example from another country that he did last time.

Scotland is still in the UK, I think. Which is where that photo was taken.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Yes, Abramovich is a good Scottish name.

--
Bakers trade bread recipes on a kneadtoknow basis.

[Alycidon]

So's Witold Rybczynski.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

No it isn't.

--
A woman storms into her boss's office with this complaint:
"All the other women in the office are suing you for sexual harassment.
"Since you haven't sexually harassed me, I'm suing you for discrimination."

[Peter Keller]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:56:02 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

> The average cyclist cycles because he cannot afford a car.

And what is wrong with that?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Put the context back in and I'll reply.

--
Men wake up as good-looking as they went to bed.
Women somehow deteriorate during the night.

[Peter Keller]

On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:56:21 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:12:11 +0100, Peter Keller <muzh...@centrum.sk>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:56:02 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>
>>> The average cyclist cycles because he cannot afford a car.
>>
>> And what is wrong with that?
>
> Put the context back in and I'll reply.

I am happy with your non-reply.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Then why bother wasting time asking?

--
Can you grow birds by planting birdseed?

[Peter Keller]

I asked what is wrong with a the statement that "the average bicyclist
bikes because he cannot afford a car." It just seems so logical to me.
It is a great cheap means of transport.
I will waste my time as I see fit. Not as you see fit.

[Alycidon]

When both my wife and I were working, I could not afford to buy a second car and so I cycled to work. There, I admitted it.

Saving £15000 in the process meant that I could afford to buy a second car, but I decided not to anyway.

[Tom Crispin]

On Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 10:44:31 AM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:

> When both my wife and I were working, I could not afford to buy a second car and so I cycled to work. There, I admitted it.
>
> Saving £15000 in the process meant that I could afford to buy a second car, but I decided not to anyway.

Clare and I were looking at buying a second car. What we couldn't get our heads around is the massive hike in insurance premium if we did buy a second car.

If we do go on our European tour in 2017/2018 we are likely to bite the bullet and buy a second car on our return. I like the idea of a small electric car, but the prices are ridiculous at the moment.

[JNugent]

On 11/10/2015 10:44, Alycidon wrote:

[ ... ]

> When both my wife and I were working, I could not afford to buy a second car and so I cycled to work. There, I admitted it.
> Saving £15000 in the process meant that I could afford to buy a second car, but I decided not to anyway.

Not being able to afford to buy a second car, and consequently not
buying one, meant that you could afford to buy a second car?

Remarkable.

Is there a Keynesian multiplier effect going on inside your household
economy?

[Alycidon]

You can sell your VW afterwards though? That will fetch a few bob.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

You removed the conversation preceding it. Look up the word context, then come back and join the adults.

> I will waste my time as I see fit. Not as you see fit.

You are free to be a moron if you so wish.

--
Does a pope shit in the woods? And if a pope shits in the woods and no-one is around, does he pebbledash?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Two people living together and both working can always afford two cars.

> Saving £15000 in the process meant that I could afford to buy a second car, but I decided not to anyway.

Cars don't have to cost £15000 you idiot. You can get one with a year's MOT for a few hundred. Even if it dies after that year, you buy another, and £15000 would last you 50 years.

--
I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Uncle Bob. Not screaming in terror like his passengers...

[Tom Crispin]

The plan is to keep the VW as a family car, and have a smaller, possibly electric, car for everyday use.

The California Beach (bloody stupid name if you ask me) has a 3 seat bench on rails in the rear. This folds down into a 200x150 double bed. It also has 2 optional single seats which bolt down in front of the bench. Therefore it neatly doubles as a 7 seat MPV. The bench and single seats can be removed, meaning it neatly trebles as a van. Camper/MPV/van.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.x6ch2...@red.lan...

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:44:28 +0100, Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, 11 October 2015 09:50:52 UTC+1, Peter Keller wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:42:57 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 09:42:43 +0100, Peter Keller <muzh...@centrum.sk>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:56:21 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:12:11 +0100, Peter Keller
>> >>> <muzh...@centrum.sk>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:56:02 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> The average cyclist cycles because he cannot afford a car.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And what is wrong with that?
>> >>>
>> >>> Put the context back in and I'll reply.
>> >>
>> >> I am happy with your non-reply.
>> >
>> > Then why bother wasting time asking?
>>
>> I asked what is wrong with a the statement that "the average bicyclist
>> bikes because he cannot afford a car." It just seems so logical to me.
>> It is a great cheap means of transport.
>> I will waste my time as I see fit. Not as you see fit.
>
> When both my wife and I were working, I could not afford to buy a second
> car and so I cycled to work. There, I admitted it.

Two people living together and both working can always afford two cars.

Now, just how would you of all people know that?

[Alycidon]

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 15:19:31 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

> > When both my wife and I were working, I could not afford to buy a second car and so I cycled to work. There, I admitted it.
>
> Two people living together and both working can always afford two cars.

I could not afford to have run two cars and maintained the standard of living we had at the time, as we still had two dependent children, two houses and had expensive foreign holidays.

> > Saving £15000 in the process meant that I could afford to buy a second car, but I decided not to anyway.
>
> Cars don't have to cost £15000 you idiot. You can get one with a year's MOT for a few hundred. Even if it dies after that year, you buy another, and £15000 would last you 50 years.

I can't tour Europe in an old banger that might keel over at anytime.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:56:31 +0100, Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, 11 October 2015 15:19:31 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>
>> > When both my wife and I were working, I could not afford to buy a second car and so I cycled to work. There, I admitted it.
>>
>> Two people living together and both working can always afford two cars.
>
> I could not afford to have run two cars and maintained the standard of living we had at the time, as we still had two dependent children, two houses and had expensive foreign holidays.

So basically you suck at priorities.

>> > Saving £15000 in the process meant that I could afford to buy a second car, but I decided not to anyway.
>>
>> Cars don't have to cost £15000 you idiot. You can get one with a year's MOT for a few hundred. Even if it dies after that year, you buy another, and £15000 would last you 50 years.
>
> I can't tour Europe in an old banger that might keel over at anytime.

Only one car has to be decent. I assume you went on holiday together?

--
The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn't.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Simple mathematics. The second person isn't paying a mortgage.

--
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill because they pissed me off.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.x6ckr...@red.lan...

So, two people earning basic wage with a big mortgage and three kids can
afford to run two cars can they?
You do come out with some shit.
>
>

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Why would you have 3 kids and a huge house before getting enough cars to commute with? Basic priorities of life ffs.

--
You have reached the CPX-2000 Voice Blackmail System. Your voice patterns are now being digitally encoded and stored for later use. Once this is done, our computers will be able to use the sound of YOUR voice for literally thousands of illegal and immoral purposes. There is no charge for this initial consultation. However our staff of professional extortionists will contact you in the near future to further explain the benefits of our service, and to arrange for your schedule of payment. Remember to speak clearly at the sound of the tone. Thank you.

[Alycidon]

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 16:16:39 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:56:31 +0100, Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 11 October 2015 15:19:31 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >
> >> > When both my wife and I were working, I could not afford to buy a second car and so I cycled to work. There, I admitted it.
> >>
> >> Two people living together and both working can always afford two cars.
> >
> > I could not afford to have run two cars and maintained the standard of living we had at the time, as we still had two dependent children, two houses and had expensive foreign holidays.
>
> So basically you suck at priorities.

So much so that I saved £15000 in fuel alone, never mind insurance, MOT, tyres, brakes, etc.

As I used to say to workmates who "advised" me to buy a second car, "having one at all is more than enough".

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"Tough Guy no. 1265" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.x6clj...@red.lan...

I'm not going to feed the insanity of your piss poor trolling.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

You didn't have kids....

--
Stress is the conflict which occurs when your mind prevents your body from beating the living daylights out of whoever got in your way.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

How much faster would you have got to work in a car though? Time is money.

[Bod]

On 11/10/2015 17:23, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:08:23 +0100, Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, 11 October 2015 16:16:39 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:56:31 +0100, Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Sunday, 11 October 2015 15:19:31 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> > When both my wife and I were working, I could not afford to buy
>>> a second car and so I cycled to work. There, I admitted it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Two people living together and both working can always afford two
>>> cars.
>>> >
>>> > I could not afford to have run two cars and maintained the standard
>>> of living we had at the time, as we still had two dependent children,
>>> two houses and had expensive foreign holidays.
>>>
>>> So basically you suck at priorities.
>>
>> So much so that I saved £15000 in fuel alone, never mind insurance,
>> MOT, tyres, brakes, etc.
>>
>> As I used to say to workmates who "advised" me to buy a second car,
>> "having one at all is more than enough".
>
> How much faster would you have got to work in a car though? Time is money.
>

How does getting to work quicker or slower affect one's earnings?

[Alycidon]

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 17:23:37 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:08:23 +0100, Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 11 October 2015 16:16:39 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 15:56:31 +0100, Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sunday, 11 October 2015 15:19:31 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > When both my wife and I were working, I could not afford to buy a second car and so I cycled to work. There, I admitted it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Two people living together and both working can always afford two cars.
> >> >
> >> > I could not afford to have run two cars and maintained the standard of living we had at the time, as we still had two dependent children, two houses and had expensive foreign holidays.
> >>
> >> So basically you suck at priorities.
> >
> > So much so that I saved £15000 in fuel alone, never mind insurance, MOT, tyres, brakes, etc.
> >
> > As I used to say to workmates who "advised" me to buy a second car, "having one at all is more than enough".
>
> How much faster would you have got to work in a car though? Time is money.

Cycling always took 40 minutes, in the car it could be anything from 25 minutes to 90 minutes depending on the other traffic.

Saved money on a gym as well, of course.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

It changes the £ per hour, by increasing the hours "working" that you're not free to do leisure activities.

--
Why do men find it difficult to make eye contact?
Breasts don't have eyes.

[Bod]

That's not what you said. If you start work at 8.am and on time, it
matters not one jot to your earnings whether you take 3 hours or 5
minutes to get to work. You never mentioned doing more hours.

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

Oh, you're one of those town people. I've always lived in countryside areas and commuted to the outskirts of a town to a job with a flexible start time, no considerable traffic.

> Saved money on a gym as well, of course.

You don't need to pay for a gym. There are many ways to keep fit for free. A home gym, or just go out cycling or running or swimming or whatever.

--
Confucius say: "Man who run in front of car get tired"

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

You are spending time getting to work, so it classes as working hours. Consider a 30 hour a week job which pays £20 an hour, and takes you 10 hours of commuting to get to. Now consider a 40 hour a week job at £20 an hour which is on your doorstep. Which earns you more money for the same 40 hours of your time?

--
“What’s the difference between a British and an Iraqi tank?”
“I don’t know.”
“Welcome to the US Air Force.”

[Bod]

What on earth are you babbling about?

[Tough Guy no. 1265]

30 hours work @ £20 an hour + 10 hours of commuting a week. This takes 40 hours of your time and earns you £600 a week.

40 hours work @ £20 an hour + no commuting. This also takes 40 hours of your time but earns you £800 a week.

--
Someday we'll look back on all this and plough into a parked car.

[Alycidon]

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 17:41:00 UTC+1, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

> > Cycling always took 40 minutes, in the car it could be anything from 25 minutes to 90 minutes depending on the other traffic.
>
> Oh, you're one of those town people. I've always lived in countryside areas and commuted to the outskirts of a town to a job with a flexible start time, no considerable traffic.

I live in the countryside and my place of work was in the countryside as well.
To get there I had to cycle across a city for eight miles though.

>
> > Saved money on a gym as well, of course.
>
> You don't need to pay for a gym. There are many ways to keep fit for free. A home gym, or just go out cycling or running or swimming or whatever.

Yes - because I cycled to work I did not have to cycle to keep fit on my days off, so I actually saved time in the long run. My cycling club pals who drove to work had to do three hours twice a week after work and six hours on a Saturday to get the same miles in that I did just going to work.