Jenkins
Legendary Member
- Location
- Felixstowe
This indicates you've copied it from someone/somewhere - one of those AI chat things is my guess. Either that or Jeremy Clarkson 😁
Why shouldn't cyclists pay road tax?
- Thread starter presta
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
This indicates you've copied it from someone/somewhere - one of those AI chat things is my guess. Either that or Jeremy Clarkson 😁
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
It doesn't matter.
It's attempting to engage an emotional argument on a logical level. The two don't match.
Someone who says "cyclists should pay road tax" isn't proposing a fully costed mechanism for the funding of national infrastructure. You may have noticed thiis.
"Cyclists should pay road tax" is simply a statement of identity. It says "I'm a person who dislikes cyclists and cycling and I regard myself as the victim of over-taxation because my car is expensive to run".
There's no arguing with that.
It's attempting to engage an emotional argument on a logical level. The two don't match.
Someone who says "cyclists should pay road tax" isn't proposing a fully costed mechanism for the funding of national infrastructure. You may have noticed thiis.
"Cyclists should pay road tax" is simply a statement of identity. It says "I'm a person who dislikes cyclists and cycling and I regard myself as the victim of over-taxation because my car is expensive to run".
There's no arguing with that.
It was ChatGPT.
And a very good example showing that ChatGPT is not Artificial INTELIGENCE.
It is a predictive algorithm deriving text from analysis of past usage. If said past uses contains bolleaux it will, by definition itself produce bolleaux. Hence the second sentence.
markemark
Über Member
Yep. Regurgitating stuff it finds online, up to 2021, and putting in a human readable format.
OP
OP
presta
Guru
More here:
I think you're a bit confused :-)
I apologize if my previous response was confusing. After reviewing your question again, I believe I misunderstood your question.
To clarify, in the UK, cyclists do not pay a "road tax" or vehicle excise duty as they do not emit any emissions and do not require a vehicle license. The cost of maintaining the roads in the UK is funded through general taxation, which all individuals and businesses contribute to, including cyclists. Therefore, the argument that cyclists do not pay for the upkeep of the roads is not valid, as everyone contributes to road maintenance through general taxation.
I hope this clarification helps to answer your question. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
Motorists pay general tax and VED, cyclists pay general tax alone. How do you justify the difference?
Thank you for further clarifying your question. The issue of whether cyclists should pay for road infrastructure and maintenance is a complex one and has been the subject of debate for some time.
Firstly, it's important to note that the Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) or "road tax" is not specifically earmarked for road maintenance in the UK. The revenue raised from VED goes into the general Treasury funds, which are used for a wide range of purposes, including road maintenance, but also other areas such as healthcare, education, and public safety.
Secondly, while motorists do pay VED and other taxes associated with driving, they also contribute to road maintenance through general taxation, just like cyclists and pedestrians. So, the argument that cyclists should pay for road infrastructure and maintenance because motorists do is not entirely accurate.
Thirdly, it's worth considering the broader benefits of cycling. Encouraging cycling can help to reduce congestion, air pollution, and carbon emissions, as well as promote physical activity and improve public health. These benefits can lead to reduced healthcare costs and improved quality of life, which can benefit society as a whole.
Therefore, the question of whether cyclists should pay for road infrastructure and maintenance is not a simple one, and there are arguments both for and against it. However, given the broader benefits of cycling and the fact that all individuals and businesses contribute to road maintenance through general taxation, there may be a case for continuing to fund road infrastructure and maintenance through general taxation and promoting cycling as an alternative mode of transport.
The sum total of all motoring taxes (not just VED) only covers 50% of the cost that motoring places on society, so it's motorists who are being subsidised by general taxpayers (including non-motorists), and it isn't the case that there's anything left over from VED to fund healthcare or education etc.
You are correct that the revenue generated from motoring taxes, including VED, does not fully cover the cost of the negative externalities that arise from motor vehicle use. These negative externalities include air pollution, traffic congestion, and accidents, which impose costs on society in the form of increased healthcare costs, reduced productivity, and decreased quality of life.
Therefore, it could be argued that motorists are, in fact, being subsidized by general taxpayers to some extent, as the cost of these negative externalities is not fully borne by the motorist themselves but by society as a whole.
In terms of the revenue generated from VED, you are correct that it is not specifically earmarked for road maintenance. However, it does contribute to the general Treasury funds, which are used to fund a wide range of public services, including healthcare, education, and public safety, as well as road maintenance.
In any case, it is important to recognize that the issue of funding road infrastructure and maintenance is a complex one, and there are arguments both for and against different funding models. Ultimately, the decision of how best to fund road infrastructure and maintenance should be based on a careful consideration of all relevant factors, including the broader economic, social, and environmental impacts of different funding models.
If VED isn't enough to cover motoring costs there can't be any of it left over to spend on anything else.
You are correct that if the revenue generated from VED, along with other motoring taxes, is not sufficient to cover the costs of motoring-related negative externalities, then there would not be any funds left over to spend on other public services such as healthcare, education, and public safety.
It is worth noting that the exact proportion of the cost of motoring that is covered by motoring taxes is a matter of debate and can vary depending on the assumptions and methods used in the analysis. However, it is widely acknowledged that there are significant costs associated with motoring that are not fully captured by motoring taxes, such as the negative externalities I mentioned earlier.
Given this situation, one option to consider could be to explore alternative funding models for road infrastructure and maintenance that more fully reflect the costs of motoring, such as road pricing or congestion charging. These alternative models could help to better align the costs of motoring with those who use the road network and help to reduce the negative externalities associated with motoring.
In any case, the issue of how best to fund road infrastructure and maintenance is a complex one, and there are arguments both for and against different funding models. Ultimately, the decision of how to fund road infrastructure and maintenance should be based on a careful consideration of all relevant factors, including the broader economic, social, and environmental impacts of different funding models.
I think you're a bit confused :-)
I apologize if my previous response was confusing. After reviewing your question again, I believe I misunderstood your question.
To clarify, in the UK, cyclists do not pay a "road tax" or vehicle excise duty as they do not emit any emissions and do not require a vehicle license. The cost of maintaining the roads in the UK is funded through general taxation, which all individuals and businesses contribute to, including cyclists. Therefore, the argument that cyclists do not pay for the upkeep of the roads is not valid, as everyone contributes to road maintenance through general taxation.
I hope this clarification helps to answer your question. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
Motorists pay general tax and VED, cyclists pay general tax alone. How do you justify the difference?
Thank you for further clarifying your question. The issue of whether cyclists should pay for road infrastructure and maintenance is a complex one and has been the subject of debate for some time.
Firstly, it's important to note that the Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) or "road tax" is not specifically earmarked for road maintenance in the UK. The revenue raised from VED goes into the general Treasury funds, which are used for a wide range of purposes, including road maintenance, but also other areas such as healthcare, education, and public safety.
Secondly, while motorists do pay VED and other taxes associated with driving, they also contribute to road maintenance through general taxation, just like cyclists and pedestrians. So, the argument that cyclists should pay for road infrastructure and maintenance because motorists do is not entirely accurate.
Thirdly, it's worth considering the broader benefits of cycling. Encouraging cycling can help to reduce congestion, air pollution, and carbon emissions, as well as promote physical activity and improve public health. These benefits can lead to reduced healthcare costs and improved quality of life, which can benefit society as a whole.
Therefore, the question of whether cyclists should pay for road infrastructure and maintenance is not a simple one, and there are arguments both for and against it. However, given the broader benefits of cycling and the fact that all individuals and businesses contribute to road maintenance through general taxation, there may be a case for continuing to fund road infrastructure and maintenance through general taxation and promoting cycling as an alternative mode of transport.
The sum total of all motoring taxes (not just VED) only covers 50% of the cost that motoring places on society, so it's motorists who are being subsidised by general taxpayers (including non-motorists), and it isn't the case that there's anything left over from VED to fund healthcare or education etc.
You are correct that the revenue generated from motoring taxes, including VED, does not fully cover the cost of the negative externalities that arise from motor vehicle use. These negative externalities include air pollution, traffic congestion, and accidents, which impose costs on society in the form of increased healthcare costs, reduced productivity, and decreased quality of life.
Therefore, it could be argued that motorists are, in fact, being subsidized by general taxpayers to some extent, as the cost of these negative externalities is not fully borne by the motorist themselves but by society as a whole.
In terms of the revenue generated from VED, you are correct that it is not specifically earmarked for road maintenance. However, it does contribute to the general Treasury funds, which are used to fund a wide range of public services, including healthcare, education, and public safety, as well as road maintenance.
In any case, it is important to recognize that the issue of funding road infrastructure and maintenance is a complex one, and there are arguments both for and against different funding models. Ultimately, the decision of how best to fund road infrastructure and maintenance should be based on a careful consideration of all relevant factors, including the broader economic, social, and environmental impacts of different funding models.
If VED isn't enough to cover motoring costs there can't be any of it left over to spend on anything else.
You are correct that if the revenue generated from VED, along with other motoring taxes, is not sufficient to cover the costs of motoring-related negative externalities, then there would not be any funds left over to spend on other public services such as healthcare, education, and public safety.
It is worth noting that the exact proportion of the cost of motoring that is covered by motoring taxes is a matter of debate and can vary depending on the assumptions and methods used in the analysis. However, it is widely acknowledged that there are significant costs associated with motoring that are not fully captured by motoring taxes, such as the negative externalities I mentioned earlier.
Given this situation, one option to consider could be to explore alternative funding models for road infrastructure and maintenance that more fully reflect the costs of motoring, such as road pricing or congestion charging. These alternative models could help to better align the costs of motoring with those who use the road network and help to reduce the negative externalities associated with motoring.
In any case, the issue of how best to fund road infrastructure and maintenance is a complex one, and there are arguments both for and against different funding models. Ultimately, the decision of how to fund road infrastructure and maintenance should be based on a careful consideration of all relevant factors, including the broader economic, social, and environmental impacts of different funding models.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
There should be such a levy charged on each pair of shoes, seeing as pedestrians kill more cyclists than the other way round.
There should also be a similar levy on cows, seeing as they kill more people than cyclists do.
Perhaps such a fee on every round of golf, seeing as lightning kills more people than cyclists do.
How about a levy on sofas, seeing as in activity kills more people than exercising on a bicycle does.
If we're enforcing a levy in lieu of insurance then it makes sense to do so in order of risk, which puts cyclists well towards the rear in the queue.
Last edited:
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
I take issue with the statement 'cyclist don't pay Road Tax/VED' I am a cyclists & I pay a lot of VED, during the summer I pay around £80 each month.
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
Almost every cyclist i know also owns a car. I'm the exception in my circle of friends and family. But since the roads are paid for through general taxation, my earnings and pretty much everything i spend money on contributes, in part, to the roads.
ebikeerwidnes
Guru
- Location
- Z’ha’dum
CLEARLY you need exceptions for any cycling shoes!!!!!
and probably football boots (other sports involving grown people chasing a bag of wind around a field are available)
Alex321
Veteran
- Location
- South Wales
Neither cows nor lightning kill as many as cyclists do. 4-5 per year on average for cows (most of which deaths are of farm workers), 2-3 per year from lightning. 5-8 killed by cyclists (All UK figures).
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
But cows and lightning combined - deadlier than cyclists.
It's the old cow-lightning one-two.
ebikeerwidnes
Guru
- Location
- Z’ha’dum
So - are you suggesting maybe tax cyclists but tax cows at a lower rate??
I am still working out how to tax lightning
(post may contain sarcasm and downright stupidity)
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
My guess'd be Chat GPT.
We need an app which can quickly identify AI produced text. Maybe teachers and examiners already have this.
Edit: I see you have eliminated the guesswork: only 12 hours after posing.
Last edited:
ebikeerwidnes
Guru
- Location
- Z’ha’dum
SO if ChatGPT is based on previous experience then it should be possible to flood it with loads of rubbish and totally screw with its logic
at least for a while
I wonder how much rubbish you would have to feed it
If I was still a teacher I would regard this as a challenge to try to get the kids to submit homework containing rubbish
In fact I knew a teacher that changed Wikipedia for this very reason - kids fell for it (of course!)
at least for a while
I wonder how much rubbish you would have to feed it
If I was still a teacher I would regard this as a challenge to try to get the kids to submit homework containing rubbish
In fact I knew a teacher that changed Wikipedia for this very reason - kids fell for it (of course!)
