Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

What seems to be conspicuous by it's absence in this thread are
ideas on *how* to reduce road congestion? I have my own ideas which
would reduce road congestion the UK.. "at a stroke" (to quote
Maggie).

Ah, you've missed the point of uk.rec.driving completely.

THe point of this newsgroup is to start a thread off with one on topic
post then see how far away we can get from it.

I thought that was the point of Usenet per se ;-)

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:52:17 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:



By attempting to introdce a straw man argument about cars
when none were mentioned.


Wasn't me that introduced cars, was it you?


Liar.

Message-ID:


"A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten
miles at most."


Where are cars mentioned in there?

Cast_Iron wrote:
Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 21:52:17 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:

By attempting to introdce a straw man argument about cars
when none were mentioned.

Wasn't me that introduced cars, was it you?

Liar.

Message-ID:

"A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten
miles at most."

Where are cars mentioned in there?

What do you think his favoured mode is, then?

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:54:49 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Liar.

Message-ID:


"A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten
miles at most."


Where are cars mentioned in there?



A rather pathetic attempt at evasion is noted.

Message-ID:

"As with all things it depends on the start and end points. In this
instance Charing Cross was cited as the reference point from which a one
hour commute by car will take the individual a maximum of ten miles, on a
good day."


You clearly *were* referring to cars. Referencing it again as a rhetorical
device in


Message-ID:



Waste someone elses time idiot.


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:54:49 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Liar.

Message-ID:


"A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about
ten
miles at most."


Where are cars mentioned in there?



A rather pathetic attempt at evasion is noted.

Message-ID:

"As with all things it depends on the start and end points.
In this instance Charing Cross was cited as the reference
point from which a one hour commute by car will take the
individual a maximum of ten miles, on a good day."


You clearly *were* referring to cars. Referencing it again
as a rhetorical device in


Message-ID:



Waste someone elses time idiot.


Simply following your example.

Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

My sentiment exactly. Tax all income at the same base %, rich or
poor; and abolish all other forms of taxation, which are nothing more
than a tax on already-taxed income.

Or even more fair...

Tax all income at the same base rate and close the loopholes that
exist which rich people exploit to avoid paying tax.

....and also the loopholes poor people also use to avoid paying tax

Stimpy wrote:
Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

My sentiment exactly. Tax all income at the same base %, rich or
poor; and abolish all other forms of taxation, which are nothing
more than a tax on already-taxed income.

Or even more fair...

Tax all income at the same base rate and close the loopholes that
exist which rich people exploit to avoid paying tax.

...and also the loopholes poor people also use to avoid paying tax

Trouble is, since most taxes apart from income tax are regressive in effect,
the poor end up paying more of their income in tax than the richest.

Tobacco duty, for example, is effectively a tax on the poor.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:56:38 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Waste someone elses time idiot.


Simply following your example.


No, you're too f*cking thick to follow your nose let alone someone elses
example.


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

PeterE wrote:

Tax all income at the same base rate and close the loopholes that
exist which rich people exploit to avoid paying tax.

...and also the loopholes poor people also use to avoid paying tax

Trouble is, since most taxes apart from income tax are regressive in
effect, the poor end up paying more of their income in tax than the
richest.

Agreed... hence the suggestion of having a single rate of personal income
tax, applied to ALL income and collected more effectively, and no other
taxes whatsoever.

Tobacco duty, for example, is effectively a tax on the poor.

Agreed... The suggestion being discussed would eliminate tobacco duty

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:56:38 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Waste someone elses time idiot.


Simply following your example.


No, you're too f*cking thick to follow your nose let alone someone elses
example.


So having been caught out you have to resort to personal abuse, how sad.