Some Car Dealers Will Never Change
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: don (Calgary) on 14 Mar 2010 13:39 On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:05:41 +0000, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: >don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > > >> > >> >Name three of comparable size? >> >> By area or population? > >The para below makes it clear... > >>> I can't actually think of any country with an equivalent population >to >> >the UK's that fits this bill. I expect some small states with massive >> >oil revenues manage it[1], but that's hardly representative. >> ><snip> > >> >> Canada is far from what I would describe as a wealthy country, yet we >> do enjoy a universal health care program. Granted we do not have the >> population of the UK, but as I noted above the lack of huge population >> centres creates our own financial challenges. Regardless once a >> country passes a certain population threshold the income/expense >> equation tends to balance out. More people equals more income and >> increased expenses. > >I think this is nonsense, actually. You will have to expand on why you think it is nonsense. If you choose to try, please do not snip relevant parts of the discussion. >A helluva lot depends on the >country's basic per capita wealth and income. Which is why I cited >Norway (see below). An incredibly rich country due to oil and fish >revenues (but mostly oil) and one which is incredibly highly taxed. > >I still can't think of a country comparable in (population) size to the >UK which has a generous social programme that isn't paid for by >relatively heavy personal taxation. You have snipped all the context out of the discussion and replaced it with this new premise. *shakes head in disbelief* >Something tells me there must be >some, but damned if I can think of any. However, since you made the >claim I'll leave the research to you :-)) I can think if a few that fit the original premise and I will leave the research to you. > > ><snip> > >> With respect to a GW cash grab I am quite confident we will not be >> subjected to anything as onerous or as transparently disingenuous as >> the UK GW road tax cash grab. > ><Shrug> Vehicles have been taxed virtually since they were invented and >so the great scheme of things, it isn't that much of a grab. Small cars >are very lightly taxed - my wife's Nissan is one of them. It's just �35 >or about 50 Canadian dollars. And moer economical vehicles are free. > > Huge gas guzzlers (exotic sports cars, massive limos, that sort of >thing) are very heavily taxed, but there are relatively few of them on >the roads. The numbers in the link you provided speak for themselves. It is a cash grab imposed under the guise of GW. I am amazed your government was able to implement such a tax without dedicating the funds to actually reducing GGs. >> > >> >[1] Norway is *not* one of these, incidentally.
From: The Older Gentleman on 14 Mar 2010 14:02 don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > And yet you still have that onerous road tax. The cost of that one far > exceeds anything we have over here. Including "zero" and �35? Or, like I said, about 50 Canadian dollars. Oh dear me, you pay 75 dollars for your cars. One *can* pay a lot more in the UK, sure. Or one needn't. Once again, you failed to read things properly. Bad habit you've got there. > > Do you have to pay sales tax on vehicle purchases, new or used? New, yes, used, no. Bye. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: The Older Gentleman on 14 Mar 2010 14:03 don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: <snip> > with this new premise. > *shakes head in disbelief* Oh dear, here you go again. This premise was in my last posting. You failed to read and understand it. No surprise there, then. > > >Something tells me there must be > >some, but damned if I can think of any. However, since you made the > >claim I'll leave the research to you :-)) > > I can think if a few that fit the original premise and I will leave > the research to you. *Right*. Hint: Kuwait isn't a reasonable comparison. <snip> > The numbers in the link you provided speak for themselves. Including "zero" and" �35" Plainly, you haven't read this web page properly ether. No surprise there either. > It is a > cash grab imposed under the guise of GW. It's a cash grab that's been going on for a century. They've just changed the title of it. > I am amazed your government > was able to implement such a tax without dedicating the funds to > actually reducing GGs. I'm not. Governments tend to do this sort of thing. Like I said, here you go again. Failure to read, and failure to comprehend. I'll leave you to it, I think. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: don (Calgary) on 14 Mar 2010 14:29 On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:03:33 +0000, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: >don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > ><snip> > >> with this new premise. >> *shakes head in disbelief* > >Oh dear, here you go again. This premise was in my last posting. You >failed to read and understand it. No surprise there, then. > >> >> >Something tells me there must be >> >some, but damned if I can think of any. However, since you made the >> >claim I'll leave the research to you :-)) >> >> I can think if a few that fit the original premise and I will leave >> the research to you. > >*Right*. Hint: Kuwait isn't a reasonable comparison. > ><snip> > >> The numbers in the link you provided speak for themselves. > >Including "zero" and" �35" Plainly, you haven't read this web page >properly ether. No surprise there either. > >> It is a >> cash grab imposed under the guise of GW. > >It's a cash grab that's been going on for a century. They've just >changed the title of it. > >> I am amazed your government >> was able to implement such a tax without dedicating the funds to >> actually reducing GGs. > >I'm not. Governments tend to do this sort of thing. > >Like I said, here you go again. Failure to read, and failure to >comprehend. I'll leave you to it, I think. You are just not capable of having a reasonable discussion without resorting to these old tired tactics. Too bad.
From: Vito on 14 Mar 2010 16:58
"CS" <dontshop(a)sears.com> wrote | I've worked on British and other European cars from the 70's. It seems they | were designed with maintenance in mind. They seemed to be ahead of the US | in terms of smaller, more powerful motors, but without the modern technology | to make them reliable. Carbs and ignition systems were fairly complex, so | there was a lot to go wrong. | | American cars, on the other hand, had huge engines that never seemed to need | anything. They were simple affairs that produced a lot of power from sheer | size, with very low tech ignitions and carbs. | | My semi-educated guess is the narrow roads, higher gas prices and colder | winters of Europe necessitated a different way of thinking. .... A Brit I worked with circa 1960 blamed it on credit. Credit was easy in the US but a Brit might be expected to put down as much as 50% of the price of a car or bike. While saving, he read all about his future "bride" and how to maintain her. Nor did he trust her to just any fool with a wrench once she was his. He didn't mind lots of routine maintenence - he demanded it and was glad to trade it for longevity while Americans simply bought new on more credit. Seemed reasonable. Who else has refillable shocks and carbs needing oil? |