Yarra Ranges is Stuffed for Motorbikes
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: ROT IN HELL GREEK FUCKWIT....
Next: Garage Night new video: Suspension overhaul starts with Dremelon a lathe
From: Nev.. on 4 Feb 2010 03:48 G-S wrote: > Nev.. wrote: >> G-S wrote: >>> Diogenes wrote: >>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:01:32 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Diogenes wrote: >>>>>>> Lowering the speed limit and altering the road marking laws to >>>>>>> prohibit overtaking simply enables the enforcement effort to trap >>>>>>> people who are riding in a sensible, and until recently, >>>>>>> perfectly legal manner. >>>>>> So you're saying that it's all an evil, antisocial plan to trap the >>>>>> innocent whilst turning a blind eye to the guilty? You don't think >>>>>> that's a bit of a skewed view of reality? >>>> >>>>> I'm saying that the gumbiment see this lowering of speed limits as >>>>> having the bonus effect of raising the amount of revenue their >>>>> mobile tax gathering units (highway patrols) get from day dreaming >>>>> car drivers (and the occasional motorcyclist). >>>> >>>> Yes, it gives them more money with which to finance more active >>>> traffic patrolling. Good innit? It's called economics". JL can >>>> tell you all about it. ;-) >>>> >>> >>> If it was used for that I wouldn't have such a problem with it. >>> >>> If it was even used to fund general police services I wouldn't have a >>> problem with it. >>> >>> But the revenue from fines goes mostly into general revenue where >>> it's used for such diverse and useful things as excessive >>> superannuation funds for pollies and golden plane tickets for retired >>> pollies and their families and blowing their own horn in television >>> adverts. >> >> ..and schools, hospitals, services for the elderly. That stuff too. >> >> Nev.. >> '08 DL1000K8 > > I pay for private education for our child (over $10k a year). > > My mother and my aunts weren't/aren't eligible for 'services for the > elderly'. In fact my aunt recently had to pay $250000 for admission to > a low care facility that is available to older people on benefits for free. > > I have private health care and so do all my family, I haven't used the > public health system in over 20 years. > > 'That stuff too' is about as useful to me as what I said in the earlier > post... So you think that speeding fines should be used to pay for benefits for you rather than to assist the lesser able in the community. Why so? It's not your money. Why should you care what they spend it on? Think yourself lucky. If others didn't pay 'voluntary tax' you'd have to pay a compulsory tax. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8
From: G-S on 4 Feb 2010 04:35 theo wrote: > On Feb 4, 3:26 pm, G-S <ge...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >> Diogenes wrote: > >>> So where are we going with this? Disband all government agencies and >>> hire private contractors? More activism to get the government to >>> redirect the revenue? Or just whinging in newsgroups because it's oh >>> so tendy? Where? >> I'm waiting for someone to start a 3rd party that actually makes sense :) > > Our preferential voting system was specifically designed so as to make > it almost impossible for any but the two major parties to be elected. > > I'm for proportional voting. > > Theo Yah me too... I won't live to see it though. G-S
From: G-S on 4 Feb 2010 04:39 Nev.. wrote: > G-S wrote: >> Nev.. wrote: >>> G-S wrote: >>>> Diogenes wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:01:32 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Diogenes wrote: >>>>>>>> Lowering the speed limit and altering the road marking laws to >>>>>>>> prohibit overtaking simply enables the enforcement effort to >>>>>>>> trap people who are riding in a sensible, and until recently, >>>>>>>> perfectly legal manner. >>>>>>> So you're saying that it's all an evil, antisocial plan to trap the >>>>>>> innocent whilst turning a blind eye to the guilty? You don't think >>>>>>> that's a bit of a skewed view of reality? >>>>> >>>>>> I'm saying that the gumbiment see this lowering of speed limits as >>>>>> having the bonus effect of raising the amount of revenue their >>>>>> mobile tax gathering units (highway patrols) get from day dreaming >>>>>> car drivers (and the occasional motorcyclist). >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it gives them more money with which to finance more active >>>>> traffic patrolling. Good innit? It's called economics". JL can >>>>> tell you all about it. ;-) >>>>> >>>> >>>> If it was used for that I wouldn't have such a problem with it. >>>> >>>> If it was even used to fund general police services I wouldn't have >>>> a problem with it. >>>> >>>> But the revenue from fines goes mostly into general revenue where >>>> it's used for such diverse and useful things as excessive >>>> superannuation funds for pollies and golden plane tickets for >>>> retired pollies and their families and blowing their own horn in >>>> television adverts. >>> >>> ..and schools, hospitals, services for the elderly. That stuff too. >>> >>> Nev.. >>> '08 DL1000K8 >> >> I pay for private education for our child (over $10k a year). >> >> My mother and my aunts weren't/aren't eligible for 'services for the >> elderly'. In fact my aunt recently had to pay $250000 for admission >> to a low care facility that is available to older people on benefits >> for free. >> >> I have private health care and so do all my family, I haven't used the >> public health system in over 20 years. >> >> 'That stuff too' is about as useful to me as what I said in the >> earlier post... > > So you think that speeding fines should be used to pay for benefits for > you rather than to assist the lesser able in the community. Why so? > It's not your money. Why should you care what they spend it on? Think > yourself lucky. If others didn't pay 'voluntary tax' you'd have to pay > a compulsory tax. > I already pay 'compulsory tax' though! I don't object to the government spending money on public projects and I don't object to them spending it on infrastructure and I don't object to them spending it to support those who've worked and paid tax during their working life. Nor do I object to them spending it upon the genuinely disabled and those genuinely unable to support themselves. I object (to various degrees) the government spending money upon those items I don't approve of. It isn't the amount of tax I pay that's the issue, I'd happily pay more if I had some control over where it was allocated. There are various taxation systems around the world that allow a certain percentage of tax paid to be directed towards certain areas. Something along those lines would be a start. G-S
From: Diogenes on 4 Feb 2010 05:55 On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:26:29 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >Diogenes wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:07:44 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >> >>> Diogenes wrote: >>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:01:32 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Diogenes wrote: >>>>>>> Lowering the speed limit and altering the road marking laws to prohibit >>>>>>> overtaking simply enables the enforcement effort to trap people who are >>>>>>> riding in a sensible, and until recently, perfectly legal manner. >>>>>> So you're saying that it's all an evil, antisocial plan to trap the >>>>>> innocent whilst turning a blind eye to the guilty? You don't think >>>>>> that's a bit of a skewed view of reality? >>>>> I'm saying that the gumbiment see this lowering of speed limits as >>>>> having the bonus effect of raising the amount of revenue their mobile >>>>> tax gathering units (highway patrols) get from day dreaming car drivers >>>>> (and the occasional motorcyclist). >>>> Yes, it gives them more money with which to finance more active >>>> traffic patrolling. Good innit? It's called economics". JL can >>>> tell you all about it. ;-) >>>> >>> If it was used for that I wouldn't have such a problem with it. >>> >>> If it was even used to fund general police services I wouldn't have a >>> problem with it. >>> >>> But the revenue from fines goes mostly into general revenue where it's >>> used for such diverse and useful things as excessive superannuation >>> funds for pollies and golden plane tickets for retired pollies and their >>> families and blowing their own horn in television adverts. >> >> So where are we going with this? Disband all government agencies and >> hire private contractors? More activism to get the government to >> redirect the revenue? Or just whinging in newsgroups because it's oh >> so tendy? Where? >I'm waiting for someone to start a 3rd party that actually makes sense :) And what would such a party stand for? What would its major policies be? ================= Onya bike Gerry
From: Diogenes on 4 Feb 2010 05:55
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 18:12:58 +0930, "Pietro" <noone(a)dontbesilly.com> wrote: >"Diogenes" <cynic(a)society.sux.ok> wrote in message >news:at7hm51bq5f5r0etfvsl30s164po6ro6ao(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:16:56 +1100, Moike <bmwmoike(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Diogenes wrote: >>>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:22:38 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>>> The government would have done better to have found a way to target >>>>> dangerously speeding riders without driving away just about all the >>>>> rest >>>>> of the motorbikes as well. >>>> >>>> And what proposals can you offer the gummint? >> >>>Well for a start, there was already in place a reasonable speed limit on >>>the road. Applying some manpower to enforce the existing laws would >>>presumably allow them to tackle the high-speed hoons. >> >> And this has worked where exactly? > >And this has been tried where exactly? Good question. ================= Onya bike Gerry |