A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #511  
Old June 9th 05, 02:32 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>
>>> Yes I admit that taxation is often not logical.

>>
>> That is not what you wrote.Your words;"It's a tax." referrring to
>> license plate "renewals".

>
> So are speeding tickets for the most part. So is social security.
>
>> Your registration does not wear out,fade away,or change over time,so
>> the only reason for "renewal" is a *user fee*,no other reason.

>
> I have to pay all sorts of taxes annually. that doesn't make them user
> fees.


But the license "renewal fee" IS a user fee,it gives you license to USE the
roads;no pay,no use.

>
>> It may be small,but applied to millions of autos per state,it adds up
>> to a nice piece of change.

>
> certainly not enough to cover unlimited usage.


So what? why does it HAVE to "cover" unlimited usage?

> Unlimited cellphone
> packages cost many, many times more.
>
>>>> Much of what gov't does does not make sense.
>>>
>>> BINGO. hence it's not a user fee just because it has to be paid
>>> every years.

>>
>> Sure it is a user fee;the "renewal" sticker is your tax stamp,just
>> like on cigarette packs.

>
> And cig taxes aren't user taxes for anything.


But I have not claimed that cig taxes are user fees.
I merely said that the sticker on the packs is a tax stamp.
>
>
>>>> Check your eyesight and have a new picture taken.
>>>> Licenses do wear out,or need updating.(Not so for your lic.plate.)
>>>> Maybe get you to pay any outstanding parking tickets,too.
>>>
>>> I've seen beaten up and worn license plates.

>>
>> Sure,due to bumping into things,and here in the South,even fading.
>> But not common enough to necessitate "renewal" EVERY YEAR.

>
> Oh well,,, back in the day they were replaced every year... go
> figure.
>
>> Florida sends me a new plate with a new number every 5 years,IIRC.
>> One nice thing is that if your FL.plate gets damaged in a collision
>> or stolen,you can get a new plate FREE.You need a police report
>> reference number,though.Oh,and the yearly FL plate "renewal" fees go
>> to the county TAX COLLECTOR.

>
> Not in IL. IL charges for new plates.
>
>
>>>>> Are you going to say that's a 'user fee' too?
>>>
>>>> In a way,yes.You are licensed -to use- a motor vehicle even if it
>>>> is not registered to you,like a rental,or another person's licensed
>>>> auto. Note that you need no driver's license if you operate
>>>> off-road,on private property.Same for lic.plates and registration.
>>>
>>> If government could figure out a way to tax it and control it on
>>> private property, they would.

>>
>> No,because it doesn't affect anyone in the public venue.

>
> That's why they can't. Remove that limitation on government and they
> damn well will tax it.
>
>>> You are simply pointing out a
>>> constitutional issue, and confusing it with paying-for-roads.

>
>> No,you simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

>
> The obvious is your being picky with tax labels for bicycling and not
> being so with autos.


You appear to tbe the "picky" one about labels.
I'm flexible enough to understand what is actually a user fee and what's
not.And honest enough about it.
>
>> License plate fees ARE a "user fee";for the *license to USE* the
>> vehicle on public roads.(state permission)

>
> Not that I have seen in the law.


You just refuse to see.(actually refuse to admit,I know you understand)
>
>> I suspect that if this were not part of the argument about licensing
>> bicycles for road use,you'd have admitted it to be a user fee long
>> ago.

>
> It's not a user fee in IL. I've had a car ticketed that was parked on
> private property for expired registration. It never left the property.


Due to LOCAL laws about junk or abandoned cars that are not garaged,but
left outside.Nothing to do with *using* it on your property.
Same thing happened to me with my first car that I built from two
junkers.(in NY)
I was still able to drive it around the yard legally.

> Bogus ticket, because the law doesn't require it, but the cops
> certainly don't share your interpetation of it as just a 'user fee'.





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Ads
  #512  
Old June 10th 05, 01:46 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> But the license "renewal fee" IS a user fee,it gives you license to USE the
> roads;no pay,no use.


Just produce the IL law that says so.

> So what? why does it HAVE to "cover" unlimited usage?


If it's a user fee, then it should. Otherwise taxes are coming from
somewhere else to pay for the roads too.

>> And cig taxes aren't user taxes for anything.


> But I have not claimed that cig taxes are user fees.
> I merely said that the sticker on the packs is a tax stamp.


Then it's an irrelevant example.

>> The obvious is your being picky with tax labels for bicycling and not
>> being so with autos.


> You appear to tbe the "picky" one about labels.
> I'm flexible enough to understand what is actually a user fee and what's
> not.And honest enough about it.


This all started because you don't like bicycling being more than covered
by various non-automotive sources of tax revenue that go to roads. You
bitched there wasn't a specific 'bicycle user fee'. Yet there is no
specific 'automotive user fee' either.

>>> License plate fees ARE a "user fee";for the *license to USE* the
>>> vehicle on public roads.(state permission)

>>
>> Not that I have seen in the law.

>
> You just refuse to see.(actually refuse to admit,I know you understand)


Show me the relevant law.

>>> I suspect that if this were not part of the argument about licensing
>>> bicycles for road use,you'd have admitted it to be a user fee long
>>> ago.


>> It's not a user fee in IL. I've had a car ticketed that was parked on
>> private property for expired registration. It never left the property.


> Due to LOCAL laws about junk or abandoned cars that are not garaged,but
> left outside.


Not what it was ticketed for. Car appeared perfectly functional and was.

>> Bogus ticket, because the law doesn't require it, but the cops
>> certainly don't share your interpetation of it as just a 'user fee'.


  #513  
Old June 10th 05, 05:28 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>
>> But the license "renewal fee" IS a user fee,it gives you license to
>> USE the roads;no pay,no use.

>
> Just produce the IL law that says so.


More dishonesty;you KNOW that even in IL,if your plates are expired,you can
be ticketed and that's it's illegal to drive that vehicle,and that
unregistered autos cannot legally be driven on public rodas.

>
>> So what? why does it HAVE to "cover" unlimited usage?

>
> If it's a user fee, then it should.


"should";that's your opinion.Doesn't mean squat.

> Otherwise taxes are coming from
> somewhere else to pay for the roads too.
>
>>> And cig taxes aren't user taxes for anything.

>
>> But I have not claimed that cig taxes are user fees.
>> I merely said that the sticker on the packs is a tax stamp.

>
> Then it's an irrelevant example.


Only to you,blind to apparently everything.
>
>>> The obvious is your being picky with tax labels for bicycling and
>>> not being so with autos.

>
>> You appear to tbe the "picky" one about labels.
>> I'm flexible enough to understand what is actually a user fee and
>> what's not.And honest enough about it.

>
> This all started because you don't like bicycling being more than
> covered by various non-automotive sources of tax revenue that go to
> roads. You bitched there wasn't a specific 'bicycle user fee'. Yet
> there is no specific 'automotive user fee' either.


Sure there is,I've been telling you about it for a while,now.
You pay it every year.
It's not my fault you cannot(will not) recognize it for what it is.(because
it would prove my point about bicycles not paying any user fees;the sole
reason you persist,IMO.)
>
>>>> License plate fees ARE a "user fee";for the *license to USE* the
>>>> vehicle on public roads.(state permission)
>>>
>>> Not that I have seen in the law.

>>
>> You just refuse to see.(actually refuse to admit,I know you
>> understand)

>
> Show me the relevant law.
>
>>>> I suspect that if this were not part of the argument about
>>>> licensing bicycles for road use,you'd have admitted it to be a user
>>>> fee long ago.

>
>>> It's not a user fee in IL. I've had a car ticketed that was parked
>>> on private property for expired registration. It never left the
>>> property.

>
>> Due to LOCAL laws about junk or abandoned cars that are not
>> garaged,but left outside.

>
> Not what it was ticketed for. Car appeared perfectly functional and
> was.


That doesn't matter.Many locales require that any motor vehicle with
expired or no plates be garaged,to prevent junkers and abandoned vehicles
from littering the neighborhoods.Some locales will even tow them at your
expense,right off your "private" property.

>
>>> Bogus ticket, because the law doesn't require it, but the cops
>>> certainly don't share your interpetation of it as just a 'user fee'.

>
>




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #514  
Old June 11th 05, 06:23 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

>>> But the license "renewal fee" IS a user fee,it gives you license to
>>> USE the roads;no pay,no use.

>>
>> Just produce the IL law that says so.

>
> More dishonesty;you KNOW that even in IL,if your plates are expired,you can
> be ticketed and that's it's illegal to drive that vehicle,and that
> unregistered autos cannot legally be driven on public rodas.


It's illegal to drive with a burned out headlamp and I can be ticketed
for it too. Being illegal and subject to tickets doesn't make a usage tax.

Just produce the law that makes it a usage tax.
If you want to keep whining about bicyclists not paying a specific
'bicycle road usage tax', you're going to have to produce that specific
'auto road usage tax'.

Oh, btw, there is bicycle registration in many towns, just no tax
associated it with it. It's not bicyclists' fault that autos are so
taxed. Autos are likely so taxed because of their popularity. Many things
go on and on and on and don't get taxed until they become popular enough.
I suspect bicycling has never reached that threshold.

Afterall, there are taxes on all sorts of things that are popular and
entirely provided by private companies.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Arrogant Pedalcyclists in Action John Harlow Driving 8 April 15th 05 01:55 AM
Go Ahead, Try to Justify This Pedalcyclist Behavior Laura Bush murdered her boy friend Driving 4 April 9th 05 07:05 PM
Arrogant Pedalcyclists in Training Brent P Driving 6 April 3rd 05 12:14 AM
Someone's Taking the Piss SteveH Alfa Romeo 11 July 30th 04 02:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.