Rod Little gets stuck into cyclists in The Spectator

HebdenBiker

...and then joins the commenters BTL to abuse cyclists. Disgraceful.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/rod-liddle/2013/07/cyclists-why-are-we-paying-for-your-bikes/

sketchley

His argument is that the tax payer (him) is paying for C2W bikes through tax, which is rubbish. Not one penny of tax money is used to pay for the bike. Your rentals are just tax free. To use the same argument you say have to say that my taxes are being used to fund duty free purchases on planes. Stupid lazy writting....

rolf_f

Unintelligent journalist writes lazy article shocker........

Sketchley wrote:

His argument is that the tax payer (him) is paying for C2W bikes through tax, which is rubbish. Not one penny of tax money is used to pay for the bike. Your rentals are just tax free. To use the same argument you say have to say that my taxes are being used to fund duty free purchases on planes. Stupid lazy writting....

It really isn't worth wasting time on picking at the holes in his arguments. Even if they had a ring of truth, if he can't be bothered to make any serious effort (how long did he spend on that article? - probably less than 10 minutes) then it isn't worth the effort in refuting them. In this case though it is I think fair to say that the tax payer is paying for C2W - OK, it isn't tax revenue being used for it but rather it is a loss of tax revenue. In practical terms, it amounts to the same thing - the money has to come from somewhere; it doesn't come from the C2W user and it doesn't come from the employer either - where it comes from is the state.......

phy2sll2

Rolf F wrote:

Unintelligent journalist writes lazy article aimed at old people who haven't been outside for a while shocker...

FTFY

Phil_D

Sketchley wrote:

His argument is that the tax payer (him) is paying for C2W bikes through tax, which is rubbish. Not one penny of tax money is used to pay for the bike. Your rentals are just tax free. To use the same argument you say have to say that my taxes are being used to fund duty free purchases on planes. Stupid lazy writting....

You buy a bike for £1000. If you're a higher rate taxpayer you will pay around £500 of the cost yourself. Who pays the rest?

cyclingprop

Phil_D wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

His argument is that the tax payer (him) is paying for C2W bikes through tax, which is rubbish. Not one penny of tax money is used to pay for the bike. Your rentals are just tax free. To use the same argument you say have to say that my taxes are being used to fund duty free purchases on planes. Stupid lazy writting....

You buy a bike for £1000. If you're a higher rate taxpayer you will pay around £500 of the cost yourself. Who pays the rest?

The rest is offset against the marginal tax you would have paid, if you had paid post-tax.

tgotb

Phil_D wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

His argument is that the tax payer (him) is paying for C2W bikes through tax, which is rubbish. Not one penny of tax money is used to pay for the bike. Your rentals are just tax free. To use the same argument you say have to say that my taxes are being used to fund duty free purchases on planes. Stupid lazy writting....

You buy a bike for £1000. If you're a higher rate taxpayer you will pay around £500 of the cost yourself. Who pays the rest?

Absolutely true, but the same applies to Sketchley's duty free booze (or fags for that matter). Why should I subsidise someone else's smoking habit, especially as I'm already subsidising their free healthcare? Anyone see where I left my pitchfork?

greg66_tri_v2.0

I'm beginning to wonder whether writers who use the expression "lycra-clad" or similar in a disparaging manner are doing so because deep down they despise themselves, either because they're doughy and are terribly self-conscious over how they would look in lycra, or because they are secretly aroused by the sight of men in lycra and haven't come to terms with their inner desires yet.

There. That was almost as long as the "article" under discussion.

slowbike

Phil_D wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

His argument is that the tax payer (him) is paying for C2W bikes through tax, which is rubbish. Not one penny of tax money is used to pay for the bike. Your rentals are just tax free. To use the same argument you say have to say that my taxes are being used to fund duty free purchases on planes. Stupid lazy writting....

You buy a bike for £1000. If you're a higher rate taxpayer you will pay around £500 of the cost yourself. Who pays the rest?

You do - but you just pay it through reduction in income tax instead.

C2W scheme costs a lot of money for the government - not only do they not get the full income tax from workers, they don't get so much income from fuel tax. It also has a hit on public transport ...

On the otherhand, it reduces the congestion on the road, reduces emissions, creates/sustains jobs in the cycling market - which in turn generates tax and improves the health of the riders - reducing the load on the NHS - except for accidents - then it increases the load - although that can probably be countered by fewer vehicle accidents - so accident workload for the NHS is most likely about the same .. and overall I would estimate that tax take is up due to the increase in business created by the C2W scheme.

Headhuunter

Clearly this Rod Liddle an idiot who thinks he might get a bit of publicity by writing an utterly rubbish article about cyclists and then getting loadsa hits on his blog... Just like Clarkson, just like the Evening Standard etc etc....

rolf_f

Slowbike wrote:

Phil_D wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

His argument is that the tax payer (him) is paying for C2W bikes through tax, which is rubbish. Not one penny of tax money is used to pay for the bike. Your rentals are just tax free. To use the same argument you say have to say that my taxes are being used to fund duty free purchases on planes. Stupid lazy writting....

You buy a bike for £1000. If you're a higher rate taxpayer you will pay around £500 of the cost yourself. Who pays the rest?

You do - but you just pay it through reduction in income tax instead.

C2W scheme costs a lot of money for the government - not only do they not get the full income tax from workers, they don't get so much income from fuel tax. It also has a hit on public transport ...

On the otherhand, it reduces the congestion on the road, reduces emissions, creates/sustains jobs in the cycling market - which in turn generates tax and improves the health of the riders - reducing the load on the NHS - except for accidents - then it increases the load - although that can probably be countered by fewer vehicle accidents - so accident workload for the NHS is most likely about the same .. and overall I would estimate that tax take is up due to the increase in business created by the C2W scheme.

How many of us got into cycling through C2W and are now spending small (or not so small) fortunes on cycling kit that otherwise we wouldn't have? Lots of tax revenue there. The best deal the Govt got out of me on C2W was the year I totally abused it and bought a Look for £3.5k on the scheme. When I started, I was looking at spending 1k and that was more than I'd have spent if C2W hadn't been available. Effectively, the scheme sucked me in to buying something way classier than I would have otherwise bought.

I could be accused of having cheated the tax man here but what tax income would the treasury have gained from me buying a £600 Giant Defy compared to a £3500 Look 585 with a tax exemption on the first £1k?

tgotb

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I'm beginning to wonder whether writers who use the expression "lycra-clad" or similar in a disparaging manner are doing so because deep down they despise themselves, either because they're doughy and are terribly self-conscious over how they would look in lycra, or because they are secretly aroused by the sight of men in lycra and haven't come to terms with their inner desires yet.

There. That was almost as long as the "article" under discussion.

You're just bitter because he didn't use the terms "speedo-clad" or "rubber-clad"...

davmaggs

It's not an article as such and is just come clickbait knocked up to get advertising revenue. The Guardian and the Daily Mail put a lot of effort into such nonsense too.

In terms of the tax payer part people are hypocrites and would rather no-one got a penny rebated from the HMRC because they aren't getting anything themselves at the time, its just envy. For example there were people on this very forum saying that 40% tax payers didn't deserve child benefit, and yet all they were doing was getting a tiny sliver of their own money back and weren't receiving a single pound of anyone else.

kurako

It sounds like he is railing against famous cyclists like Dave and Boris. The Spectator really must be going downhill. Perhaps it has been hacked by oiks, plebs or ...shudder... socialists.

notsoblue

That comment section is just full of tw@ts.

petemadoc

The guy is a fat, lazy, bitter, racist, TROLL

bails87

Phil_D wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

His argument is that the tax payer (him) is paying for C2W bikes through tax, which is rubbish. Not one penny of tax money is used to pay for the bike. Your rentals are just tax free. To use the same argument you say have to say that my taxes are being used to fund duty free purchases on planes. Stupid lazy writting....

You buy a bike for £1000. If you're a higher rate taxpayer you will pay around £500 of the cost yourself. Who pays the rest?

You do. yYou just pay for it before the tax comes out of your pay packet, so you pay income tax on a lower amount of income. You don't get any tax refunded or have a bike paid for by the govt

greg66_tri_v2.0

TGOTB wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I'm beginning to wonder whether writers who use the expression "lycra-clad" or similar in a disparaging manner are doing so because deep down they despise themselves, either because they're doughy and are terribly self-conscious over how they would look in lycra, or because they are secretly aroused by the sight of men in lycra and haven't come to terms with their inner desires yet.

There. That was almost as long as the "article" under discussion.

You're just bitter because he didn't use the terms "speedo-clad" or "rubber-clad"...

I fear he would pass into a priapic frenzied rage were he to see a man in Speedos riding a bike.

mtb-idle

Seriously... people actually read The Spectator?

The Rookie

A non article that then descends into farce where the comments go further and further off topic!

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

That comment section is just full of tw@ts.

One of the comments is that men in lycra is 'sexually sinister'.



Bahahahahahahahaha

slowbike

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

That comment section is just full of tw@ts.

One of the comments is that men in lycra is 'sexually sinister'.



Bahahahahahahahaha

Having seen some pretty horrendous sights I can understand that comment!

DonDaddyD

I look pucker in lycra.

There is a huge difference between evading and avoiding tax, by means of using a Government sanctioned schemed to purchase an item because they (Government) see the benefits (and it doesn't have to be financial) in you doing so. Remember the C2W is a Government backed scheme, they weren't lobbied or hounded into backing it. Suddenly its now wrong to use it?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

One of the comments is that men in lycra are 'sexually sinister'.

But I'm not even wearing my face mask this week!

CiB

Best avoided surely. There's no mileage in arguing with the sort of muppets that can class a sports garment as sinister and believe that every cyclist on the road is light jumping pavement pansy, and as its clear intention is to generate traffic to the site it's better to let the old saddo carry on with his own little world rather than engaging with him or the brainless idiots who support his oddball view.

asprilla

Kurako wrote:

It sounds like he is railing against famous cyclists like Dave and Boris. The Spectator really must be going downhill. Perhaps it has been hacked by oiks, plebs or ...shudder... socialists.

Rod Liddle is a fully paid up card carrying member of the Labour Party.

kurako

Asprilla wrote:

Kurako wrote:

It sounds like he is railing against famous cyclists like Dave and Boris. The Spectator really must be going downhill. Perhaps it has been hacked by oiks, plebs or ...shudder... socialists.

Rod Liddle is a fully paid up card carrying member of the Labour Party.

Interesting. I always always it was a Tory rag. And since the only Spectator content I ever read was a piece of reactionary Daily Mail style bull I had no reason to think otherwise.

I notice he's a Millwall fan. I hate Millwall fans.

mrc1

There's a whole group of these "grumpy old men" like him that have managed to carve out a niche for themselves by adopting a caricature of a pretentious tw*t and then rolling with it to the extent that they now actually believe that they really are of value to society.

gbsahne001

An article in the DM today regarding drink driving

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382443/Shocking-spike-drink-drive-deaths-number-killed-rises-25-290-year.html

and then we have a troll is trying to stir things and get the usual anti-cycling brigade onboard

It would be interesting to see in how many fatalities cyclists are involved in one way or another as i think they are even more dangerous than drink drivers.
- gazman , Expat Brisbane, 02/8/2013 06:18

The Rookie

gbsahne wrote:

An article in the DM today regarding drink driving

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382443/Shocking-spike-drink-drive-deaths-number-killed-rises-25-290-year.html

Shit reporting, the numbers are provisional, last years provisional numbers (that they fail to mention) where near enough identical to this years, so the real story is 'provisional drink driving death numbers are the same as last year' which of course isn't a headline!

gbsahne001

wasn't saying it was good reporting; a bit of a misnomer in the DM in any case, merely noting that the trolls are out and about