FIA tax-man goes ballistic

[ioan]

With good reason, since Knockie raised the question of whether the the $100m fine was put towards safety.

It was publicly stated that the McLaren cheating fine will be used to improve safety, what use was there to ask again almost 2 years later?
Do you think that $100 million will last forever when it has to cover world wide motorsport and other automotive activities?!

back to the topic now, the F1 divers are the ones who benefit most from the advancement in the automotive safety department. 20 year ago they would have died or deen dsabled after an accident like Kubica had in Canada in 2007, 10 years ago would have certainly broke a few bones, now they walk away with some bruised bones and are back in the car in no time.
Plus they are the ones earning most in the whole automotive related industry!
So I see it fit that they have to pay for it.

I read somewhere that since MS quit the GPDA are having fonds problems. Guess why? Because the big bad German was the one willingly paying huge amounts to support the GPDA activity (besides countless other charity events).

The remaining drivers should pull their hypocrite heads out of their sorry backsides and use it for more than just something to cover their throats in the rain.

With good reason, since Knockie raised the question of whether the the $100m fine was put towards safety. Max's argument says that the drivers should be contributing towards the cost of safety with their superlicence fees.

It's all part of the discussion. The childish insults we could do without.

And the childish notion that Mclaren are "persecuted" we could do without.

[ArrowsFA1]

...what use was there to ask again almost 2 years later?

Oh, I don't know ioan. Perhaps he completely forgot about where the money went. We all have a pretty busy lives outside this forum and can't remember everything!

[ArrowsFA1]

...So I see it fit that they have to pay for it.

How do you respond to these ponts made by the drivers?

1. The basic Super Licence fee for the 2008 season increased from EUR 1,690 in 2007 to EUR 10,000 representing a rise of nearly five-fold.[/*:m:1zgyww9b]
2. These increases were made without any prior consultation with the drivers.[/*:m:1zgyww9b]
3. Mr. Mosley is incorrect in his claim to the media that he had not received an answer from the drivers as a letter was sent by the GPDA in December declining the request because it was not relevant to ascertaining the appropriate Super Licence fees.[/*:m:1zgyww9b]
4. The drivers are not opposed to a reasonable increase in the Super Licence fees.[/*:m:1zgyww9b]
5. The drivers contend that the Super Licence fees should not be a revenue stream for the FIA and such a change constitutes a major departure in principle for both past Super Licence fees and fees for any other drivers' licences.[/*:m:1zgyww9b]
6. As a principle, the drivers should not be taxed to fund the costs of others fulfilling their legal duty to the drivers.[/*:m:1zgyww9b]
7. Already in 2007, the F1 Super Licence was the most expensive Licence payable by any sportsperson in the world.[/*:m:1zgyww9b]

[trumperZ06]

With good reason, since Knockie raised the question of whether the the $100m fine was put towards safety. Max's argument says that the drivers should be contributing towards the cost of safety with their superlicence fees.

: Max, once again, Plays the "SAFETY CARD"...

when he is unable to provide a reasonable explaination.

Knockie's right about the "Safety Issue"... ample funds have already been taken from McLaren, so there's no need to force the drivers to contribute.

[ioan]

How do you respond to these ponts made by the drivers?

1. The basic Super Licence fee for the 2008 season increased from EUR 1,690 in 2007 to EUR 10,000 representing a rise of nearly five-fold.

1. Laughable, coming from someone who earns millions a year, this making the amount they paid last year being between 0.25 and 1% of their paycheck!
   And the money is used to improve their chances to survive an accident.
   
   

   [/*:m:2yurhkdh]

2. These increases were made without any prior consultation with the drivers.

[ioan]

Knockie's right about the "Safety Issue"... ample funds have already been taken from McLaren, so there's no need to force the drivers to contribute.

Please tell us how long does 100.000.000 USD cover the costs for safety measures improvements for all forms of FIA sanctioned motorsport all over the world?!
I doubt it's even enough for a season.

[Knock-on]

So why did you bring it up?

Once again, you complain about it being brought into the debate yet it was you introduced it into the debate.

I brought it up because the $100m fine was to be used for safety inititives which is the same reason Max has hiked the Super Licence fee.

Surely you can see the relevance?

That is not only boring, it's pathetic, ridicolous and unworthy of anything other than utter contempt.

But then, what else to expect from a man with the conscience of a sewer rat who condones theft and espionage.

Your mother must be so proud.

As per usual, you are talking utter BS yet again. If you can show me ONE post where I have justified theft and espionage then please post it. In fact, I believ YOU defended Renault over theft and espionage of McLaren data and agreed with Max that they should not be punished.

How does that sit with you and your Mater.

Lastly, your personal attacks and threats of violence against me are pathetic and demonstrate more about your values and personality than my views on a silly Motorsport forum.

[ioan]

my views on a silly Motorsport forum.

How dare you?! :

I'll repair that for you:

my silly views on a Motorsport forum.

There you go, much better!

[ArrowsFA1]

To conclude, the drivers points are childish (at best kindergarten level), retarded, egocentric.

The points you make appear to be made on the basis that the FIA is a state, and the drivers citizens of that state. Neither is true, and even if either were true then at least the drivers would have the option (if the FIA were a democratic state ) of voting in an election to decide whether they felt the state's taxation policy was fair or reasonable. They don't have that option.

If it was required that you needed a licence to do your job (in addition to you paying your taxes), would you be happy if the cost of that licence increased nearly five-fold in one year?

Would you be happy to be told out of the blue that one of the reasons for the increase was to pay for the health and safety measures at your workplace; health and safety measures that your employer is legally/contracturally obliged to provide.