Oregon bike tax?

Oregon bike tax?

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...tax_lawma.html

1% on bike sales seems like a token to silence the cries that "they
don't pay their way." It couldn't generate much money, could it?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 6:35:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oregon bike tax?

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...tax_lawma.html

1% on bike sales seems like a token to silence the cries that "they
don't pay their way." It couldn't generate much money, could it?

No. Oregon is a financial wreck after years of bad PERS deals. It's like the old Soviet Union with $.50 of every budget dollar going to fund pensioners. We have so many budget holes that our budget is more of a hole than a budget. It's a giant black-hole that sucks tax dollars into nowhere, and now it wants to suck more. The only upside is that the City did fix a pot hole that was a problem on my way to work -- one out of about a zillion after the hard winter this year.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 6:35:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oregon bike tax?

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...tax_lawma.html

1% on bike sales seems like a token to silence the cries that "they
don't pay their way." It couldn't generate much money, could it?

No. Oregon is a financial wreck after years of bad PERS deals. It's
like the old Soviet Union with $.50 of every budget dollar going to
fund pensioners. We have so many budget holes that our budget is more
of a hole than a budget. It's a giant black-hole that sucks tax
dollars into nowhere, and now it wants to suck more.

The problem of retirement payments has been known and accurately
predicted for about 30 years. 30 years ago those problems would have
been trivial to fix. Now they are very hard to fix. That is not an
accident, it is a deliberate strategy by one political persuasion. If
ya can't make 'em capitulate, burn it down and salt the earth. Politics
now seems only capable of Pyrrhic victories.

On 4/30/2017 8:52 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 6:35:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oregon bike tax?

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...tax_lawma.html

1% on bike sales seems like a token to silence the cries that "they
don't pay their way." It couldn't generate much money, could it?

No. Oregon is a financial wreck after years of bad PERS deals. It's like the old Soviet Union with $.50 of every budget dollar going to fund pensioners. We have so many budget holes that our budget is more of a hole than a budget. It's a giant black-hole that sucks tax dollars into nowhere, and now it wants to suck more. The only upside is that the City did fix a pot hole that was a problem on my way to work -- one out of about a zillion after the hard winter this year.

PERS is a problem all over the country.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/newsroom/calpers-news/2016/calpers-lower-discount-rate
And even 7.0% is unrealistic. Auditing firms are warning cities about
the extra money they will have to put into the system as the discount
rate falls. While 0.5% doesn't sound like a lot, it translates to a lot
more money that cities will have to pay.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-le-me-richmond-pensions/

In the next economic downturn we will see a lot more Detroits,
Stocktons, and Vallejos.

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:35:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Oregon bike tax?
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...tax_lawma.html
1% on bike sales seems like a token to silence the cries that "they
don't pay their way." It couldn't generate much money, could it?

You mean like user fees? That's not the modern way. In California,
if you want to pay for a transportation improvement, you tax those who
do NOT choose to use it. For example, when it was proposed to install
a light rail system connecting Silly Clone Valley (where the jobs are)
to Santa Cruz County (where the homes are), it was determined that
selling tickets for rides would be too expensive. Therefore, the
automobile drivers who fail to appreciate the benefits of the light
rail system should be charged for the honor of supporting it. At the
public meeting where this was discussed, there was a near riot as
commuters voiced their objections.

Apparently, Oregon and most states subscribe to this system, where
truck and automobile drivers pay for the roads because they fail to
appreciate the benefits of bicycle riding. It's sorta a fine for not
using bicycles. Seems like a common and perfectly acceptable, but
unfair, scheme. For example, I don't have any children (that I know
of) but I still pay for the schools with my property tax dollars.

I assume that the trend will continue. If a bicycle tax is enacted,
the money will be used to support sidewalks, do/don't walk signals at
intersections, and safety helmet promotions for pedestrians on the
theory that bicyclists fail to appreciate the benefits of walking.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 4/30/2017 1:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:35:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Oregon bike tax?
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...tax_lawma.html
1% on bike sales seems like a token to silence the cries that "they
don't pay their way." It couldn't generate much money, could it?

You mean like user fees? That's not the modern way. In California,
if you want to pay for a transportation improvement, you tax those who
do NOT choose to use it. For example, when it was proposed to install
a light rail system connecting Silly Clone Valley (where the jobs are)
to Santa Cruz County (where the homes are), it was determined that
selling tickets for rides would be too expensive. Therefore, the
automobile drivers who fail to appreciate the benefits of the light
rail system should be charged for the honor of supporting it. At the
public meeting where this was discussed, there was a near riot as
commuters voiced their objections.

Apparently, Oregon and most states subscribe to this system, where
truck and automobile drivers pay for the roads because they fail to
appreciate the benefits of bicycle riding. It's sorta a fine for not
using bicycles. Seems like a common and perfectly acceptable, but
unfair, scheme. For example, I don't have any children (that I know
of) but I still pay for the schools with my property tax dollars.

I assume that the trend will continue. If a bicycle tax is enacted,
the money will be used to support sidewalks, do/don't walk signals at
intersections, and safety helmet promotions for pedestrians on the
theory that bicyclists fail to appreciate the benefits of walking.


An old and revered tradition:

http://tinyurl.com/lqpjohr

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/30/2017 11:11 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:35:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Oregon bike tax?
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...tax_lawma.html
1% on bike sales seems like a token to silence the cries that "they
don't pay their way." It couldn't generate much money, could it?

You mean like user fees? That's not the modern way. In California,
if you want to pay for a transportation improvement, you tax those who
do NOT choose to use it. For example, when it was proposed to install
a light rail system connecting Silly Clone Valley (where the jobs are)
to Santa Cruz County (where the homes are), it was determined that
selling tickets for rides would be too expensive. Therefore, the
automobile drivers who fail to appreciate the benefits of the light
rail system should be charged for the honor of supporting it. At the
public meeting where this was discussed, there was a near riot as
commuters voiced their objections.

VTA has a fare-box recovery of 10%. So for every $2 ride, the county
generously kicks in the extra $18. Of course other transportation is
also subsidized, but not to that extent. The existing light rail system
was NOT designed to move people from where the housing is to where the
jobs are, it was designed to bring people to downtown San Jose, where
the jobs aren't. The part of the system to move people quickly from
where the housing it to where the jobs are was planned, but they forgot
to build it.

What is infuriating is that so much transit infrastructure was removed,
including the rails to Santa Cruz. Map of what we used to have:
https://thegreatermarin.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/railways-of-the-bay-area-1937-final.jpg

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:52:14 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 11:11 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:35:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Oregon bike tax?
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...tax_lawma.html
1% on bike sales seems like a token to silence the cries that "they
don't pay their way." It couldn't generate much money, could it?

You mean like user fees? That's not the modern way. In California,
if you want to pay for a transportation improvement, you tax those who
do NOT choose to use it. For example, when it was proposed to install
a light rail system connecting Silly Clone Valley (where the jobs are)
to Santa Cruz County (where the homes are), it was determined that
selling tickets for rides would be too expensive. Therefore, the
automobile drivers who fail to appreciate the benefits of the light
rail system should be charged for the honor of supporting it. At the
public meeting where this was discussed, there was a near riot as
commuters voiced their objections.

VTA has a fare-box recovery of 10%. So for every $2 ride, the county
generously kicks in the extra $18. Of course other transportation is
also subsidized, but not to that extent. The existing light rail system
was NOT designed to move people from where the housing is to where the
jobs are, it was designed to bring people to downtown San Jose, where
the jobs aren't. The part of the system to move people quickly from
where the housing it to where the jobs are was planned, but they forgot
to build it.

What is infuriating is that so much transit infrastructure was removed,
including the rails to Santa Cruz. Map of what we used to have:
https://thegreatermarin.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/railways-of-the-bay-area-1937-final.jpg

My comments were in reference to the Eccles and Eastern Railway
proposal:
http://www.santacruztrains.com/2010/07/eccles-eastern-railroad.html
from Santa Cruz to Los Gatos:
http://bayrailalliance.org/files/library/Santa_Cruz-Los_Gatos_Rail_Corridor_study.pdf
The initial study recognized that most everyone (except the residents
along the right of way) wanted the railroad, but nobody was willing to
pay for it. Various methods of financing were proposed. The best
they could do was to tax the commuters and truckers, which would have
both generated the needed revenue, but also made automobiles and
trucks less competitive.

The Oregon bicycle tax propose has this problem, and others. I
suspect there will be mandatory registration of all bicycles, so that
the State knows whom to tax and whom to fine for not paying the tax.
If they follow the California tradition, this will require a large
bureaucracy skilled at spending money, which will be primarily
financed by fees and fines far in excess of the original tax. Strange
rules and regulations will need to be enacted to criminalize as many
bicycle riders as needed to support the bureaucracy. Eventually, the
bureau will be politicized, shortly after red and blue lanes are
established for Republican and Democratic Party bicycle riders. We
already have green (party) bicycle paths.

Anyway, if it looks like the Orgon bicycle tax might pass, I suggest
that the State legislature instead studies the situation and report
back in a few decades.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 4/30/2017 5:49 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The Oregon bicycle tax propose has this problem, and others. I
suspect there will be mandatory registration of all bicycles, so that
the State knows whom to tax and whom to fine for not paying the tax.

ISTM the proposal was for a 1% sales tax on bicycles. (I assume that
means new bicycles.) It's not supposed to be a license fee or
registration fee.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:20:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 5:49 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The Oregon bicycle tax propose has this problem, and others. I
suspect there will be mandatory registration of all bicycles, so that
the State knows whom to tax and whom to fine for not paying the tax.

ISTM the proposal was for a 1% sales tax on bicycles. (I assume that
means new bicycles.) It's not supposed to be a license fee or
registration fee.

Sorry. After reading the article I left for lunch. When I returned,
it had magically become an annual tax or fee. I guessed it will morph
into an annual state license fee or something similar when nobody is
looking. Lunch does that to my thinking.

"Bicycle tax legislation introduced in California"
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2014/bicycle-tax-legislation-introduced-in-california/
Here's another version of the original proposal from July 2012. Notice
that it also taxes bicycle accessories:
http://www.catc.ca.gov/reports/2012NeedsAssess/reports_submitted/bike_tax.pdf
This 1% tax was predicted to generate $8.7 million annually in
California.

That was the original intent, but this is the result:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1183
Unless I'm reading this wrong, what was passed became a possible
surcharge to the motor vehicle registration fee that will benefit
bicycle infrastructure. Notice that it requires 2/3 voter approval.
It also expires in Jan 1, 2025. See what I mean about change when
nobody is looking?


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558