A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Oregon bike tax?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 30th 17, 02:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 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
Ads
  #2  
Old April 30th 17, 04:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Oregon bike tax?

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.
  #3  
Old April 30th 17, 07:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default Oregon bike tax?

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
  #4  
Old April 30th 17, 07:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Oregon bike tax?

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


  #5  
Old April 30th 17, 07:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Oregon bike tax?

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
  #6  
Old April 30th 17, 10:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default Oregon bike tax?

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
  #7  
Old May 1st 17, 12:19 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andrew Chaplin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 206
Default Oregon bike tax?

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

It's sorta a fine for not using bicycles. Seems like a common and
perfectly acceptable, but unfair, scheme.


I'm okay with that.

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 am in the same situation. I am happy to pay school taxes because someone
will have to look after me in a home eventually.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
  #8  
Old May 1st 17, 02:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Oregon bike tax?

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
  #9  
Old May 1st 17, 02:52 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default Oregon bike tax?

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:11:24 -0700, 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.


Somewhere I have seen the number "$1,000,000 per mile" used in
reference to constructing bicycle paths and while that does sound like
a lot it might be, where real estate might have to be purchased to
increase right of way for the path, be applicable.

Given that the auto - truck crowd sees no sense in bicycle paths the
historical method of building special purpose highways might be used.
The Toll Road, a roadway built by a group and paid for by the users
thereof.

If, for instance, a one mile toll road were constructed at the
specified $1,000,000 and a 10 year bond issue was used to finance it
we would be looking at a 1,000,000 + say 3% dividend annually =
1,300,000. If, again for example, some 1,000 bicyclists used the path
5 days a week that would be only $3.96 a rider, which for a bloke
riding a $3,000 bicycle seems a mere pittance.

However, given the scofflaw attitude exhibited by most cyclists it is
likely that some sort of legal means would be required to encourage
the bicyclists to use the new "Toll Road built especially For Him".
Perhaps a ruling that failure to use said road, where it is available,
is punished by a $5.00 fine.


Perhaps the perfect solution whereby (a) the bicyclists has his own
road, and (b) he that HE has paid his dues.
  #10  
Old May 1st 17, 03:25 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default Oregon bike tax?

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?


Realizing that fuel prices vary, a quick look seems to show that
Oregon state gasoline tax is in the 13% range.
 




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
Oregon treasure hunt for bikes by Oregon braziers Andre Jute[_2_] Techniques 2 June 5th 15 03:12 PM
This bike - Oregon 2008 bornfree UK 9 June 10th 08 08:52 PM
The Pleasure of Bike Riding in Portland, Oregon Paul Berg General 36 September 24th 07 05:24 AM
Bike Rentals in Portland, Oregon? Robert Anderson Recumbent Biking 1 February 15th 06 06:03 AM
Hermiston, Oregon to Hood River, Oregon? Ted Rides 7 December 4th 05 08:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:45 AM.


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