To Tax, Or Not To Tax?

To Tax, Or Not To Tax?
July 19th, 2009 by Andrew

http://bikehacks.com/to-tax-or-not-to-tax/

Back in March we had a post on Wayne Kriger and House Bill 3008 here
in Oregon. Now right across the river in Vancouver, WA a comment by
Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart has sparked debate on whether
or not cyclists should pay a fee or be taxed to cycle. The Columbian
reports:

“As a bicyclist, I would pay a licensing fee if I had better trail
access,” Commissioner Steve Stuart said in a work session on bicycle
and pedestrian routes in the county. “We license our dogs. You license
your car. Why wouldn’t you license your bikes?” Later Wednesday,
Stuart said he wasn’t sure whether a fee could be made mandatory, or
how high it’d be. ”For my dogs, I think it’s $16 a year,” Stuart
said. “I can’t imagine even suggesting something higher than that. And
I imagine something significantly lower.” Stuart said any fee revenue
would go toward threading bike lanes and paths through neighborhoods
that were built before the county started including bike lanes on all
major streets.

As the recession increasingly affects local governments, new sources
of revenue are going to be sought after. Is taxing cyclists or
imposing a fee to ride really the best option?

In article ,
Ablang writes:

As the recession increasingly affects local governments, new sources
of revenue are going to be sought after. Is taxing cyclists or
imposing a fee to ride really the best option?

Cycling has properly, historically been free to all
who would undertake it. It should stay that way.

Car drivers keep whining about "having" to pay extra
fees to operate their motorized vehicles on public
space, while cyclists never had to.

The option to cycle is as available to those crybaby
drivers, as it always has been to anybody else, and
everybody in general. They just choose the more
expensive way, and then those driving crybabies gripe,
whine, moan, wail and whinge about it.

The best option is to make drivers pay more for
on-street parking. Or encourage them to ride
wherever reasonably possible, instead of driving.


cheers,
Tom













--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Ablang asks;

As the recession increasingly affects local governments, new sources of
revenue are going to be sought after.

An excellent example on how The Fair Tax would directly (and
proportionately) benefit cyclist.

Buy a bike, pay the tax. Have your bike serviced, pay the tax. Wear
out your tires, pay the tax.

Since The Fair Tax is collected at the point of retail/service, it is
easy to "ear mark". A percentage of the generated revenue is then
re-apportioned into services and infrastructure for those whom choose
this form of consumerism.

And The Fair Tax legislation includes a monthly prebate to offset the
tax on necessities.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

=v= To tax, or not to tax? My answer is NO, simply because
bicyclists are already taxed more than our fair share.

Since The Fair Tax is collected at the point of retail/
service, it is easy to "ear mark". A percentage of the
generated revenue is then re-apportioned into services and
infrastructure for those whom choose this form of consumerism.

=v= Uh-huh. And how do we assure that this happens? It sure
doesn't happen now.

=v= The taxes and fees paid by motorists go to infrastructure
designed for cars, and this gives many motorists the idea that
they therefore have the right to drive as much and as fast as
they want, to even run us off the roads, etc. In fact their
chosen mode of transportation costs way more than they pay for,
and the difference comes out of general revenues (property taxes
that we all pay into, and all those sales taxes on new bikes,
new tires, bike service, and everything else).

=v= One consequence of this situation is that everyone who uses
an alternative to driving a car is in fact subsidizing everyone
who drives a car. Yet very few motorists know this. They think
they've paid for it all because of the "earmark" thing. We pay
MORE than our share but they think we're freeloading form them!

=v= Given this reality, how do you propose to make the "earmark"
thing actually be fair?
_Jym_

Jym Dyer writes;

Uh-huh. And how do we assure that this happens? It
sure doesn't happen now.

The tax code is the catalyst of poor appropriative policy and the root
of corruption in local, state and federal government.

=v= The taxes and fees paid by motorists go to
infrastructure designed for cars, and this gives many motorists the
idea that they therefore have the right to drive as
much and as fast as they want, to even run
us off the roads, etc.

In all likely hood, the aforementioned probably pay the least amount, if
any at all in taxes. Yet they're categorically the overwhelming burden
on an otherwise free society. I'm quite sure, The Fair Tax in itself,
would be an ineffective tool in changing antisocial behavior.


=v= One consequence of this situation is that everyone who
uses an alternative to driving a car is in fact
subsidizing everyone who drives a car. Yet very few motorists
know this. They think they've paid for it all because
of the "earmark" thing. We pay MORE than our share
but they think we're freeloading form them!

Political rhetoric perpetuates this myth to the point of reality for the
majority of non-cycling individuals. Example, every politician during
campaign season, never misses the opportunity to link taxes paid at the
gas pump to better roads for their car driving constituency. The
ignorant are most likely only as smart as those who have taught them.

=v= Given this reality, how do you propose to make
the "earmark" thing actually be fair?
********_Jym_

At a federal level "fairness" would be an unrealistic expectation, at
least on a 1:1 ratio. However, at the state level, I think it is a
reasonable expectation that a percentage of consumption tax/es could be
apportioned back to specific consumer groups. I think local pressure on
state reps and assembly persons would be the means that most
municipalities would leverage.

Most state Fair Tax ballot innative include language constitutionally
guaranteeing set levels of revenue sharing. In Michigan as an example,
the legislature and administration are not required (by law) to return
annually a fixed amount of revenue to local entities or school
districts. Every year, for the past eight, schools and local units of
government have had to come back to the citizens with new mileage
proposals to offset the loss of revenue sharing funds.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Michael Baldwin wrote:
Jym Dyer writes;

Uh-huh. And how do we assure that this happens? It
sure doesn't happen now.

The tax code is the catalyst of poor appropriative policy and the root
of corruption in local, state and federal government.

=v= The taxes and fees paid by motorists go to
infrastructure designed for cars, and this gives many motorists the
idea that they therefore have the right to drive as
much and as fast as they want, to even run
us off the roads, etc.

In all likely hood, the aforementioned probably pay the least amount,
if any at all in taxes. Yet they're categorically the overwhelming
burden on an otherwise free society. I'm quite sure, The Fair Tax in
itself, would be an ineffective tool in changing antisocial behavior.


=v= One consequence of this situation is that everyone who
uses an alternative to driving a car is in fact
subsidizing everyone who drives a car. Yet very few motorists
know this. They think they've paid for it all because
of the "earmark" thing. We pay MORE than our share
but they think we're freeloading form them!

Political rhetoric perpetuates this myth to the point of reality for
the majority of non-cycling individuals. Example, every politician
during campaign season, never misses the opportunity to link taxes
paid at the gas pump to better roads for their car driving
constituency. The ignorant are most likely only as smart as those
who have taught them.

=v= Given this reality, how do you propose to make
the "earmark" thing actually be fair?
_Jym_

At a federal level "fairness" would be an unrealistic expectation, at
least on a 1:1 ratio. However, at the state level, I think it is a
reasonable expectation that a percentage of consumption tax/es could
be apportioned back to specific consumer groups. I think local
pressure on state reps and assembly persons would be the means that
most municipalities would leverage.

Most state Fair Tax ballot innative include language constitutionally
guaranteeing set levels of revenue sharing. In Michigan as an
example, the legislature and administration are not required (by law)
to return annually a fixed amount of revenue to local entities or
school districts. Every year, for the past eight, schools and local
units of government have had to come back to the citizens with new
mileage proposals to offset the loss of revenue sharing funds.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

Didn't Obama promise to end all earmarks? Then again, he said he wouldn't
hire any lobbyists, would put all bills on the 'net for at least five days
before votes, and would go thru the budget "line by line" to cut waste!
ROTFL

Bill "can't make up this ****" S.

Ablang wrote:

As the recession increasingly affects local governments, new sources
of revenue are going to be sought after. Is taxing cyclists or
imposing a fee to ride really the best option?

No. Next question?

ax on Bikes? Boo!
July 20th, 2009 by Matt · 9 Comments

Some things just make absolutely no sense to me. Like when I see dudes
peeing at urinals looking down at their manhood. What? Did you forget
what it looks like? Have you not performed the same action thousands
of times in your life? What need is there to look down that way? Bowls
I can understand, there’s a degree of difficulty involved, but a
urinal? Oh wait, that’s a topic for a different blog . . . back to
bike stuff.

Oh sure, many will disagree with me on this other issue, but a
possible move in Vancouver, Washington to place a tax on bicycles just
seems plain stupid. Sure I am saying this because I ride my bike
everyday (and I happen to look like a long haired hippie at present),
but there are several other reasons. And unbelievably, I started to
write about this only later to find out that Andrew had beat me to it.
But I’m not going to let that stop my keyboard mojo.

My encounter with this story came from Portland, Oregon based KGW.com
that quotes Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart. I don’t think
Clark County is big enough or cool enough to have it’s own news
outlets so we have to rely upon Portland to cover this terrible idea.
All Portlanders know the following, but for the benefit of those not
in the know, comparing Vancouver’s Clark County to Portland’s
Multnomah County is like trying to compare a Huffy to a Surly. The
likely owner of a dust covered Huffy, Mr. Stuart asks:

“We license our dogs. You license your car. Why wouldn’t you license
your bikes?”

Oh let me count the ways you Huffy Politician!

ScreenShot208 copy

First of all, the negative impact cars have on both the environment
and roadways cannot be argued against by any person who claims to be
sane. You tax cars primarily because they tear up the roads. Only in
recent years has the whole issue of the environment taken center stage
but taxing people on how much they pollute sounds like a grand idea to
me. When monkeys start to fly out of my ass and thousands upon
thousands of people are commuting by bicycle causing mile long traffic
jams on our thoroughfares then and only then might there be noticeable
road wear and tear. Bicycles do not have the impact on roads that cars
do and other than body odor are zero emission vehicles. Thus a tax
break is in order for bikes, not tax creation.

Next, safety. Over 40,000 people are killed each year in motor vehicle
related accidents each year in the U.S. Thousands of others suffer
injuries that will cripple them in some capacity for the rest of their
lives. Quite simply, motor vehicles are weapons. Who reports to the
scenes of these accidents? Public servants pulling a paycheck from our
taxes. More bikes, less cops! =) Okay, so that’s a stretch, but less
time patrolling our roads and more time tending to other matters would
be a better use of our tax dollars. I’d rather have Johnny Law focus
more on shutting down crank labs and throwing child molesters behind
bars than pointing a speed gun at freeways.

As far as dogs, yes of course they need licensing. Dogs can get lost
and their silly, doting, goofy talking owners (”Oh you’re such a good
boy aren’t you? Yes you are!!!!) will go to great lengths to get their
public nuisance back. Sure you can lose your bike or have it stolen,
but bikes don’t defecate, require feeding, bark incessantly, and
likely will not chew up your clothing if you know how to ride one. I’m
sure dog theft statistics are less than bike theft statistics for just
these very reasons. If my bike gets stolen I don’t believe that
registering it is going to help me get it back.

Third, and related to the second point, is insurance. Sure it’s a bit
of a reach because public dollars (at least at present) do not play
much of a role in insurance costs, but imagine the benefits of putting
people on bikes. Pushing a gas pedal in a car ain’t much of a workout.
Put someone on a bike and they are going to get a workout. A tax break
on bicycles should be a priority to help drive insurance costs down.
As a result you are likely to have healthier people that work more,
thus earning more money, thus paying more taxes. Genius!

Fourth, I am assuming registering bikes would require a trip to the
DMV. Who out there, other than someone who works at the DMV or who has
a relative that does, likes DMV employees? Providing tax breaks for
bicycles might encourage fewer people to drive which would decrease
car ownership which would directly lead to a cut in the need for DMV
employees. Badda bing!

The fifth and fourth points can be tied to the graph below supplied by
the War Resisters League that relates to income tax expenditures
(please conveniently ignore the fact that this is a Federal tax graph
and not a state tax graph):

pieFY09

If it is not already abundantly clear, let me explain it to you. You
probably already made the Human Resource connection. By reducing the
need for DMV employees we can cut that part down. And if you were
gifted enough to realize that you would realize that we could take a
huge cut out of the budget with a smaller military. If we did not have
to fight oil wars we would not need such a big military. The auto
industry is dependent on oil and if we get people riding bikes we
won’t be as likely to invade countries for their petroleum.

I could go on, but admittedly the beer buzz I had when I first ran
into that story on KGW.com is wearing off and I have no more cold beer
in the fridge to keep the buzz going. Thus I leave it to you readers
to provide additional support in comments . . . only after cracking
open a cold beer of course.

http://bikehacks.com/tax-on-bikes-boo/

Bill Sornson wrote:

Didn't Obama promise to end all earmarks? Then again, he said he
wouldn't hire any lobbyists, would put all bills on the 'net for at
least five days before votes, and would go thru the budget "line by
line" to cut waste! ROTFL

This from the guy who tries to put politics into everything. You're
tiresome, Bill. Give it a rest.
It's old. We're bored of you.

Pat in TX