daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
No, I really like talking about taxing bicycle equipment actually and am glad policy makers keep bringing it up like it's a valid consideration.
_________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
Oldmesenger82
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:06 pm
Joined: 30 Jun 2006Posts: 204Location: Fremont
What's really bullshit about this tax talk is that most bikers have cars so they pay all the taxes. Keep in mind that car and gas taxes cover less than half of the road budget, the rest comes from the general fund.
I just love it when people who don't ride talk about bike issues.
Eric_s
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:19 pm
Joined: 07 Mar 2007Posts: 1691Location: the dirty south
but by talking about a tax on bike equipment, blumenauer is defusing the typical stupid whine about how bikes don't pay the way. Keeping the discussion of reducing vehicle subsidies separate from the discussion of how to pay for bike infrastructure is a good strategy, and while I think taxing bike equipment specifically is a dumb idea, it's worth talking about, especially considering how pro-bike blumenauer is.
So, I'm all for bigger bike facilities paid for with a small tax on new bike stuff, mainly because that will increase the number of people with an interest in reducing the bike tax and in reducing vehicle subsidies. Hopefully, this will result in grown-up solutions to transporting goods and people, like bikes and trains.
I don't support a bike tax, but I do support a mature discussion of how to mooove from the majority of fucking fat 'mericans using a two-ton steel cage to haul their ass to wally world to buy junk food to something else.
lantius
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:29 pm
1337Joined: 22 Jul 2005Posts: 6705Location: right over
it seems like talking about the tax like it's a reasonable idea is supporting the typical stupid whine, not defusing it. when people say "people riding bikes don't pay their own way" one should say "yes they do, asshole", not "well then how about we tax them".
Eric_s
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:41 pm
Joined: 07 Mar 2007Posts: 1691Location: the dirty south
lantius wrote:
it seems like talking about the tax like it's a reasonable idea is supporting the typical stupid whine, not defusing it. when people say "people riding bikes don't pay their own way" one should say "yes they do, asshole", not "well then how about we tax them".
I agree, but this approach seems to get us nowhere.
Also, if this adds significant federal money to bike facilities which would not be there before then how is it bad? Since most of the cyclists pay local taxes for local roads already, additional federal dollars have to come from somewhere. Vehicles already pay a federal gas tax which provides some money for highways: why not a little bike tax which pays money for wide shoulders on rural roads or something like that.
I'm all for a little extra for more stuff, as long as I get more stuff, and not fucking stupif mixed-use trails clogged with peds, or a line of paint on the side of a 6-lane highway.
tehschkott
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:11 pm
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
We all pay for the roads with our tax money. Even those of us without cars. You personally don't care if they tax new bike stuff because you only buy shitty used bike gear off CL.
And really, how long before bicycle tax money gets appropriated to other uses, or maybe even worse (because it's subtle), we start to see less funding in other quarters because they'll start counting on revenue from bicycle tax.
No, the whole idea stinks actually. I think the key is to continue to push for alternative vehicular routing with existing resources and methods - maaaybe with a "check the box here if you chose to donate $20 to bicycle advocacy" thing on the tax form. They do it for election purposes. Why not bike stuff?
_________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
lantius
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:14 pm
1337Joined: 22 Jul 2005Posts: 6705Location: right over
honestly i kind of think that this 'ala carte' civic model is doomed to failure. i don't ride a bike, i don't have kids, and my house isn't on fire, so i don't want to pay for bike lanes, schools, or fire departments.
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
lantius wrote:
honestly i kind of think that this 'ala carte' civic model is doomed to failure. i don't ride a bike, i don't have kids, and my house isn't on fire, so i don't want to pay for bike lanes, schools, or fire departments.
Given that tack, I think you're right.
_________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
corpusjuris
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:00 pm
Don't you ever lie to meJoined: 12 May 2008Posts: 1059Location: Boat on a hill
Just for clarification's sake, and perhaps adding to Lee's "Yes they do, asshole" line of argumentation: I pay sales tax on anything (not bought off CL), used or new. While I understand it's a complex issue and sales tax receipts go to a huge range of state services, one of those services is (as noted earlier) road construction from the general fund. So bikes and bike accessories already pay a tax that supports roads. It's just not a "specialty" tax.
_________________ "Are those guys hitting each other? Should someone be doing something about this?" "No, they're just playing this game that they play, and they'll wear themselves out in a minute or two."
btm
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:18 pm
Joined: 02 Jul 2008Posts: 493Location: Rural Maine
Eric_s wrote:
I tried charm, but the approach got me nowhere so now I just use roofies.
Joined: 07 Mar 2007Posts: 1691Location: the dirty south
btm wrote:
Eric_s wrote:
I tried charm, but the approach got me nowhere so now I just use roofies.
Yeah... granted.
Before you all pile on, I'm really trying to figure out how a bike tax makes sense. Hilariously, it makes more sense in oregon because there's no extra tax on bikes or anything else you buy retail: there's income, property, and gas tax, but no sales tax. they are seriously discussing it, and I don't hear people pitching much of a fit mostly because everyone who is involved in the discussion is suffering from stockholm syndrome about bike facilities and "platinum status". It's worth considering a bike tax, if only so you can make cogent arguments other than "NUH-UH I ALREADY PAID LOL". People are stupid and won't believe you unless you can demonstrate that you've at least heard their side, even if they're wrong. I mean, there's still people who believe that god created the universe in seven days, so you can't win everything with logic.
Confidential to Scott: I don't pay sales tax when I buy bike stuff, used or new.
tehschkott
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:53 pm
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
Drat. My trolling skillz are floundering.
_________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
Oldmesenger82
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:17 pm
Joined: 30 Jun 2006Posts: 204Location: Fremont
What about a tax on shoes for all those stupid walkers out there? Or better yet what about an urban walking test for peds?
fatasian
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:31 pm
dick wang's fatherJoined: 26 Aug 2008Posts: 1707Location: devenshire
Oldmesenger82 wrote:
What about a tax on shoes for all those stupid walkers out there? Or better yet what about an urban walking test for peds?
All times are GMT - 8 Hours
The time now is Sat Aug 12, 2023 10:28 am
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
daywalker
Joined: 09 Nov 2007
Posts: 6108
Location: Hatertown
Joined: 02 Jul 2008
Posts: 493
Location: Rural Maine
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 1691
Location: the dirty south
1337
Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 6705
Location: right over
Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 1879
Location: Westlake
Don't you ever lie to me
Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 1059
Location: Boat on a hill
dick wang's father
Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 1707
Location: devenshire
