Slashdot Mirror
Oregon Passes First Statewide Bicycle Tax In Nation (washingtontimes.com)
turkeydance writes: In Oregon, a state known for its avid bicycling culture, the state legislature's approval of the first bike tax in the nation has fallen flat with riders. Democratic Gov. Kate Brown is expected to sign the sweeping $5.3 billion transportation package, which includes a $15 excise tax on the sale of bicycles costing more than $200 with a wheel diameter of at least 26 inches. Even though the funding has been earmarked for improvements that will benefit cyclists, the tax has managed to irk both anti-tax Republicans and environmentally conscious bikers. The bike tax is aimed at raising $1.2 million per year in order to improve and expand paths and trails for bicyclists and pedestrians. Supporters point out that Oregon has no sales tax, which means buyers won't be dinged twice for their new wheels.
Obviously an initiative being pushed by bike shops in neighboring states.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
At least here in Seattle we have too many bikes on the roads. We need to discourage them.
$15 per limb at time of purchase
It's a real thing.
Take that lefties. What goes around comes around.
Take that, lefties! Now let's tax everything organic too!
Will $1.2M even pay for the administrative overhead for the state to collect and disburse the money?
Seems to me the simple solution to a (stupid) new tax is to start selling bikes with 24" wheels.
Which has the added benefit of annoying the hell out of the Governor and Legislature....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Coming 3.. 2.. 1..
When I buy gasoline for my car, I pay a tax which is used for the construction and upkeep of roads. I also pay a fee when I register my vehicle each year which goes to the same purpose. Bicycles don't consume gasoline, nor does one pay a registration fee, yet it does cost money to build and maintain bike paths. Yes, bicycles are more environmentally friendly and their use should be encouraged, but there are costs to supporting cyclists other than air pollution. Why shouldn't bicyclers pay their fair share?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
ok, so I'll just buy a bike sans wheels?
$15 per limb at time of birth, $60. Spiders have 8 legs, so they pay $120.
You can buy a Keep Oregon Weird bumper sticker.
Several years ago when I needed a new car National City (home of the Mile of Cars), and I think El Cajon had an extra sales tax on cars. Guess what? I didn't even shop there, bought my car in Carlsbad.
This kinda shit only helps short sighted feel good types who can't be bothered to see how real world consumers will react.
Too bad they can't tax stupidity, they would be running a major surplus!
If it continues to move you tax it more! Once all activity stops, the tax rate is correct ;)
;)
A majority of all funds paid for transportation at all levels of government is just diverted to other stuff and has been for years. It is just the politicians and bureaucrats bonus slush fund. Last year they patched pot holes in front of my house and I got a special assessment
Seriously... wow. We've achieved another tax category from yet another "progressive" state which I'm guessing is desperate to find more avenues of revenue (TM.. hopefully). There are and have been federal and state initiatives to provide places where the citizens can freely find recreation and a place to get fit and healthy through exercise.. be it running.. cycling.. skateboarding, canoing or otherwise... that are coming from the same fund that brings us parks and recreation for our weekend/holiday cookouts.
Let us see this for what it has become.. another teet for the state legislature to suckle on as the other teet's are running dry.
Peace out.
and the money will end up going to everything but new bike paths. A good 1/3 of it will be eaten up in paychecks and benefits for what ever little office that will suddenly triple in size because of the new money. That and the money will end up only in pet projects near the homes of the most powerful rather than in "best bang for your buck" projects that will actually be useful to the public at large.
Anti-tax Republicans and Environmentally conscious bikers? Whose going to put on their fundraiser? Martha Stewart and Dan Barber
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
"If you try to walk, I'll tax your feet"
Most places in the US the gas tax, registration fees, etc cover only something like half the cost of road construction and maintenance. So someone who does not own a car already pays almost half as much for the road as an average driver, through unrelated taxes such as sales or income.
Studies show that road wear is roughly proportional to the fourth power of axle weight, which would mean ten thousand cyclists cause less road wear than one car and a hundred million cyclists cause less road wear than one semi. Cyclists contribute less to congestion and roadblock (the social cost of which is huge), pose much less risk to those around them than do cars, and emit none of the pollutants that damage local air quality. So a cyclist's fair share of road costs would be vastly lower than what they're actually paying.
Considering how much more money is spent on roads than on bike paths (at least 100x), bike path costs don't change that equation.
So the cyclists are already unfairly subsidizing the drivers, not the other way around. Perhaps instead of punishing a socially useful behavior while asking them to subsidize others' driving, Oregon should be raising gas taxes by about $2/gallon to pay for the roads - as experts from Greg Mankiw on the right to Steven Chu on the left have said the whole country should do - and instituting a $15 credit on bicycle purchases.
It's not the bike riding that lefties get wrong, it's that they ideologically want to give more and more power to the Government. That comes from regulations, part of which is taxes.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The tax is on bicycles that cost over $200.
No-one said a "bike" has to be something that comes with wheels. Or a handlebar. Or a seat...
By following the successful App model, you can offer many optional purchases to bring the cost of a good core "bike" well below the tax.
If the tax people get sticky, one store sells the core bike and a legally separate entity sells the accessories...
As an added bonus, every bike is now way more customizable and I think you'll find you can mark up accessories quite handily.
This is such a great idea, why is no-one doing this already?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
.. all we get for our 25% VAT on bicycles is a whole lot of immigrants ready to steal it. .. 100 car-fires so far this year in this small city (Örebro.)
Thanks traitor genocidal socialist-dictators.
Stores will just sell bikes without wheels and wheels separately. Every bicyclist should know how to remve and install wheels and quick releases make it so much easier. Even installing a freewheel is not hard ( removing a freewheel is a trial of strength though ). So why really what good does it do unless you buy your bike at kmart or someplace like that?
and not because we want to shave the whales. It's a regressive tax. Oregon needed more money and they couldn't get it from the rich in the form of income tax so they're getting it from the poor by taxing bikes. The $200 limit is obviously an attempt to blunt the worst effects on the poor (you can get a decent used commuter for under that) but it'll still hurt some.
The left want progressive taxation. This is regressive.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
you're wrong about the money just going to paychecks. It'll go to services, just not bike paths. Taxes like this are used to finance tax cuts for the rich. Lotteries too. All sorts of things. It's a "regressive" tax.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I suspect that there will soon be a lot of bike kits for sale where you purchase the frame and wheels separately. Quick release wheels are a doddle to attach so they could even offer free assembly.
How come those lazy good-for-nothing pedestrians get to walk around for free while cyclists and motorists have to pay? It costs money to maintain those sidewalks and they expect it for free and then expect traffic to stop for them and to have pedestrian crossings and right of way. It's not fair! Tax pedestrians too, especially school kids!
Bicycles don't consume gasoline, nor does one pay a registration fee, yet it does cost money to build and maintain bike paths.
It also costs money to maintain footpaths so should they start taxing pedestrians too? Not everything is paid for by taxing the people using it especially when all of society benefits from the activity. Cycling makes you healthier reducing health care costs, lowers the need for more expensive roads saving the government money and produces no carbon emissions and pollution. Normally you don't want to discourage an activity like that by taxing it.
if anyone comes up with a good idea, and it's adopted and successful -- the fastest way to kill it is to TAX IT.
@#$@#$ politicians who love to bloat themselves....
same in california -- create robots to replace employees --- fine... tax the robots as employees.... hey Governor -- we have nothing better to do than tax the @#$@# our of our own people....
its okay --- karma has a way of @#$@## those same people who come up with their tyrant ways...
why not just sign up all those politicians supporting the bike tax with a bicycle magazine subscription that never stops coming to their door step and they have to pay that bill... nah... send the subscription to their anti-bike tax neighbor's address in the politicians name.... that's a good way to reminder the politicians who is messing with whom..
ta da!! eazy peezy lemon squeezy...
Seattle tried to scare up new revenue with a similar tax on guns and ammo and it failed miserably. Doing neither it's stated goal of reducing violence nor generating the tens of millions of dollars they expected to generate. And that doesn't even take into account that cities like Portland have already dumped tens of millions dollars into public bicycle rentals that have been an abject failure in terms of lost and destroyed equipment.
Max Payne 2
This is a non-issue.
Will the poor be affected? Not really; the law only applies to new bicycles, and the poor buy used. There is a massive economy in secondhand bicycles; I am a dozen blocks from a secondhand bicycle shop, not because I happen to live in a particular neighborhood, but because it's hard not to be a dozen blocks from a secondhand bicycle shop in the Willamette Valley.
Is this an unfair amount? Well, the same law in the same package also applies a tax to new motor vehicles, and it's 0.5% of retail price. A $20k car comes with a tax of $100. Nobody seems to be complaining about that!
I suspect that bicyclists are irritated that this tax is brand-new, smells like a sales tax, doesn't exist anywhere else, and seems disproportionate. I'd like to remind them that the extensive and amazing bicycle paths that cities like Eugene and Portland have are not free for the cities to maintain.
Make sure to read the law; it starts at page 187 of https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/ProposedAmendment/12431
~ C.
simple solution add to the cost of gasoline! Joke aside, it would push more people into biking making state healthier!
Dear Oregon,
Tax the things you want less of. Give discounts or rebates on the things you want more of.
You're basically saying you want fewer bicycles.
Respectfully,
Common Sense
By definition (confirmed by observation), taxes disincentivize activity. In an age where cyclists are literally saving the planet, a tax on them, discouraging their use, is patently absurd.
Fuck those assholes.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Also by manufacturers of bicycles costing $199, and for tire companies specializing in 25.5" and smaller. http://3gpmp4wap.com/
Poverty is the norm, and poverty tend to breed hate, resentment, bigotry, austerity politics and regressivism. That's the Oregon I know. The only time this wasn't true was the late 1990s when the only people who didn't have jobs literally didn't want jobs. Otherwise it's an intensely conformist, WASPy, homophobic and racist place to be. Portland moreso than the desert, and the desert exactly as much as you think.
Furries make the internet go.
At least with the actual roads, they are paid out of taxation from everyone (theoretically), therefore should be available to use by al. But if this is a tax specifically on bikes, why the fuck are pedestrians allowed on at all?
As a tall person, I already pay far more for basic needs (clothes, doorways, etc). The 24 inch wheel limit is just one more way that the majority get an easy life while tall people are screwed.
(When I bring this up, somebody usually says "but tall people get better jobs". Yeah, averagism wins again. I work minimum wage.)
Therefore your claim is right out of the gate wrong.
The rest of your post is likewise arrogant and ignorant bullshit, culled from a selective memory and rehashed to support your bigotry.
no sales tax and they think people can not order bikes/kits from the internet ?
all this will do is hurt retail in the local area (state)
honestly I personally think the USA is a tax crazy "nation" anyway... I dont know a single thing that I would buy that is "made in the usa" as a foreigner this kind of thing is laughable and goes to show how tax crazy you guys are !
ironically I'm all for paying tax and even tax on activity i.e. tax's on boats and even a car toll on entering an area but I just think it should be as fair and thought through as possible...
Cars jump through red lights. Therefore drivers should be hounded.
Cars cut people off. Therefore drivers should be hounded.
Cars kill more pedestrians on the pavement, so drivers should be hounded.
Cars cause VASTLY more accidents. Therefore drivers should be hounded.
No, only cyclists should do that, because they're weird and not using cars and you do not see them as anything like you because they cycle and you don't. You may want "shitty drivers" punished or removed, but you do not want you to be hounded to get that to happen.
They pay as much for the roads as a driver but wear it out less.
This is an utterly stupid way of building general use infrastructure right up there with toll roads. I know people love the idea of why should I pay for someone else benefit, without realising that they directly benefit as others do.
A cyclist on a cycle path is a car not contributing to the traffic jam I'm stuck in. Same with toll roads. When 80000 cars drive through a toll road it means 80000 less cars in the way of the people who don't pay the toll.
There's a reason infrastructure is built from pooled taxes. The user pays system is a great way to achieve very little.
IANAL but considering that bicycles are muscle powered, it is highly doubtful that a US member state or the federal goverment could tax them. The US Consitution is based on an implicit recognition of rights and posessions of people as coming from a higher reason, rather than being alimonies given by the state, as in Europe. Therefore, as long as people power bicycles with their very legs gifted to them by mother nature (or G-d or if you wish) the state cannot interfere with that. And of course taxing those cyclists with prosthetic legs would bring a huge federal anti-discrimination lawsuit. Thus the state is dead in its track.
I think it is a dumb idea to punish folks for buying environmentally means of transportation that also improve personal health, but as long as it really is spent Dollar for Dollar on bike projects it is acceptable. We will see, if the money ends up in the general fund it is more likely to be spent on golf courses for rich people driving around in BMW cabrios.
I get that there is an infrastructure cost to biking, so it's understandable that if it's something people choose to do and it costs everyone money then taxing seems appropriate. However it's obviously something that promotes health, thus aiding in lowering the staggering cost of obesity, plus it promotes using less fossil fuels, so how about a little forward thinking? I don't buy the crap that tax collected will go towards biking benefits since every municipal politician knows the way taxes work is you collect a wad of cash every year then you sit down and decide how to spend it, based on numerous pressures that don't necessarily translate to bike paths.
No. Because it is compulsory, which violates my freedom. If that poor kid stole or robbed me of $1, you would've agreed, however reluctantly, that he should not have. But, for some bizarre reason, when the government does it — takes $10 at gunpoint to give the kid $1 — it is Ok and "the price of civilization".
It is my money. If you believe, you need it more than I do, you can ask — politely — for my help. But you can not just come and take it — such confiscations are only permissible to finance defence from foreign enemies and domestic criminals.
If there aren't enough people to pay for it voluntarily, then it does not need to be built at all. Simple, eh?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This really doesn't seem like that big of a deal. I'm a bike rider, I ride to work everyday and I would much rather ride on a designated bike path separated from the main road as it is much safer for me and drivers. If it costs 15$ when I buy a new bike to be able to do so I'd say that's a pretty fair trade. We're arguing 15$ here, if you buy a decent bike+equipment that's penny's on the dollar, and no I don't think this will hurt local sales much, keep in mind you'll probably spend >15$ shipping a bike if you order it online. I'm no fan of unnecessary taxes but this doesn't seem unreasonable.
I want all the benefits that tax money supports. I just don't want to pay money to get them.
Oregon's state spending is $37B:
* https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_state_budget_and_finances
That's $37,000M. This measure generates $1.2M that will be spent on cycling infrastructure.
Given that this is less than 0.001%, it seems that the overhead of implementing and running this will cost more than it brings in.
Excise taxes only pay a small portion of the costs of the automobile
From http://www.frontiergroup.org/r... infrastructure.
Roads don’t pay for themselves.
Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012.
Roads pay for themselves less and less over time. In the 1960s and early 1970s, gas taxes and other fees on drivers covered more than 70 percent of the costs of highway construction and maintenance. The share of transportation costs covered by gasoline taxes is likely to continue to decline as a result of inflation, more fuel-efficient cars, and slower growth in driving.
All of us bear the costs of roads.
Aside from gas taxes and individuals’ expenditures for their own driving, U.S. households bear on average an additional burden of more than $1,100 per year in taxes and other costs imposed by driving. Including:
An estimated $597 per U.S. household per year in general tax revenue dedicated to road construction and repair.
Between $199 and $675 per household per year in additional tax subsidies for driving, such as the sales tax exemption for gasoline purchases in many states and the federal income tax exclusion for commuter parking benefits.
An estimated $216 per year in government expenditures made necessary by vehicle crashes, not counting additional, uncompensated damages to victims and property.
Approximately $93 to $360 per household in costs related to air pollution-induced health damage.
Governments spend more non-user tax dollars on highways than on transit, bicycling, walking and passenger rail travel, combined.
Transit ($43.3 billion in government capital and operating funding), bicycling and pedestrian programs ($821 million in federal funding), and passenger rail ($1.8 billion in government funding) all receive less direct taxpayer support than highways.
People who walk and bicycle pay their fair share for use of the transportation system.
Most walking and bicycling takes place on local streets and roads that are primarily paid for through property taxes and other general local taxes.
Walking and bicycling inflict virtually no damage on roads and streets, and take up only a tiny fraction of the road space occupied by vehicles. Bicyclists and pedestrians likely pay far more in general taxes to facilitate the use of local roads and streets by drivers than they receive in benefits from state and federal infrastructure investment paid for through the gas tax.
Americans lead increasingly multi-modal lives. Most are not “drivers” or “non-drivers” but people who use a variety of modes and pay for transportation in a variety of ways.
Roughly two-thirds of American drivers also bicycle, walk or use public transit during the course of a given week, with young people more likely to be multimodal than older generations.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe it is appropriate to use gasoline tax revenue to support public transportation. And several recent opinion polls suggest that Americans believe that the nation should give greater priority to transit, bicycling and walking in transportation spending.
as long as the money is used to make cycling infrastructure better and safer.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
They donating billions of dollars of their money to their own (and each other's) charitable foundations.
If they believed in Government, they'd simply stop arranging their affairs--including their donations to charity and especially donations to charities they control--so as to avoid and minimizes taxes paid.
In giving to their foundations, they are bypassing potential estate taxes later. The Government could have used that money.
In giving to their foundations, they are offsetting current income taxes with deductions for their giving. The Government could have used that money. At one point Warren Buffett had $30B of carry-over charitable donations. He will be using that to offset his income taxes for the rest of his life.
In giving to their foundations, they are donating appreciated stock. That is, they are giving away stock that was given to, paid to, and/or bought by them long ago at pennies on the dollar relative to current stock prices. I've no idea about the actual values, but for sake of illustration, let's say thatg 20 years ago Bill Gates was granted options for 1M shared of Microsoft at $1/share, now valued at $100/share (didn't check, don't care it just for illustration purposes). In stock option payments, he would have paid income taxes on the difference between the option price ($1) and the market price at exercise, say $2. So in effect he was given $2M in stock, for which he paid $1M, so there's a tax liability on the $1M difference. So he paid that and holds the stock to today and it's worth $100M (in my illustration, ignoring possible splits, etc.). If he sold that stock to fund his foundation, he'd have to pay capital gains taxes on $98M in gains. But if he gives the appreciated shares to his foundation, he saves taxes three ways. First, he doesn't pay the CG taxes. Second, he claims a deduction for the full $100M of giving. Finally, that $100M is no longer in his estate, and he's therefore bypassed estate taxes.
If Mr Buffett and Mr Gates believed in the effectiveness of government over the effectiveness of private charities, they'd stop doing these things and let the government get their full tax cut. Instead, both of these men work feverishly in their avoidance of taxes (perfectly legal avoidance). Further they do so completely ignoring the irony of their simultaneous cries for higher taxes.
They say they're going to use the money for road improvements that will benefit bicyclists, but you can be damn sure it'll never happen. Special taxes like this always wind up in the state's general fund and the money-grubbing politicians will use it to fund whatever they want.
"Politicians always tell the truth, when they're calling each other liars."
"Jailhouse Bubba: Whatcha in for kid? "
"Kid: I built an illegal bicycle and didn't register it with the state or pay the taxes."
So, when taxes apply to a largely 'progressive' demographic, they're bad, but when they apply to everybody else who isn't them then it's good?
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Pedestrians should also have to pay a tax on shoes that they use to walk on sidewalks. The money should be used to pay for pedestrian improvements.
My newly patented 25.99" wheel will be an astounding success!
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:
--Ronald Reagan (1986)
Nothing evolves faster than the word of god in the minds of men who think themselves divinely inspired.
When will they start taxing my underwear?
create robots to replace employees --- fine... tax the robots as employees
While I get what you're saying, people have been losing jobs to automation for decades. Should we tax the assembly line because it takes fewer workers to create a widget? You want to force businesses to pay $15/hr min wage, and that causes them to take the path of least resistance, which is to use fewer employees by automating more, and now you want to tax that more, which effectively just puts businesses out of business because they can't compete.
It should be noted that the automotive lobby spent $4 million advocating for this tax in Oregon.
I'm glad this won't affect my affinity for BMX riding. Woo! Rollin' on 20s!
Somewhere in all this there's gotta be a "fairness" argument of some sort. If they're going to tax the bicyclists to help pay for the bicycle trails, logic would suggest that next they are going to have to tax the joggers on their running shoes to help pay for the local jogging trails just for sake of being fair. And then perhaps those on roller skates next, and then the skateboarders, and then the Segway users, and so on and so forth....
At first I thought it was going to be a yearly registration fee like a car or boat. This isn't that onerous, and if it improves and increase the number dedicated bike right of ways I think it is a great idea.
if people with cars need to pay special tax to buy and have them, then why not cyclists, it's not like they don't use the roads or have special roads built for them (in our country there are many bike roads).
As a long time Oregonian, I will happily pay the $15 on my new bike purchase, if the money is used for creating more bike lanes and improving the existing ones.
That makes it a good idea. Sorry Republicans, but taxes are the cost of civilization. And sorry bike folks, but if you want infrastructure for your chosen style of transportation, you gots to pay for it.
Use the new gas tax increase in Oregon to pay for roads and pathways for bicycles, since cars are the ones running over and killing cyclists.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Today I learned there is a plan to establish the Oregon trail via taxation. Rip to all the bikers who will inevitably fall to dysentery
Buses are not the problem. The problem is Trucks. "Warehouses on Wheels" is the trend that has been going on for several decades now. There are less actual warehouses for product distribution than there are just actually trucks constantly driving around. Companies have essentially shifted the costs of maintaining distribution centers and product as asset liability for the most part onto tax payers by the modern usage of trucks and just in time delivery. The solution of course is to tax the companies doing the destruction, essentially abusing the tax system for profit. Then again any tax on business is politically inevitably spun into "bad for jobs" which is a tough sell.
Constant unceasing trucking is what destroys roads constantly requiring more frequent maintenance and refurbishment.
Make a 25.9" wheel, the equivalent tire, and pay no tax for it.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
You mean a swamp in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, the Carolinas, or any other middle of nofuckwhere Red State? You hypocrites take more than you produce and then piss and moan when someone asks you for a dollar. Those red states are the shittiest states in the country on so many different metrics and you fuckwads want to make those policies national. Fuck that.
Earmarked for bike lane improvements? Don't you believe it. The money will be siphoned off into the general fund and few of the promised improvements will ever see the light of day. I'm surprised Oregon hasn't created an Oxygen tax. After all, cyclists use more oxygen then pedestrians.
Hawaii also has a registration fee / tax for bikes. No minimum value. I think it's $35...
Cities can be highly efficient, if people both live and work there.
No. I've spent enough time in gigantic Asian cities to know that people are not meant to be crammed in tiny boxes 24x7.
Have you ever been with 25 persons in an elevator designed for 15, for a total of about 30 minutes every day? Ever had to wait 3 or 4 trains before you could get a spot to ride 20 minutes while in physical contact with strangers on 75% of the surface of your body? Have you ever been in a situation where the only place you can be on your own is when you're in your 100 sq. ft. apartment? Ever been in a situation where you can't go anywhere that doesn't involve waiting because it's too crowded? Waiting to take a piss, waiting to buy street food that you'll have no chance to eat sitting down, waiting to even get inside a laundromat where you have to wait again to get a machine.
Do you know the one thing you'll hear most often in those cities? "There's way too many people in this city." You hear that everyday, many times a day. You end up saying it yourself.
It's not fun. It's not cool. It's not trendy. It's hell. Imagine being sent to an overcrowded county jail where they pack people in close proximity because the system is bursting at the seams and you can't escape, you're elbow to elbow with other inmates all the time. That's roughly how you feel in a crowded Asian city.
So until you've experienced it for yourself, don't talk about high-density cities needing to be even more dense.
lucm, indeed.
Hmm, I see that triangular wheels are exempt, that should shake up Oregonians...
Most "environmentally conscious bikers" ride bikes that are assembled from parts of at least 3 different bikes (or at least they should be) so I don't think they'll have to worry about a tax on new bike purchases.
They want all the benefits of using the existing infrastructure and demanding more without any responsibility for the initial costs or upkeep.
They get to ride on streets and sidewalks yet want to be viewed as a vehicle with the same rights as a car or truck.
Let them get a license to use it and pay for it just like everyone else.
http://www.newsminer.com/features/sundays/sketches_of_alaska/bicycles-a-common-mode-of-transportation-during-the-gold-rush/article_ef78f72c-d2fa-11e5-b24b-b326f37e76ca.html
...then they penalize you for not driving. Brilliant!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Read title: Hmm, that seems like a tax that's hostile toward cyclists! That must be terrible!
Read blurb: Oregon has no sales tax. Tax on bikes pretty low. Amount they're raising is low in the great scheme of things. This will actually help cyclists.
Well, nothing to see here. Reasonable alternative to sales tax for improving bike paths and saving cyclist lives by not requiring them to be on the road with 2-ton death machines. Sounds good to me.
Here we go again. Encouraging people to be environmentally responsible then punishing them when they do. As a matter of fact, more expensive bikes are usually technologically advance and as a consequence safer to ride. Better brakes, better suspension, better everything. Pretty soon they'll tax you just for staying home.
Drivers of motorized vehicles in my neck of the woods get dinged 3 times by taxes for driving..tax on gas, tax on property, and insurance (since it's mandatory to have, I count it as a tax).
It's about time cyclists start getting nailed, too.
I like paying taxes because I like the services my government provides me. I like civilization. What I don't like are regressive taxes that target the poor and working class so that the rich can have government services without actually paying for them. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that the folks who get the most benefit from civilization pay the most to maintain it.
/. these days...
Sheesh, the stuff that gets modded up on
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The bikers complaining about the $15 are probably the same ones that complained about the bike lanes.
I ride my bike to work often enough. Utah doesn't have this law but makes efforts to create bike lanes.
If I had to pay $15 a year to bike on streets or sidewalks to get to work, and I knew that that money was keeping my bike lanes safe and going to improving bike paths, I would gladly pay that tax.
This is one example of where capitalism needs government help. We would never get bike lanes based on capitalism. The government must step in to manage bicycle lanes and paths.
I live in OR. I ride to work EVERY day, rain or shine. I paid a little over $600 for my bike to the store and that's it, no license, no registration or insurance, etc. $15? 2.5% tax that will go towards supporting biking infrastructure? Yeah, I don't have a problem with that.
Sure - tax the users for improvements. I get that. And, it makes sense.
/yr; and it would make path usage available fairly for all.
However, how is it that only bicyclists of a certain category are taxed?
Pedestrians and other bicyclists get a free ride?!
Is this not Representation w/o taxation?!
Would it not be better to tax the whole lot at a much lower rate? The same trails/paths get the same support!
Taxing 1.2 million at $1/ea/yr (or even 12 million @ $.50/ea/yr) is far more serving than taxing 120,000 $10 or $15
Am I missing something here?
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.