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.
Who says they don't? Their fair share is not determined by whether they pay an extra tax at the time of purchase.
When cyclists ride bikes, everyone benefits. Should everyone else pay a tax for not riding a bicycle? Why shouldn't they pay their fair share too?
Governments exist to serve the public. Not everything they do must be funded directly by each person who might benefit, rarely does that occur, in fact.
"If the state currently does not collect sales tax, and this is a sales taxes,"
It's not a sales tax. A sales tax is a percentage of the sale. This is an excise tax, which is a set amount per item sold.
.. 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.
Or maybe you're self centered prick?
Welcome to the real world....
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
It pisses me off that drivers think their gasoline taxes pay for the roads, when in fact gasoline taxes and other user fees pay less than half of the cost of the roads.
Then they build bike paths to get bicycles out of their way and expect bicyclists to pay for them.
Then they complain about bicycles rolling through stop signs while selectively ignoring drivers who don't come to a complete stop.
And by the way, did you know that drivers violate the right of way of pedestrians more often than the other way around? We need more crosswalk stings in order to get those drivers off the road.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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.
I didnt call you a self centered prick for not fellating bicycists, I assumed you were already doing that as a side gig. I called you one for demanding that the above poster should "Appeal to my self-interest, or fuck off" which strongly suggests a "you" centered world view.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
You can stay fit in other ways and your cheapness is risking your life (and others) on a daily basis. The world has moved to large, metal objects that crush bicycles. Good luck.
Last I checked roads are public, those bikes have a right to be there as much as you do.
So why do they have to act like they have more of a right to be there than I do? Why don't they get over into the middle of their special lane, like I am legally required to do? (I already know the answer, they might get a puncture! boo hoo! I don't get to swerve into a cyclist because I'm dodgin' a pinecone.) Why do I have to give them three feet of extra space, just in case they fall off their bike or swerve into my lane? Why is it that if I obstruct traffic in my car I'll get a ticket, but the law explicitly instructs them to obstruct traffic in some ways, and they tend to ignore all the ways in which they aren't — like say pulling over when there are five or more people stacked up behind you on a freeway, at the earliest safe opportunity. For a bicycle that is almost anywhere. Here in California we have a bunch of twisty little highways through the trees and I've been stacked up behind a cyclist repeatedly on such roads.
Cyclists want to cry about how cars take up all the space, then they want to take up more space than they need before they even dry their tears. Wake me up when they have some integrity, I'll start listening.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"