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
Take that lefties. What goes around comes around.
Will $1.2M even pay for the administrative overhead for the state to collect and disburse the money?
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?
Sell them with no wheels. Wheels sold separately.
rewriting history since 2109
Compared to the same number of people in a car, they're WONDERFUL for the environment.
No they're not. A single bus causes more wear and tear on the road than thousands of cars combined.
The problem is not cars, the problem is gas emissions. Once that problem is solved properly, the world of mass transit will be disrupted as things like urban sprawl will become a solution rather than a concern.
lucm, indeed.
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.
The full saying goes: If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving, subsidize it.
simple solution add to the cost of gasoline! Joke aside, it would push more people into biking making state healthier!
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
But I thought you liked paying taxes. Ordinarily when a tax matter appears on slashdot any number of liberals chime in to lecture everyone on how we should all appreciate our opportunity to contribute to the system and be thankful for having the means to do so. Then they list their favorite government goodies (forever avoiding the 'common defense' part) and share how great they feel when they see their pay stub and all the fine institutions their funding.
What could be more wonderful than funding bike paths? The same logic that rationalizes ever higher gas taxes to fund roads seems applicable here as well. Now you have a brand new opportunity to contribute. Enjoy.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
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.
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.