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
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?
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"
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?
$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.
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
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.
Actually, shopping where there is no stupid sales tax is the opposite of taxing stupidity. You want to tax intelligence, which is much harder to tax as the smart folks are, well, smart.
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"
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.
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.
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.
Interesting how lefties are currently entirely absent from the federal government and yet the government is mysteriously not massively shrinking.
It's almost like you can't trust a party's slogan from the '80s anymore.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
You may want "shitty drivers" punished or removed, but you do not want you to be hounded to get that to happen.
That moment when the anonymous coward goes full retard. Let me know when you see a 1100% increase in cars doing that like cyclists, and we'll talk okie? Because traffic enforcement isn't keeping pace with cyclists. But we should just ignore it, especially in the era of no-fault insurance.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
Gasoline cars pay a 1 - 2 cents per mile to use the roads, how much does a cyclist pay?
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
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."
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
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.
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.
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
Remember the Cotton Tax of the 1860's
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
My house doesn't have an engine. And there were taxes and common law before the invention of the steam engine. You absolutely had taxes in old England's common law on something like an axe head, even though an axe is very much human powered. And there were similar taxes in the colonies and the early history of the United States.
Taxing for walking on private property would start to fall into your category, and I like to think courts would block such a frivolous tax. A bicycle is purchased and commerce can be regulated by local governments. This should not be of much surprise to you. Now the people have every right to be upset and demand that it be overturned, but such an arrangement is not illegal.
The Constitution is explicit about allowing taxation of just about anything as long as the federal government doesn't try to use different tax rates for different states. "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
The federal government, if it chose to, could apply a nation wide sales tax. It's not illegal. The federal government could even choose to apply the tax only to certain categories of goods. As a silly example, they could even choose to apply the tax only at certain times. Like a 10% liquor tax for drinks served on a Wednesday. Or a 1% sales tax every day of the year except July 4th.
PS - IANAL either
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
Why? Cars do it more often than cyclists. By 1100% easily.
First, citation? Second, are we talking per capita or absolute numbers?
Proclamation by assertion means fuck all, moron.
And here I'm going to point you to the second line in your comment, where you do exactly that.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
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.
First, citation? Second, are we talking per capita or absolute numbers?
It was absolute increase, this is Toronto we're talking about after all. 680News was going on about it and so was 1010am the last 2-3 days, while I was driving back and forth through the London-Oshawa corridor, though I can't see it on either of their websites. So I'm guessing either no one has written a story on it, or they can't be bothered. Though, I'm still waiting to hear back from TPS to see if that's true because I thought it was a high incidence number over the last 3 years.
Om, nomnomnom...
Hmm, I see that triangular wheels are exempt, that should shake up Oregonians...
...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.
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 wonder how much an actual fair money transfer for bike usage would be. Between not polluting the air with harmful particles, lowering road wear and healthcare costs, and sacrificing convenience voluntarily, chances are that cyclists actually ought to be *paid* to ride.
Ezekiel 23:20
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.