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.

Comments

Hmmm.

[msauve]

Obviously an initiative being pushed by bike shops in neighboring states.

Re:Hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

I want all the benefits that tax money supports. I just don't want to pay money to get them.

Re:Hmmm.

[AK Marc]

To avoid the $15 tax, I'm going to sell 24" bicycles with a $20 conversion kit to convert them to 26".

Based on the responses here, people would queue up to spend $5 to make sure the government didn't get any income.

A pedestrian tax will be next

[billrp]

$15 per limb at time of purchase

It makes sense.

[BitterOak]

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?

Re:It makes sense.

[BarbaraHudson]

There are cost SAVINGS to supporting cycling. Not just in the externalities of pollution that car users avoid paying, but also less competition for parking spaces, fewer vehicles double-parked (think bike courriers as compared to car courriers), the indirect cost of cars vis. obesity and general health, etc.

Re:It makes sense.

[v1]

Bikes hardly have any impact on paved roads and bike paths are already paid for by taxation.

I don't normally favor new taxes but in this case I can really see their point. I live in a city that borders on another wealthier city. They went all-in on bicycle paths and we did not. It sucks not having them here. Technically it's illegal to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk here anyway. The police don't care at all unless there's a bike/pedestrian collision, which makes the bicyclist automatically 100% at-fault "because it wasn't lawful for them to be there in the first place". I'm actually okay with that too. (I've actually been ran into by a bicyclist while trying to mow my lawn!) But it technically forces cyclists onto roads which can be quite hazardous. Also lack of even sidewalks beside many roadways again complicates matters.

So as long as the tax is going completely to bicycle-related public service, I'm totally onboard. It probably won't even really make much of a difference - pavement is expensive. I know my front sidewalk costs $200 per square to replace when it gets cracked and the city tells me to fix it. I can't imagine the cost of even one block of bike path, which is usually twice as wide as a sidewalk.

A few years back we had flooding, and a stretch of a 50-mile long bicycle trail that goes between cities here got washed out. It took them three years to get funding to repair it. It was just crushed gravel laid down on abandoned railroad bed, ideal for a long bike path. But the washout carved out the land in the area, so they had to have dozers and graders in there to repair the bed before they could lay down a new surface. That stuff costs money. And as far as taxes are concerned, just like the gasoline tax they try to tax the people that are getting the biggest benefit from the service, it's the fairest way to get the funding.

Re:It makes sense.

[Antibozo]

What you are overlooking is that the vast majority of cyclists own cars also. This means they're paying those registration fees right along with you. As for the gas taxes, the amount of gas tax not paid because of cycling is very small, because most cycling trips are short. For trips that require significant gas, most cyclists get in those cars they own.

Meanwhile, when they're not in their cars, cyclists are using up far less space on the road, and causing no damage to the road surface.

Re:It makes sense.

[Ichijo]

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.

Re:Ha!

[Huge_UID]

Only lefties ride bikes? The rider I talk to most is a hard core right-winger leaving California as soon as he retires so he can shoot his guns without the damn government meddling in his business.

The tax man come-ith

[Charcharodon]

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.

Re:If it moves you tax it!

[Charcharodon]

The full saying goes: If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

but if everybody drove busses wouldn't the traffic be worse?

Hi, actual Oregonian here, everybody calm down

[MostAwesomeDude]

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

they should have included it in the gas prices

[kiviQr]

simple solution add to the cost of gasoline! Joke aside, it would push more people into biking making state healthier!

Re: Good

[mhotchin]

Road damage goes by the 4th power of the axle weight. Increase the axle weight by 5.6 times, you get 1000 times as much damage.

A quick Google shows that 30,000 lbs seems a reasonable weight for a bus, on two axles *at best* you are at 15,000 per axle. For the bus to be less than 1000 times as damaging as the average car, the average car would have to have an axle weight of almost 2700 lbs. No way that's average.

So, yeah, a bus really *does* cause damage equivalent to thousands of cars.

http://www.pavementinteractive...

Re:Lefties hate this tax too

[Tailhook]

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.

Re:Compulsory charity

[dunkelfalke]

Your definition of what is allowed to be compulsory charity is just as arbitrary as any other and not inherently true, like you think it is. Actually, unless you are a hypocrite you must follow your randroid beliefs to their only logical conclusion - defence from crime and enemies has to be funded voluntarily or not at all - after all, why should your neighbour be responsible for your problems - and if you cannot defend yourself you only get what you deserve. If I'd want to be especially cruel, I'd say, "just like your country right now" because by randroid logic you so much like you are worthless and don't deserve any help if you cannot pay for it out of your own pocket.

Re:Compulsory charity

[LynnwoodRooster]

That is a GREAT Madison quote! I like this one, too!

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

But what did Madison know about the Constitution, he only wrote the thing...

Re:Compulsory charity

[mr.mctibbs]

Dude, the general welfare clause is literally right next to the common defense clause. If the government can steal my money to blow up brown people in countries literally half a world away it can sure as shit spend some of it on making my community a better place.

Re:Compulsory charity

[greythax]

Jesus, how do these things get modded up? Theft is when someone take from you and gives you nothing in return. Taxation is what you pay to live in a certain society, and is paid back to you in the form of things that enhance your life directly, or things that enhance your economy so that you have MUH MONIES in the first place (see free roads.) If you have such a problem with taxes, you can elect representatives to repeal them, or take the ultimate libertarian option and move to the arctic circle.

I'm so sick of this childish fantasy that someone could squat in a shack in the middle of the woods somewhere with no utilities or roads and run a fortune 500 company if only the government would stop taking MUH MONIES!

Wake up, you were born into a first world nation that was willing to provide you with education and basic social services, and you are still choosing to live in and benefit from those services. If taxation is theft, then you are living off of theft. Period. Do the moral thing and move somewhere else more in line with your ideals. Like Rawanda or Hati, or some other hell hole where the government is toothless and you can be "free" to do whatever you want.

Modern libertarianism is just rampant greed disguised as a philosophy of government.