How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> Even if you never drove a car on state highways,you still would have to pay
> your yearly user fees(lic.plate renewal) for use of local public roads.

It's not a "use tax".

It's a "registration fee."

And in WA, at $30/year, it's barely enough to cover the costs of
administering it and issuing plates.

I pay sales and property taxes, and one of the benefits I get from that
is that I pay for roads useable for, and legal for, my bicycle use.

Tough **** for you, Jim. Are you gonna cry?

E.P.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any "use" tax would be paid yearly,as a plate fee.
>>>> Prop taxes are not "use fees" WRT bicycle use on public roads.
>>>
>>> There are no yearly "use" taxes for any private vehicle in IL.
>>> (commerical vehicles may be different) But I don't pay a yearly
>>> "use" tax on any of mine.
>
>>
>> You pay every year to RENEW your plates. That's the yearly usage fee.
>> It's not really renewing your *registration*,that stays
>> constant,until they issue you a new plate number.
>
> It's not called a usage fee. And that's what your arguement is, one
> about labels.
>
>
>

Wrong again.
Too bad you will not admit you're wrong.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>>>
>>>> But the "use" tax (sales tax) on bicycles goes into the
>>>> general fund. This fund is not used to pay for roads.
>>>
>>> Even if true, irelevant to the semantic arguement. There is no use
>>> tax for any vehicles in IL besides what is paid when they are
>>> purchased.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes,it's your *yearly* lic.plate fee.
>
> It's not a use tax.
>
>
>

Yes,it is,you just won't admit you're wrong.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >, Jim Smith wrote:

>> You should see the bike path on the chicago lake front where it is actually
>> part of the breakwater/concrete shoreline in early spring. Now that's
>> crumbling. The lake really pounds it in the winter.
>
> Heh. You are talking about right he
> http://tinyurl.com/dt9kh
> aren't you?

Yeah, that looks like the stretch that gets tore up pretty bad.

From the beach at the bottom of the picture to the curve just before the
beach in the middle of the pic.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

>>> Yes,it's your *yearly* lic.plate fee.
>>
>> It's not a use tax.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yes,it is,you just won't admit you're wrong.

Only in your mind. I'll just make the cook county TB tax the bicycle
usage tax in mind. Just as valid.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Any "use" tax would be paid yearly,as a plate fee.
>>>>> Prop taxes are not "use fees" WRT bicycle use on public roads.
>>>>
>>>> There are no yearly "use" taxes for any private vehicle in IL.
>>>> (commerical vehicles may be different) But I don't pay a yearly
>>>> "use" tax on any of mine.
>>
>>>
>>> You pay every year to RENEW your plates. That's the yearly usage fee.
>>> It's not really renewing your *registration*,that stays
>>> constant,until they issue you a new plate number.
>>
>> It's not called a usage fee. And that's what your arguement is, one
>> about labels.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Wrong again.
> Too bad you will not admit you're wrong.

You're making a semantic argument about labels. There is no yearly usage
tax for automobiles in IL. You might interpet something else to be a
usage tax, but that doesn't make it one under the tight semantic rules.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>> wrote:
>>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> In article >, Jim
>>>>> Yanik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Any "use" tax would be paid yearly,as a plate fee.
>>>>>> Prop taxes are not "use fees" WRT bicycle use on public roads.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no yearly "use" taxes for any private vehicle in IL.
>>>>> (commerical vehicles may be different) But I don't pay a yearly
>>>>> "use" tax on any of mine.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You pay every year to RENEW your plates. That's the yearly usage
>>>> fee. It's not really renewing your *registration*,that stays
>>>> constant,until they issue you a new plate number.
>>>
>>> It's not called a usage fee. And that's what your arguement is, one
>>> about labels.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wrong again.
>> Too bad you will not admit you're wrong.
>
> You're making a semantic argument about labels.

No,you are.
You are the one who refuses to recognize that a *yearly* fee for license
plate "renewal" is a usage tax,solely because they don't come out and say
it specifically that way.
It IS a "license" for that vehicle to USE the public roads,renewed(paid;a
tax or fee) yearly.A usage tax.

Either you are dishonest or incapable of understanding simple things.

> There is no yearly
> usage tax for automobiles in IL. You might interpet something else to
> be a usage tax, but that doesn't make it one under the tight semantic
> rules.
>

There's YOUR semantics game again.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> You are the one who refuses to recognize that a *yearly* fee for license
> plate "renewal" is a usage tax,solely because they don't come out and say
> it specifically that way.

So, I'm not allowed to drive from my state to another, because I
haven't paid my "use tax" for their roads? Your logic still isn't any
good.

> It IS a "license" for that vehicle to USE the public roads,renewed(paid;a
> tax or fee) yearly.A usage tax.

No, no matter how many times you claim this to be true, it isn't. Even
if my car sat unused, I must, by law, register it. And it costs money
to administer the system that tracks these things.

> Either you are dishonest or incapable of understanding simple things.

I'm guessing in your case it's both.

E.P.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

>>> Wrong again.
>>> Too bad you will not admit you're wrong.
>>
>> You're making a semantic argument about labels.
>
> No,you are.

You're the one renaming taxes.
Bicyclists pay taxes that go to roads. You're just ****ed off because
they aren't called 'bicycle user fees'. To bolster your arguement you
rename a tax motorists pay to a 'user fee'.

> Either you are dishonest or incapable of understanding simple things.

Just playing your game.

>> There is no yearly
>> usage tax for automobiles in IL. You might interpet something else to
>> be a usage tax, but that doesn't make it one under the tight semantic
>> rules.

> There's YOUR semantics game again.

Guess only you are allowed to play your game.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>
>>>> Wrong again.
>>>> Too bad you will not admit you're wrong.
>>>
>>> You're making a semantic argument about labels.
>>
>> No,you are.
>
> You're the one renaming taxes.
> Bicyclists pay taxes that go to roads. You're just ****ed off because
> they aren't called 'bicycle user fees'. To bolster your arguement you
> rename a tax motorists pay to a 'user fee'.
>
>> Either you are dishonest or incapable of understanding simple things.
>
> Just playing your game.
>
>>> There is no yearly
>>> usage tax for automobiles in IL. You might interpet something else
>>> to be a usage tax, but that doesn't make it one under the tight
>>> semantic rules.
>
>> There's YOUR semantics game again.
>
> Guess only you are allowed to play your game.
>
>

I guess this proves *you* can't admit when you're wrong.

Auto license plate yearly fees ARE a USER tax or fee.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net