If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#381
|
|||
|
|||
"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message ... true. > > Ahhh. So my good friend Louise Taylor, now age 67 and riding a > Conalgo, who had #1 bib on last year's RAMROD (20th or so straight > years doing RAMROD) and who still holds several Triathlon Masters > records around the NW, is a poser? I'm sure she will be glad to know that! No, doing stuff like lame Ramrods and triathlons make her a geek. I don't like geeks. She should start doing Cat 4 crits and road races. |
Ads |
#382
|
|||
|
|||
|
#383
|
|||
|
|||
|
#384
|
|||
|
|||
"C. E. White" > wrote in
: > > > max wrote: >> >> In article >, >> Jim Yanik .> wrote: >> >> > Except that auto users pay user fees,and bicyclists do not pay any >> > user fees for their bicycles.The fact that they pay for their autos >> > does not exclude them from paying for a MOTORcycle,but they expect >> > it for their bicycles. >> >> put up or shut up: how much for a bike? >> >> Defend your position: what is the fact-based analysis by which you >> derived the above number? >> >> .max > > I estimate that the average single car owner pays somewhere > around $370 in user fess each year, broken down as follows: > > Registration Fee - $30 > Inspection Fee - $20 > Property Tax on Car (car only) - $100 > Gasoline Tax - $210 > > Some people (like me) pay a lot more. I paid somewhere > around $1500 in user fees last years (I own four vehicles, > and only have one driver in the household). > > If "vehicular" bike owners pay 1/3 of what the average car > owner pays for each bike, I'd be happier. So when vehicular > bike owners start paying an additional $120 or so a year per > bike for the right to ride the bikes on the public roads, I > think it would be fairer. And don't tell me how much you are > already paying for your other vehicles. Despiste the fact > that I can only drive one vehicle at a time, I still have to > pay registartion and property taxes for the other vehicles. > > Ed > Property taxes are not relevant.Most states do not have such a tax. Same for the Inspection tax. I'm surprised you didn't include the sales tax,like Brent P. did. Besides,most states have a minimum fee for road vehicles regardless of their size,weight,or area footprint. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#385
|
|||
|
|||
Wayne Pein > wrote in
: > C. E. White wrote: > > >> I estimate that the average single car owner pays somewhere >> around $370 in user fess each year, broken down as follows: >> >> Registration Fee - $30 > > > Registration is so the vehicle can be tracked. There is no need for this > for bicycles. Sure there is.Bicycles get stolen,they get used in crimes,and they collide with people or other things and cause property damage. I suspect that the fee is the same for a car,motorcycle or Vespa.So it should be the same for a bicycle. > > >> Inspection Fee - $20 > > > This is so the vehicle doesn't overly damage the environment (more than > it already does) or have the potential for catostrophic failure to harm > others. There is no need for this for bicycles. Gotta make sure your headlight and reflectors are on the bike and working. B-) Although,again,many states have no inspections anymore. > >> Property Tax on Car (car only) - $100 > > Oh OK. If it'll make you feel better I'll donate $5 for my bicycle to my > county for property tax. Most states do not have this tax.If they do,it's usually based on the value of the vehicle;if you have an expensive titanium or carbon fiber framed bike,it's gonna cost you more than $5.Some bicycles sell for 5 or 6 thousand USdollars. The fee usually gets decreased as the vehicle ages,down to some minimum value. > > >> Gasoline Tax - $210 > > This is irrelvant for bicyclists. However, you should be thankful > bicyclists don't use it, reducing demand and hence your price. > Therefore, I am owed $5 for my altruistic use of the bike (this says > nothing of the environmental damage that I am avoiding on your behalf). No,you aren't "owed" anything for NOT using something. > > This cancels out my property tax donation. > > > But hey, I know that isn't good enough for some of you motorists, so I'm > gonna buy a licence plate for my bike from > http://www.biketags.com/index.html?l...talog28_0.html > > This way, motorists will be duped into feeling better about me being a > vehicle operator. Maybe I'll even have a nice message on it such as > COEXIST. Perhaps a message such as EXPECT DELAYS would add comic relief > for your frustrations. > > Wayne > But you stll will not be paying your *yearly* usage fee. Other vehicles pay EVERY year. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#386
|
|||
|
|||
Alex Rodriguez > wrote in
: > In article >, > . says... > >>I don't slow it down like bicycles do.(I'm usually on the high side of >>the speed limit) >>I move my GSR along quickly enough,and I'm no sloth driver,either. >>And headwind or road slope does not affect me like they do a pedalist. > > True, but stopped cars in front usually don't slow down a cyclist. > ------------- > Alex > > > Because they use illegal tactics that are prohibited for autos or other motor vehicles.Like squeezing between car and curb.They often do not stop for stop signs or stop lights.They also often ride on the wrong side of the road. They often fail to use any turn or stop signals. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#387
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Jim Yanik .> writes: >>> If states were to tax vehicles and fuel to completely pay for the >>> roads,no one could afford to drive anything. >> >> What you are saying is that people who drive less are supporting those >> who drive more. > > No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle benefit > from roads.Roads carry commerce,like food.Even people who never travel at > all benefit from roads. So commerce/industry/trade benefits hugely from roads. Roads facilitate bringing customers to market, and employees to their workplaces. Maybe Business should chip-in more for roads. -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca |
#388
|
|||
|
|||
|
#389
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in > : > >> In article >, Jim Yanik >> wrote: >> >>> But no usage tax. >> >> Show me a usage tax for automobiles. Extra points if you can show one >> in IL. > > Easy,your plate fee. That's not a usage fee. > You don't need a plate if you use your auto on private property. I don't need turn signals, good tires, brakes, and whole host of other things to use a vehicle on private property. > Note that you still also pay a sales tax when you bought the auto,but not > every time you renew your plates. >> I paid use tax on my bicycle when I bought it, same with my cars. > No,you paid a SALES tax. Check IL law. It's semantically called a *USE* tax. This way the state thinks it can then legally collect it on items purchased out of state as a way around the ban on states taxing interstate commerce. IL taxes the use of the item in the state. It functions like a sales tax and is simply a semantic end run around federal law, but you want split semantic hairs so.... > You would pay that even if your auto or bicycle > never used any public road.The auto license fee is the fee you pay every > year to use the public roads. The use tax in IL is paid at the time of purchase. When one goes to register a car they just purchased in this state, one has to pay title, registration, and use tax. I had to pay this tax on my torqueless wonder car even though the sales price was ZERO. Thankfully it was the lowest possible value because the car was over the age limit and from a family member. > I note that some states also have an > additional tax,a property tax,they consider the auto to be property.Indiana > and one of the Carolinas do that. And in Germany, you are taxed for each television you own. >>> If states were to tax vehicles and fuel to completely pay for the >>> roads,no one could afford to drive anything. >> What you are saying is that people who drive less are supporting those >> who drive more. > No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle benefit > from roads.Roads carry commerce,like food.Even people who never travel at > all benefit from roads. What you are saying is that without people who drive less paying more than they use, driving would be too expensive. Wether they *should* or not isn't part of this. You just stated you need non-drivers paying a good portion of the costs. >> That if roads et al were paid for by actual use, then >> driving would be rather expensive. You want driving to be cheap so >> everybody is taxed regardless of how much they drive. The true meaning >> of your statement is that your driving is dependent upon people who >> drive much less or not at all. > No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle benefit > from roads. That's an arguement for *should*. Your statement is very clear, you need non drivers and people who drive less than what they pay for to keep the system affordable for people who drive more. Wether those who don't drive enough to get their 'money's worth' directly benefit or not isn't even part of this. You need them not using the roads themselves, directly, with motor vehicles to keep driving affordable. You were very clear. Thusly, bicyclists help keep driving affordable by using their bicycles instead of their cars. It seems your idea to tax bicyclists to satisify your semantic need is counterproductive to driving. Don't fall into the trap that people will keep doing what they do when a tax is added. This is what elected officals often think. That their taxes won't change behavior. Tax bicycling the way you want it to be and the effect will be more people driving more miles. Which in turn will require more resources and greater taxes on driving. |
#390
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 25 May 2005 14:13:21 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote: > >>> Actually, pedalcyclists pay almost as much for roads as motorists. >>> They pay property taxes, sales taxes, Mello-Roos taxes (in >>> California), etc. >> >>But no usage tax. > > Obviously. > >>If states were to tax vehicles and fuel to completely pay for the roads,no >>one could afford to drive anything. > > What a ridiculous statement. > > If fuel and vehicle taxes completely paid for roads, all the other > taxes (e.g. property and sales) would drop by the exact same amount. > Everybody (except pedalcyclists who do not also own cars) would still > be paying the same amount, it would simply come out of a diffferent > pocket. That was the first angle I was going take. But then I realized, what would I do if fuel taxes got much higher but my costs in property, sales, and income taxes dropped? I'd use the bicycle more to get a net savings. Jim has likely opened up a can of worms that government doesn't want opened up and probably why they've never given in to this taxing of bicycles directly to use the road nonsense. They know if they started doing it, they would just encourage more people to drive more increasing their costs more than their revenues. Then they would have to pass even more taxes and **** off voters just to keep even. It's easier just to keep quiet on matter and not tax bicycles directly beyond the point of sale. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Arrogant Pedalcyclists in Action | John Harlow | Driving | 8 | April 15th 05 01:55 AM |
Go Ahead, Try to Justify This Pedalcyclist Behavior | Laura Bush murdered her boy friend | Driving | 4 | April 9th 05 07:05 PM |
Arrogant Pedalcyclists in Training | Brent P | Driving | 6 | April 3rd 05 12:14 AM |
Someone's Taking the Piss | SteveH | Alfa Romeo | 11 | July 30th 04 02:36 PM |