Bike tax in Oregon

applecorped

Banned
applecorped
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
20,145
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/17/first-bicycle-tax-nation-deflates-oregon-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 alike."

If you take a walk I'll tax your feet.
 
If it's really earmarked for bike lanes and paths, then I'd probably support it (especially since I already own my bike). I would imagine the bike stores disagree. And why make it only apply to bikes over $200 and with 26-inch rims? Yes, I understand don't want to tax kids' bikes (under 26-inch rims). But most kids' bikes are under $200 anyway. So if an overly doting parent goes out and buys their little brat a $1500 BMX bike there's no tax, but if a min wage guy pays $200 (which is not a luxury bike price by any means), he gets socked with the $15 tax.

And yeah, once established, the tax probably never goes away, but the earmarking for bicycle-related projects will probably not survive the next economic downturn.
 
applecorped said:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/17/first-bicycle-tax-nation-deflates-oregon-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 alike."

If you take a walk I'll tax your feet.
Click to expand...

While I can see why people are upset, under a user pays system, this money is going towards the infrastructure that cyclists are going to be using, so they should be paying for it. A maximum of 7.5% sales tax on bikes isn't that big an issue (we have 15% here, Aust has 10% and VAT in the UK is 14%. A lot of State sales taxes are 8-9%. Considering that road users just got a hike in their road user charges to pay for roads that cyclists will also get to use free of charge, I'd suggest that the complaints of paying a one time tax for more infrastructure for them to use is a little on the nose really.

Perhaps instead of adding a sales tax they should just have built them out of the general take, and then put tolls on them!
 
PhantomWolf said:
While I can see why people are upset, under a user pays system, this money is going towards the infrastructure that cyclists are going to be using, so they should be paying for it. A maximum of 7.5% sales tax on bikes isn't that big an issue (we have 15% here, Aust has 10% and VAT in the UK is 14%. A lot of State sales taxes are 8-9%. Considering that road users just got a hike in their road user charges to pay for roads that cyclists will also get to use free of charge, I'd suggest that the complaints of paying a one time tax for more infrastructure for them to use is a little on the nose really.

Perhaps instead of adding a sales tax they should just have built them out of the general take, and then put tolls on them!
Click to expand...

20%....
 
My biggest problem is that it's a flat tax, which means it hits the poorest for a larger percentage.

$250 bike that you use every day to get to work, reduce traffic, and be a productive member of society? Pay $15 (6%).

$1500 bike that makes you look 'super cool' while you back up traffic on a narrow, single-lane, no-shoulder, blind-corner road in the super-hip West Hills? Pay $15 (1%).

The 'only if over $200' shows that they wanted to appear to be taking this into account, without actually hampering the rich campaign contributors.
 
How about they instead do something meaningful like doubling taxes on gas? I mean seriously do they want people to think twice about driving or biking?
 
Arcade22 said:
How about they instead do something meaningful like doubling taxes on gas? I mean seriously do they want people to think twice about driving or biking?
Click to expand...

So car drivers should have to pay for the infrastructure that they use, and all of the infrastructure that Cyclists use too?
 
PhantomWolf said:
So car drivers should have to pay for the infrastructure that they use, and all of the infrastructure that Cyclists use too?
Click to expand...
Sure. Why not?

Anyway, the infrastructure is a good thing. The money for it has to come from somewhere. Then only real questions are whether the state of Oregon, having collected the money, will spend it wisely. And what the unintended consequences will be.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
 
PhantomWolf said:
So car drivers should have to pay for the infrastructure that they use, and all of the infrastructure that Cyclists use too?
Click to expand...

Compared to the damage they do ? There are many order of magnitude more damage from cars than bike onto road - if they share them. If they don't and real bike lane are made, bike don't do detectable damage on them, only truck and cars which park on them, and the weather. And frankly *truck/car driver* want the bike off the road too. See the bike thread - so it isn't a one sided wish. And that's only the damage on the road itself. Not even counting the CO2 or various otehr emissions like Sulfurs, nitrogen compounds or metals.

Furthermore as other poitned out if it was 1% it would be OK, but as it is a FLAT tax it put a far heavier burden on low priced bike and lower paid people than it does on luxury bike buyer. How many flat tax have cars to contend to ? Flat tax hit the poor the hardest.

Finally, you wanna bet that it will not be used for infrastructure for long, but the tax will stay forever ?
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
Compared to the damage they do ? There are many order of magnitude more damage from cars than bike onto road - if they share them. If they don't and real bike lane are made, bike don't do detectable damage on them, only truck and cars which park on them, and the weather. And frankly *truck/car driver* want the bike off the road too. See the bike thread - so it isn't a one sided wish. And that's only the damage on the road itself. Not even counting the CO2 or various otehr emissions like Sulfurs, nitrogen compounds or metals.

Furthermore as other poitned out if it was 1% it would be OK, but as it is a FLAT tax it put a far heavier burden on low priced bike and lower paid people than it does on luxury bike buyer. How many flat tax have cars to contend to ? Flat tax hit the poor the hardest.

Finally, you wanna bet that it will not be used for infrastructure for long, but the tax will stay forever ?
Click to expand...
Okay, but the taxes and fees for cars are also orders of magnitude more than a one-time $15 fee.

Sales tax, property taxes yearly, taxes on gasoline by volume, registration tags, etc.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
applecorped said:
Time to license and regulate bicycles and riders.
Click to expand...
During the 1920s and 1930s, in the Netherlands we had a bike tax. You had to pay NLG 2.50/year, and got a token you attached to the handlebars to prove you paid your tax. During the Great Depression, unemployed got the tax token for free, but one with a hole in the middle (like on this picture). Talk about stigmatization. Oh, and the unemployed were not allowed to bike on Sunday.
 
Arcade22 said:
How about they instead do something meaningful like doubling taxes on gas? I mean seriously do they want people to think twice about driving or biking?
Click to expand...

The two are not reasonably connected. The car can carry multiple people, the car protects people from bad weather, the gas tax doubling would hurt the poor even more than the bike tax - unless mostly the poor are bicycling.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Okay, but the taxes and fees for cars are also orders of magnitude more than a one-time $15 fee.

Sales tax, property taxes yearly, taxes on gasoline by volume, registration tags, etc.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Stops me if i am wrong,none of those are flat tax. They all depends on the initial value, orthe value of what you consume.
 
This was inevitable if more and more people are taking bicycles. Of course, they could pay for it out of general revenue, but then they'd have to reduce spending elsewhere. This is the "new" tax in the "no new taxes" type pledge, which is another tax that can slowly be ratcheted up later -- yey!



If you want to get downmodded on slashdot, point out how the government will eventually stop subsidizing electric vehicles and shortly thereafter begin adding a tax surcharge. As gasoline taxes die away from lack of use, the revenue to pay for roads must come from somewhere, and that's exactly what other countries have done in these situations (e.g. natural gas vehicles.)

Guaranteed downmod.
 
Aepervius said:
Stops me if i am wrong,none of those are flat tax. They all depends on the initial value, orthe value of what you consume.
Click to expand...
I believe title, registration, and tags are generally flat. I agree with the objection to a flat, regressive fee. I do think a small charge for the additional planning, lane coverage, road paint, signs, driver awareness campaigns, etc. is fair to ask.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom