Author Topic: 2 head smackers in 1 week  (Read 4602 times)

bhallissey

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 3
2 head smackers in 1 week
« on: May 20, 2017, 08:05:55 PM »
1st post and I was compelled to do this because these 2 articles in the same week made me wonder how so many people have it so wrong.

the 1st one: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-retirees-hoarding-cash-fear-080013533.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

The problem with our economy is that people don't spend enough even when they can?!?!  It's not even possible that they may not want to spend the money? Crazy

2nd: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/oregon/articles/2017-05-09/tolls-bike-tax-part-of-82-billion-transportation-plan

Sure...Let's tax people's bikes.  That's really what's chewing up the roads....

I know that MMM posted about not complaining about the government, but even he may change his mind with this brilliant government intervention.


Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3210
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 2 head smackers in 1 week
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2017, 08:20:57 PM »
If the municipalities insist on diverting road maintenance funds for bike paths/lanes/etc, shouldn't bikes contribute to that?

bhallissey

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: 2 head smackers in 1 week
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2017, 08:36:13 PM »
Yes, bikers should contribute, but the cost to make and maintain a bike path is minuscule compared to a road that can stand up to tractor trailer traffic.  In the overall scheme of things, I think that the amount I pay in taxes more than covers my road use on my bike and an additional surcharge is unnecessary. 
In terms of overall costs, the cost to public health and the environment is much greater from car usage.  The increased use of bicycles would actually save the state money in lower healthcare costs and lower future maintenance costs and unforeseen environmental cleanup from the vehicle pollution.

NoraLenderbee

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
Re: 2 head smackers in 1 week
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2017, 02:36:35 PM »
In California, gas taxes and other road-specific fees don't come close to paying for the cost of roads. Roads are subsidized out of the general fund. So road funds aren't being diverted to bikes; bikes (and everyone else) are subsidizing drivers, especially drivers of heavy trucks.

ginastarke

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 113
Re: 2 head smackers in 1 week
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2017, 06:48:28 PM »
IMO, it would be worth it to answer "Drivers pay taxes" argument with "so do I". 
Now if construction crews would just find another place for their signs than the bike lane.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2143
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: 2 head smackers in 1 week
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2017, 10:32:25 AM »
In California, gas taxes and other road-specific fees don't come close to paying for the cost of roads. Roads are subsidized out of the general fund. So road funds aren't being diverted to bikes; bikes (and everyone else) are subsidizing drivers, especially drivers of heavy trucks.

That's pretty much everywhere

TreesBikesLove

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Location: PDX Suburb
Re: 2 head smackers in 1 week
« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2017, 04:20:10 PM »
If the municipalities insist on diverting road maintenance funds for bike paths/lanes/etc, shouldn't bikes contribute to that?

Thank you, Chris, for pointing out this very common misconception about what taxes go to pay for the roads. Gas tax does not come close to paying for all of the transportation spending. In Oregon, a combination of very high property taxes and state income taxes combine with small contributions from the gas tax to fund our roads. If gas tax alone was used to completely fund the road system, gas would be a lot more than $2.50 a gallon.

Prairie Stash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1809
Re: 2 head smackers in 1 week
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2017, 10:57:05 AM »
Yes, bikers should contribute, but the cost to make and maintain a bike path is minuscule compared to a road that can stand up to tractor trailer traffic.  In the overall scheme of things, I think that the amount I pay in taxes more than covers my road use on my bike and an additional surcharge is unnecessary. 
In terms of overall costs, the cost to public health and the environment is much greater from car usage.  The increased use of bicycles would actually save the state money in lower healthcare costs and lower future maintenance costs and unforeseen environmental cleanup from the vehicle pollution.
Its a $40 tax ($1000 bike), one time, on new bike sales. Bike road maintenance isn't just from bikes doing damage, its from environmental damage. Think of painted lines, pot holes, cracks, frost heaves etc.

When cars are taken off the road one day there will still be costs to maintain bike paths. In my home town we have bike trails, only used for bikes, and they have budgets for keeping them maintained. They're pretty cheap, $40 goes quite a ways, and that's on a bike that should last 10 years ($4/year). Does Oregon not have a single dedicated bike lane that is separate from the car lanes that you could get the annual cost for?

I understand everyone wants a free ride, but its hardly going to change bike ownership rates.