A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #431  
Old June 2nd 05, 04:17 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> So what if prop taxes help pay for roads?
> That still doesn't mean that one can drive an auto without paying a USE tax
> for each vehicle.A road use tax that bicyclists do NOT pay,but still use
> the roads.
> Whether non road-users pay prop taxes is not relevant to road USERS paying
> USER taxes.


Playing your same old semantic games. I paid the use tax on my bicycle
when I bought it. You want to play semantics, that's where the 'use' tax
is paid in IL.

There is no other 'use' tax.



Ads
  #432  
Old June 2nd 05, 04:33 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>
> So what if prop taxes help pay for roads?
> That still doesn't mean that one can drive an auto without paying a USE tax
> for each vehicle.A road use tax that bicyclists do NOT pay,but still use
> the roads.
> Whether non road-users pay prop taxes is not relevant to road USERS paying
> USER taxes.


Oh, quit whining. You sound like a broken record.

Write your congressman, or run for office.

- Frank Krygowski

  #433  
Old June 2nd 05, 05:04 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Claire Petersky wrote:
> C. E. White wrote in message >...
>
> >As far as I can tell, over the next ten years, the State of
> >Washington is expecting vehicle derived revenue (Gas Tax,
> >Licence Fees, etc) to exactly cover all Department of
> >Transportation expenditures. The Wasington State Department
> >of Transportation does not show revenue from any other
> >sources in their budget.

>
> That's nice.
>
> Since the vast majority of my bicycle miles are not on state highways, I am
> not sure exactly how this is relevant. If I am not mistaken, city streets
> are paid for through property and sales tax in our state, no? And there are
> lots of state highways my gas tax and license fees pay for, when I'm in the
> car, that I'll never drive on, like in Asotin County, or some place, so
> let's consider it a wash.
>



Ding! We have a winner!

E.P.

  #434  
Old June 2nd 05, 05:25 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 22:15:23 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>Scott, tell this man what many of the snow plows are durring the summer.

>
> They compete in the "Snowplow Rodeo:"
>
>
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/o...j19lwkaren.htm
>
>


Scott's humor aside... garbage trucks are used as snowplows in chicago.


  #435  
Old June 2nd 05, 02:25 PM
C. E. White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Brent P wrote:
>
> In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> > So what if prop taxes help pay for roads?
> > That still doesn't mean that one can drive an auto without paying a USE tax
> > for each vehicle.A road use tax that bicyclists do NOT pay,but still use
> > the roads.
> > Whether non road-users pay prop taxes is not relevant to road USERS paying
> > USER taxes.

>
> Playing your same old semantic games. I paid the use tax on my bicycle
> when I bought it. You want to play semantics, that's where the 'use' tax
> is paid in IL.
>
> There is no other 'use' tax.


But the "use" tax (sales tax) on bicycles goes into the
general fund. This fund is not used to pay for roads.

Ed
  #437  
Old June 2nd 05, 02:32 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
:

> On 2 Jun 2005 00:22:24 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>So what if prop taxes help pay for roads?

>
> It proves the assertion that real-property-owning pedalcyclists pay
> for roads, that's so what.


They still do not pay usage fees,for using their bicycle on the public
roads.Their prop tax fees are for general benefits they get from
roads;emergency servies,food transpo,etc.
People who own "real property" but have no bicycles or cars still pay the
same prop taxes.

>
>>That still doesn't mean that one can drive an auto without paying a
>>USE tax for each vehicle.A road use tax that bicyclists do NOT pay,but
>>still use the roads.

>
> Yes, pedalcyclists pay LESS than automobile drivers. But they still
> pay SOMETHING even if they do not drive, and that something is
> probably proportional to the actual usage (e.g. they must stay
> primarily to the right instead of being able to use the entire width
> of the road) and the actual damage to the road surface that they
> cause.
>


Motor vehicle fees are not based on how much space they use or how much
wear they do to the roads.

Face it,bicyclists are road users who don't want to pay usage fees that all
other road users have to pay.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #438  
Old June 2nd 05, 02:35 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Claire Petersky" > wrote in
:

> C. E. White wrote in message >...
>
>>As far as I can tell, over the next ten years, the State of
>>Washington is expecting vehicle derived revenue (Gas Tax,
>>Licence Fees, etc) to exactly cover all Department of
>>Transportation expenditures. The Wasington State Department
>>of Transportation does not show revenue from any other
>>sources in their budget.

>
> That's nice.
>
> Since the vast majority of my bicycle miles are not on state highways,
> I am not sure exactly how this is relevant. If I am not mistaken, city
> streets are paid for through property and sales tax in our state, no?
> And there are lots of state highways my gas tax and license fees pay
> for, when I'm in the car, that I'll never drive on, like in Asotin
> County, or some place, so let's consider it a wash.
>
> --
> Warm Regards,
>
> Claire Petersky
> Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
> See the books I've set free at:
> http://bookcrossing.com/referr*al/Cpetersky
>
>
>


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.

Bicyclists are still users who don't pay user fees.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #439  
Old June 2nd 05, 02:58 PM
C. E. White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:04:19 -0400, "C. E. White"
> > wrote:
>
> >How about backing up your claim that Property Taxes Revenues
> >are paying for roads.

>
> That's an easy one:
>
> http://www.news-record.com/news/loca...dget052005.htm
>
> City manager’s proposal raises property tax rate
>
> Boynton proposed raising taxes a total of 5.3 cents per $100 of
> assessed value. For owners of a $150,000 home, their tax bill would
> rise $79.50.
>
> Most of the proposed tax hike — 3.4 cents — is earmarked to help pay
> for the $73.65 million in bond projects that include everything from
> wider roads and an expanded library to new fire stations and
> recreation centers.


You should have copied the rest of the article. The only
actual "road" project was reconstruction of a bridge, and
only $100,000 was included for that. There was another
$150,000 for studying the best way to route traffic through
the business district. Otherwise none of this bond money was
actually for roads. Furthermore, I'll bet that motor vehicle
revenues (gas tax transfers from the state and vehicle
registration fees) will more than cover the actual road
construction portions of the borrowed money. Politicians
often use roads as an excuse for raising taxes, when the
bulk of the money is actually going somewhere else. This is
clearly the case for your example. The $100,00 included in
this bond for bridge reconstruction could easily have been
paid from the 1.38 Million dollars in motor vehicle related
user fees collected by Greensboro
(http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/budget/...ing%20Fund.pdf)
.. Instead, a portion of these funds were diverted to pay for
$255,298 of sidewalk construction. It is much easier to get
people to approve a bond issue when you include "road
improvement" in the list of things the bond money is to be
used for. The truth is, the bond money devoted to road
improvement doesn't even come close to replacing the road
revenues that are being diverted to other purposes. It is
also important to note, that property taxes on vehicles are
a significant portion of the revenue stream. The increased
revenue associated with the rise in property taxes on
vehicles will more than cover the cost of the $250,00
borrowed for the bridge reconstruction and traffic study.
So, all you have done is confirm that motor vehicle derived
revenues are paying more than the amount needed to build and
maintain roads.

Interestingly for Greensboro, property taxes provide less
revenue than user fees and licenses. Less than 10% of the
Greensboro budget is related to transportation. And only a
tiny fraction of that is used for street maintenance. The
bulk of the money spent on maintaining Greensboro streets
comes from transfers from the state of North Carolina. And
according to the Greensboro budget (see
http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/budget/...ll_%20Fund.pdf
) portions of this money are used to pay for "the
construction of sidewalks."

Again, if you look closely, you will see that motor vehicle
derived revenues are not only paying for the roads, the
revenue is actually being diverted to pay for other city
services. Bike riders need to thank car owners for providing
them with subsidies. Clearly other property taxes would have
to increase if cars were suddenly eliminated.

Ed
  #440  
Old June 2nd 05, 03:05 PM
C. E. White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Brent P wrote:
>
> In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > Look for the summary.pdf file.

>
> That's what I looked at.
>
> >
> > What government agency doesn't spend every dollar it takes
> > in?

>
> The point is that streets and san and other departments supported clearly
> by property tax do things for the roads.
>
> > So if there were no cars, there would be no need for police?

>
> There wouldn't be a need for as many of them.
>
> > No need for snow removal? I am talking about where the money
> > comes from for building and maintining roads. Using your
> > logic, I suppose we could include the NASA budget as
> > justification for bike to use the highways.

>
> *sigh* you'll keep playing semantic games endlessly. Because that's all
> this 'bicyclists don't pay' nonsense is.


It is not nonsense. It is nonsense that you ignore the
figures that show that motor vehicle taxes are not only
paying for the highways, they are also paying for other
services unrelated to highways (like garbage collection). I
don't care if you ride your bikes on the roads (as long as
you act responsibly) but I do care that you claim to be
paying for those roads in ways unrelated to motor vehicle
taxes. I suppose you can argue that taxes are taxes and
expenses are expenses and everyone pays some sort of taxes
and therefore everyone is justified in claiming the rights
to use anything taxes have been used to build. This is not
how road taxes were sold to the public. At least in North
Carolina, high gas taxes were justified because they were
paying for the roads. They were set apart from general fund
revenues as special. Now admittedly this is becoming a sort
of elaborate shell game (see Social Security), but at least
they try to maintain the illusion of road derived revenue
being used to build and maintain roads. If I drive my car, I
buy gas and pay into the road funds. When I buy my car, I
pay into the road funds, when I renew my auto registration,
I pay into the road fund. When I bought my bike, I did not
pay into the road fund. I don't buy gas for my bike, so I
don't pay into the road fund. I don't have to renew by
bike's registration (well not any more, Raleigh briefly
tired to force bike registration). So if we are really
treating things as separate funds, I've paid a lot into the
road use funds because I own and operate cars. I have paid
nothing into the road use fund because I own a bike. You
make the argument that you should be able to ride your bike
on the roads because you also own a car. Using this logic, I
should only have to pay for one car. Any others should be
covered. I should also be able to ride an ATV on the roads,
after all, I paid for one auto. I disagree with this logic.
At least for NC, Illinois, Washington and the City of
Chicago I have seen figures that confirm that general
revenues are not being used for road construction and
maintenance. In fact road fund revenues are being diverted
for other purposes (gotta love the removal of fish
impediments in Washington).

I believe that most states explicitly allow bicycles on many
roads. This right was granted by the legislature and not
because cyclist are paying their fair share for the building
and maintaining roads. I think it would be reasonable to
require bicycles to be registered and require licenses for
riders that use the public highways (maybe just State /
Federal Roads and not City Streets and County Roads).

> > Your cite of the Streets and Sanitation is for the garbage
> > men (mostly).

>
> You show your ignorance of chicago.


Interesting how you cut off all the figures that illustrated
how road tax money is being diverted to pay for other items.
It is clear you don't want to know the facts or at least you
prefer that others don't know the facts.


Ed
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.