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 |
#431
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#436
|
|||
|
|||
|
#437
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |