Don't Pay, Don't Gripe

[Red Arrow]

Bicyclists don't pay taxes, either.  I know that's true 'cause I read it in the comments section on the Tulsa World site. 

What bicyclists don't pay is a tax specific to their bicycle and the right to use it on public roads.

Automobile owners pay an annual fee for tags.

Boat owners pay an annual fee for their boat and, if the boat is powered by an outboard motor, the motor. (Two separate stickers.)

Airplane owners pay an annual "registration" fee to OK.  You also have to pay a one time "users fee" if you buy your airplane out of state.  It is collected when you register your plane with the state.  The price of the plane is subject to sales tax if purchased in-state.  We will now also pay a fee every 3 years to re-register it with the FAA.  The FAA fee is small and mostly annoying.  The state fee can be quite high depending on how new and what type of aircraft you have.  My plane is old enough to qualify for antique status regarding the state registration.  The state fee probably leads to a lot of Delaware based corporations owning aircraft.

I would have no problem supporting a state bicycle registration fee.  It wouldn't need to be much, say $10/year.  I could also support a state bicycle driver's license.  It could be split into young riders and adults.  Young riders would be prohibited from places like Memorial Drive except to cross like where the trail crosses Memorial by the Creek Turnpike.  Adults would be permitted where they are now allowed. 

[nathanm]

If you pay no income tax, I believe you have no right to complain about the amount of income tax others pay.

I'm not quite sure why you think that just because someone doesn't pay a particular kind of tax they can't have an opinion on what rates would be appropriate. On the bright side, if we did adopt your plan, many of the richest folks in America would have no say on income tax rates because they don't pay any even when they actually earn wage or wage-like income.

I think it's more than a little disturbing that you seem to be completely OK with a tax system that transfers massive amounts of wealth from the bottom to the top. Something just seems wrong about giving welfare to the people who need it the least.

Edited to add: Do you have a Kindle, Nook, or some other eBook reader?

[Ed W]

What bicyclists don't pay is a tax specific to their bicycle and the right to use it on public roads.

Automobile owners pay an annual fee for tags.

Drivers pay for the privilege of using the public roads due to the real and potential damage they can inflict on people and property, Red.  It's a public way, never intended for motorists exclusively.  Pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, and the like can use it provided they operate within the law.  There's no tax on travel.

My comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, though it obviously fell flat.  In responding to some of the commenters on the TW site and elsewhere, I've pointed out that our roads are largely paid for though income, sales, and real estate taxes.  The amount that comes from fuel taxes is minor by comparison, with the federal part going (mostly) toward interstate highways and expensive infrastructure like bridges. 

If riding a bike excused us from paying taxes, we'd all be on two wheels wearing spandex, and the latter might not be a pleasant sight!

[swake]

My mom has been on the receiving side of Social Security for quite a while.   With that and a modest (in my opinion) retirement that my dad paid for during his working years, she still pays some income tax.  It's not a lot but she still pays something.

Actually, almost everyone over 18 gets a say.  Vote.

I know some retirees pay, but I did read that something like 29-30% of the people that don't pay taxes are retirees, I just can't find the report I read right now. Another 20% are the unemployed/underemployed that presumably did and will again pay income taxes. Another sizable group are college students that most some day will pay. The largest remaining groups that did not pay were of course the poor and lower middle class single parent homes with kids due to the Earned Income Credit. I know Guido wants the poor people to shut up, but what about the transitory unemployed, the retirees and college students? No griping from them either? Other groups interestingly were wealthy people taking capital gains losses from previous years to avoid tax or who concentrate in tax free investments.

[Red Arrow]

I'm not quite sure why you think that just because someone doesn't pay a particular kind of tax they can't have an opinion on what rates would be appropriate.

I guess in some regards you are correct.
I am not particularly religious but I can complain about Evangelists, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists.  I cannot complain about Muslims because that is politically incorrect.
I am not a Democrat but I can complain about their policies, methods of trying to attain what may actually be a good goal, and general philosophy on life all I want.
I go out to eat very infrequently but I can complain about the price of restaurant food all I want.  (I think you should have bought my lunch at Siegi's last December  )
I rarely go to sporting events (can't say never) but I can complain about the price of a hot dog there.
I can complain about the price of parking downtown even though the times I've been there have been after hours and I have parked for free on the street.
I pay (low) 5 figure Federal Income tax each year so I have the right to complain about someone's choice to have kids they cannot afford that I have to support through Earned Income Tax Credits.
I can complain that I have to pay $40/mo for a cell phone plan that I hardly use when I could get a phone for a few $ a month if I were on food stamps. (As seen on TV)

So, yes I guess anyone has the right to complain. 

On the bright side, if we did adopt your plan, many of the richest folks in America would have no say on income tax rates because they don't pay any even when they actually earn wage or wage-like income.

I'll agree that if they have wage income that is not legitimately offset by something else, they should pay tax on it. 

I think it's more than a little disturbing that you seem to be completely OK with a tax system that transfers massive amounts of wealth from the bottom to the top. Something just seems wrong about giving welfare to the people who need it the least.

Let me know the next time you pay $6.2 Million in one year in Federal Income Tax.  You will just have to remain disturbed.  I will just have to be bewildered (I don't prefer to think of myself as disturbed.) to think that the tax system should be Robin Hood.  I recently saw a clip of Will (Men in Black) Smith discussing taxes while in France.  He said he should pay more US income tax.  His French host told Will that in France he would be paying 75%.  Will did a double take on that one.

Edited to add: Do you have a Kindle, Nook, or some other eBook reader?

No, I don't.  I don't have a smart phone either.  My phone is capable of connecting to the internet but I chose not to use that so  I have no data plan on my cell phone and specifically told AT&T to block any data other than voice phone calls.

[Red Arrow]

Drivers pay for the privilege of using the public roads due to the real and potential damage they can inflict on people and property, Red.  It's a public way, never intended for motorists exclusively.  Pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, and the like can use it provided they operate within the law.  There's no tax on travel.

My comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, though it obviously fell flat.  In responding to some of the commenters on the TW site and elsewhere, I've pointed out that our roads are largely paid for though income, sales, and real estate taxes.  The amount that comes from fuel taxes is minor by comparison, with the federal part going (mostly) toward interstate highways and expensive infrastructure like bridges. 

If riding a bike excused us from paying taxes, we'd all be on two wheels wearing spandex, and the latter might not be a pleasant sight!

OK, Bicyclists should pay a tax for the privilege of using a public road; even though you call it a right in other discussions.  Most of those roads would not be there without the advent of the automobile.  Roads will deteriorate with age even without automobile traffic.  Grass along the right of way needs to be cut.  Lane markings need to be maintained.  Why are you so vehemently opposed to paying a minimal fee?   If you are riding a road bike with high pressure tires, you should be glad to pay for a nice paved surface that would otherwise require something like a mountain bike.  I have mentioned this before but would your rather have your foot stepped on by someone wearing sneakers or a spike heel?

You might be interested in reading about some of the early roads back east since you are originally from PA.  Some of the early privately owned roads did charge for pedestrians.  I also remember that the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (from the Eastern Shore to Norfolk, VA area) originally charged by the number of occupants in the car in addition to the car itself, same as the earlier ferry had done.

The tax is not on travel.  The tax is on the infrastructure provided to make your travel easier.

[Red Arrow]

or who concentrate in tax free investments.

Tax free investments provide money to municipalities and other government entities at a lower rate than would be otherwise possible.  Are you saying that municipalities etc should pay a higher interest rate just so that a few people cannot get a tax advantage?  It will come out of your wallet and mine both.

[nathanm]

Let me know the next time you pay $6.2 Million in one year in Federal Income Tax.  You will just have to remain disturbed.  I will just have to be bewildered (I don't prefer to think of myself as disturbed.) to think that the tax system should be Robin Hood.

The tax system isn't Robin Hood. It's reverse Robin Hood. Small businesses subsidizing large chains and poor, middle, and upper middle class wage earners subsidizing the already very wealthy. We let CEOs loot their companies by allowing publicly held companies to have incestuous boards and little shareholder control over governance. The donor class is looting our nation and sticking us with the debt. Why do the well-to-do need welfare?

No, I don't.  I don't have a smart phone either.  My phone is capable of connecting to the internet but I chose not to use that so  I have no data plan on my cell phone and specifically told AT&T to block any data other than voice phone calls.

Too bad. Hopefully you have a library card: http://opac.tulsalibrary.org/search/o52858224

[Red Arrow]

The tax system isn't Robin Hood. It's reverse Robin Hood.

My impression of you is that you would like it to be.  I won't disagree that there are some problems with golden parachutes etc in the corporate world.

Too bad. Hopefully you have a library card: http://opac.tulsalibrary.org/search/o52858224

I have one somewhere but I haven't used it for a l-o-n-g time.

I followed your link but have little interest in reading something involving tax or politics that you recommend.   We have little or no common ground there.

[nathanm]

I followed your link but have little interest in reading something involving tax or politics that you recommend.   We have little or no common ground there.

If you want to close your mind, I can't stop you. You might note that Johnston is an Adam Smith quoting Reagan Republican, but whatever. Enough people make the choice to be ignorant of the facts that I doubt it'll matter much if you make the same choice.

And what I would like is for everyone to stop shirking their bucking obligations under the current system. I would also like to have an open debate about tax policy rather than the subterfuge that has been used for the last 30 years. There has been no public discussion about whether or not we should shift taxation away from capital and towards labor. It's being done quietly and without the consent of the governed. That is not OK. It's more than a little unfortunate that you and many others can't see that merely because the change happens to comport with your world view.

[Hoss]

My impression of you is that you would like it to be.  I won't disagree that there are some problems with golden parachutes etc in the corporate world.

I have one somewhere but I haven't used it for a l-o-n-g time.

I followed your link but have little interest in reading something involving tax or politics that you recommend.   We have little or no common ground there.

Wow.  Would not have expected you to make that statement.  Guido, maybe.

Just because I don't like guys like O'Reilly or Hannity doesn't mean I won't listen or read them.  Does it mean I will like it?  Probably not.  But I agree with Nathan.  It's incredibly closed minded.

But since my politics don't agree with yours, I doubt you give a smile about my opinion.

[Ed W]

OK, Bicyclists should pay a tax for the privilege of using a public road; even though you call it a right in other discussions.  Most of those roads would not be there without the advent of the automobile....

You might be interested in reading about some of the early roads back east since you are originally from PA.  Some of the early privately owned roads did charge for pedestrians.  I also remember that the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (from the Eastern Shore to Norfolk, VA area) originally charged by the number of occupants in the car in addition to the car itself, same as the earlier ferry had done.

The tax is not on travel.  The tax is on the infrastructure provided to make your travel easier.

You may have missed it, Red. Cyclists already pay taxes to pay for roads: income taxes, real estate taxes, and sales taxes. Fuel taxes, tag fees, and license fees are miniscule compared to the rest, and surprisingly enough, cyclists pay those taxes too because most of them own and use motor vehicles.  Given your line of reasoning, we should tax shoes as well.

I wouldn't support any licensing scheme for bicyclists because a license isn't necessary to use the public road.  A motor vehicle license is the state's way of ensuring that someone has at least a minimum level of skill and knowledge when it comes to operating a potentially dangerous vehicle.  Bicycles, horses, Amish buggies, and pedestrians do not pose the same dangers as automobiles, so licensing them isn't necessary. That's not saying that injuries and fatalities are non-existent, but the numbers are tiny.

I knew several former private roads in western PA.  Any of the ones with "Pike" in their names were once private, and I think the Butler Plank Road was private also.  They're all long gone, but the ability to discriminate against who may use a privately built facility remains.  That's a problem when it comes to toll bridges, especially those public/private ventures.  Some places have bridges that are effectively barriers to bicycle travel as they prohibit any bicyclist to use them.

It's late and I'm done for the night.  We can continue this tomorrow....g'night!   

[Red Arrow]

You may have missed it, Red.

Nope, didn't miss it.  We disagree.

[Red Arrow]

Wow.  Would not have expected you to make that statement.  Guido, maybe.
Just because I don't like guys like O'Reilly or Hannity doesn't mean I won't listen or read them.  Does it mean I will like it?  Probably not.  But I agree with Nathan.  It's incredibly closed minded.
But since my politics don't agree with yours, I doubt you give a smile about my opinion.

It's really fairly simple.  There is something to be said for knowing your enemy.  I don't really consider anyone here my enemy but that is the saying and we certainly have differences of opinion. There is probably no real right or wrong in tax policy except for one's personal convictions.  I believe I understand Nathan's and your opinions and don't feel the need to spend any time reading material reinforcing those opinions.  I find it unlikely that the recommended reading material would present any new information.  I would rather go weed my pepper garden.

[Red Arrow]

Ed,

Please look at the revenue apportionment for vehicle registrations and explain again how the fees primarily support road maintenance due to wear and tear caused by automobiles.  Revenue raised by bicycle licensing could be used for the Various School Districts.   Bicycles I see on the road are rarely the $100 Walmart variety.  Most fall into the nearly $1000 category except for a few like Conan's tank bikes.  My brother bought a used bike that listed new for nearly $4000.  You guys can afford a $10/yr fee.  Maybe it should cost like a car tag.  It's not for the roads, it's for the general fund and education.  Do it for the kids.

Oklahoma
Motor Vehicle: 
Revenue Apportionment for Vehicles, Boats and Outboard Motor

36.20%  To the Various School Districts

29.84%  To the General Revenue Fund

15.00%  To the County Improvements for Roads and Bridges

7.24%   To the County Highway Maintenance and Construction Fund

3.62%   To the Emergency County Road Fund for County Fund

3.10%   To the Various Cities and Incorporated Towns

2.59%   To the County Road Fund for County Fund

1.24%   To the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement Fund

0.83%    To the Counties for the Support of County Government

0.31%    To the State Transportation Fund

0.03%   To the Wildlife Conservation Fund

http://www.tax.ok.gov/mv8.html


Where else does your Oklahoma tax money go?

Ed, you may note that there is an Oklahoma Amateur Radio Operators License. I think it is you that's a Ham.  (My dad was one.)

http://www.tax.ok.gov/ApportionmentCharts/12perchart.pdf