Don't Pay, Don't Gripe

[Red Arrow]

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.

Given your reasoning, no one should have to register more than one vehicle.  I own two cars.  I get a multiple car discount on my insurance but I don't get a multiple car discount on my tags.

[Ed W]

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

Last things first - I did think about getting an amateur radio tag for the car when I was more active in volunteer work, but there are drawbacks.  The main one for me is that you can find someone's address from the callsign database, and as I had some problems with antagonistic co-workers at the time, I preferred to keep my family's location off the grid, so to speak.

Now, on to bicycle licensing....

There are some municipalities that require bike licenses and actually enforce the ordinances.  Mostly, they're college towns using a licensing fee as another way to fleece students.  The fee is low, only five or ten dollars, but the fine for being without the tag is more like $35 or $40.  They know the students won't tag their bikes as they're unlikely to know the law, so it's a quick buck for the town.  

I asked about Owasso's tag once upon a time.  The law is still on the books here, though it hasn't been enforced for ages, and there's good reason for that.  The town would issue a tag, then have to keep a record of it on file in case the tag were lost or stolen.  At that time, records were all on paper, meaning it took a file cabinet and a clerk to handle them.  I was told the costs of doing that more than offset the money the tags brought in, and the presence of a tag had little effect on stolen bike recovery rates.  If I remember right, the chances of getting a bike back are under 5%.  So the practice of issuing tags wasn't cost-effective.  The city could use the clerk's time and the storage space for more important affairs.  Was it BS?  I don't know.

It would be interesting to see how much money the average cyclist spends on sales taxes related to bicycle products.  On a per-mile basis, it may be higher than a motorist's spending, excluding fuel.  My commuting bike needs tires about every 18-24 months as they wear and weather ages them. The chain and cluster have to be replaced about every three years at roughly $100.  Wheels need to be rebuilt every couple of years too, but that's more a function of my weight.  I'm a tightwad.  Some recreational cyclists spend far more.

As for the licensing and tag fees (and presumably the taxes levied on fuel), I think I said they're a minor contribution to the overall road budget which is supported by income taxes, real estate taxes, and sales taxes.  Your breakdown above would seem to confirm that.  Given the funding, we all contribute because we all benefit - even if we do not own or use a motor vehicle, bicycle, or a dog cart.  Most of the goods and services we need are delivered via the road network, so the cyclist buying his soya-mocha-fru-fru-coffee-whatever at the local coffee shop while feeling smug about being 'car free' is no less dependent on the road network than the NASCAR fan waiting behind him.  We all pay and we all benefit.

Come to think of it, perhaps I'll make some more coffee.  I haven't used the moka pot for awhile.

(and real quick since you posted while I was writing this - my insurance agent gave us a discount because I was doing most of my commuting by bike, and as a result, I drove the car only about 4-5 thousand miles per year.)

[Red Arrow]

Last things first - I did think about getting an amateur radio tag for the car when I was more active in volunteer work, but there are drawbacks.  The main one for me is that you can find someone's address from the callsign database, and as I had some problems with antagonistic co-workers at the time, I preferred to keep my family's location off the grid, so to speak.

All sorts of things were listed at the second site I linked.  I believe the Amateur Radio Operator's License is for your radio station, not a tag for your car.

[Ed W]

Just enter a callsign in Google.  The very first return I had was interceptradio.com and it listed my home address.

Moka's done!

[Red Arrow]

Just enter a callsign in Google.  The very first return I had was interceptradio.com and it listed my home address.
Moka's done!

I guess my dad has been gone long enough that he doesn't show up on those records anymore.   My uncle, passed away about 2 years ago, shows up on interceptradio.com but it's a few lines down from the top.

[Red Arrow]

As for the licensing and tag fees (and presumably the taxes levied on fuel), I think I said they're a minor contribution to the overall road budget which is supported by income taxes, real estate taxes, and sales taxes.  Your breakdown above would seem to confirm that.  Given the funding, we all contribute because we all benefit - even if we do not own or use a motor vehicle, bicycle, or a dog cart.  Most of the goods and services we need are delivered via the road network, so the cyclist buying his soya-mocha-fru-fru-coffee-whatever at the local coffee shop while feeling smug about being 'car free' is no less dependent on the road network than the NASCAR fan waiting behind him.  We all pay and we all benefit.

Using this reasoning, there is no more reason to tag a car than to tag a bicycle. 

I think car driver's licenses should actually be more difficult to obtain regarding training.  Fees?  I don't know.  I still think bicyclists should be required to get a bicycle driver's license. It would be evidence that at least at one time you could actually ride and knew the rules of the road.  Clip in pedals would be an additional rating.  I was about 5 ft too far away to help someone once in a parking lot that couldn't unclip.  He fell over.  It was good he wasn't in traffic.  The town I grew up in required a bicycle license.  We had to take a simple driving test marked on a parking lot with cones and chalk.  There were a few questions to answer too. It was administered by the Township Police Dept.  It was a big deal to get a low number tag.  You had to get in line well before the site opened.  One of my friends got tag 1 a couple of years.  I think the best I did was 11. The license was mainly to make sure all the kids knew the rules and were actually able to ride.  It was extended to everyone, probably to make things simple. 

[Hoss]

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.

That's your loss then.  The fact that you made this statement:

There is something to be said for knowing your enemy

Is really all I need to know.  Oh, even though right after you said this:

I don't really consider anyone here my enemy

...see what I did there?

And for the record:  I don't believe I've ever divulged my own opinions in detail on taxes, so you wouldn't know them.

[Ed W]

Using this reasoning, there is no more reason to tag a car than to tag a bicycle. 

I think car driver's licenses should actually be more difficult to obtain regarding training.  Fees?  I don't know.  I still think bicyclists should be required to get a bicycle driver's license. It would be evidence that at least at one time you could actually ride and knew the rules of the road.  Clip in pedals would be an additional rating....

I don't know if this is true, but I was told that European driver's licenses are far more difficult and costly to obtain than those in the US.  Cars are more expensive due to VAT taxes and fuel is astronomical by our standards.  It's one of the reasons I get annoyed at those who look at Copenhagen or Amsterdam as some kind of cycling utopias.  Sure, the mode share is much, much higher, but the economics are stacked against car ownership.  We could see similar mode shares here if we had high density cities with associated high cost of living.  That is the case in some larger American cities like New York, Boston, and San Francisco. 

Road cyclist training is a good idea, and in fact since most cyclists are already drivers, they already know the rules of the road.  Keri Caffrey uses this very well in the Cycling Savvy program.  She gets adult cyclists to realize that the road rules work to make riding in traffic a safer, less stressful task than they initially believe.  I'd like to take the course sometime.

You would think that cyclists would be anxious to add to their skill set by getting some formal education on best practices, but they're often very resistant and dismissive.  One instructor said that they learned to balance in 4th grade and haven't progressed much since then.  That's cynical, I know. 

But I suspect you and I diverge when it comes to making the training mandatory or not.  On one hand, mandatory training might result in more people using their bikes for short trips, and that's a good thing.  But on the other hand, it might make some people push the bike to the back of the garage and forget about using it again.  Many of those who insist that cyclists should carry some of the more onerous obligations that go along with car ownership - like tag fees, insurance, titles, and licensing - propose them in the knowledge that many cyclists would be lawbreakers and that could be used to get them off the roads.   

[nathanm]

I find it unlikely that the recommended reading material would present any new information.  I would rather go weed my pepper garden.

You'd be wrong, but again, it's your choice to remain ignorant of how our tax policy is being manipulated. I'd rather be out riding my bike, but I consider it my duty to be informed about the issues. Sometimes that takes more time than I'd really like to devote, but it's pretty important. Otherwise I'm just voting and speaking blindly.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I know I have posted several times about 47% of Americans who do not pay any federal income tax. I saw this today and thought: If you don't pay federal income tax, do you have a basis to grumble about those who do not paying enough? Or, should we just make light of their opinions on tax policy.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/10/30-types-of-people-who-aren%E2%80%99t-allowed-to-complain/

More than the topic of tax policy, I am extremely interested in your real thoughts on what that list says.  Perhaps PM would be more appropriate?

In particular, does any or all of that correspond to your personal beliefs - beyond #4?  (Especially 8 or 31).

[Red Arrow]

I'm sure you believe that.  I obviously don't.

The fact that you made this statement:
Is really all I need to know.  Oh, even though right after you said this:

...see what I did there?

Yep, you truncated my sentence, removing any context applied to the previous statement.[/quote]

And for the record:  I don't believe I've ever divulged my own opinions in detail on taxes, so you wouldn't know them.

Possibly not.  Maybe you should so people won't get the wrong ideas.

[Hoss]

I'm sure you believe that.  I obviously don't.

Yep, you truncated my sentence, removing any context applied to the previous statement.

Possibly not.  Maybe you should so people won't get the wrong ideas.

Nope.  I will say that the current tax code is broken and leave it at that.

Plus, I don't want to give you the chance for you to tag me as 'enemy'...

Wait, too late.

[Red Arrow]

I don't know if this is true, but I was told that European driver's licenses are far more difficult and costly to obtain than those in the US. 

In 1994 a friend from Germany said the mandatory driver's school cost about $2000.

Road cyclist training is a good idea, and in fact since most cyclists are already drivers, they already know the rules of the road.  Keri Caffrey uses this very well in the Cycling Savvy program.  She gets adult cyclists to realize that the road rules work to make riding in traffic a safer, less stressful task than they initially believe.  I'd like to take the course sometime.

A refresher probably never hurt anyone.  As a pilot, I am required to get a biennial (every 2 years) review with a Certified Flight Instructor (CFI).  The review requires at least one hour of ground "school" which is primarily a review of the rules and regs. There is also a 1 hour flight review.  Some people think this should also be required to drive a car but maybe less frequently than 2 years.

You would think that cyclists would be anxious to add to their skill set by getting some formal education on best practices, but they're often very resistant and dismissive.  One instructor said that they learned to balance in 4th grade and haven't progressed much since then.  That's cynical, I know.

I saved my lawn mowing money and allowance to buy 1/2 (my parents paid for the other half) of my first bicycle in 2nd grade.  I had to get my license before I was allowed on the street and even then was only allowed on neighborhood streets and to cross the big, 2-lane, 35 mph Springfield Road.

But I suspect you and I diverge when it comes to making the training mandatory or not.  On one hand, mandatory training might result in more people using their bikes for short trips, and that's a good thing.  But on the other hand, it might make some people push the bike to the back of the garage and forget about using it again.  Many of those who insist that cyclists should carry some of the more onerous obligations that go along with car ownership - like tag fees, insurance, titles, and licensing - propose them in the knowledge that many cyclists would be lawbreakers and that could be used to get them off the roads.   

I think part of my wanting bicycle training mandatory comes from when the 11 year old kid across the street got killed on Mingo at (I think) 91st in the early 70s. He and my sister were riding around.  As they approached the stop sign at 91st, my sister evidently slowed down.  Ronny made it about 1/2 way across 91st.  There were no charges against the car driver as it was a 2 way stop with the stop on Mingo.  If someone is going to put their bicycle in the back of the garage because a little mandatory training is required to use a public facility, so be it.  Maybe I don't want them on the road any more than Nathan thinks I should vote on tax matters.  Onerous obligations?  My idea of training is reading a booklet aimed at safe bicycling and taking a written test.  The driving part could be done at a local police station.  I don't think a $10 annual fee is onerous.  You will probably save that much in gasoline in a week by riding instead of driving.   Titles?  No, a bill of sale or receipt should be enough.  You should probably have that anyway.  The chance of getting back a stolen bicycle is probably not too good though.  I am willing to let the insurance issue slide although if you cause an accident you may wish you had it.  I think most motorists will sacrifice their car rather than hit a cyclist even if the cyclist is at fault.  Be prepared to pay.

We have at least somewhat agreed that tag fees do little toward maintenance of roads.  Car tags and boat stickers are little more than a fee for permission to use a public facility.  There is no reason to exempt bicycles from that practice.

[Red Arrow]

Nope.  I will say that the current tax code is broken and leave it at that.
Plus, I don't want to give you the chance for you to tag me as 'enemy'...
Wait, too late.

If you believe you would be tagged as the enemy, you have just stated your basic philosophy.  If that is not true, you might be afraid that you would be found to be agreeing with *gasp* me.

[Red Arrow]

You'd be wrong,

Based on the fact that we disagree?

I have posted tax items based on a link that YOU provided and you still disagreed with me.  You have little credibility on some subjects.  Others you are OK.