Who pays tax on clothing? Not up here! I thought clothing was tax exemot in most all states.
Drop the Tax on Bicycles
- Thread starter cjcride
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: motor_oil_madman
Perhaps if the government cut spending instead of looking for new ways to tax people.
And pigs will fly as well!!!!
Governments cutting spending is almost as likely as our sun burning out.
Perhaps if the government cut spending instead of looking for new ways to tax people.
And pigs will fly as well!!!!
Governments cutting spending is almost as likely as our sun burning out.
Originally Posted By: GMZ
Originally Posted By: motor_oil_madman
Perhaps if the government cut spending instead of looking for new ways to tax people.
This is often lost in translation, or hidden under the animosity created between two different groups.
White vs black
Rich vs poor
bikes vs cars
Instead of bickering with each other we should shift our gaze to the real problem, which is the govt.
Amen, problem is there are too many liberals that keep voting in liberal politicians that want to GROW the government.
Originally Posted By: motor_oil_madman
Perhaps if the government cut spending instead of looking for new ways to tax people.
This is often lost in translation, or hidden under the animosity created between two different groups.
White vs black
Rich vs poor
bikes vs cars
Instead of bickering with each other we should shift our gaze to the real problem, which is the govt.
Amen, problem is there are too many liberals that keep voting in liberal politicians that want to GROW the government.
The liberals are always saying how they want everyone to "pay their fair share", its even one of the golfers favorite sayings. Now they need to pay their fair share.
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Who pays tax on clothing? Not up here! I thought clothing was tax exemot in most all states.
They shouldn't tax spandex.
Double the tax on pajama bottoms, flip flops, tattoo ink, rhinestone t-shirts, and anything else seen worn around Malwart.
Who pays tax on clothing? Not up here! I thought clothing was tax exemot in most all states.
They shouldn't tax spandex.
Double the tax on pajama bottoms, flip flops, tattoo ink, rhinestone t-shirts, and anything else seen worn around Malwart.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing like comparing apples to oranges. You comparing a farmer to a friggin bicycle rider?
Goes back to Common Law times when it was the duty of gov't to build roads to allow horses, bikes, and stuff on. They both have a right. Motorists have privilege.
Nothing like comparing apples to oranges. You comparing a farmer to a friggin bicycle rider?
Goes back to Common Law times when it was the duty of gov't to build roads to allow horses, bikes, and stuff on. They both have a right. Motorists have privilege.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Taxes should be increased on bikes. Instead of investing in additional lanes to ease the congestion in and around Portland we get bike lanes. Idiots.
Adding bike lanes does ease congestion. If you make it easier/safer for people to ride bicycles, then more people will ride bicycles instead of driving cars. Which means fewer cars on the road. Fewer cars = less congestion.
Taxes should be increased on bikes. Instead of investing in additional lanes to ease the congestion in and around Portland we get bike lanes. Idiots.
Adding bike lanes does ease congestion. If you make it easier/safer for people to ride bicycles, then more people will ride bicycles instead of driving cars. Which means fewer cars on the road. Fewer cars = less congestion.
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: cjcride
Maybe Climate Summit Leaders could drop the tax on bicycles.
Since you're from Canada, I'll assume you're complaining about bicycles not being part of the sports gear tariff reduction?
I find it interesting that so many bike riders want all of the infrastructure provided at no cost to them, and continue to insist that cities provide for and accommodate their choice of riding a bike. Assuming that the tariff proceeds are correctly funneled into creating bike-friendly projects, I don't see any issue with bicyclists paying a tariff.
Your choice of riding a bike doesn't exempt you from paying for the infrastructure needed to make it safe and friendly for you.
I'll add to that.
Bikes on public roads should have to carry insurance. Bikes have caused accidents and hit cars and pedestrians, they should have to carry liability.
I say that as an owner of a cannondale r900 with campy components.
Originally Posted By: cjcride
Maybe Climate Summit Leaders could drop the tax on bicycles.
Since you're from Canada, I'll assume you're complaining about bicycles not being part of the sports gear tariff reduction?
I find it interesting that so many bike riders want all of the infrastructure provided at no cost to them, and continue to insist that cities provide for and accommodate their choice of riding a bike. Assuming that the tariff proceeds are correctly funneled into creating bike-friendly projects, I don't see any issue with bicyclists paying a tariff.
Your choice of riding a bike doesn't exempt you from paying for the infrastructure needed to make it safe and friendly for you.
I'll add to that.
Bikes on public roads should have to carry insurance. Bikes have caused accidents and hit cars and pedestrians, they should have to carry liability.
I say that as an owner of a cannondale r900 with campy components.
In the summer, my girlfriend and I park about 15 miles away and take our bikes down a scenic trail along a river. Parking is free and hassle free and it is quite fun cruising on the bike lanes. We usually tie up the "horses" and hit our favorite pub/ pizza place.
I have a friend that rides his bike whenever possible. School, work and even the grocery store.
Taxing something green/ eco friendly is a bit strange IMO.
I have a friend that rides his bike whenever possible. School, work and even the grocery store.
Taxing something green/ eco friendly is a bit strange IMO.
Originally Posted By: Trav
+1 They should pay a flat $100 a year over the age of 16 to pay for the infrastructure they use. Bike path lanes are not free.
I have nothing against them its just we all have to pay to use the roads.
I agree. I've ridden my bike 1,000 miles per year over the past 10 years...and never once on any constructed or maintained bike path. Hence, there should be no tax in my area. Since I was a kid I've never ridden my bike on any "bike path." Do some towns really have those? I pay plenty in town and state taxes for road maintenance...and get very little for that as it is. If you're taxing bicycles...don't forget to tax pedestrians as well...who cause a lot more accidents (total $dollar value) than bicyclists do.
+1 They should pay a flat $100 a year over the age of 16 to pay for the infrastructure they use. Bike path lanes are not free.
I have nothing against them its just we all have to pay to use the roads.
I agree. I've ridden my bike 1,000 miles per year over the past 10 years...and never once on any constructed or maintained bike path. Hence, there should be no tax in my area. Since I was a kid I've never ridden my bike on any "bike path." Do some towns really have those? I pay plenty in town and state taxes for road maintenance...and get very little for that as it is. If you're taxing bicycles...don't forget to tax pedestrians as well...who cause a lot more accidents (total $dollar value) than bicyclists do.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing like comparing apples to oranges. You comparing a farmer to a friggin bicycle rider?
Goes back to Common Law times when it was the duty of gov't to build roads to allow horses, bikes, and stuff on. They both have a right. Motorists have privilege.
Documentation, proof? I doubt it.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing like comparing apples to oranges. You comparing a farmer to a friggin bicycle rider?
Goes back to Common Law times when it was the duty of gov't to build roads to allow horses, bikes, and stuff on. They both have a right. Motorists have privilege.
Documentation, proof? I doubt it.
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Taxes should be increased on bikes. Instead of investing in additional lanes to ease the congestion in and around Portland we get bike lanes. Idiots.
Adding bike lanes does ease congestion. If you make it easier/safer for people to ride bicycles, then more people will ride bicycles instead of driving cars. Which means fewer cars on the road. Fewer cars = less congestion.
I disagree. That bike lane comes at the expense of surface area that could be used or was taken away from roads for cars (or the money to build the bike lane comes at the expense of building more lanes for cars). I have never seen somewhere the bikes are efficiently using the surface area they are given while for cars they are backed up using 100% of their area. In other words we reduce our surface area usage efficiency by shifting a few bikes to bike lanes instead of building more lanes for cars. Until you see bikes using 100% of their surface area they are a very inefficient use of our roads and money.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Taxes should be increased on bikes. Instead of investing in additional lanes to ease the congestion in and around Portland we get bike lanes. Idiots.
Adding bike lanes does ease congestion. If you make it easier/safer for people to ride bicycles, then more people will ride bicycles instead of driving cars. Which means fewer cars on the road. Fewer cars = less congestion.
I disagree. That bike lane comes at the expense of surface area that could be used or was taken away from roads for cars (or the money to build the bike lane comes at the expense of building more lanes for cars). I have never seen somewhere the bikes are efficiently using the surface area they are given while for cars they are backed up using 100% of their area. In other words we reduce our surface area usage efficiency by shifting a few bikes to bike lanes instead of building more lanes for cars. Until you see bikes using 100% of their surface area they are a very inefficient use of our roads and money.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Atleast for the first $1000, but I imagine in Canada most bikes are used for fun and not commuting.
I like the $1000. cut off it makes sense.
I believe 4% of Torontonians said they bike to work in a recent survey.
Atleast for the first $1000, but I imagine in Canada most bikes are used for fun and not commuting.
I like the $1000. cut off it makes sense.
I believe 4% of Torontonians said they bike to work in a recent survey.
Originally Posted By: cjcride
Maybe Climate Summit Leaders could drop the tax on bicycles.
I might add I'm not a die hard lefty Liberal.
Appreciate all the points made so far.
I was putting my bike away for the season last night. The news was still blathering about the Climate Summit and I thought no one mentioned bicycles at all?!
That prompted the thread.
Maybe Climate Summit Leaders could drop the tax on bicycles.
I might add I'm not a die hard lefty Liberal.
Appreciate all the points made so far.
I was putting my bike away for the season last night. The news was still blathering about the Climate Summit and I thought no one mentioned bicycles at all?!
That prompted the thread.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Who pays tax on clothing? Not up here! I thought clothing was tax exempt in most all states.
We pay 13% on everything in Ontario Canada.
Note to Tax Accountants I realize there may be couple items that are not taxed.
Who pays tax on clothing? Not up here! I thought clothing was tax exempt in most all states.
We pay 13% on everything in Ontario Canada.
Note to Tax Accountants I realize there may be couple items that are not taxed.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing like comparing apples to oranges. You comparing a farmer to a friggin bicycle rider?
Goes back to Common Law times when it was the duty of gov't to build roads to allow horses, bikes, and stuff on. They both have a right. Motorists have privilege.
Documentation, proof? I doubt it.
http://www.massrmv.com/rmv/dmanual/chapter_4.pdf
Page 25:
Quote:
Animals and Horse-Drawn Vehicles
Always give the right-of-way to an animal that someone is leading, riding, or
driving. Animals are easily scared by motor vehicles. When you get near an
animal or horse-drawn vehicle, be careful and do the following.
•
Slow down.
•
Stop if the animal or vehicle is coming toward you or is crossing your path. Allow the
animal to pass.
•
If the animal or vehicle is traveling in the same direction as you, allow plenty of room for
passing safely. Drive at a reasonable speed.
•
Do not honk your horn or make a loud noise.
•
If the animal you are passing looks scared, you must pull your vehicle to the side and
stop.
•
Proceed only when it is safe.
•
You must stop if a rider or driver signals you to do so
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Trav
Nothing like comparing apples to oranges. You comparing a farmer to a friggin bicycle rider?
Goes back to Common Law times when it was the duty of gov't to build roads to allow horses, bikes, and stuff on. They both have a right. Motorists have privilege.
Documentation, proof? I doubt it.
http://www.massrmv.com/rmv/dmanual/chapter_4.pdf
Page 25:
Quote:
Animals and Horse-Drawn Vehicles
Always give the right-of-way to an animal that someone is leading, riding, or
driving. Animals are easily scared by motor vehicles. When you get near an
animal or horse-drawn vehicle, be careful and do the following.
•
Slow down.
•
Stop if the animal or vehicle is coming toward you or is crossing your path. Allow the
animal to pass.
•
If the animal or vehicle is traveling in the same direction as you, allow plenty of room for
passing safely. Drive at a reasonable speed.
•
Do not honk your horn or make a loud noise.
•
If the animal you are passing looks scared, you must pull your vehicle to the side and
stop.
•
Proceed only when it is safe.
•
You must stop if a rider or driver signals you to do so
That doesn't say anything about..
Quote:
the duty of gov't to build roads to allow horses, bikes, and stuff on
No one denies they have a right to use the road. Do you forget what you wrote or what?
Quote:
the duty of gov't to build roads to allow horses, bikes, and stuff on
No one denies they have a right to use the road. Do you forget what you wrote or what?
Quote:
The construction and care of the public roads, whether in Rome, in Italy, or in the provinces, was, at all periods of Roman history, considered to be a function of the greatest weight and importance. This is clearly shown by the fact that the censors, in some respects the most venerable of Roman magistrates, had the earliest paramount authority to construct and repair all roads and streets.
Quote:
The laws twelve Tables, dated to approximately 450 BC, specified that a road shall be 8 ft (2.45 m) wide where straight and 16 ft (4.90 m) where curved.[10] Actual practices varied from this standard. The Tables command Romans to build roads and give wayfarers the right to pass over private land where the road is in disrepair. Building roads that would not need frequent repair therefore became an ideological objective, as well as building them as straight as possible in order to build the narrowest roads possible, and thus save on material.
Roman law defined the right to use a road as a servitus, or claim. The ius eundi ("right of going") established a claim to use an iter, or footpath, across private land; the ius agendi ("right of driving"), an actus, or carriage track. A via combined both types of servitutes, provided it was of the proper width, which was determined by an arbiter. The default width was the latitudo legitima of 8 ft (2.4 m).
Roman law and tradition forbade the use of vehicles in urban areas, except in certain cases. Married women and government officials on business could ride. The Lex Iulia Municipalis restricted commercial carts to night-time access to the city within the walls and within a mile outside the walls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roads
As to my previous comment about motor vehicles being a privilege, having to yield to an equestrian's signal pretty much shows who's higher-up, legally.
The construction and care of the public roads, whether in Rome, in Italy, or in the provinces, was, at all periods of Roman history, considered to be a function of the greatest weight and importance. This is clearly shown by the fact that the censors, in some respects the most venerable of Roman magistrates, had the earliest paramount authority to construct and repair all roads and streets.
Quote:
The laws twelve Tables, dated to approximately 450 BC, specified that a road shall be 8 ft (2.45 m) wide where straight and 16 ft (4.90 m) where curved.[10] Actual practices varied from this standard. The Tables command Romans to build roads and give wayfarers the right to pass over private land where the road is in disrepair. Building roads that would not need frequent repair therefore became an ideological objective, as well as building them as straight as possible in order to build the narrowest roads possible, and thus save on material.
Roman law defined the right to use a road as a servitus, or claim. The ius eundi ("right of going") established a claim to use an iter, or footpath, across private land; the ius agendi ("right of driving"), an actus, or carriage track. A via combined both types of servitutes, provided it was of the proper width, which was determined by an arbiter. The default width was the latitudo legitima of 8 ft (2.4 m).
Roman law and tradition forbade the use of vehicles in urban areas, except in certain cases. Married women and government officials on business could ride. The Lex Iulia Municipalis restricted commercial carts to night-time access to the city within the walls and within a mile outside the walls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roads
As to my previous comment about motor vehicles being a privilege, having to yield to an equestrian's signal pretty much shows who's higher-up, legally.
IIRC the Roman roads where built to move the Roman Military as quickly as possible.
- Status
Similar threads
