Oregon bike tax?

On Fri, 5 May 2017 07:50:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 6:51:46 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 11:46:45 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2017 20:50:15 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/3/2017 7:57 PM, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2017 09:02:13 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/3/2017 8:43 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 9:04:35 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 2017 18:58:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 02 May 2017 08:31:47 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 01 May 2017 09:02:25 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On the other hand taking a laissez-faire attitude toward law and order
results in what?

Freedom.

Ah yes. Freedom to shoot a nagging wife?

Yep, that's about it. Given the opportunity, the GUM (great unwashed
masses) will invariably vote themselves a free lunch, cancel all
debts, and nationalize all private roads. Democracy is all about
having someone else pay their fair share.

While I suspect that you are being a bit droll here you are certainly
correct that, perhaps, the most obvious trait of humanity is greed
:-)

Yep. The former Soviet Union demonstrated that an economic system
that is NOT based on greed, doesn't work.

We also demonstrated my point when California voted itself a free
lunch in the form of a ballot initiative to force auto insurance
companies to lower their rates by 20% and freezing rates for existing
customers.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_103,_Insurance_Rates_and_Re gulation_(1988)
Basically, Prop 103 demanded that auto insurance companies operate at
a loss. That wasn't going to work.

The insurance companies initially responded by refusing to write new
policies in California. It took 3 different insurance commissars to
find someone willing to deal with the resultant mess. After plenty of
litigation, things eventually settled down to lower rates at not quite
the level passed in Prop 103.


Here when it was decided to enforce mandatory insurance for autos the
government essentially held a bidding contest to select a group of
companies to provide the insurance. The result is quite cheap
liability insurance for every car on the road. In fact you cannot even
pay your annual vehicle tax, or register a vehicle, without showing
proof that you have insurance coverage for the year. If you want
insurance for your own car you can also purchase that relatively
cheaply compared to U.S. prices.

ly, many years ago, several home owners would not pay into
our road maintenance fund. So, when the road was resurfaced, we left
a large gap in front of their houses. Predictably, the runoff from
the newly paved sections undermined the old pavement until it became a
large collection of overlapping pot holes. I have a few photos
(somewhere) that I show to reluctant property owners as an added
inducement to paying their fair share.

But what is "fair share"? Based on family income? Income net of debts?
Number of cars? Number of operational cars (takes junkers parked in
the yard into account). Tithe?

I've been dealing for the last 40 years. We've tried various schemes
in an effort to be fair, none of which were perfect. The closest
we've come to something that irritates the fewest owners, landlords,
and tenants was to simply charge by the flat fee for the annual spring
maintenance binge plus a formula based on the number of drivers in a
household and the distance from the beginning of the road. Counting
drivers was necessary because one person has about 6 cars, but with
only one driver. The distance from the beginning of the road was
needed because although the other end of the road is passable, but
sufficiently muddy and full of deep potholes, that it creates an
effective dead end. Those near that end of the road, use more of the
road, and should therefore pay more. That was necessary because none
of the residents at the begriming of the road would pay anything
unless it was included. If you have a better scheme, I'm interested
(use email).


Way back when I was a kid the town was required to maintain roads
within the precinct (I believe they called it) but there were roads,
we lived on one, that were outside the precinct and for those some
sort of fixed fee was charged. The roads would have been dirt roads
and maintenance was probably a grader running over the road
occasionally to smooth out the washboard. I have the feeling that one
paid the road fee at the same time one paid one's town taxes.

Incidentally, we have a few "students" on the roadway. When I asked
for road maintenance money, they offered to substitute labor in lieu
of payment. We did that only one year. I arranged for the students
to meet with the paving contractor, who put them to work preparing the
road with picks and shovels. By the end of the day, those left
standing were totally exhausted and offered to pay instead of
continuing the work. The next day, the contractor showed up with the
heavy equipment, which finished the job in a small fraction of the
time that it took the students. Yeah, I know. I'm evil.

Not really. Learning about physical labor is not evil. I remember when
I was in high school a representative of Dartmouth Collage spoke to
the senior class. He recommended that one should take at least a year
off and work before entering collage. He went on to say that those who
had done that invariably got better grades than those who came
directly from high school.

How's that Brexit going?


Large chunks of America are hoping California secedes.

There is a great deal to be said for the philosophy exhibited in the
Constitution wherein it was a federation of states, each one doing
their own thing and paying their own way.


I can't wait. Do write back if that looks at all probable.

Unfortunately the has risen to its present utopian level, where people
are4 paid for not working and encouraged to borrow yet more money when
they are broke :-(

But in fact this is NOT the majority of people as the last Presidential election here showed.


The U.S. election is not, and never has been, "a majority of the
people" form of election. It has, since the very beginning, been
largely an "election by the states".

Precisely what do you believe has happened in most US elections? Even this last one in which it was claimed that Hillary won the popular vote was a complete and total lie. They rapidly aborted the recount in Detroit when it became clear that 60% of more of the precincts counted had massive voter fraud. One precinct had 6 times more votes than registered voters and it was almost 100% for Hillary. The voter fraud in California alone was far more than that "majority".

What has "voter fraud" got to do with the type of voting system
employed? And voter fraud", as you call it has been a part of the U.S.
system since the earliest days. The first charge of "voter fraud"
seems to have been in 1792.


Trump won not just the states which is how it is SUPPOSED TO WORK in a Representative Republic, but he won the popular vote as well.

Who cares? The fact is that he was elected by the"democratic" system
that has been used in the U.S. since it became a nation.

On Fri, 5 May 2017 07:54:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 6:51:48 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2017 08:07:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 7:33:19 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/4/2017 9:17 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:41:53 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/4/2017 1:46 AM, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2017 20:50:15 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/3/2017 7:57 PM, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2017 09:02:13 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/3/2017 8:43 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 9:04:35 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 2017 18:58:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 02 May 2017 08:31:47 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 01 May 2017 09:02:25 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On the other hand taking a laissez-faire attitude toward law and order
results in what?

Freedom.

Ah yes. Freedom to shoot a nagging wife?

Yep, that's about it. Given the opportunity, the GUM (great unwashed
masses) will invariably vote themselves a free lunch, cancel all
debts, and nationalize all private roads. Democracy is all about
having someone else pay their fair share.

While I suspect that you are being a bit droll here you are certainly
correct that, perhaps, the most obvious trait of humanity is greed
:-)

Yep. The former Soviet Union demonstrated that an economic system
that is NOT based on greed, doesn't work.

We also demonstrated my point when California voted itself a free
lunch in the form of a ballot initiative to force auto insurance
companies to lower their rates by 20% and freezing rates for existing
customers.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_103,_Insurance_Rates_and_Re gulation_(1988)
Basically, Prop 103 demanded that auto insurance companies operate at
a loss. That wasn't going to work.

The insurance companies initially responded by refusing to write new
policies in California. It took 3 different insurance commissars to
find someone willing to deal with the resultant mess. After plenty of
litigation, things eventually settled down to lower rates at not quite
the level passed in Prop 103.


Here when it was decided to enforce mandatory insurance for autos the
government essentially held a bidding contest to select a group of
companies to provide the insurance. The result is quite cheap
liability insurance for every car on the road. In fact you cannot even
pay your annual vehicle tax, or register a vehicle, without showing
proof that you have insurance coverage for the year. If you want
insurance for your own car you can also purchase that relatively
cheaply compared to U.S. prices.

ly, many years ago, several home owners would not pay into
our road maintenance fund. So, when the road was resurfaced, we left
a large gap in front of their houses. Predictably, the runoff from
the newly paved sections undermined the old pavement until it became a
large collection of overlapping pot holes. I have a few photos
(somewhere) that I show to reluctant property owners as an added
inducement to paying their fair share.

But what is "fair share"? Based on family income? Income net of debts?
Number of cars? Number of operational cars (takes junkers parked in
the yard into account). Tithe?

I've been dealing for the last 40 years. We've tried various schemes
in an effort to be fair, none of which were perfect. The closest
we've come to something that irritates the fewest owners, landlords,
and tenants was to simply charge by the flat fee for the annual spring
maintenance binge plus a formula based on the number of drivers in a
household and the distance from the beginning of the road. Counting
drivers was necessary because one person has about 6 cars, but with
only one driver. The distance from the beginning of the road was
needed because although the other end of the road is passable, but
sufficiently muddy and full of deep potholes, that it creates an
effective dead end. Those near that end of the road, use more of the
road, and should therefore pay more. That was necessary because none
of the residents at the begriming of the road would pay anything
unless it was included. If you have a better scheme, I'm interested
(use email).


Way back when I was a kid the town was required to maintain roads
within the precinct (I believe they called it) but there were roads,
we lived on one, that were outside the precinct and for those some
sort of fixed fee was charged. The roads would have been dirt roads
and maintenance was probably a grader running over the road
occasionally to smooth out the washboard. I have the feeling that one
paid the road fee at the same time one paid one's town taxes.

Incidentally, we have a few "students" on the roadway. When I asked
for road maintenance money, they offered to substitute labor in lieu
of payment. We did that only one year. I arranged for the students
to meet with the paving contractor, who put them to work preparing the
road with picks and shovels. By the end of the day, those left
standing were totally exhausted and offered to pay instead of
continuing the work. The next day, the contractor showed up with the
heavy equipment, which finished the job in a small fraction of the
time that it took the students. Yeah, I know. I'm evil.

Not really. Learning about physical labor is not evil. I remember when
I was in high school a representative of Dartmouth Collage spoke to
the senior class. He recommended that one should take at least a year
off and work before entering collage. He went on to say that those who
had done that invariably got better grades than those who came
directly from high school.

How's that Brexit going?


Large chunks of America are hoping California secedes.

There is a great deal to be said for the philosophy exhibited in the
Constitution wherein it was a federation of states, each one doing
their own thing and paying their own way.


I can't wait. Do write back if that looks at all probable.

Unfortunately the has risen to its present utopian level, where people
are4 paid for not working and encouraged to borrow yet more money when
they are broke :-(


Looks a lot like the massive silver transfer from China to
England during the Opium Wars. That turned out very well for
England; China is still recovering from the effects.


All the world's problems aren't due to Great Britain. It isn't as if the Chinese Emperors, the Russians Kings and the Morro slavers were only pawns in the hands of someone else.


I did not intend that meaning. Only that a dramatically
effective policy was done at arms length with virtually no
military or state expense. Look around you and see a modern
parallel.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The opium wars were from China importing Opium to Great Britain. Opium originated by Great Britain importing Opium to China for medical reasons. As we've seen here it has gotten out of hand quite rapidly. And state governments are simply looking the other way. Is that because they approve of it?

Opium was known in China long before the British started importing it
in quantity.

The problem developed because the Chinese would only sell their
products, mostly tea and silks, for silver as they required silver in
quantity to prop up their currency.

The British, literally unable to get their hands on sufficient silver
to support the tea trade, discovered that while opium was available
cheaply in India, which they largely controlled, it was relatively
rare in China and therefore commanded large prices there. Thus a
totally illegal, under Chinese law, trade developed. Opium in - Tea
out.

The initial acts that perpetrated the so called Opium Wars, was the
Chinese destroying a large amount of illegal opium held in (largely
British) Shanghai warehouses.

This, by the way, is not some esoteric knowledge available only to the
initiate. Any study of British trade in the 1800's spells it out in
detail. There was even a rather famous novel, written by James
Clavell, about the trade that portrays a rather grim picture of
events.

You are aware that this was a totally PRIVATE trade don't you? And virtually every other country's traders were doing precisely the same thing because opium was nothing more than a trade product.

Yes it was a totally private trade from the 1834 termination of the
East India Company's monopoly in China.

I used the term "British" simply to denote the main players in the
trade when in reality had you asked either Jardine or Matheson his
nationality he would have undoubtedly replied "Scottish".

PDF]
bicycle industry - Oregon Tourism Commission - Travel Oregon
Travel Oregon › industry › 2014/02 › Or...
Feb 19, 2014 - Alliance, Oregon Bicycle Constructors Association, Oregon .... Total 2012 bicycle industry sales amounted to $440 million, ..... average annual employment of this