|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
California bicycle recycling bill follow up
some taxpayers are calling it a waste of money!
http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp...7&nav=9qrxWvPg I tend to agree. Ken -- More of my mind dribblings: http://mind-dribble.blogspot.com/ And my homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/ |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
By recycling, do they mean recycled into a useable bicycle, or simply
recycled to a scrap metal collector? The words of David O'Donnell make it seem the former. Which is even crazier than charging the tax in the first place. I guess it's not really a waste of *every* taxpayer's money, since the only people who would be paying this tax are bicycle buyers. But for *those* taxpayers/bicycle buyers, it would be a complete waste of money. The article is skimpy on details. It sounds more like a deposit than a straight tax, since some of the money is refunded when the bike is recycled. I suppose this may be the only (admittedly weak) justification for the tax, a incentive to keep bikes from being abandoned on the streets? I know Calif needs the revenue, but if that's the case, why not just make it a tax going into general revenue, and not wasting money to subsidise a "recycling" program? Not only does this proposal seem to be additional tax on bicycle consumers, it just creates another bureacracy to administrate itself. Government for the sake of government. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I think the way the CA plan was going to work is that the old bicycles would
be seperated into different materials and sold as scrap. Perhaps I am wrong about this. But I would support the other plan of taking old bikes and refurbishing them to sell or give away to needy individuals. Ken wrote in message oups.com... By recycling, do they mean recycled into a useable bicycle, or simply recycled to a scrap metal collector? The words of David O'Donnell make it seem the former. Which is even crazier than charging the tax in the first place. I guess it's not really a waste of *every* taxpayer's money, since the only people who would be paying this tax are bicycle buyers. But for *those* taxpayers/bicycle buyers, it would be a complete waste of money. The article is skimpy on details. It sounds more like a deposit than a straight tax, since some of the money is refunded when the bike is recycled. I suppose this may be the only (admittedly weak) justification for the tax, a incentive to keep bikes from being abandoned on the streets? I know Calif needs the revenue, but if that's the case, why not just make it a tax going into general revenue, and not wasting money to subsidise a "recycling" program? Not only does this proposal seem to be additional tax on bicycle consumers, it just creates another bureacracy to administrate itself. Government for the sake of government. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Colorado: new bicycle bill passes | Ken Marcet | General | 14 | March 2nd 05 07:20 AM |
you people are gay | MagillaGorilla | Racing | 282 | December 7th 04 07:06 PM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | General | 1927 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
A song for Carla | John Harlow | Mountain Biking | 3 | May 10th 04 02:29 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |