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/

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.

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.