Oregon bike tax

Oregon has no state sales tax.

Except on bikes, that is:

http://www.wweek.com/bikes/2017/07/0...ike-sales-tax/

Seems to me if you don't like to use bike lanes, you shouldn't have to
pay this.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 9:58:38 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oregon has no state sales tax.

Except on bikes, that is:

http://www.wweek.com/bikes/2017/07/0...ike-sales-tax/

Seems to me if you don't like to use bike lanes, you shouldn't have to
pay this.

F*** that! Just when I need to buy a bike to replace my SuperSix. I wasn't following the legislation. Thanks for the depressing heads-up.

The bike market has been hard-hit lately with sales way down according to a couple of friends in the industry, so this will make it harder for retailers -- particularly on low-margin bikes in the $400-500 range. Probably not much harder, but it certainly sends a signal.

Maybe I'll call Kate Brown and tell her to veto it. She's my BFF.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 7/7/2017 9:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oregon has no state sales tax.

Except on bikes, that is:

http://www.wweek.com/bikes/2017/07/0...ike-sales-tax/


Seems to me if you don't like to use bike lanes, you shouldn't have to
pay this.


Seems to me a low price ($15 flat tax on new bikes priced over $200) to
have "some skin in the game" of road usage.

It's too tedious to explain to rude bumpkin-drivers that a large
percentage of road expenditures in Oregon come out of the general fund
anyway (years ago I heard ~30%) rather than gas-tax funding, or that I
pay plenty of gas tax even though I'm on my bike at the moment, so this
bill is a cheap silencer for "you don't pay for the roads" gibes.

Finally, I suspect that the proportion of bike revenue in this bill has
little relation to the proportion of bike lane expenditures. Yes, most
of my riding is on roads with no bike lane (up the Bald Mountain access
road today - a killer goat-path climb). Does that mean I shouldn't pay
a share for the maintenance of the regular roadway? Either way, it's
not gonna be much money.

Mark "I like having nice roads, even if I gotta pay for 'em" J.
Salem, Oregon

On 7/7/2017 8:03 PM, Mark J. wrote:
On 7/7/2017 9:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oregon has no state sales tax.

Except on bikes, that is:

http://www.wweek.com/bikes/2017/07/0...ike-sales-tax/


Seems to me if you don't like to use bike lanes, you shouldn't have to
pay this.


Seems to me a low price ($15 flat tax on new bikes priced over $200) to
have "some skin in the game" of road usage.

It's too tedious to explain to rude bumpkin-drivers that a large
percentage of road expenditures in Oregon come out of the general fund
anyway (years ago I heard ~30%) rather than gas-tax funding, or that I
pay plenty of gas tax even though I'm on my bike at the moment, so this
bill is a cheap silencer for "you don't pay for the roads" gibes.

Finally, I suspect that the proportion of bike revenue in this bill has
little relation to the proportion of bike lane expenditures. Yes, most
of my riding is on roads with no bike lane (up the Bald Mountain access
road today - a killer goat-path climb). Does that mean I shouldn't pay
a share for the maintenance of the regular roadway? Either way, it's
not gonna be much money.

Mark "I like having nice roads, even if I gotta pay for 'em" J.
Salem, Oregon

Well, I have negligible skin in that game. I used to visit Oregon
periodically, but haven't in quite a while.

Still: I suppose first crack at a logical funding scheme might be for
each user to pay in proportion to the expense they generate. Sounds
logical, no?

In my case, my bicycling generates zero expense. That is, my bike's
damage to the road surface is immeasurably low. Around here, we have
almost no special bike facilities (thank goodness) and I usually prefer
to avoid the ones we do have, so I didn't generate their construction.
As an example, on today's utility ride with added recreational detour, I
used regular roads.

If we applied that principle, motorists would pay more than two wheelers
(motorized or pedal driven). Trucks would pay far, far more than they
do now, since pavement damage rises as something like the fourth power
of weight. See
https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-...damage-levels/
for example.

And mileage should be included as well as weight. As a general rule,
I'd guess that bigger and heavier vehicles tend to do more mileage than
light ones. Especially bikes.

Anyway, given the above, it seems hard to justify fees on bikes.



--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/7/2017 8:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/7/2017 8:03 PM, Mark J. wrote:
On 7/7/2017 9:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oregon has no state sales tax.

Except on bikes, that is:

http://www.wweek.com/bikes/2017/07/0...ike-sales-tax/


Seems to me if you don't like to use bike lanes, you
shouldn't have to pay this.


Seems to me a low price ($15 flat tax on new bikes priced
over $200) to have "some skin in the game" of road usage.

It's too tedious to explain to rude bumpkin-drivers that a
large percentage of road expenditures in Oregon come out
of the general fund anyway (years ago I heard ~30%) rather
than gas-tax funding, or that I pay plenty of gas tax even
though I'm on my bike at the moment, so this bill is a
cheap silencer for "you don't pay for the roads" gibes.

Finally, I suspect that the proportion of bike revenue in
this bill has little relation to the proportion of bike
lane expenditures. Yes, most of my riding is on roads
with no bike lane (up the Bald Mountain access road today
- a killer goat-path climb). Does that mean I shouldn't
pay a share for the maintenance of the regular roadway?
Either way, it's not gonna be much money.

Mark "I like having nice roads, even if I gotta pay for
'em" J.
Salem, Oregon

Well, I have negligible skin in that game. I used to visit
Oregon periodically, but haven't in quite a while.

Still: I suppose first crack at a logical funding scheme
might be for each user to pay in proportion to the expense
they generate. Sounds logical, no?

In my case, my bicycling generates zero expense. That is,
my bike's damage to the road surface is immeasurably low.
Around here, we have almost no special bike facilities
(thank goodness) and I usually prefer to avoid the ones we
do have, so I didn't generate their construction. As an
example, on today's utility ride with added recreational
detour, I used regular roads.

If we applied that principle, motorists would pay more than
two wheelers (motorized or pedal driven). Trucks would pay
far, far more than they do now, since pavement damage rises
as something like the fourth power of weight. See
https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-...damage-levels/
for example.

And mileage should be included as well as weight. As a
general rule, I'd guess that bigger and heavier vehicles
tend to do more mileage than light ones. Especially bikes.

Anyway, given the above, it seems hard to justify fees on
bikes.




You could argue about rates (and I would be interested in
that argument) but they do pay quite a bit now:

http://www.mackinac.org/8433

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

AMuzi wrote:
:On 7/7/2017 8:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
: On 7/7/2017 8:03 PM, Mark J. wrote:
: On 7/7/2017 9:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
: Oregon has no state sales tax.
:
: Except on bikes, that is:
:
: http://www.wweek.com/bikes/2017/07/0...ike-sales-tax/
:
:
: Seems to me if you don't like to use bike lanes, you
: shouldn't have to pay this.
:
:
: Seems to me a low price ($15 flat tax on new bikes priced
: over $200) to have "some skin in the game" of road usage.
:
: It's too tedious to explain to rude bumpkin-drivers that a
: large percentage of road expenditures in Oregon come out
: of the general fund anyway (years ago I heard ~30%) rather
: than gas-tax funding, or that I pay plenty of gas tax even
: though I'm on my bike at the moment, so this bill is a
: cheap silencer for "you don't pay for the roads" gibes.
:
: Finally, I suspect that the proportion of bike revenue in
: this bill has little relation to the proportion of bike
: lane expenditures. Yes, most of my riding is on roads
: with no bike lane (up the Bald Mountain access road today
: - a killer goat-path climb). Does that mean I shouldn't
: pay a share for the maintenance of the regular roadway?
: Either way, it's not gonna be much money.
:
: Mark "I like having nice roads, even if I gotta pay for
: 'em" J.
: Salem, Oregon
:
: Well, I have negligible skin in that game. I used to visit
: Oregon periodically, but haven't in quite a while.
:
: Still: I suppose first crack at a logical funding scheme
: might be for each user to pay in proportion to the expense
: they generate. Sounds logical, no?
:
: In my case, my bicycling generates zero expense. That is,
: my bike's damage to the road surface is immeasurably low.
: Around here, we have almost no special bike facilities
: (thank goodness) and I usually prefer to avoid the ones we
: do have, so I didn't generate their construction. As an
: example, on today's utility ride with added recreational
: detour, I used regular roads.
:
: If we applied that principle, motorists would pay more than
: two wheelers (motorized or pedal driven). Trucks would pay
: far, far more than they do now, since pavement damage rises
: as something like the fourth power of weight. See
: https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-...damage-levels/
: for example.
:
: And mileage should be included as well as weight. As a
: general rule, I'd guess that bigger and heavier vehicles
: tend to do more mileage than light ones. Especially bikes.
:
: Anyway, given the above, it seems hard to justify fees on
: bikes.
:
:
:

:You could argue about rates (and I would be interested in
:that argument) but they do pay quite a bit now:

:http://www.mackinac.org/8433

There's an (commisioned, unpublished) IBM study from the early 2000s
that calculated that were heavy trucks to pay their fair share of road
use, diesel fuel would cost about $50 a gallon. Trucking is heavily
subsidizied by the rest of road users, to the extent that they pay for
road costs, and by the general population for the rest.

Remember, damage to road surfaces goes up with the fourth power of
axle load. Double the axle load, damage goes up 16 fold. Typical car
axle weight is 1 ton; trucks are 10.

Mackinac can go **** themselves and their rent seeking.


--
sig 108

Disagree


Funde mental there be a discussion of EMS costs

On 7/7/2017 8:51 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
:On 7/7/2017 8:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
: On 7/7/2017 8:03 PM, Mark J. wrote:
: On 7/7/2017 9:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
: Oregon has no state sales tax.
:
: Except on bikes, that is:
:
: http://www.wweek.com/bikes/2017/07/0...ike-sales-tax/
:
:
: Seems to me if you don't like to use bike lanes, you
: shouldn't have to pay this.
:
:
: Seems to me a low price ($15 flat tax on new bikes priced
: over $200) to have "some skin in the game" of road usage.
:
: It's too tedious to explain to rude bumpkin-drivers that a
: large percentage of road expenditures in Oregon come out
: of the general fund anyway (years ago I heard ~30%) rather
: than gas-tax funding, or that I pay plenty of gas tax even
: though I'm on my bike at the moment, so this bill is a
: cheap silencer for "you don't pay for the roads" gibes.
:
: Finally, I suspect that the proportion of bike revenue in
: this bill has little relation to the proportion of bike
: lane expenditures. Yes, most of my riding is on roads
: with no bike lane (up the Bald Mountain access road today
: - a killer goat-path climb). Does that mean I shouldn't
: pay a share for the maintenance of the regular roadway?
: Either way, it's not gonna be much money.
:
: Mark "I like having nice roads, even if I gotta pay for
: 'em" J.
: Salem, Oregon
:
: Well, I have negligible skin in that game. I used to visit
: Oregon periodically, but haven't in quite a while.
:
: Still: I suppose first crack at a logical funding scheme
: might be for each user to pay in proportion to the expense
: they generate. Sounds logical, no?
:
: In my case, my bicycling generates zero expense. That is,
: my bike's damage to the road surface is immeasurably low.
: Around here, we have almost no special bike facilities
: (thank goodness) and I usually prefer to avoid the ones we
: do have, so I didn't generate their construction. As an
: example, on today's utility ride with added recreational
: detour, I used regular roads.
:
: If we applied that principle, motorists would pay more than
: two wheelers (motorized or pedal driven). Trucks would pay
: far, far more than they do now, since pavement damage rises
: as something like the fourth power of weight. See
: https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-...damage-levels/
: for example.
:
: And mileage should be included as well as weight. As a
: general rule, I'd guess that bigger and heavier vehicles
: tend to do more mileage than light ones. Especially bikes.
:
: Anyway, given the above, it seems hard to justify fees on
: bikes.
:
:
:

:You could argue about rates (and I would be interested in
:that argument) but they do pay quite a bit now:

:http://www.mackinac.org/8433

There's an (commisioned, unpublished) IBM study from the early 2000s
that calculated that were heavy trucks to pay their fair share of road
use, diesel fuel would cost about $50 a gallon. Trucking is heavily
subsidizied by the rest of road users, to the extent that they pay for
road costs, and by the general population for the rest.

Remember, damage to road surfaces goes up with the fourth power of
axle load. Double the axle load, damage goes up 16 fold. Typical car
axle weight is 1 ton; trucks are 10.

Mackinac can go **** themselves and their rent seeking.



I don't have a position here but the gist of that article
was that Michigan, specifically at about $4800 as of 2007,
was _below average_ in large truck State taxes and fees as
compared to other States. Not at all contradictory to your
position.

'Rent seeking'? I did not see any conclusion or policy
recommendation on that page. If I missed it, please point
that out.

The national average combined fed/state levy was roughly
$13900 versus about $400 for your average auto (~35:1). I
found that page while looking for anything comprehensive
regarding large truck taxes/fees in aggregate- couldn't find
much actual data, mostly owner-operator complaints on
various blogs and fora.

You might argue that's too low, and I would listen, but it's
not nothing.

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

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 01:51:21 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

AMuzi wrote:
:On 7/7/2017 8:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
: On 7/7/2017 8:03 PM, Mark J. wrote:
: On 7/7/2017 9:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
: Oregon has no state sales tax.
:
: Except on bikes, that is:
:
: http://www.wweek.com/bikes/2017/07/0...ike-sales-tax/
:
:
: Seems to me if you don't like to use bike lanes, you
: shouldn't have to pay this.
:
:
: Seems to me a low price ($15 flat tax on new bikes priced
: over $200) to have "some skin in the game" of road usage.
:
: It's too tedious to explain to rude bumpkin-drivers that a
: large percentage of road expenditures in Oregon come out
: of the general fund anyway (years ago I heard ~30%) rather
: than gas-tax funding, or that I pay plenty of gas tax even
: though I'm on my bike at the moment, so this bill is a
: cheap silencer for "you don't pay for the roads" gibes.
:
: Finally, I suspect that the proportion of bike revenue in
: this bill has little relation to the proportion of bike
: lane expenditures. Yes, most of my riding is on roads
: with no bike lane (up the Bald Mountain access road today
: - a killer goat-path climb). Does that mean I shouldn't
: pay a share for the maintenance of the regular roadway?
: Either way, it's not gonna be much money.
:
: Mark "I like having nice roads, even if I gotta pay for
: 'em" J.
: Salem, Oregon
:
: Well, I have negligible skin in that game. I used to visit
: Oregon periodically, but haven't in quite a while.
:
: Still: I suppose first crack at a logical funding scheme
: might be for each user to pay in proportion to the expense
: they generate. Sounds logical, no?
:
: In my case, my bicycling generates zero expense. That is,
: my bike's damage to the road surface is immeasurably low.
: Around here, we have almost no special bike facilities
: (thank goodness) and I usually prefer to avoid the ones we
: do have, so I didn't generate their construction. As an
: example, on today's utility ride with added recreational
: detour, I used regular roads.
:
: If we applied that principle, motorists would pay more than
: two wheelers (motorized or pedal driven). Trucks would pay
: far, far more than they do now, since pavement damage rises
: as something like the fourth power of weight. See
: https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-...damage-levels/
: for example.
:
: And mileage should be included as well as weight. As a
: general rule, I'd guess that bigger and heavier vehicles
: tend to do more mileage than light ones. Especially bikes.
:
: Anyway, given the above, it seems hard to justify fees on
: bikes.
:
:
:

:You could argue about rates (and I would be interested in
:that argument) but they do pay quite a bit now:

:http://www.mackinac.org/8433

There's an (commisioned, unpublished) IBM study from the early 2000s
that calculated that were heavy trucks to pay their fair share of road
use, diesel fuel would cost about $50 a gallon. Trucking is heavily
subsidizied by the rest of road users, to the extent that they pay for
road costs, and by the general population for the rest.

Remember, damage to road surfaces goes up with the fourth power of
axle load. Double the axle load, damage goes up 16 fold. Typical car
axle weight is 1 ton; trucks are 10.

You are ignoring that roads are built according to an expected load,
usually (I believe) expressed as wheel or tire loading and ultimately
in weight per area. The usual explanation is that loads up to that
weight cause no unusual damage.

See http://www.pavementinteractive.org/loads/
for a simplified explanation.

But transport costs are, to some extent, subsidized, but on the other
hand if the truckers had to pay the entire cost of the Interstate
Highway system what would goods manufactured in New Jersey and sold in
California cost the buyer. So, in at least that sense publicly
supported transportation benefits the public.
--
Cheers,

John B.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/09/0...5CRASHTAX.html