Should you get a Free (Bicycle) Ride?



"HardwareLust" <[email protected]> wrote:

[Love the handle, btw: "All hail the Great Feast of Ostentatious
Consumption!" -- Billy Beck.]

>The money used to build/maintain those types of things ("art", parks,
>bike routes) should come directly from the people that most use them and
>benefit from them, not from 'everyone'. If we do this, then it takes the
>decision on how to disburse general funds away from the politicians, and
>puts it back into the hands of the very people that want them.


And that, of course, is what is called a "market".

Governments are the antithesis of markets.

--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Drug smugglers and gun-runners are heroes of American capitalism.
-- Jeffrey Quick
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>"HardwareLust" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Yes. The money used to build/maintain those types of things ("art",
>> parks, bike routes) should come directly from the people that most
>> use them and benefit from them, not from 'everyone'. If we do this,
>> then it takes the decision on how to disburse general funds away
>> from the politicians, and puts it back into the hands of the very
>> people that want them. In case you haven't noticed, allowing
>> politicians to decided when and how money is spent is usually a Very
>> Bad Thing (tm).
>
>Yeah, they keep paying George W. Bush's salary. I hate when that
>happens.


Stop paying.

--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Drug smugglers and gun-runners are heroes of American capitalism.
-- Jeffrey Quick
 
"HardwareLust" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> DonQuijote1954 wrote:
> > Propose something absurd, make sure nothing is ever done about it.
> >
> > We live in a society and must be some things that make life
> > pleasurable: arts, parks, bike routes... Or you want people to pay for
> > their own parks too?
>
> Yes. The money used to build/maintain those types of things ("art", parks,
> bike routes) should come directly from the people that most use them and
> benefit from them, not from 'everyone'. If we do this, then it takes the
> decision on how to disburse general funds away from the politicians, and
> puts it back into the hands of the very people that want them. In case you
> haven't noticed, allowing politicians to decided when and how money is spent
> is usually a Very Bad Thing (tm).
>
> Make the users pay. That way, who benefits from it, pays for it. Artists
> pay for art, park goers pay for parks, bicyclists pay for bike routes.
> Takes the politics completely out of those decisions, and that's always a
> good thing. If there aren't enough users to support a particular
> activity/thing, than so be it. That way, the majority of the people will
> decide what's worth paying for and what's not by the direct application of
> their dollars, not the lobbys or the political parties deciding for us.

An art form created in the States goes without financial support,
while the French subsidize it... Aren't hey kind of funny? ;(


"Americans still have trouble appreciating the music they invented and
sent out into the world," says Didier Levallet, the leader of the
Orchestre National de Jazz (ONJ). "You can imagine how much trouble
they have accepting French jazz." An ironic smile accompanies his
gross understatement.

Paris is the jazz capital of Europe. The Art Ensemble of Chicago was
in residence for several years at the American Center in Montparnasse.
With his French and French-resident band, soprano saxophonist Steve
Lacy has lived in Paris for 30 years; he is called a guru and his
influence abounds. Tenorman Archie Shepp and trumpeter Don Cherry both
spent a lot of time moving in and out of Paris. Saxman Johnny Griffin
lives in a chateau near Poitiers. The late Dexter Gordon was awarded a
"Chevalier de L'Ordre des Arts et Des Lettres" (something comparable
to a Pulitzer prize) by Minister of Culture Jack Lang after
"Long-Tall" was nominated for an Oscar for playing Dale Turner in
Bertrand Tavernier's film "Round Midnight," about American jazzmen in
Paris.

The ONJ is SUBSIDIZED BY THE FRENCH to prove how good the French are
at playing music invented in America. Bizarre. It is well known that
the French consider the Americans cultural imperialists. The
orchestra's very existence illustrates the fact that the Americans no
longer enjoy a monopoly. In 1998, the ONJ performed in Ukraine,
Finland, Lithuania, Britain, Spain, Turkey, Portugal and France. A
musician in Kiev told Levallet: "I would like to live my life the way
your orchestra sounds." France being considered the image of where
"America's only native art form" lives is one weird stop indeed on the
new horizontal circuit.
 

> Of course, you're welcome to make all roads into toll roads. The most
> logical thing would be to charge users according to the weight of
> their vehicles, since heavier vehicles do more damage. Hummer drivers
> should pay more than Geo Metro drivers, both of whom pay more than
> bicyclists who don't weigh enough to cause any damage to the roads.

in california, hummer drivers do pay more in registration every year,
since its based on the price of the vehicle. they also pay more in fuel
and associated gas taxes. bicyclists pay neither.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>snip
>
> The image of a toll booth on the sidewalk in front of each house says it
> all.
>
>

OH! You must live in New Jersey! ... :)

HAND

--
³Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness³

- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution
 
An art form created in the States goes without financial support,
while the French subsidize it... Aren't they kind of funny? ;(


"Americans still have trouble appreciating the music they invented and
sent out into the world," says Didier Levallet, the leader of the
Orchestre National de Jazz (ONJ). "You can imagine how much trouble
they have accepting French jazz." An ironic smile accompanies his
gross understatement.

Paris is the jazz capital of Europe. The Art Ensemble of Chicago was
in residence for several years at the American Center in Montparnasse.
With his French and French-resident band, soprano saxophonist Steve
Lacy has lived in Paris for 30 years; he is called a guru and his
influence abounds. Tenorman Archie Shepp and trumpeter Don Cherry both
spent a lot of time moving in and out of Paris. Saxman Johnny Griffin
lives in a chateau near Poitiers. The late Dexter Gordon was awarded a
"Chevalier de L'Ordre des Arts et Des Lettres" (something comparable
to a Pulitzer prize) by Minister of Culture Jack Lang after
"Long-Tall" was nominated for an Oscar for playing Dale Turner in
Bertrand Tavernier's film "Round Midnight," about American jazzmen in
Paris.

The ONJ is SUBSIDIZED BY THE FRENCH to prove how good the French are
at playing music invented in America. Bizarre. It is well known that
the French consider the Americans cultural imperialists. The
orchestra's very existence illustrates the fact that the Americans no
longer enjoy a monopoly. In 1998, the ONJ performed in Ukraine,
Finland, Lithuania, Britain, Spain, Turkey, Portugal and France. A
musician in Kiev told Levallet: "I would like to live my life the way
your orchestra sounds." France being considered the image of where
"America's only native art form" lives is one weird stop indeed on the
new horizontal circuit.
 
"Har-VEE" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<%[email protected]>...
> Just run your suv down every sidewalk, board walk, trail, road and park
> path first.... That's what I do. That way some of my fifty-two cents per
> gallon road tax is excreted on these surfaces before I ever turn a
> crank.....
>
> Harvey - De Opresso Liber

So long as you burn gas/pay taxes, your behavior is OK. Actually it
should be encouraged... ;)
 
Mike1 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<Mitchell-Holman-special-ed-project-9E7A38.00074423072004@phswest.com>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (DonQuijote1954) wrote:
>
> >> Bicycle riders should have to pay a tax or a toll to ride on the
> >> streets and roadway paid by liquid fuel taxes. The money should
> >> then be used to build cycle roadways. EVERYONE would benefit.
> >> Unfortunately bicycle riders want to continue to ride for free.
> >> It the American way I guess, to believe the government should tax
> >> someone else for the things you want for free.
> >
> >Propose something absurd, make sure nothing is ever done about it.
> >
> >We live in a society and must be some things that make life
> >pleasurable: arts, parks, bike routes... Or you want people to pay for
> >their own parks too?
>
>
> That would be the ethical thing to do, but I see you're all thoroughly
> committed to *robbery*.


Pardon, our insisting on minimum rules of social behavior, but
cyclists paying for bike paths is very UNFAIR. Actually each cyclist
shoulp pay only for the paths THEY use. Why should I pay for the path
that somebody else uses?
 
Mike1 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<Mitchell-Holman-special-ed-project-27A5D2.00595023072004@phswest.com>...
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"HardwareLust" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Yes. The money used to build/maintain those types of things ("art",
> >> parks, bike routes) should come directly from the people that most
> >> use them and benefit from them, not from 'everyone'. If we do this,
> >> then it takes the decision on how to disburse general funds away
> >> from the politicians, and puts it back into the hands of the very
> >> people that want them. In case you haven't noticed, allowing
> >> politicians to decided when and how money is spent is usually a Very
> >> Bad Thing (tm).
> >
> >Yeah, they keep paying George W. Bush's salary. I hate when that
> >happens.
>
>
> Stop paying.

Go to prison!
 
This is so silly as to be hardly worth a response but...

We pay a lot in taxes of all kinds, often getting little or nothing in
return and what we do get is of at least questionable cost-effectiveness as
any look at government contracts can confirm. I don't use the schools, the
welfare system, medical, the police or fire, the courts, or the correctional
system, but still pay for them - who else would? I am at least able to use
the parks and libraries on occasion - some small benefit for all my tax
dollars, but at least I get something that benefits me.
For my federal income tax dollar I get a grotesquely overspending
military that is driving our country to financial ruin (look at the drop of
the value of the dollar - a hidden tax!) while the parks I use are
neglected. I'm already paying for them once through taxes, why on earth
should we have to pay for them again in increased "user fees"???
Gas taxes and weight-based license fees seem a reasonable way to pay for
roads as those who wear out the roads pay more for their maintainance. How
much do bikes wear out roadways (maybe include bikes in weight-based fees?)?
Silly to consider taxing bikes for road use when we ought to somehow reward
their use for reducing road wear and tear, to say nothing of reducing the
air pollution that is gradually strangling us all!
--

Steve Juniper
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those
who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing"
-- Albert
Einstein --


"HardwareLust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
DonQuijote1954 wrote:
> Propose something absurd, make sure nothing is ever done about it.
>
> We live in a society and must be some things that make life
> pleasurable: arts, parks, bike routes... Or you want people to pay for
> their own parks too?

Yes. The money used to build/maintain those types of things ("art", parks,
bike routes) should come directly from the people that most use them and
benefit from them, not from 'everyone'. If we do this, then it takes the
decision on how to disburse general funds away from the politicians, and
puts it back into the hands of the very people that want them. In case you
haven't noticed, allowing politicians to decided when and how money is spent
is usually a Very Bad Thing (tm).

Make the users pay. That way, who benefits from it, pays for it. Artists
pay for art, park goers pay for parks, bicyclists pay for bike routes.
Takes the politics completely out of those decisions, and that's always a
good thing. If there aren't enough users to support a particular
activity/thing, than so be it. That way, the majority of the people will
decide what's worth paying for and what's not by the direct application of
their dollars, not the lobbys or the political parties deciding for us.

Regards,
H.
 
On 22 Jul 2004 10:24:26 -0700, [email protected]
(DonQuijote1954) wrote:

>> Bicycle riders should have to pay a tax or a toll to ride on the
>> streets and roadway paid by liquid fuel taxes.
>
>Propose something absurd, make sure nothing is ever done about it.

What's to do? Pedalcyclists pay sales and property taxes just like
everyone else - they're already paying more than their fair share of
road costs.
 
In article
<Mitchell-Holman-special-ed-project-E2E322.00132323072004@phswest.com>, Mike1
says...
>
>>>> Unfortunately bicycle riders want to continue to ride for free.
>>>> It the American way I guess, to believe the government should tax
>>>> someone else for the things you want for free.

Most people in this group would argue for public financing for bicycle use. How
about a harder question? This occurred to me on a recent bicycle tour. To what
extent should a state subsidize rec vehicles "camping." These monster cost
upward of $100000. Should the state provide subsidized parking spaces for them
in state parks? If not how is this different from subsidizing bicycle use?
 
Bicycles use existing roads built for other public purposes. Bicycles
do not add any measurable wear and tear to the roads, so why should they
pay more than they already do via the purchase of goods delivered via these
roads?
--------------
Alex
 
You know, it's not an illogical idea. But first we'd have to start by
more than doubling the gas tax so that roads were actually paid for by
motorists, instead of by general fund taxes that hit everyone, whether
they use the roads or not.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Books for Bicycle Mechanics and Tinkerers:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/bikebooks.html>
 
"DonQuijote1954" wrote: (clip) Actually each cyclist shoulp pay only for
the paths THEY use. Why should I pay for the path that somebody else uses?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your logic is impecable, except it does not go far enough. I don't use the
whole trail. I should pay only for the path swept out by my bike. We could
refine this discussion--should I be taxed for the contact width of my tires
with the pavement, or by the width of my handlebars/shoulders? <G>
 
"Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "DonQuijote1954" wrote: (clip) Actually each cyclist shoulp pay only for
> the paths THEY use. Why should I pay for the path that somebody else uses?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Your logic is impecable, except it does not go far enough. I don't use
the
> whole trail. I should pay only for the path swept out by my bike. We
could
> refine this discussion--should I be taxed for the contact width of my
tires
> with the pavement, or by the width of my handlebars/shoulders? <G>

Naaaa. By weight. If a 4000lb car costs $50/yr to register, a 25lb bike
should be around 37 cents/yr. After all...we do want to be fair, right?

Or we could go by horsepower.

Pete
 
In article <rH2Mc.14356$8_6.2119@attbi_s04>, [email protected]
says...

>in california, hummer drivers do pay more in registration every year,
>since its based on the price of the vehicle. they also pay more in fuel
>and associated gas taxes. bicyclists pay neither.

Hummer cause more wear and tear to the roads, so they should pay more.
Bikes cause basically zero wear and tear to the road.
------------
Alex
 
Whose roads?

In many (most?) locations in North America, local roads (the ones most
likely used by cyclists) are funded through local taxes: sales and
property taxes. User fees (fuel tax and registration fees) generally
goes to federal and state/provincial governments, although a miniscule
portion goes to the county government in some areas. In many U.S.
states, even state and U.S. highways are funded from revenue sources
other than motorist user fees.

Hence, every cyclist who pays sales, property, or income tax has paid
into using the road. In locales where roads are paid for through a
sales tax, utility cyclists may even be subsidizing motorists because
they tend to shop locally rather than drive to the Big Box Shopping
Megacomplex three counties away.

Of the thousands of dollars I pay in property taxes every year, a
significant percentage of that goes to road improvements that I,
personally, don't need or want as a cyclist.

A more in-depth treatment of this issue is presented in the paper
"Whose Roads" available online as a 16 page PDF at:

http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf

RFM
http://www.masoner.net/bike/
 
In article <xnVLc.143658$%_6.25670@attbi_s01>,
Brent P <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, HardwareLust wrote:
>
>> Yes. The money used to build/maintain those types of things ("art", parks,
>> bike routes) should come directly from the people that most use them and
>> benefit from them, not from 'everyone'. If we do this, then it takes the
>> decision on how to disburse general funds away from the politicians, and
>> puts it back into the hands of the very people that want them. In case you
>> haven't noticed, allowing politicians to decided when and how money is spent
>> is usually a Very Bad Thing (tm).
>
>Bicyclists pay more than their fair share of taxes. For instance,
>I own more than one property I pay real estate taxes on,

Not related to you-as-bicyclist.

>I also pay sales tax, income tax, etc and so on which in some portion
>end up in the road system.

Except for the stuff you buy for your bicycles (probably quite
substantial, as a bicycle is one of the best money-sinks you can find
on dry land without a motor), not related to you-as-bicyclist.

>I also own motor vehicles and pay
>all the taxes associated with them. When I use a bicycle, I cannot
>use my cars. Thusly, the more I use my bicycle the more I subsidize
>other drivers as the taxes I pay greatly exceed the wear and tear
>done by my bicycle use.

Your bicycle USE does not result in substantial tax revenues, so
you're not subsidizing anyone by using one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back