🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:07:21 GMT, Michael Malak <malak@claygency.com> wrote:
>Goodbye to a tax that discouraged automobile usage and multi-car/
>multi-commuter families.  Hello to a tax that punishes everyone,
>including bicyclists and families struggling to maintain a single car.

Since you seem to disapprove of cross-subsidies, I presume you are
opposed to using gas tax revenues (for example, Transportation 
Enhancement money) to construct bicycle facilities as well.

Also, why is a high gas tax merely dicouraging to automobile use while
an income tax "punishes" bicyclists.  Aren't gax taxes "punishing"
auto owners as well?

-- 
Aaron M. Renn (arenn@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/

In article <slrn7roola.ae5.arenn@shell-3.enteract.com>,
  arenn@urbanophile.com (Aaron M. Renn) wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:07:21 GMT, Michael Malak <malak@claygency.com>
wrote:
> >Goodbye to a tax that discouraged automobile usage and multi-car/
> >multi-commuter families.  Hello to a tax that punishes everyone,
> >including bicyclists and families struggling to maintain a single
car.
>
> Since you seem to disapprove of cross-subsidies, I presume you are
> opposed to using gas tax revenues (for example, Transportation
> Enhancement money) to construct bicycle facilities as well.
>
> Also, why is a high gas tax merely dicouraging to automobile use while
> an income tax "punishes" bicyclists.  Aren't gax taxes "punishing"
> auto owners as well?

I think that a gas tax is the best way, since it discourages use rather
than initial purchase.  The car tax discourages the purchase of new
cars, which may mean that some people drive polluting gas-guzzlers
instead of buying new cars.  Since the gas tax affects people who drive
more or drive bigger cars, it would do more to discourage driving than
the car tax would.

In practical terms of revenue it's better too, people keep driving all
the time, but will delay new car purchases if times are tight.  The car
tax makes revenue more cyclical since the tax take from each car is
reduced constantly by depreciation.  A gas tax takes roughly the same
revenue from a car through its lifetime, and more fairly taxes people
based on how much they actually use the roads that it pays for.  Sure,
it's unfair to gas-guzzlers, but lighter vehicles put less wear on the
roads anyway.  From a pure 'fairness' standpoint, I guess you could
have a 'milage tax', but that would be too much of a privacy invasion
to implement.  Fuel use is the next best measure of road usage.  The
gas tax is more reliable, and is more prone to inspire sustainable
energy use than the car tax.



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

In article <slrn7roola.ae5.arenn@shell-3.enteract.com>,
  arenn@urbanophile.com (Aaron M. Renn) wrote:
>
> Since you seem to disapprove of cross-subsidies, I presume you are
> opposed to using gas tax revenues (for example, Transportation
> Enhancement money) to construct bicycle facilities as well.

I am indeed opposed to federal money paying for local facilities.
See

    Malak, Michael; "Re: federal budget"; UseNet article
    <79gh1r$5lr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> on dc.biking; Feb. 6, 1999
    http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=441238668

    "I'm saying it's better to vote on and fund bicycle issues at
     the state and county level rather than at the federal level."

In an ideal world, all government services would be based on actual
usage (tempered by ability to pay).  That's impractical in terms of
accounting.  But eliminating an existing usage tax in favor of a
local income tax is a big, unnecessary step backwards.  In fact,
the mere elimination of the tax caused an accounting nightmare
(read: huge costs passed onto taxpayers).  See

    King, Ledyard; "State tells local governments they must foot
    half of cost to put car-tax cut into action"; The Virginian-Pilot;
    July 28, 1998
    http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=375660726

--
Michael Malak
malak@claygency.com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

On 19 Aug 1999 20:01:46 GMT, arenn@urbanophile.com (Aaron M. Renn) hired an
infinite number of monkeys to write:

>On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:07:21 GMT, Michael Malak <malak@claygency.com> wrote:
>>Goodbye to a tax that discouraged automobile usage and multi-car/
>>multi-commuter families.  Hello to a tax that punishes everyone,
>>including bicyclists and families struggling to maintain a single car.
>
>Since you seem to disapprove of cross-subsidies, I presume you are
>opposed to using gas tax revenues (for example, Transportation 
>Enhancement money) to construct bicycle facilities as well.

One of these days I'm going to tell you what this money actually gets used
for, and you'll probably ignore it, but the short version is:

Most of the TEA money used for bike/ped facilities in both of the places I've
lived an appreciable portion of my adult life (South Florida & Austin) is used
to provide some reconnections between areas which previously had good bike/ped
facilities which were severed by freeways.

One example in particular is the bike/ped trails under the Mopac/1st/5th/Lake
Austin interchange in Central Austin, which were created as a sop to the
people whose neighborhoods were cut in half and otherwise seriously affected
by the construction of the freeway (Mopac).

http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?Pyt=Tmap&YY=4332&addr=100%20S%20MoPac%20Blvd&city=Austin&state=TX&slt=30.2677&sln=-97.7793&mlt=30.272&mln=-97.7792&zip=78703&mag=9&cs=9&off=e


More examples like this are available if you want them.

My estimation in both places is that roughly 80% of said money which is
applied to bike/ped (remember that most TEA money goes right back to roadways)
is this kind of project.

Is reconnecting severed bike/ped routes really "using gas tax revenues to
construct bicycle facilities"? Technically yes, but in reality most of the
money is going to provide _replacement_ facilities to compensate for those
which the highways destroyed.

Mike Dahmus                             mdahmus at I O DOT COM
http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/  
"No one likes a pedantic smartarse..."

In article <7phsu2$hnq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  rampant_raven@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I think that a gas tax is the best way, since it discourages use
> rather than initial purchase.  The car tax discourages the purchase
> of new cars, which may mean that some people drive polluting
> gas-guzzlers instead of buying new cars.  Since the gas tax affects
> people who drive more or drive bigger cars, it would do more to
> discourage driving than the car tax would.
>
> In practical terms of revenue it's better too, people keep driving all
> the time, but will delay new car purchases if times are tight.  The
> car tax makes revenue more cyclical since the tax take from each car
> is reduced constantly by depreciation.  A gas tax takes roughly the
> same revenue from a car through its lifetime, and more fairly taxes
> people based on how much they actually use the roads that it pays
> for.  Sure, it's unfair to gas-guzzlers, but lighter vehicles put
> less wear on the roads anyway.  From a pure 'fairness' standpoint, I
> guess you could have a 'milage tax', but that would be too much of a
> privacy invasion to implement.  Fuel use is the next best measure of
> road usage.  The gas tax is more reliable, and is more prone to
> inspire sustainable energy use than the car tax.

You raise some good points about gas taxes being preferable to the
car tax.  Here are a couple of minor points in favor of the car tax:

* It is based somewhat on ability to pay: a Lexus owner pays more
  than the struggling young family.

* Raising gas taxes significantly higher than adjacent jurisdictions
  can be counter-productive.  (And we have a lot of adjacent
  jurisdictions in the Northern Virginia area.)

--
Michael Malak
malak@claygency.com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:07:21 GMT, Michael Malak <malak@claygency.com>
wrote:

>Goodbye to a tax that discouraged automobile usage and multi-car/
>multi-commuter families.  Hello to a tax that punishes everyone,
>including bicyclists and families struggling to maintain a single car.

may not be all bad. The bicycle folks can strongly advocate for
their share of any sales tax for transportation. If enough people
engage the process and demand transportation solutions that
encompass more than just roads, it _could_ be an opportunity
to 'backfit' non-auto transportation upgades.

Hello,

Valid points in favor of the car tax, but...

The car tax was probably _the_ most cheated upon tax in force.

I used to sell new cars, and I sold a car to a prosecutor, who
used his parents address in Delaware rather than any of his three
NoVa addresses to register the car.

It wasn't unusual for someone to come in, pick out a car, and then
tell me they would lease it from a Maryland dealer.  The address
of the dealer would be used as the owner, and the Maryland salesman
would forward correspondence from the DMV.

One nice thing about the gas tax is that gas smuggling is more
difficult than address manufacture.

Also, while there are other jurisdictionsin this area, I think
Virginia has the low gas tax.  Therefore, we'd only be catching
up, rather than getting ahead.  Also, hasn't Glendening proposed
substantial increases in Maryland gas taxes to pay for all
Maryland's transportation needs?

Michael Malak wrote:
> 
<snip requoted discussion>
> 
> You raise some good points about gas taxes being preferable to the
> car tax.  Here are a couple of minor points in favor of the car tax:
> 
> * It is based somewhat on ability to pay: a Lexus owner pays more
>   than the struggling young family.
> 
> * Raising gas taxes significantly higher than adjacent jurisdictions
>   can be counter-productive.  (And we have a lot of adjacent
>   jurisdictions in the Northern Virginia area.)
> 
> --
> Michael Malak
> malak@claygency.com
> 
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

-- 

Cheers!
Dan Nagle		dnagle@erols.com
Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 16:29:27 -0400, "Paul D." <trek520@excite.com> hired an
infinite number of monkeys to write:

>Mike of course totally ignores that fact that trucks cause *far* more wear
>and tear on roads than cars (and bicycles).  Trucks increase maintenance
>costs significantly.

Actually, if you had bothered to check DejaNews or even just read the group
for a while, you'd know that I was talking about road capacity in this case,
not road maintenance costs. 

In the latter, trucks get a virtually free ride, especially on the interstate
highway system, although Mr. Nighthawk will become apopleptic if you bring it
up.

Mike Dahmus                             mdahmus at I O DOT COM
http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/  
"No one likes a pedantic smartarse..."

Michael Malak wrote:

> Goodbye to a tax that discouraged automobile usage and multi-car/
> multi-commuter families.  Hello to a tax that punishes everyone,
> including bicyclists and families struggling to maintain a single car.

Say hello to a tax that that doesn't discriminate and lets everyone who
benefits from roads pay for them.

Chris Farrar wrote:

> Michael Malak wrote:
>
> > Goodbye to a tax that discouraged automobile usage and multi-car/
> > multi-commuter families.  Hello to a tax that punishes everyone,
> > including bicyclists and families struggling to maintain a single car.
>
> Say hello to a tax that that doesn't discriminate and lets everyone who
> benefits from roads pay for them.

Uh, all the roads bicyclists ever need already exist, and if not for motor
vehicle damage would last forever. Any lanes beyond 1 are for motor vehicle
use.

Wayne

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:28:19 -0400, Wayne Pein <wayne_pein@unc.edu> wrote:
>> Say hello to a tax that that doesn't discriminate and lets everyone who
>> benefits from roads pay for them.
>
>Uh, all the roads bicyclists ever need already exist, and if not for motor
>vehicle damage would last forever. Any lanes beyond 1 are for motor vehicle
>use.

Motor vehicle use includes fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, buses etc.
All services subsidized by gas taxes that provide required infrastructure
for them.  This is quite apart from the necessity of roads for delivering
consumer goods to market, etc.

Bicyclists do not seem to be content with the current roadways, as they
are often lobbying for new marked bike lanes, signs, off-street trails,
etc.  All paid for by non-bicycling related taxes.

-- 
Aaron M. Renn (arenn@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/

On 20 Aug 1999 15:09:41 GMT, arenn@urbanophile.com (Aaron M. Renn) hired an
infinite number of monkeys to write:

>Bicyclists do not seem to be content with the current roadways, as they
>are often lobbying for new marked bike lanes, signs, off-street trails,
>etc.  All paid for by non-bicycling related taxes.

1. Most facilities are on local streets, which are paid for out of _property_ 
   taxes (sometimes sales taxes). Do you share the same disdain for motorists
   who ask for a city street to be widened?

2. See my other posting on where the TEA money typically goes - to providing
   some kind of facility to make up for routes which were severed or destroyed
   by road construction.

Mike Dahmus                             mdahmus at I O DOT COM
http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/  
"No one likes a pedantic smartarse..."

I object more to the idea of instituting a new local income tax
to pay for the car tax rebates.  Among other things, it's so
damned innefficient.  First local governments collect the car
tax; then the state government rebates that tax; finally the
local govenments must collect a new state-mandated income tax
to forward to the state to pay the portion of highway funds
that have been lost to the car-tax rebate.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

-- 
Serf			tomb nor stone nor grave for me
(andy sims)		just a bier up in a tree
acs6j@virginia.edu	to let the cold wind take me in 

Wayne Pein wrote:

> Uh, all the roads bicyclists ever need already exist, and if not for motor
> vehicle damage would last forever. Any lanes beyond 1 are for motor vehicle
> use.

It lets trucks deliver stuff to stores you shop at.  How do you think you
bicycle got to where you bought it.

Chris

Hello,

Wayne Pein wrote:
> 
<snip>
> 
> Uh, all the roads bicyclists ever need already exist, and if not for motor
> vehicle damage would last forever. Any lanes beyond 1 are for motor vehicle
> use.

You've never seen a photograph if downtown Beiging?  City streets
eight lanes wide *jam packed* with bicycles.

And before you say that'll never happen here, note that in population,
we're only two doubling times behind China...

<snip sig>

-- 

Cheers!
Dan Nagle		dnagle@erols.com
Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.

Chris Farrar wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
> > Uh, all the roads bicyclists ever need already exist, and if not for motor
> > vehicle damage would last forever. Any lanes beyond 1 are for motor vehicle
> > use.
>
> It lets trucks deliver stuff to stores you shop at.  How do you think you
> bicycle got to where you bought it.
>

What's the "It" you are referring to?

What's your point?

Wayne

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:32:43 GMT, Chris Farrar <cfarrar@sympatico.ca> hired an
infinite number of monkeys to write:

>Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>> Uh, all the roads bicyclists ever need already exist, and if not for motor
>> vehicle damage would last forever. Any lanes beyond 1 are for motor vehicle
>> use.
>
>It lets trucks deliver stuff to stores you shop at.  How do you think you
>bicycle got to where you bought it.

And no more than a tiny fraction of the costs of the local street system are
due to trucks. Those 6-lane suburban arterials are necessary because of car
commuters; not freight deliveries.

Mike Dahmus                             mdahmus at I O DOT COM
http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/  
"No one likes a pedantic smartarse..."

In article <37c09954.13275566@news.io.com>,
mdahNO_%_SPAMmus@iNO_%_SPAMo.com (Mike Dahmus) wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:32:43 GMT, Chris Farrar <cfarrar@sympatico.ca> hired an
> infinite number of monkeys to write:
> 
> >Wayne Pein wrote:
> >
> >> Uh, all the roads bicyclists ever need already exist, and if not for motor
> >> vehicle damage would last forever. Any lanes beyond 1 are for motor vehicle
> >> use.
> >
> >It lets trucks deliver stuff to stores you shop at.  How do you think you
> >bicycle got to where you bought it.
> 
> And no more than a tiny fraction of the costs of the local street system are
> due to trucks. 

Source?  

> Those 6-lane suburban arterials are necessary because of car
> commuters; not freight deliveries.

Ahh, the old Mike Dahmus.  Not "freeways," nor "highways," nor "interstates,"
nor "arterials" but superspecific "6-lane suburban arterials" which of
course has no official designation so Mike can weasel them to mean anything
he wants.  Ignore this troll.

Mike of course totally ignores that fact that trucks cause *far* more wear
and tear on roads than cars (and bicycles).  Trucks increase maintenance
costs significantly.


Mike Dahmus wrote in message <37c09954.13275566@news.io.com>...
>On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:32:43 GMT, Chris Farrar <cfarrar@sympatico.ca> hired
an
>infinite number of monkeys to write:
>
>>Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>> Uh, all the roads bicyclists ever need already exist, and if not for
motor
>>> vehicle damage would last forever. Any lanes beyond 1 are for motor
vehicle
>>> use.
>>
>>It lets trucks deliver stuff to stores you shop at.  How do you think you
>>bicycle got to where you bought it.
>
>And no more than a tiny fraction of the costs of the local street system
are
>due to trucks. Those 6-lane suburban arterials are necessary because of car
>commuters; not freight deliveries.
>
>Mike Dahmus                             mdahmus at I O DOT COM
>http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/
>"No one likes a pedantic smartarse..."

[dc biking trimmed]

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:53:20 -0400, Dan Nagle <dnagle@erols.com>
wrote:

>It wasn't unusual for someone to come in, pick out a car, and then
>tell me they would lease it from a Maryland dealer.  The address
>of the dealer would be used as the owner, and the Maryland salesman
>would forward correspondence from the DMV.

I think they're smarter than that now. My Saab is leased and the name
on the title/registration is the leasing company, hq'd in Delaware. So
VA just sends them the property tax bill and they bill me. Just
arrived, $1,600. Chripes. :( Good thing Gilmore was going to eliminate
the "car tax." Ha.

>One nice thing about the gas tax is that gas smuggling is more
>difficult than address manufacture.

The upside to gas taxes is that it's at least partially tied to use
and efficiency; but a 40MPG car and drive it 2,000 miles a year and
your tax burden is very small. I don't actually drive that many miles
and have three 4-cylnder cars, so I wind up paying quite a bit,
despite the BAFE (Bentley's Average Fleet Economy) of 29 MPG.


--------
Bentley - Alexandria VA
Entropy isn't what it used to be.

In article <slrn7roola.ae5.arenn@shell-3.enteract.com>,
  arenn@urbanophile.com (Aaron M. Renn) wrote:
> Since you seem to disapprove of cross-subsidies, I presume you are
> opposed to using gas tax revenues (for example, Transportation
> Enhancement money) to construct bicycle facilities as well.

My solution would be to place little gasoline engines on bicycles
so that they could burn fuel while the people pedal around- so that
you can say that bicycles "earn" their right to gas tax money.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

On 20 Aug 1999 15:22:21 GMT, NightSerf <acs6j@Virginia.EDU> wrote:

>I object more to the idea of instituting a new local income tax
>to pay for the car tax rebates.  Among other things, it's so
>damned innefficient.  First local governments collect the car
>tax; then the state government rebates that tax; finally the
>local govenments must collect a new state-mandated income tax
>to forward to the state to pay the portion of highway funds
>that have been lost to the car-tax rebate.
>
>Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Yep. If only someone had brought this up during the (VA gubenatorial)
election.... oh wait, they did. But it was drowned out by "End the car
tax! End the car tax!" I guess that didn't roll off the tongue quite
as well as "Slowly phase out taxes on the first $20,000 of vehicle
values, but significantly upgrade the assesments* and then raise taxes
elsewhere to offest the losses!"

(* According to the latest assessment, my car, leased in November
1999, is now worth $3,000 more than what I paid for it. Saab 9-5's,
folks, the best investment out there...*cough*)
--------
Bentley - Alexandria VA
Entropy isn't what it used to be.