Tax cyclist idea.........pedestrians next?

gzoladz · 14-10-2008 7:24am #1

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/tax-cyclists-836410---paris---smoke-it-out---shaving-1498046.html

14-10-2008 7:39am

We've paid tax. It's called VAT.

14-10-2008 8:05am

Now thats what the word Counterproductive was created for.:D

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 14-10-2008 8:07am

Indo letters lol

Silly idea

mikemac · 14-10-2008 8:16am

If every cyclist in city areas get pissed off and went and bought themselves a car, then you'd realy see traffic worth complaining about!

Don't complain about the commuting cyclist, they are doing you a favour, even if it's not immediately obvious
Less traffic and zero wear and tear on the roads, everyone wins.

I doubt those fantasically engineered cycle lanes we have cost much either

Lumen · 14-10-2008 8:22am

I'm in favour, although €10 is too low to be worthwhile. €40 maybe.

Licences would also be a good idea, with a similar points system to cars.

No, I'm not trolling.

mikemac · 14-10-2008 8:25am

Do you expect a 6 year old kid cycling to school to get a licence?

Though I am in favour for school children to maybe do a course for a few hours on cycling in traffic. A cycling garda (wrong term, you know what I mean) could do it.

14-10-2008 8:26am

Lumen wrote: »

I'm in favour, although €10 is too low to be worthwhile. €40 maybe.

Licences would also be a good idea, with a similar points system to cars.

No, I'm not trolling.

That carry on prevents people from cycling ,everyone has the right to cycle ,rich or poor.

14-10-2008 8:32am

micmclo wrote: »

Do you expect a 6 year old kid cycling to school to get a licence?

Though I am in favour for school children to maybe do a course for a few hours on cycling in traffic. A cycling garda (wrong term, you know what I mean) could do it.

I'd like the situation where at the start of every year in primary and secondary school a talk is given on road safety, with a sizeable segment of it on cycling and cycling to school. It's possible this is in place since I was in school though.

mikemac · 14-10-2008 8:34am

Myth wrote: »

It's possible this is in place since I was in school though.

It was.

"Watch out kid, wear that lid" was the slogan (let's not go into a helmet debate)

Was in retro forum, I'll see can get a link

Lumen · 14-10-2008 8:38am

311 wrote: »

That carry on prevents people from cycling ,everyone has the right to cycle, rich or poor.

Why?

Cycling costs money, like driving. If someone can't afford a few euros a year for road tax, they probably can't afford lights, batteries, helmet etc.

We have a benefits system which gives poor people money for things other people can afford. By your argument, food, electricity and housing should also be free for everybody.

14-10-2008 8:46am

Lumen wrote: »

Why?

Cycling costs money, like driving. If someone can't afford a few euros a year for road tax, they probably can't afford lights, batteries, helmet etc.

We have a benefits system which gives poor people money for things other people can afford. By your argument, food, electricity and housing should also be free for everybody.

Thats not my argument ,not at all. It is nanny ruling at it's worst ,having tax on cyclists.
What if we were to have a shared bike scheme in the city ? ,how would it be possible to enforce licence requirements?
If tourists travelled here ,how would they partake in cycling activities ?

Families who use bicycles as there only means of transport ,because they have no choice. Why should they have to pay for the privilige.

I think cyclists should pay a contribution to an orginisation ,but privatetly and subsidised by the government in part. That orginisation should enforce rules and regulations.

mikemac · 14-10-2008 8:47am

Lumen wrote: »

If someone can't afford a few euros a year for road tax, .

Nobody in Ireland pays road tax

Cabaal · 14-10-2008 8:53am

So hang on, people like the idea of a 10e cycle tax and want to waste Garda time so that they enforce it instead of Gardai actually spending time on real issues such as motorists with no insurance, speeding etc

Yeah that'll work :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Lumen · 14-10-2008 8:58am

311 wrote: »

Thats not my argument ,not at all. It is nanny ruling at it's worst ,having tax on cyclists.

Agreed, but how is it worse than tax on motorists?

311 wrote: »

What if we were to have a shared bike scheme in the city ? ,how would it be possible to enforce licence requirements?

Those bikes would come with licences.

311 wrote: »

If tourists travelled here ,how would they partake in cycling activities ?

Foreign drivers manage.

311 wrote: »

Families who use bicycles as there only means of transport ,because they have no choice. Why should they have to pay for the privilige.

What about families who use cars or buses as their only means of transport, because they have "no choice"? Cycling is a choice.

311 wrote: »

I think cyclists should pay a contribution to an orginisation ,but privatetly and subsidised by the government in part. That orginisation should enforce rules and regulations.

If the contribution is mandatory, that's no different to a tax. So you agree with me.

seamus · 14-10-2008 8:58am

I wouldn't have a problem with this if we had a cycling infrastructure, which we don't.

As it is, we share the roads with cars and the roads would exist even if cyclists didn't.

Morgan · 14-10-2008 8:59am

Lumen wrote: »

I'm in favour, although €10 is too low to be worthwhile. €40 maybe.

Licences would also be a good idea, with a similar points system to cars.

No, I'm not trolling.

I assume this would be a tax on each bicycle - like motor tax. Some riders on this forum would be in trouble then

.

In that case it would raise the cost of bicycles - by a large proportion on cheap bikes. This would serve as a disincentive to new cyclists at a time when the government is encouraging people to cycle. It would therefore be counterproductive.

In fact, the British government is doing the opposite. Their Cycle to Work scheme allows individuals to buy bikes VAT free through their employer.

Finally, the letter writer assumes that all cyclists are riding out of some "concern for the environment" and therefore would be happy to pay for the privilige. I believe these riders to be in the vast minority. Most people cycle because it's cheap, fast and convenient.

Jaysus, maybe I should write a letter to the Independent.:D

Lumen · 14-10-2008 9:01am

micmclo wrote: »

Nobody in Ireland pays road tax

I pay over a grand a year for two fuel-efficient family cars.

Road tax is enforced by the guards, which is stupid. They have better things to be doing, like managing accidents and pulling over dangerous road users.

Road tax enforcement should be done by the Revenue.

Mr. Presentable · 14-10-2008 9:01am

Cabaal wrote: »

So hang on, people like the idea of a 10e cycle tax and want to waste Garda time so that they enforce it instead of Gardai actually spending time on real issues such as motorists with no insurance, speeding etc

Yeah that'll work :rolleyes::rolleyes:

The tax would be daft. Let cyclists spend their €10 on putting lights on their bikes, and have the Gardai enforce that!

14-10-2008 9:02am

Lumen wrote: »

If the contribution is mandatory, that's no different to a tax. So you agree with me.

It would be a private orginisation like I said ,who enforce the regulations themselves.
Christ everyone knows what happens when the government gets their paws on anything.

blorg · 14-10-2008 9:04am

Why cycling, as the OP says, what's next? A pedestrian tax, but only if you want to walk into the city centre?

An amount of money so low as to be meaningless in any case and only a deterrent to an activity that is in general positive for all of society, reducing congestion and strain on the health service for everybody.

The idea in the letter that cycle lanes are "paid for by motorists" is also laughable. I earn above the average wage and correspondingly pay more in tax than the average man on the street; as such I could as well argue that I pay for the motorways and resent not being allowed to cycle on them

Oh wait, it's the Indo.

Lumen · 14-10-2008 9:10am

Why should people be "encouraged" to cycle using financial incentives? That's nanny-state social engineering. Where does it stop - free bikes for everybody?

I choose to cycle. It's brilliant. If someone else chooses to walk, drive, bus or sit on their arse, I could care less.

I do care about cyclists taking a serious, responsible attitude to what they are doing. I spent much of my commute in the dark this morning (on the bike) dodging unlit cyclists - they're bloody dangerous.

I don't know whether taxing and licensing cyclists is practical. I just think that it's not an immediately abhorrent idea, to me anyway.

blorg · 14-10-2008 9:13am

Lumen wrote: »

I pay over a grand a year for two fuel-efficient family cars.

Road tax is enforced by the guards, which is stupid. They have better things to be doing, like managing accidents and pulling over dangerous road users.

Road tax enforcement should be done by the Revenue.

You don't pay "road tax", you pay VRT on the purchase of the car and an annual motor tax. This goes into the general taxation pool and is not used to pay for maintaining the roads. You could as well say a heavy cigarette smoker or whiskey drinker pays for the roads through excise duty.

Given that motor tax is now based on CO2 emissions I will be happy with a tax regime for bicycles along similar lines

blorg · 14-10-2008 9:17am

Lumen wrote: »

Why should people be "encouraged" to cycle using financial incentives? That's nanny-state social engineering. Where does it stop - free bikes for everybody?

The use of taxation and tax breaks to further social goals is not exactly a radical idea. Motor tax itself falls into this category being based explicitly on CO2 emissions. Tax on cigarettes and drink is another obvious example. Why do we give people tax breaks on health insurance and pension contributions, is this "nanny-state social engineering?"

I do care about cyclists taking a serious, responsible attitude to what they are doing. I spent much of my commute in the dark this morning (on the bike) dodging unlit cyclists - they're bloody dangerous.

There are already laws requiring lights on bikes; enforcing them would make a lot more sense than a meaningless tax.

Lumen · 14-10-2008 9:18am

blorg wrote: »

Given that motor tax is now based on CO2 emissions I will be happy with a tax regime for bicycles along similar lines

Motor tax is only based on CO2 emissions because we have communists the Green Party in power

Lumen · 14-10-2008 9:21am

blorg wrote: »

The use of taxation and tax breaks to further social goals is not exactly a radical idea.

I didn't say it was radical. I said I didn't agree with it.

blorg wrote: »

Tax on cigarettes and drink is another obvious example. Why do we give people tax breaks on health insurance and pension contributions, is this "nanny-state social engineering?"

I don't agree with those other things either.

blorg wrote: »

There are already laws requiring lights on bikes; enforcing them would make a lot more sense than a meaningless tax.

I agree, but they are not exclusive. Taxation is a Revenue issue. Lights are a road safety issue for the police.

Raam · 14-10-2008 9:27am

Tax cyclists, a ridiculous notion.
Here is one mans (short) take on it.

Morgan · 14-10-2008 9:30am

blorg wrote: »

Tax on cigarettes and drink is another obvious example. Why do we give people tax breaks on health insurance and pension contributions, is this "nanny-state social engineering?".

Lumen wrote: »

I don't agree with those other things either.

I don't follow your argument. You disapprove of taxes on drink and cigarettes but you are in favour of a tax on bicycles?

What would be the purpose of this tax? To generate revenue? To discourage cycling? Something else?

Raam · 14-10-2008 9:31am

Morgan wrote: »

What would be the purpose of this tax? To generate revenue? To discourage cycling? Something else?

The guy in the letter thinks the tax will...

...allow the common motorist give way more easily to the sometimes meandering cyclist.

Chips Lovell · 14-10-2008 9:33am

Lumen wrote: »

Motor tax is only based on CO2 emissions because we have communists the Green Party in power

Mucco · 14-10-2008 9:39am

This question pops up every now and then, mostly when some motorist stuck in traffic gets annoyed at the cyclists whizzing by. I question how a tax would be calculated.

Based on emmissions
Cyclists don't have emmissions, so this is a non-starter

Based on road use
Cyclists use a tiny amount of road space compared to cars, maybe 10%. So we'd have to be taxed at 10% of the car price. But what about road damage?
Road damage increases to the cube (at least) of axle weight. My bike weighs 10kg, the average car weighs over 1000kg, 100 times as much. 100 cubed is 1 million. In effect we don't damage the roads, so a reduction in the tax to take account of this would lead us to paying nothing basically.

I'm not sure how much it costs to collect a tax, but I'd guess a €10 tax as suggested in the letter would not be worthwhile.

Tax cyclist idea.........pedestrians next?

Comments