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

TinyExplosions

My view is that I'd have no problem paying an amount of cycling tax if -and only if -it would improve our conditions on the road. As it is, we get stupid cycle lanes in the worst part of the road that most drivers don't even seem to notice, let alone care about. Pedestrians don't pay walking tax, and yet get a separate, safe, generally well maintained walking track that cars are made stay off... why can't we get something similar!

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

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

"Less Pollution". Diesels are taxed lower than petrols in Ireland due to lower CO2. Consequently, the air is filled with particulates from the exhausts. The motor tax system is therefore not designed to minimize pollution that actually matters to people, particularly cyclists.

"Less congestion." There are already positive incentives to cycle. I don't see that taxing cyclists would significantly increase car use - cyclists too poor to run a car or pay the tax would use public transport or walk; cyclists who can afford a car probably have one but currently cycle for reasons other than economy.

"Cyclists are moving traffic calming measures....In theory this should lead to safer roads." That's just ridiculous.

"Cyclists don’t damage the road." A cycling tax would be significantly lower than road tax to reflect this. Resurfacing is not the only cost - the integration of cycle lanes with other parts of the road system costs money and adds complexity.

"Cycling Reduces Cost of NHS.". So does drinking a glass of wine a day and taking an aspirin. Where do I get my free booze and pills?

flickerx

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?

Lumen

TinyExplosions wrote: »

My view is that I'd have no problem paying an amount of cycling tax if -and only if -it would improve our conditions on the road.

Exactly. You don't pay, you don't get a say - that's how society works to a large extent. Some car drivers (not me!) resent the presence of cyclists on "their" roads.

Cyclists should be treated as first-class road users. This would be easier to achieve if they were seen to contribute to the upkeep of the road system in the same way that other road users are.

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

"Less Pollution". Diesels are taxed lower than petrols in Ireland due to lower CO2. Consequently, the air is filled with particulates from the exhausts. The motor tax system is therefore not designed to minimize pollution that actually matters to people, particularly cyclists.

"Less congestion." There are already positive incentives to cycle. I don't see that taxing cyclists would significantly increase car use - cyclists too poor to run a car or pay the tax would use public transport or walk; cyclists who can afford a car probably have one but currently cycle for reasons other than economy.

"Cyclists are moving traffic calming measures....In theory this should lead to safer roads." That's just ridiculous.

"Cyclists don’t damage the road." A cycling tax would be significantly lower than road tax to reflect this. Resurfacing is not the only cost - the integration of cycle lanes with other parts of the road system costs money and adds complexity.

"Cycling Reduces Cost of NHS.". So does drinking a glass of wine a day and taking an aspirin. Where do I get my free booze and pills?

I think you are getting blighted by your own argument.
You should post those comments on that guys blog, let him defend his own arguments.

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

Exactly. You don't pay, you don't get a say - that's how society works to a large extent. Some car drivers (not me!) resent the presence of cyclists on "their" roads.

Cyclists should be treated as first-class road users. This would be easier to achieve if they were seen to contribute to the upkeep of the road system in the same way that other road users are.

We do contribute, as was explained earlier by Blorg.

Mr. Presentable

Mucco wrote: »

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

.

Methane's an emission. And so's CO2, which cyclists put out more of than motorists (note I said motorists, not cars)

blorg

@Lumen - your position is really so bizarre it is hard to get a grip on even for discussion. You are against the use of taxation to further social goals although it is used for this purpose in just about every developed country in the world.

You are against tax breaks on health insurance and pensions, which would have the effect of reducing voluntary contributions to both, further overloading our public services and increasing tax for everybody. (Unless of course your answer is to drop entirely the public pension and health service, which I suspect it may be.)

But lets stick a tax on cycling?

What sort of tax regime would be your ideal? It's hard to fathom.

Do you even think roads should be paid for out of public taxation _at all_? Why not have a system of private roads _everywhere_ (not just motorways) - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists all have to pay (proportionately, presumably) to use them. This could be handled through some sort of easy-pass system. Everyone paying for their usage although some would suggest that such an approach to infrastructure might have a generally negative effect on the economy.

As for cycle lanes I would be very happy myself to see the back of them entirely.

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

Exactly. You don't pay, you don't get a say - that's how society works to a large extent. Some car drivers (not me!) resent the presence of cyclists on "their" roads.

But most of us do pay. We either pay income tax (which also funds the roads) or we own a car or motorbike and thus pay road tax. We also pay VAT on goods and services which go towards funding roads. So there isn't a single person on this island who doesn't pay for the roads one way or another.

So the idea that the roads "belong" to any one set of society is an argument used by morons and isn't even worth consideration.

Morgan

Lumen wrote: »

Some car drivers (not me!) resent the presence of cyclists on "their" roads.

Maybe there should be a €10 tax on ignorance in that case

Lumen

flickerx wrote: »

I wish I was flexible enough to achieve that, it would really help in headwinds.

Any tips?

Seriously though, just trying to contribute to the debate. No-one likes tax; I wasn't expecting a chorus of approval from a cycling forum.

Budget today should be interesting...

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

Budget today should be interesting...

Jeebus, imagine they DO introduce it!

TinyExplosions

Raam wrote: »

Jeebus, imagine they DO introduce it!

We could all cycle down and protest

rflynnr

Lumen wrote: »

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.

Lumen, perhaps I'm missing something but I still haven't heard your rationale for introducing an additional tax on cyclists (I say additional because last time I bought a bike, I believe I paid VAT.) The original letter in the Independent that started this thread was based on the hoary, old, and faulty premise that Motor Tax pays for the roads. It doesn't nor has it ever. (If it did, we wouldn't be paying tolls.) Even before the introduction of C02 based charging motor tax was based on an attempt to claw back the negative externalities (costs) associated with the prevalance of cars in society. These costs include the need to build transport infrastructures (i.e. roads) BUT ALSO (for example) the increased health care costs brought about by respiratory complaints associated with living in an industrial society. Obviously it would be impossible to levy those costs on individual cars, so the tax is amortised across the whole category of vehicles.

Given this, what similar negative externalities could one point to as a consequence of using bikes as a mode of transport? At a stretch, one could argue that the behaviour of individual "dangerous" cyclists results in broader costs to society but this is the result of the behaviour of individuals - it's not something that is inherent to bicycles as a class of vehicle. Indeed, on reflection, in economic terms, the externalities associated with bikes are almost exclusively positive. Because cyclists tend to be fitter, they're less vulnerable to illness and as a consequence constitute less of a drain on the resources of the health care system

Furthermore, what's the relevance of your point about dangerous cyclists to taxation? Are you suggesting that if people had to pay a tax to use their bikes that they'd behave more responsibly? It's not an argument that is supported by the actual behaviour of those (including myself) paying motor tax.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

Exactly. You don't pay, you don't get a say - that's how society works to a large extent. Some car drivers (not me!) resent the presence of cyclists on "their" roads.

Cyclists should be treated as first-class road users. This would be easier to achieve if they were seen to contribute to the upkeep of the road system in the same way that other road users are.

We do pay. Motor Tax would only cover a small fraction of the annual roads budget, yet motorists cause the most damage to roads, need the most space and get their own exclusive (and expensive I might add) roads, i.e. motorways.

Last year's Motor Tax take was €955 million. The NRA's road building budget for the next 6 years is in the region of €2 billion per annum. And that's just for new roads. You also need to take into account how much local authorities spend every year on maintenance of existing roads.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

your position is really so bizarre it is hard to get a grip on even for discussion. You are against the use of taxation to further social goals although it is used for this purpose in just about every developed country in the world.

My position is probably very different to yours, but I hope it's self-consistent.

blorg wrote: »

You are against tax breaks on health insurance and pensions, which would have the effect of reducing voluntary contributions to both, further overloading our public services and increasing tax for everybody. (Unless of course your answer is to drop entirely the public pension and health service, which I suspect it may be.)

Voluntary contributions to public pensions? You've confused me. FWIW, I think the health service should be entirely funded out of general taxation, and free at the point of use.

blorg wrote: »

What sort of tax regime would be your ideal? It's hard to fathom.

A simple one. I'd rather there were no road user taxes. VAT on car sales and fuel is sufficiently simple. Since we're not in that position, it seems fair that all road users should contribute to their upkeep. Pedestrians are not road users - roads are an obstacle to them, at least in the city.

blorg wrote: »

Do you even think roads should be paid for out of public taxation _at all_? Why not have a system of private roads _everywhere_ (not just motorways) - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists all have to pay (proportionately, presumably) to use them. This could be handled through some sort of easy-pass system. Everyone paying for their usage although some would suggest that such an approach to infrastructure might have a generally negative effect on the economy.

I think you've extrapolated or misunderstood. Tolls are inefficient and complicated. Roads should be paid for out of either general taxation or road user taxes (I'd prefer general taxation).

blorg wrote: »

As for cycle lanes I would be very happy myself to see the back of them entirely.

Me too.

rflynnr

Lumen wrote: »

I'd rather there were no road user taxes.

"Road user taxes"?. Lumen, this is a category of tax you have essentially invented to support your argument. This can't be stated enough: there is not now, nor has there ever been, something called "Road Tax". It's "motor tax". This is not a small semantic distinction. Indeed understanding the difference is critical to this discussion. Otherwise it will continue to proceed with the participants basing their positions on quite different premises.

Lumen

rflynnr wrote: »

John, perhaps I'm missing something but I still haven't heard your rationale for introducing an additional tax on cyclists (I say additional because last time I bought a bike, I believe I paid VAT.)

And last time I bought a car, I paid VAT, VRT and motor tax. There are already additional taxes for other road users. I'm arguing from the perspective of fairness.

rflynnr wrote: »

The original letter in the Independent that started this thread was based on the hoary, old, and faulty premise that Motor Tax pays for the roads. It doesn't nor has it ever. (If it did, we wouldn't be paying tolls.)

"Motor tax" may not cover the costs of the roads, but I imagine "motor taxes" (including VRT) do. I haven't checked this though.

rflynnr wrote: »

Even before the introduction of C02 based charging motor tax was based on an attempt to claw back the negative externalities (costs) associated with the prevalance of cars in society. These costs include the need to build transport infrastructures (i.e. roads) BUT ALSO (for example) the increased health care costs brought about by respiratory complaints associated with living in an industrial society. Obviously it would be impossible to levy those costs on individual cars, so the tax is amortised across the whole category of vehicles.

As stated earlier, the current motoring tax system has nothing to do with health care costs, or else it wouldn't encourage people to buy diesels. Modern petrol cars contribute almost nothing to respiratory illness.

rflynnr wrote: »

Given this, what similar negative externalities could one point to as a consequence of using bikes as a mode of transport?

I don't buy the "negative externalities" arguments, much discussed earlier. You may do, so we disagree.

Furthermore, what's the relevance of your point about dangerous cyclists to taxation? Are you suggesting that if people had to pay a tax to use their bikes that they'd behave more responsibly? It's not an argument that is supported by the actual behaviour of those (including myself) paying motor tax.

It might take off the road people too cheap to buy lights.

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

I think you've extrapolated or misunderstood. Tolls are inefficient and complicated. Roads should be paid for out of either general taxation or road user taxes (I'd prefer general taxation).

You will be happy then, as that is primarily what roads are paid for out of, general taxation

flickerx

rflynnr wrote: »

"Road user taxes"?. John, this is a category of tax you have essentially invented to support your argument. This can't be stated enough: there is not now, nor has there ever been, something called "Road Tax". It's "motor tax". This is not a small semantic distinction. Indeed understanding the difference is critical to this discussion. Otherwise it will continue to proceed with the participants basing their positions on quite different premises.

this man (or woman) has landed the killer blow.
there isnt going to be a 'crank' tax on cyclists, so i think we can all chill.
indo letter writers talk a lot of crap.

Lumen

rflynnr wrote: »

"Road user taxes"?. John, this is a category of tax you have essentially invented to support your argument. This can't be stated enough: there is not now, nor has there ever been, something called "Road Tax". It's "motor tax". This is not a small semantic distinction. Indeed understanding the difference is critical to this discussion. Otherwise it will continue to proceed with the participants basing their positions on quite different premises.

Tax is about people paying do do things. You earn money, you pay tax. You spend money, you pay tax. You drive, you pay tax. And so on.

The whole taxation system is based on "if it moves, tax it". Why is cycling any different?

rflynnr

Unless you're aware of a scheme for evading VAT on bikes, bikes are taxed, so they are no different.

blorg

If you walk, you pay tax; if you breathe, you pay tax, if you play 5-a-side football, you pay tax? Why is cycling any different?

flickerx

death and taxes.

311

AXE THE TAX :pac:

penexpers

el tonto wrote: »

Last year's Motor Tax take was €955 million. The NRA's road building budget for the next 6 years is in the region of €2 billion per annum. And that's just for new roads. You also need to take into account how much local authorities spend every year on maintenance of existing roads.

Does Motor Tax not go straight to the local authorities anyway? I seem to remember they started receiving it once water charges were abolished.

penexpers

rflynnr wrote: »

Unless you're aware of a scheme for evading VAT on bikes, bikes are taxed, so they are no different.

VAT is a general tax, so the argument that cycling is taxed already is a pretty weak one imo.

unionman

such a levy might at least allow the common motorist give way more easily to the sometimes meandering cyclist who adamantly refuses to avail of the bike lanes that we, the hard-pressed motorists have paid for by way of tax levies imposed upon us.

:D:D

That's one of the funniest letters I've ever read in the Indo.

Lots of excellent points already made so I won't labour anything any further. If we could be sure of a cohesive cycling infrastructure then I don't see why not. But the chances of that happening are practically zero right now, or indeed at any other time.

Chips Lovell

penexpers wrote: »

Does Motor Tax not go straight to the local authorities anyway? I seem to remember they started receiving it once water charges were abolished.

Not directly. It's collected by the local authorities on behalf of the Department of the Environment, which then allocates it to a local authority fund.

Lumen

Hypothecated taxes are a bit of an accounting con IMO.

All the money goes into a big leaky bucket which is then splashed back in our general direction.