Would you pay "road" tax then??

fat bloke

It's struck me lately that these days, more than any other, if anyone gives you that "you don't pay road tax" sh1t, it's probably worth checking the disk on their windscreen and see if they've paid theirs! Plenty of motor tax dodging motorists about.

But to extend the point. I was wondering what the reaction would be here to an actual road tax on cyclists. Ok, it's another fee to have to pay, but if it was small, and it would have to be relatively small, would it strengthen cyclists rights on the road, and rights TO the road? It would certainly put a spanner in the tired old motorists' argument.

Lowest car motor tax bracket is about 150 ish. Motorbikes and scooters pay the same rate (or used to back in the day when I rode motorbikes) and it's about 50 quid, so presumably something like a 10, 15 or 20 quid annual fee might be ballpark for bikes.

I don't want to descend into "but I have 3 bikes and won't somebody think of the children" specifics, I'm more interested in the general principle of the thing. -Does paying your way, even if only nominally, automatically mean greater representation and a louder voice?

ThisRegard

No.

Dermot Illogical

I'd be happy to pay it if it was included in the price of fuel.

-PornStar-

Why should cyclist be singled out to pay "road tax". Surely other road vehicles would have to pay "road tax" also. I don't think motorist would be happy paying an additional tax, on top of their motor tax.

fat bloke

RT66 wrote: »

I'd be happy to pay it if it was included in the price of fuel.

Christ, I don't care how many new and undiscovered amino acids they have now, powerbars are dear enough already :pac:

kenmc

I already pay a tenner a year for Dublin Bikes - does that count?

Otherwise... I'd be prepared to pay a tiny nominal fee. But I'd also expect bike theft to be taken seriously, cycle lanes to be removed, drivers to be prosecuted for endangering cyclists and compulsory showers and secure lockups in all workplaces.

531

Where I live, there isn't always a footpath on the side of the road. Should the same apply to all road users i.e. walkers?

lookitsme

interesting but you are not addressing one major thing,

"won't somebody think of the children"

kenmc

-PornStar- wrote: »

Why should cyclist be singled out to pay "road tax". Surely other road vehicles would have to pay "road tax" also. I don't think motorist would be happy paying an additional tax, on top of their motor tax.

System Error. Your Sarcasm Detector is out of date. Upgrade Required.

Marinjohn

Well I have a road bike and a mountain bike...So if road tax were to be introduced on bicycles I would get rid of the road bike and just stick to off road cycling on my mtb..

fat bloke

-PornStar- wrote: »

Why should cyclist be singled out to pay "road tax". Surely other road vehicles would have to pay "road tax" also. I don't think motorist would be happy paying an additional tax, on top of their motor tax.

Because I'm asking that's why. It's my thread, and I'm singling them out!:rolleyes:

It's a constant issue here and on the roads. It's the standard car driver's snappy comeback everytime cyclists moan about ANYthing. So, I'm asking the question, if we paid it, and therefore similarly put paid to that argument, would it be in our interest (cyclists interest). I don't care if you call it "ass" tax, but debate the substantive issue, rather than the semantics willya!?:

kenmc

lookitsme wrote: »

interesting but you are not addressing one major thing,

"won't somebody think of the children"

They are valued, taxable members of society, with an unaccounted-for revenue stream by way of pocket money, birthdays, communions and christmas. It's only right and proper that they put their shoulder to the wheel also, and dig this country out of the recession that their older relatives all caused.

-PornStar-

fat bloke wrote: »

Because I'm asking that's why. It's my thread, and I'm singling them out!:rolleyes:

It's a constant issue here and on the roads. It's the standard car driver's snappy comeback everytime cyclists moan about ANYthing. So, I'm asking the question, if we paid it, and therefore similarly put paid to that argument, would it be in our interest (cyclists interest). I don't care if you call it "ass" tax, but debate the substantive issue, rather than the semantics willya!?:

Then no.

studiorat

No one pays road tax. We pay motor tax, the clue's in the name.

ThisRegard

studiorat wrote: »

No one pays road tax. We pay motor tax, the clue's in the name.

I think he knows that, but most cyclists around here don't have motors attached to their bikes.

Beasty

If the argument is that motor tax helps pay for the construction and upkeep of the road network (and to be clear I do not accept this proposition - motor tax is just one form of central government funding in my view), then I already contribute around 1 and a half grand a year (across 2 cars). If I didn't cycle I would drive a lot further, causing additional damage to both the road netwiork and wider environment, whilst making the same overall contribution to government coffers (plus fuel taxes and other bits and pieces such as VAT on motor consumables/repairs).

However if such a tax was introduced, I would pay it (as I pay all taxes I am legally required to pay)

Surveyor11

Given that motor tax is so high (which I pay) and the general poor state of the roads, which you'd expect to be top class for such large amounts of money being paid by motorists then, by implication, I wouldn't pay a tax on a bike. It's likely to go into a general black hole, rather tan be plowed into a world class cycling infrastructure.

ROK ON

It is a reasonable question given the need of the state to develop a diversified and uncorrelated tax take.

For many reasons (ease of evasion) it is unworkable. A tax system is only workable if the tax the state is taking is cost effective to take. I could imagine that the cost of enforcing this particular tax measure would prove pretty costly.

What should be considered would be reduced motor tax and increased taxes on car usage (tolls, urban congestion charges etc). They are more effective from a cost point versus tax take if implemented properly.

Personally I wouldn't pay it - it would be too easy to evade, so I would chance my arm.

fat bloke

studiorat wrote: »

No one pays road tax. We pay motor tax, the clue's in the name.

No it isn't man.

The clue is in the thread title.

Wishbone Ash

I'd happily pay a cycle tax if the amount was offset against my car tax (as it sits in the driveway most days of the week).

Those motorists who complain about cyclists don't seem to realise that if we all abandoned our bikes they'd have to contend with a lot more vehicles on the road.

petethedrummer

No but I'd pay a tiny velodrome tax if it was added to the price of cycling related goods and it actually went towards the building of a velodrome.

levitronix

your already paying vat when you make the purchase and then the upgrades, more tax not a chance

AltAccount

I already pay road/motor tax on my car, so no, I won't be volunteering to pay any additional taxes to use my bike.

If I have the choice between taking my car or bike to work, and I choose to take the mode that reduces traffic congestion, doesn't produce additional emissions, causes less wear and tear on the road surface, reduces the likelihood I'll have to use the public health system etc, etc, I expect to be thanked, not bloody taxed!!

In the meantime, if the tax absolutely HAS to be introduced, then this:

kenmc wrote: »

Otherwise... I'd be prepared to pay a tiny nominal fee. But I'd also expect bike theft to be taken seriously, cycle lanes to be removed, drivers to be prosecuted for endangering cyclists and compulsory showers and secure lockups in all workplaces.

BostonB

fat bloke wrote: »

...would it strengthen cyclists rights on the road, and rights TO the road? It would certainly put a spanner in the tired old motorists' argument....

You can't win an argument with an idiot.

Tonyandthewhale

When someone tells me I have no right to be on the road because I don't pay 'road' tax I find it much easier to just tell them to fuck off than go paying some extra tax.

dev100

Marinjohn wrote: »

Well I have a road bike and a mountain bike...So if road tax were to be introduced on bicycles I would get rid of the road bike and just stick to off road cycling on my mtb..

Would you declare the road bike off the road

yop

No chance, I pay 900 euro a year for my car so fk that. We pay enough of taxes and charges without this kak.

dev100

Beasty wrote: »

If the argument is that motor tax helps pay for the construction and upkeep of the road network (and to be clear I do not accept this proposition - motor tax is just one form of central government funding in my view), then I already contribute around 1 and a half grand a year (across 2 cars). If I didn't cycle I would drive a lot further, causing additional damage to both the road netwiork and wider environment, whilst making the same overall contribution to government coffers (plus fuel taxes and other bits and pieces such as VAT on motor consumables/repairs).

However if such a tax was introduced, I would pay it (as I pay all taxes I am legally required to pay)

The country needs more people like you:) if they introduced a walking tax and a fresh air tax would you cough up willingly?

rab!dmonkey

I absolutely would not pay such a tax to cycle and I would actively resist any such measures that were implemented. There's no way that I would allow my Common Law rights to the use of public highways to be curtailed to appease those who chose to spend their time and money getting permission for their otherwise illegal mode of transportation.

Darkglasses

Not in a million years, not a cent.

Squidgy Black

If it was to fund cycling related developments and projects such as more cycling paths and resurfacing, or even a cycle task force section of the Garda like in London, then yeah I wouldn't mind it.

If I got no benefit from it though, they can stick it with their household tax and water charges.

coolbeans

Just to chime in before bed. It should be noted that motor tax is levied as a consequence of the externalities that occur as a result of a motorised society.these are widely accepted as being pollution, congestion and the danger to other road users i.e. walkers and cyclists. That's a good reason to tax motorists so as to curb behaviour. These policies haven't worked due to the incompetence of generations of Irish governments but that's an argument for another day. Furthermore, motor tax does not pay for roads. We all do that with income tax and until recently stamp duty. As cyclists don't wear out the road, don't pollute, present little or no danger and veritably alleviate congestion there's a strong argument to be made for heavily subsidising cycling. As such, taxing cyclists would be logically and economically absurd.

Orion

studiorat wrote: »

No one pays road tax. We pay motor tax, the clue's in the name.

Then why do fines say for non display of a "road license certificate"?

Also no to the op. Cyclists have rights. Enforcement is the problem. And that applies across the board.

tomasrojo

Motor Tax is not collected specifically for the purpose of road maintenance and upgrading, or indeed allocated entirely for that purpose. The tax goes in its entirety to the Local Government Fund, where it is used for diverse expenses, including non-national roads.

The Local Government Fund (LGF) is a special central fund which was established in 1999 under the Local Government Act 1998. It is financed by the full proceeds of motor tax and an Exchequer contribution. The Fund provides local authorities with the finance for general discretionary funding of their day-to-day activities and for non-national roads, and funding for certain local government initiatives.

http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAdministration/LocalGovernmentFinance

endacl

fat bloke wrote: »

It's struck me lately that these days, more than any other, if anyone gives you that "you don't pay road tax" sh1t, it's probably worth checking the disk on their windscreen and see if they've paid theirs! Plenty of motor tax dodging motorists about.

But to extend the point. I was wondering what the reaction would be here to an actual road tax on cyclists. Ok, it's another fee to have to pay, but if it was small, and it would have to be relatively small, would it strengthen cyclists rights on the road, and rights TO the road? It would certainly put a spanner in the tired old motorists' argument.

Lowest car motor tax bracket is about 150 ish. Motorbikes and scooters pay the same rate (or used to back in the day when I rode motorbikes) and it's about 50 quid, so presumably something like a 10, 15 or 20 quid annual fee might be ballpark for bikes.

I don't want to descend into "but I have 3 bikes and won't somebody think of the children" specifics, I'm more interested in the general principle of the thing. -Does paying your way, even if only nominally, automatically mean greater representation and a louder voice?

1. Reply: 'neither do you'.

2. Rights can't be strengthened or weakened. Only respected or ignored.

3. Bugger that. I already pay motor tax. I'm not wearing out the road using a bike. I'm not adding to traffic congestion. I'm reducing my carbon footprint. There aren't any (and I'm including the majority of cycle lanes) cycle specific amenities provided. What would I be paying for?

4. Point of principle on this one. I'm a citizen. I follow the laws of the land (including that one about red lights...), I work and I pay tax. I don't think I should have to pay an extra fee to be listened to.

I wouldn't be prepared to pay an extra charge, even a nominal one, in order to 'buy' respect from a minority if dickhead motorists.
Roads are there to provide a means of transport and travel. Doesn't matter the mode, whether that be bus, bike or shanks mare. They belong to whoever needs to get from point A to point B. Not just those who do it in a car.

triggermortis

I would have to go with a big fat no. Im already taxed enough

Jawgap

I was going to write a piece about how I already pay motor tax and that in respect of my bike I paid VAT (currently at 23%) - then I realised all my bikes (including my Cycle to Work Scheme one) were bought in the UK - so at least I helped pay for that posh lady in the nice hat and her friends to have a party.

I have bought the odd bit of stuff here (@23% VAT) and used various people to have repairs done (some of which have even charged VAT @ 13.5%;))

Flat road taxes are regressive and motor taxes here are almost as regressive (especially in Ireland) - plus the money goes into the general pot into which my VAT, income tax, levvies, and household tax charge go, along with my airport taxes, excise duties (on my beer for the Euros), environmental levvies, cap gains (potentially), and DIRT. So I reckon I already contribute......

......but yes, if a tax / levy / charge was brought in for bikes I'd pay it, mightn't like it, and it would be an incredibly stupid charge (like the dog licences I'm stupid enough to pay for), but I'd pay it.

ratracer

Since I've refused to pay the household 'charge' or the septic tank 'registration' fee, i absolutely would not even considering paying tax on my bicycle.
Fat bloke, are you a politician by any chance?

Jawgap

tomasrojo wrote: »

Motor Tax is not collected specifically for the purpose of road maintenance and upgrading, or indeed allocated entirely for that purpose. The tax goes in its entirety to the Local Government Fund, where it is used for diverse expenses, including non-national roads.



http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAdministration/LocalGovernmentFinance

they seem to be suffering some "leakage" - according to their own figures the LGF allocation for 2011 was just over €704m.

According to Fiance in the 10 months to the end of October 2011 the total motor tax take was €708m - the total take for 2010 was €842m.

Also the LGF figures for 2012 show a 7.6% cut for 2012 (to €651m)

Plus given that rates were increased in the budget I don't expect the amount taken this year will drop much - meaning the gap between what's taken and what's in the LGF will be bigger.

Kav0777

What day is it? ... is it Friday?

doozerie

Paying "road tax" would give me an (sense of) entitlement to the roads and the bigger a bike I rode then the greater my rights to shove everything smaller than me off the roads and to be obnoxious and aggressive in the process (thems the rules, the law even, just ask a driver of a chelsea tractor!). I like it. It would also confer on me a massive chip on my shoulder that would turn me into a sulken grumpy ****e, what with my feelings of victimisation by an evil and corrupt regime that everyone else (not me, no no) elected into government. That general attitude would be entirely compatible with, and supportive of, my new-found entitlement. Yayyy!

Mind you, as amply demonstrated yet again this morning, it would also induce a sense that I'll dissolve in the rain and thus the prospect of being exposed to the merest drop would fill me with fear. Therefore no more waiting at red lights for me, or parking my bike anything less than 2mm from the entrance of whichever building I'm going to. Booo! Or should that be another yayyy?

Doctor Bob

If there is a gap in motorists' knowledge regarding a cyclist's right to use the road, then education and enforcement is the answer. I doubt very much that a bike licencing regime would have the effect of 'legitimising' pre-existing rights in the eyes of ignorant motorists.

So my answer is No, in principle. (There are plenty of valid, practical reasons mentioned above for not doing it, such as costs vs benefits, but I think even raising those points allows that such a tax, while difficult to implement, might be acceptable in principle. I'd refute this strongly.)

For what it's worth, though I've seen it mentioned and debated on Boards regularly, in almost 20 years of commuting cycling I have never had a motorist tell me that I don't have the right to use the road because I haven't paid 'road tax'.

Lumen

Motor tax doesn't exist because of "externalised negativities" or whatever, it exists because governments want to grab as much of our money as they can take from as many sources as possible. Modern cars are not very polluting at all (if you exclude CO2, which is only considered a pollutant by the insane). That said, the economic case for various motor taxes is that the goods (cars and fuel) are all imported, so taxing the crap out of them helps our trade balance.

Anyway, the simple solution is to the perceived inequality is to get rid of motor tax and replace the revenue with fuel duty, but that would upset the boggers and we can't have that.

Briain O Loinsigh

If the government paid people twenthy euro a year to take up cycling ,it would probably be less of a burden than looking after unhealthy people.

Jawgap

If the tax was really about curbing externalities it would all be on fuel on the basis of the polluter pays principle - as it is, 'motor' tax has nothing to do with motoring and everything to do with tax.

Look at what happened when they modified it to encourage people to buy less polluting cars - and it worked, people bought less polluting cars, so they jacked the rate up!

Also, I think you should be able to link your strava profile to PAYE Online and claim rebates against your carbon tax payments.....

[IMG]https://fbcdn_sphotos_a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/251931_394266130614962_943457514_n.jpg[/IMG]

studiorat

Orion wrote: »

Then why do fines say for non display of a "road license certificate"?

We do, in Ireland? I don't think such a thing exists.

It's licencing for motor tax.

The licencing for motor tax of new cars registered from 1st July 2008 is determined on the basis of the CO2 emissions level of the car, based on seven CO 2 bands.

It's about profiting from externalities, the problem is if you put that tax onto the fuel as polluter pays the exempt vehicles would then be paying.
It should be taxed at the pump so your milage reflects your tax contribution but I don't believe the government could get it together.

coolbeans

No doubt the government has abused the taxation of motorists to provide revenue but this is an example of misuse of the taxation system over many decades. The fact that motorists pollute, injure and cause congestion isn't really disputable therefore it makes sense to tax them.
Also while new cars don't pollute as much as in the past most cars are not new. diesels particularly contribute to belch carcinogenic fumes under moderate to hard acceleration. They also rely on elaborate emission control systems that are surprisingly ineffective after a relatively short period of time unless serviced meticulously, and regularly.in Ireland at least, this won't happen. In short, cars particularly the more numerous diesels, pollute.

fat bloke

ratracer wrote: »

Fat bloke, are you a politician by any chance?

I am in me (fat) ar$e. :rolleyes:

I'm just wondering aloud. It's a constant line on the forum here, and a favourite of Joe Duffy trouts. I pay my fair share of motor tax and had a 3 year stint on the 1566 top rate into the bargain, so I've no interest in paying more tax to ride my bike.

But - I've never heard a motorist tell a lorry driver to "get off the road" or a bus driver, or a tractor, or a jcb, or another car, or a motorbike. They might beep and give out but they do accept, albeit grudgingly that they have a "right" *to use the road. Yet it's frequently shouted at bicycle riders, because some drivers (idiots) think they because they pay (what they refer to as) road tax, that this is what entitles them to use the roads, and those who do not pay this tax (in their eyes) are less, or not, entitled to do so.

If cyclists had a tax disc to point to and refute this argument, I wonder what the next illogical argument would then be, from said motorists. Maybe a colour photocopy of your car tax disc is the way to go, and point it out to the next steering wheel biter you encounter.

(***I DO KNOW THAT BIKES ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE ROAD!!!****)

(apologies for the multiple caveats, but it seems there are as many reactionaries and out of contexters on boards as there are on the roads:rolleyes: *waits for indignant "but I have every right to use the road!" reply" <sigh>*)

CramCycle

fat bloke wrote: »

But - I've never heard a motorist tell a lorry driver to "get off the road" or a bus driver, or a tractor, or a jcb, or another car, or a motorbike. They might beep and give out but they do accept, albeit grudgingly that they have a "right" *to use the road.

The number of people who risk not paying it for a few months to save a few quid is quite astonishing. A guy i used to work with bought a banger for 400euro, got it insured and never paid road tax, figuring that if he got away for a few months, it paid for the car and he could let them sieze it (I think he was wrong and would have seen a court date but I don't know the ins and outs of it all).

I pay motor Tax, I have never ben stopped, it currently costs more than I would get for the car if I sold it, I drive when samples for work are too awkward to carry by bike or when i have to drop my daughter to school, the rest of the time its off the road, I really think that a push to have it placed on fuel is the way to go, with maybe a tax relief for those who are working full time and get a declaration or proof that there car is essential to their continued employment.

Immediately the numbers should drop drastically till people could figure out away around it. Few issues but I think its not a terrible basis for a plan. Cycling pays for itself in the long run, reducing the cost to the HSE and the general public as times goes by.

doozerie

fat bloke wrote:

If cyclists had a tax disc to point to and refute this argument, I wonder what the next illogical argument would then be, from said motorists

A license is the other thing that the deranged occasionally call for. If a bicycle tax was introduced that'd probably fire them up again. Such people don't seem to recognise the existence of a CI license, which many cyclists obviously already have, 'cos the effort to come up with some other silly requirement to campaign for would be too much for them.

fat bloke wrote:

*waits for indignant "but I have every right to use the road!" reply

You've forgotten to anticipate the *highly* indignant reply, and the *incredulously and highly* indignant reply. But worse still, you may have forgotten to anticipate the "well done fat bloke, you'd said what needed to be said!" responses from the humourless and cranky people reading boards.ie on their phones while "driving" their cars in stationary Irish traffic on this rainy day. You'll be the online equivalent of that person at the happening party who is lumbered with the smelly weird person whose presence keeps everyone back beyond a radius of 3m.

Red Neck Hughie

I'm pretty sure that brainier people than I would be able to do a quick analysis of taxes and statistics and find that cyclists in fact subsidise cars - when you take into account the costs of building new motorways and maintaining existing road infrastructure - would current levels of car tax even come close to covering this? Add in policing and health costs, and a few more directly related costs and you'd surely find that a big wad of cash comes from other sources - like my income tax. Now bring in the statistician who will tell you that it's out of all proportion to my actual use of the roads..
So I have no problem with paying bike tax - I just dont call it that at the moment. (links available to back up everything I've said and will follow soon)

(http://takingthelane.com/zine/#ecwid:category=1726506&mode=product&product=7960376
The bikenomics book here was available as a free kindle ebook last week... all claims backed up inside)