Cyclists, insurance and road tax

Fighting Tao

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't really read thread but few posts every so often but since everyone is so enthusiastic about additional taxes, can we just add and extra 2% usc and extra 2% to Vat and be done with this nonsense.

It's actually hard to believe this thread could get even stupider.

So penalise those who can’t afford, or don’t own a car? Does that really sound fair to you?

Trekker09

magicbastarder wrote: »

i wonder what the carbon footprint of going round in circles in a thread like this is.

one thing to bear in mind too in relation to levying taxes is that bikes are often the transport of last resort for people on no or minimum wage. for example, there are several large fruit and veg places in north county dublin not reachable by public transport, and i see lads (usually men, anyway) cycling there to get to work. they quite likely work on packaging production lines, etc.
their method of transport is cheap, as low in carbon as is possible without walking (and they can't walk there), so to put extra costs on them would be unfair.

...plus the health benefits are immeasurable.

Pawwed Rig

HorseSea wrote: »

I am not bothered about cyclists paying road tax or any tax, but they should definitely be insured and it should be a legal requirement. Cover under a house policy only applies if you have one.

Why? What are the statistics that would back up this requirement? Are we saying that cyclists are leaving a trail of destruction behind them and everyone else is picking up the tab?
Also how does this requirement apply to children? Are our kids now liable for arrest and seizure for borrowing their buddy's bike to go on a cycle to the shops?

I asked the OP this earlier in the thread but he is cherry picking the posts he responds to

Trekker09

Sono Topolino wrote: »

So I assume you're absolutely in favour of a carbon tax which funds better cycling infrastructure?

I should be getting tax credits for not using my car. Motor tax is emission based

oisinog

mrslancaster wrote: »

Agree that cycling has a lot of benefits, health, less congestion, lower pollution etc but I'm sure most posters would agree that cycling doesn't suit everyone, older people or those with physical impairments for instance might find it impossible so they have to use a car or public transport and that brings its own problems. IMo, bad public transport is probably the very reason we have so many cars in the first place.

I'm sure every Cyclist here will tell you that sometimes having a car is more pratical. The problem is not everyone wants to share the road and that is a big problem.

Sono Topolino

magicbastarder wrote: »

i wonder what the carbon footprint of going round in circles in a thread like this is.

one thing to bear in mind too in relation to levying taxes is that bikes are often the transport of last resort for people on no or minimum wage. for example, there are several large fruit and veg places in north county dublin not reachable by public transport, and i see lads (usually men, anyway) cycling there to get to work. they quite likely work on packaging production lines, etc.
their method of transport is cheap, as low in carbon as is possible without walking (and they can't walk there), so to put extra costs on them would be unfair.

One possibility is to cut VAT on bikes or remove it altogether (or you could be radical and scrap VAT and just have carbon-added tax as the only consumption tax).

The carbon-added tax on a second-hand bikes is probably tiny.

Sono Topolino

Trekker09 wrote: »

I should be getting tax credits for not using my car. Motor tax is emission based

Make me your Taoiseach and I'll give you a rebate for scrapping your car and not replacing it within 5 years (but you can buy a bike)

But you'll have to agree with me scrapping all road related tax and rolling it into a single carbon-added tax.

oisinog

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Lycra fascist is a misnomer, I admit. It's more "Lycra libertarian"
I really find it hilarious how car drivers who want cyclists to pay their fair share get labelled all sorts of hiliarious things, from libertarian to fascist, and yet the real libertarians here are the cyclists who:

1. Have professional comfortable jobs
2. Live within 20-30 minutes bike ride from their job
3. Want to use the road for free
4. Expect no interference from the state.

And they laugh at motorists who want the exact same things for themselves.

Here is the thing we pay our fair share.

1. Not all cyclists have professional jobs I know builders,postmen, hairdressers all regular cyclists. Guess what they all also drive so pay tax on their car as well as tax on their income.
2. Well my communte on a bike is 45mins and yet it is still quicker on a bike than in a car
3. See no 1 we all pay tax
4. See no 1 we all pay tax

magicbastarder

Sono Topolino wrote: »

One possibility is to cut VAT on bikes or remove it altogether (or you could be radical and scrap VAT and just have carbon-added tax as the only consumption tax).

The carbon-added tax on a second-hand bikes is probably tiny.

also worth pointing out that the bike to work scheme is regressive. the chaps i see cycling to work in the scenario outlined above would benefit the least from it.

oisinog

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Opposing views are often frightening, but it's good to air grievances instead of letting them fester and in the cycling forum my posts were just deleting because nobody wanted to hear opposing views.

Opposing views are great to start a debate, when the debate opens up and the opposing views have nu substance then the debate goes one way very quickly

VonLuck

Why do you insist on applying a carbon tax to bicycles? They don't emit any emissions. If it's solely based on the carbon produced in their production, by that logic practically all mass produced items should have a carbon tax.

AndrewJRenko

HorseSea wrote: »

I am not bothered about cyclists paying road tax or any tax, but they should definitely be insured and it should be a legal requirement. Cover under a house policy only applies if you have one.

Also I wish they would finally get around to regulating electric bikes, scooters, electric skate boards etc etc - it should be clear when and where they are legal and illegal and that insurance is required in any public area, same as for a car / motorcycle etc.

Another seagull.

What problem would this solve?

Some numbers or measure of the extent of the problem would be great.

Sono Topolino

oisinog wrote: »

Here is the thing we pay our fair share.

1. Not all cyclists have professional jobs I know builders,postmen, hairdressers all regular cyclists. Guess what they all also drive so pay tax on their car as well as tax on their income.
2. Well my communte on a bike is 45mins and yet it is still quicker on a bike than in a car
3. See no 1 we all pay tax
4. See no 1 we all pay tax

I never said that this was all cyclists. I was describing a subset of cyclists who avail of the BTW scheme (which means that they earn more than €35,300 per anum in employment - sole traders do not qualify).

magicbastarder

VonLuck wrote: »

Why do you insist on applying a carbon tax to bicycles? They don't emit any emissions. If it's solely based on the carbon produced in their production, by that logic practically all mass produced items should have a carbon tax.

i did a quick bit of googling on that; i've seen a claim that manufacture of bikes results in ~200kg of CO2, and that there is some extra CO2 from cyclists eating extra to fuel their cycles. but it's all very hand-wavy stuff, it doesn't seem there's any real research into it, probably so low down the scale of CO2 emissions that no-one has prioritised it yet.

magicbastarder

Sono Topolino wrote: »

I never said that this was all cyclists. I was describing a subset of cyclists who avail of the BTW scheme (which means that they earn more than €35,300 per anum in employment - sole traders do not qualify).

that's the full marginal rate. anyone who pays tax will benefit, but the people who save the most are those paying tax at the higher rate.

AndrewJRenko

Sono Topolino wrote: »

A step in the right direction, but what should be incentivised is ditching cars - not acquiring bikes.

.

Which confirms that you can't see beyond your own personal bias to support a constructive option to reduce carbon emissions.

People need mobility.

Let's stop pretending that you've any real interest in reducing carbon emissions.

meeeeh

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So penalise those who can’t afford, or don’t own a car? Does that really sound fair to you?

When were the taxes fair? They have to be simple, easy and catch the biggest possible amount of people.

Pawwed Rig

meeeeh wrote: »

When were the taxes fair? They have to be simple, easy and catch the biggest possible amount of people.

The role of the government is to ensure tax is fair and proportionate

magicbastarder

the government are giving out grants to people to insulate their house/install alternative power sources, to reduce the country's carbon footprint.
these measures do not eliminate carbon; they help you reduce it (and funnily enough, with insulation - quite possibly not as effective as ditching your car for a bike).
we should be considering bicycles in the same league as being incentivised to install solar technology or to insulate our houses. as in, not that we tax it less, but that we actively promote it.

driving 1km in an ICE car produces over 100g of CO2; it seems 1kWh of electricity generates ~400g of CO2. 1kWh is about what an e-bike running at full power for four hours would consume, so roughly an hour for 100g, i.e. the same as what a car produces every kilometre. but the e-bike would not be running at full capacity at all, for an hour, in typical use.

Padre_Pio

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The role of the government is to ensure tax is fair and proportionate

I would disagree.

The role of government is to use tax to incentivise and disincentivise certain behaviours.

magicbastarder

now i have this stuck in my head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vi7kCxMBTY

Sono Topolino

VonLuck wrote: »

Why do you insist on applying a carbon tax to bicycles? They don't emit any emissions. If it's solely based on the carbon produced in their production, by that logic practically all mass produced items should have a carbon tax.

They don't emit C02 but their production is not currently carbon neutral.

harmless

Sono Topolino wrote: »

They don't emit C02 but their production is not currently carbon neutral.

300g vs 16g CO2



So you would be happy with a carbon tax where bikes pay 19 times less than cars on average?

Sono Topolino

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Which confirms that you can't see beyond your own personal bias to support a constructive option to reduce carbon emissions.

People need mobility.

Let's stop pretending that you've any real interest in reducing carbon emissions.

You're not even listening to me. I just proposed:

1. A carbon tax which drivers will pay the lion's share of
2. A rebate for people who scrap their cars and do not replace them with cars
3 Investing massively in cycling infrastructure.

But apparently I hate cyclists and love motorists. My only "sin" is that I think cyclists should get insurance, obey the rules of the road and should pay their fair share of carbon taxes (which is minuscule compared with big polluting cars, but whatever).

The only settlement cyclists wll accept is complete unconditional surrender to their demands.

Sono Topolino

harmless wrote: »

300g vs 16g CO2



So you would be happy with a carbon tax where bikes pay 19 times less than cars on average?

Assuming your maths is correct, yes.

Sono Topolino

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's the full marginal rate. anyone who pays tax will benefit, but the people who save the most are those paying tax at the higher rate.

But you agree with me that this is completely regressive and unujst, right?

harmless

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Assuming your maths is correct, yes.

So lets say €300 for the motorist and €15 for the cyclist.


I'd pay it but I wouldn't be happy that it's costing the state more to collect it than they make back.

The best option in that situation would be to charge motorists x3 what they are paying now so the tax of cyclist is viable.
Would that be ok?

Tombo2001

Sono Topolino wrote: »

You're not even listening to me. I just proposed:

1. A carbon tax which drivers will pay the lion's share of
2. A rebate for people who scrap their cars and do not replace them with cars
3 Investing massively in cycling infrastructure.

But apparently I hate cyclists and love motorists. My only "sin" is that I think cyclists should get insurance, obey the rules of the road and should pay their fair share of carbon taxes (which is minuscule compared with big polluting cars, but whatever).

The only settlement cyclists wll accept is complete unconditional surrender to their demands.

Hang on - you started out believing motorists paid road tax and cyclists didnt.

You started out believing cyclists dont pay insurance when its been said over and over that all cycling club members pay insurance.

And yet rather than just acknowleding your errors, you just look for other ways to attack cyclists.

Now its the "cyclists dont obey the rules of the road" line of attack.

Where are you on the statistic that only 2% of drivers in Dublin city centre obey the speed limit?

Where are you on studies that show motorists break the law more frequently and in a far wider range of ways than cyclists....

Yes, you dont like cyclists. End of.

If you cant attack them one way, then you attack them the other way.

Sono Topolino

harmless wrote: »

So lets say €300 for the motorist and €15 for the cyclist.


I'd pay it but I wouldn't be happy that it's costing the state more to collect it than they make back.

You collect it the same way you collect VAT.

Carbon-added tax will be a mess to roll-out, but we need it to fight climate change and incentivise the elimination of greenhouse gasses. This is why I'm insisting on cyclists paying their fair share (which is small) of tax, because in order for people to accept carbon-added tax it has to be fair and transparent.

magicbastarder

Sono Topolino wrote: »

But you agree with me that this is completely regressive and unujst, right?

i've explicitly stated already that this is regressive. it's not just limited to bikes though.