Oregon is going to have a $15 tax on every bicycle sold over

Cagers hate bikes. As self driving cars become a thing bikes will be pushed to the side for "saftey".

Same shit they do with guns. First its a small tax increase, then its so many fees the normal joe cant pay for it and its defacto banned

>>1088800
I wouldn't worry about so-called 'self driving cars', the technology is mostly media and marketing hype. You'll be an old man before humans are not allowed to operate motor vehicles, assuming that ever happens at all.

Bicycles will never be 'banned', ever, so I wouldn't worry about that either.

Don't turn this into a 'cager hate' thread; there are plenty of those on /n/, if you want to discuss that then go find one of those and post there. This thread is about a specific subject and I'd appreciate it if it was kept that way.

>>1088820
I think it's quite possible that bikes are going to be banned from using roads.

>>1088820
Where i live i have to register my bike every year

So yea, its coming

>>1088797
Any idea what the tax money is going to?
Cause if the money goes for instance to build new or repair existing bicycle infrastructure, I wouldn't mind that

File: Screenshot_2017-07-08-08-45-49~2.png (219KB, 833x430px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 833x430px

Contrary to popular belief, many cities care a lot about enabling transportation for a wide range of demographics. Some cities more than others. Cyclists are a growing one, especially in cities and urban areas. As the younger generations get absolutely shafted by the national government/1%/older generations, they will increasingly turn to alternative transport. /n/ is evidence itself, and there are real numbers to support the shift too (see map showing change in bicycle commute from 2006-2011) Bikes are a relatively cheap mode to build infrastructure for.

The cities that don't adapt to increased density and lower incomes will crumble.

The tax is bullshit, but well cheaper than sales tax in most states. A lot of the bike economy is through CL and internet sales anyway. Keep your dick on a bike.

>>1088851
I missed the line about the tax being used for non motorized transport improvement. I take back calling it bullshit.

>>1088800
As self driving cars become a thing, parking will become obsolete freeing an entire lane just for cycling.

Buy bikes used on Craigslist, problem solved

>>1088797
Sounds like a bicycle tax for stuff like bike lanes. I'm for it.

>>1088869
>buys $200 bike on CL to avoid $15 tax.
>bike needs $300 of repair work to be safe and/or perform well
You sure showed them!

>tax on bicycles only
for what purpose?

>>1088822
>>1088832
Nope.

>>1088835
Read the article.

>>1088856
Again: I wouldn't hold your breath over the so-called 'self driving car' thing, it's MOSTLY media hype and marketing hype. Your dog is smarter than a 'self driving car' and that's the way it's going to be for quite some time to come. Ignore the media hype and marketing hype. They don't understand and misuse the term 'AI' all the time, it doesn't mean what they think it means, and nothing we have today is really 'AI', it's just cheesy 'learning algorithms' that can't 'think' at all. We may never have that. We don't even understand how *WE* are able to 'think', so we can't make machines that 'think' either -- therefore it's not 'AI'.

>>1088876
Read the OP, and read the article, why do you think he bothered to post a link to it?

>>1088876
>didn't read

File: FJ0Hfys.jpg (155KB, 838x638px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 838x638px

>Being so poor an extra $15 is going to make a difference

>Implying the money is going to be spent on cycling infrastructure.

>>1088954
>implying any money spent on infrastructure in the US actually goes towards the infrastructure and not middlemen/unions/offices

>>1088928
The problem isn't the $15. It's the *legal precedent* it's setting. If they can get away with levying a tax on bicycles for any reason, then they can come up with other ways to tax bicycles and bicycle use, too. You've probably never noticed that once a tax is instituted on something, it never goes away and it never gets any smaller. It's a one-time flat-rate $15 now, but how do you feel about it when some future legislator decides to make it a 10% tax, and diverts the money to some other pet project of his? Or decides that there should be an annual fee of some sort? For automobiles, there is a federal tax when you buy tires; how would you feel if there was an extra tax tacked on whenever you bought tires for your bike? And so on. "Precendent".

>>1089006
It's Oregon so it might be legit. But like I keep saying: "Precedent"!

>>1088797
Precedent? Cars are taxed to pay for their infrastructure. Many states add a tax to hunting and fishing licenses to pay for land and fish stocking. Ammunition is taxed by the federal government and the funds used to buy land for wildlife areas. Aviation gasoline is taxed to pay for airports and flight controllers. Why should bicyclists pay their own way?

>>1088797
>How does this make you feel, /n/?
My city has had a $4 per bike excise tax for decades, and it's a great program actually - the cost is small enough that it doesn't hinder anyone from buying a bike, and it guarantees that bike projects will have annual funding no matter what. I would favor raising our local rate to $15/bike if it was on the ballot locally.

Back when I worked in a bike shop, we called it "the only good sort of tax" and I don't think I ever heard any complaints from customers. If anything, it makes a city look good when they demonstrate a willingness to set funds aside for bike infra.

>>1089024
I'd hate to say it, but this.
>b..bu..t cars don't pay for the whole thing!
Of course not, and neither do trains. The fact of the matter is that cars, trains, buses etc at least pay SOMETHING through fares and gas taxes. Bikes, despite there being capital expenses and maintenance costs contribute literally nothing. This is just a way to fix that.

File: Kelly does it again.jpg (127KB, 800x560px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x560px

>>1088797

>>1089025
I agree, as long as it's used for bike related projects. But for example I have to pay dog tax, but the city outright stated that they won't use it for anything dog related. It's just to bolster their accounts and reduce number of owned dogs.

>>1089031
>the road tax fallacy
2/10
Poor troll attempt. Read up and make an educated effort next time.

>>1089024
>>1089031
Because it makes as much sense as adding an excise tax on shoe sales, claiming that feet walking on sidewalks wears them therefore shoes should be taxed. You're presenting a tired-out argument that's been debunked many times: bicycles cause a fraction of a percent of the wear and tear that cars, trucks, buses, and even motorcycles cause to roadways, in part because they don't weigh anything to speak of but also because their tire footprint is tiny compared to even a motorcycle, and they go so slow. So stop trotting out this tired-out meme, nobody with even half a brain buys into it.

>>1089025
If the $15 never goes up and the money is always used to fund cycling-related (or at least cycling-centered) infrastructure projects, then that's fine, but the fact of the matter is I don't trust politicians as far as I can throw them, and it's just as likely (if not more so) that it will eventually get subverted into a revenue stream for something totally unrelated, then someone will get greedy, notice the few people that buy $5000 bikes, and suddenly it'll be this grossly burdensome tax that ruins things for everyone who rides. Hope as hard as you can that I'm wrong.

>>1089144
Go away, trainfag.

>>1089212
>"but the fact of the matter is I don't trust politicians as far as I can throw them"

>hates the idea of bikes being taxed or regulated on any level by politicians
>wants those same politicians to oppress "cagers" and genocide them

ok lmao

>>1088797
For what will the tax be used?

>>1089268
How can you be so fucking retarded yet operate a computer?

>>1089272
READ THE ARTICLE
E
A
D

T
H
E

A
R
T
I
C
L
E

Here's a real question: since much of transportation infrastructure in the US is funded by vehicle tab fees and gasoline taxes, what happens as cities urbanize, fewer people drive, and electric cars take over? Who's going to pay to maintain roads and infrastructure once petrol cars are gone? If we want to focus taxes on those who use the infrastructure, shouldn't we focus on raising transit fares, bicycle taxes, and property taxes?

>>1088822
>>1088832
>>1088800
Should bicycles be required to carry liability insurance and vehicle registration? It protects people who might be injured, reduces bicycle theft, and provides funding for bicycle infrastructure improvements.

>>1089145
It's a common tactic to propose a "good" tax that nobody will object to, like funding schools or veteran's healthcare. Then once it passes, the politicians turn around and deduct that same amount of money in funding that came from the general fund (wasn't earmarked) so that nothing changes except you pay more taxes and they have more money to throw in the toilet.

File: colorado.gif (3KB, 502x302px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 502x302px

Taxing bicycles must be a good idea because it's beginning to spread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs8VWWi8I7s

Oops. Wrong URL:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/money/consumer/no-more-free-rides-colorado-lawmaker-proposes-bicycle-tax

>>1088797
>Kids bikes exempted
>Let's market all our bikes as kids bikes!
Bam tax evaded
Fuck this stupid law

>>1088820
>the technology is mostly media and marketing hype.
That's genuinely untrue. The foundations have been there for ages, but only now it gets to the point of being practical.

>You'll be an old man before humans are not allowed to operate motor vehicles
That part is probably true, though.

A very fundamental thought everyone should get into their head is: There is nothing a computer can do, that a human cannot do. There is nothing a human can do, that a computer cannot do. They are equivalent with respect to computational capability.
Humans are essentially organic Turing Machines.
This has yet to be proven, but everything points at it. I'd be pleasantly surprised to be wrong about it.

>>1088797
For bikes over $200, this figure likely would stay forever even when inflation might male future $200 worth as much as current $20

>>1090995
>provides funding for bicycle infrastructure improvements
That's what income taxes do. You know, like with roads. There are no 'road taxes', so why would there be bike road taxes?

>>1088919
We've had all sorts of AI for decades. Not the sort of general AI that flies space ships while engaging the crew in philosophical discourse, but the kind that processes information to solve problems.

It's the latter kind that will be driving cars. Far more reliably than the average human. We don't need computers that can outwit a dog, or "think" at all - we need ones that can control a car and no bump into shit.

>>1089021
>It's the *legal precedent* it's setting.
What, that states are allowed to levy taxes on things sold inside them? Do you have any idea how many centuries ago it was that that particular boat sailed?

The actual precedent is Oregon expanding this to cover other objects until they have a full sales tax.

>>1088871
Not to mention how there are only so many used bikes to go around, and that the demand will be so large that it'll end up costing only marginally less to buy a used bike over a new one

>>1088851
The way that the tax is written is braindead. It only applies to new bicycles with a wheel diameter of 26 inches or larger. Technically a 700c wheel is only 24.5" in diameter. Unless someone is buying a pfar, the tax oughtn't apply.

>>1088797
bike thieves win again

>>1089212
/thread

>>1089021
States have always been allowed to levy taxes on whatever they fucking want, applying it to something specific like bicycles doesn't set a new precedent.

>>1089024
Hunters and fishermen deplete wildlife, and many (not all) cause other harm to the environment, requiring maintenance.

Driving a heavy vehicle at high speeds, such as a car, wears down road surfaces, requiring maintenance.

Riding an extremely light vehicle at relatively low speeds does no more harm to the road surface than walking does, and last I checked there is no special tax on shoes.

>>1090993
We can continue taxing electric vehicles, because whilst they aren't as bad for the environment as petrol cars, they cause just as much road wear and the manufacture of a vehicle is still actually a very large part of its carbon footprint, that doesn't go away by giving it an electric motor.

>>1088797
For too long have bike-nazis taken over the roads without paying their fair share. Good first step. Now you need an annual bike registration and "wheelage" tax (whatever that means).