Oregon passes stupid bike tax

[kevinvc]

My "progressive" state of Oregon has just enacted a one of a kind tax on the sale of new bicycles. All bikes with 26" or larger wheels that cost over $200 will be taxed a flat $15 fee. Article is here (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/07/oregon_just_passed_the_only_bi.html).

There are so many things wrong with this bill, both in concept and in the way that it is written, that it's hard to know where to even begin. It's part of a huge transportation bill that contains multiple taxes and fees and calls for some really bad infrastructure projects.

The hope now is that there are so many things in it that will tick off so many people that it winds up on the ballot and is defeated there. The "no new taxes ever" crowd may wind up being our best allies in this.

[ultraman6970]

Maybe the idea is to have people to have less people in the roads? Dumb idea but with politicians you never know, they come up with the weirdest ideas to justify they are doing stuff.

[ColonelJLloyd]

If the idea is to have bicyclists (who may not have cars) contribute to road infrastructure that they use, I wouldn't oppose it.

[ultraman6970]

I see a problem... other states may follow, then the other problem is, why to buy a bike in a store when you can buy something in the internet and do not tell anybody and save that money, even go out of state driving to get the bike...

[kingpin75s]

If the idea is to have bicyclists (who may not have cars) contribute to road infrastructure that they use, I wouldn't oppose it.

I believe they already do.

As I understand it, this link articulates what I understand to be the fact that much of road infrastructure is already supported by all taxpayers, car owning or not. I have not vetted this in detail so open to any feedback from policy hawks.

http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/who-pays-roads

Given the fact that cyclists get to only use a portion of road infrastructure, are we sure non car owning bicyclists are not already paying their fare share?

[wpod]

First a sales tax on MMJ, now one on bikes. I believe those are the only ones within Oregon, but no where else( autos, beer, wine, liquor etc ). How very forward thinking :crap:

[PacNW2Ford]

For the record, the same law includes a 0.5% tax on motor vehicles and the bike tax revenue is dedicated to bike/ped projects.

[Bradford]

I was working on receipts today and came across the receipt for a bike I bought for my son this summer. The bike was $551, the tax was $26.25. I didn't think twice about it at the time and don't think much more now.

All those bike paths and bike lanes cost money to build and maintain, my life and kids lives are much better with bike paths and bike lanes, so I'm fine with paying taxes because it funds the places I ride my bikes.

Why would you think that people who drive cars and trucks should pay for infrastructure and those of us who ride bikes shouldn't? I'm happy to pay my fair share.

[dbnm]

Will $15 stop you from buying a $500 bike, $1500 bike, $2500 bike?

I did not read the details but if the $15 is going to help maintain all of the bike paths/lanes then it shouldn't really matter.

I live in one of the poorest states in the US and my city is updating and creating new bike lanes around town. It seems that I am seeing more and more bikes so if the city/state needs my $15, I'll give it to them.

[jmoore]

It's $15. For the bikes this forums rides, that is virtually nothing. And if it is earmarked for cycling projects only, that's fine with me.

If it shuts up the idiots who say "cyclists don't pay their way", then I'd pay $150.

As an FYI, in TX hunters and fishermen requested a tax be added to all the stuff used in these sports. The money was highly restricted in its usage and TX has done great things with that money. State Parks projects. Hunter education expansion. Lake and river restoration. All these types of things have greatly benefitted from this fund. I think the funds are issued via a grant request through a division of TPWD. If the cycling groups were this organized they could do great things with this type of fund.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[William]

Coming back to a bicycle you want to ride...

I can see stickers or plates coming to show that you've paid your tax. They seem to have been used quite a bit in the past.


http://azbikelaw.org/images/slides/PhoenixBikeLicensePlate.jpg

http://homegrowncycle.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/197766_4140128832103_683279387_n.jpg

https://img1.etsystatic.com/076/0/6426484/il_fullxfull.820994127_a8e3.jpg

https://p1.liveauctioneers.com/1122/34606/14176994_1_x.jpg?version=1352491529






William

[David Tollefson]

It won't shut any one up, and may have the opposite effect. I can see the mindset going even further than it already is (where cyclists are seen as not worthy to be on any road) -- let bikes pay for their own infrastructure, and that's the only place they're legal.

[drewellison]

The last time someone said to me that we should license bikes to help pay for the roads, I said we should license tennis shoes to help pay for the sidewalks and crosswalks. :beer:

[MattTuck]

death, taxes and bicycle taxes.

I personally don't have a problem with this in principle, but if you're not taxing liquor and cigarettes, I wonder if taxing bike sales is really a priority that elected officials should be concerning themselves with.

[jmoore]

It won't shut any one up, and may have the opposite effect. I can see the mindset going even further than it already is (where cyclists are seen as not worthy to be on any road) -- let bikes pay for their own infrastructure, and that's the only place they're legal.
I agree with this. Nothing will shut up the idiots.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[dbnm]

This is going to be a fascinating read.

[djg21]

If the idea is to have bicyclists (who may not have cars) contribute to road infrastructure that they use, I wouldn't oppose it.

I agree. Especially if the fund is allocating to building bike lanes. It also diffuses the dumbf*&k argument that bikes don’t belong on the roads because riders supposedly don’t pay taxes.

[William]

Yeah, but where are you going to mount the license plate to your custom Kirk, Llewellyn, or Enigma??


:)




William

[PacNW2Ford]

death, taxes and bicycle taxes.

I personally don't have a problem with this in principle, but if you're not taxing liquor and cigarettes, I wonder if taxing bike sales is really a priority that elected officials should be concerning themselves with.

The Oregon excise tax on liquor is $22.72/gal, one of the highest liquor taxes in the country... just trying to keep some facts in here

[kevinvc]

My complaints are strictly ideological; $15 will not affect my purchasing decision. A small handful of my problems with this:

- After administrative costs, this will raise about $1million per year, which is paltry. It will not assuage those who believe bikes don't pay their fare share.
- The money goes into an existing fund for the purpose of bike/ped commuter routes, BUT there doesn't seem to be anything that requires the money from the new tax to supplement the existing funds rather than replacing them, i.e. it may result in no additional money
- Bike shops have to keep all records and file quarterly records. In a state without a sales tax, this is a big PITA for small independent businesses
- The wording isn't specific in exactly what constitutes a "taxable bicycle." It's not likely it will apply to just a frame. Can it be avoided by selling a bike without pedals? A seat? A wheelset?

The bike tax is just one very small part of a much larger transportation bill that has many more and much higher impact negative components. It's a behemoth that includes all kinds of crap to attract enough votes from all sides. It also includes even stupider things, such as a higher registration fee for fuel efficient vehicles, and earmarked projects that will do nothing to reduce congestion.

It's poorly written and ill conceived legislation that no one is really happy about.

[BobO]

All those bike paths and bike lanes cost money to build and maintain, my life and kids lives are much better with bike paths and bike lanes, so I'm fine with paying taxes because it funds the places I ride my bikes.

Assuming you work, eat, shop and have a residence,... you are already paying taxes to support bike paths along with all of the other transportation infrastructure at federal, state, county and local level. This is an additional targeted tax beyond the standard taxation that supports all of the infrastructure.

[rcnute]

My complaints are strictly ideological; $15 will not affect my purchasing decision. A small handful of my problems with this:

- After administrative costs, this will raise about $1million per year, which is paltry. It will not assuage those who believe bikes don't pay their fare share.
- The money goes into an existing fund for the purpose of bike/ped commuter routes, BUT there doesn't seem to be anything that requires the money from the new tax to supplement the existing funds rather than replacing them, i.e. it may result in no additional money
- Bike shops have to keep all records and file quarterly records. In a state without a sales tax, this is a big PITA for small independent businesses
- The wording isn't specific in exactly what constitutes a "taxable bicycle." It's not likely it will apply to just a frame. Can it be avoided by selling a bike without pedals? A seat? A wheelset?

The bike tax is just one very small part of a much larger transportation bill that has many more and much higher impact negative components. It's a behemoth that includes all kinds of crap to attract enough votes from all sides. It also includes even stupider things, such as a higher registration fee for fuel efficient vehicles, and earmarked projects that will do nothing to reduce congestion.

It's poorly written and ill conceived legislation that no one is really happy about.

(5) “Taxable bicycle” means a new bicycle that has wheels of at least 26 inches in diameter
and a retail sales price of $200 or more.

You mean those damn kids are going to escape tax on their new bikes! Little leeches! :eek:

Ryan

[Fatty]

I see a problem... other states may follow, then the other problem is, why to buy a bike in a store when you can buy something in the internet and do not tell anybody and save that money, even go out of state driving to get the bike...

Another nail in the local bike shop coffin.

[redir]

$15 bucks isn't a whole lot but the idea behind it is all wrong. Economic incentives are a great way to promote better behaviors, this one doesn't seem to do that, in fact just the opposite.

[oldpotatoe]

If cyclists are 'taxed' for things that make riding easier and safer, I have no problem with that. If it goes into some sort of general transportation 'fund', not in favors of that.

[Fatty]

I was working on receipts today and came across the receipt for a bike I bought for my son this summer. The bike was $551, the tax was $26.25. I didn't think twice about it at the time and don't think much more now.

All those bike paths and bike lanes cost money to build and maintain, my life and kids lives are much better with bike paths and bike lanes, so I'm fine with paying taxes because it funds the places I ride my bikes.

Why would you think that people who drive cars and trucks should pay for infrastructure and those of us who ride bikes shouldn't? I'm happy to pay my fair share.

Well you did OK then. In my area the tax would have been $55.10 .

[Fatty]

My "progressive" state of Oregon has just enacted a one of a kind tax on the sale of new bicycles. All bikes with 26" or larger wheels that cost over $200 will be taxed a flat $15 fee. Article is here (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/07/oregon_just_passed_the_only_bi.html).

There are so many things wrong with this bill, both in concept and in the way that it is written, that it's hard to know where to even begin. It's part of a huge transportation bill that contains multiple taxes and fees and calls for some really bad infrastructure projects.

The hope now is that there are so many things in it that will tick off so many people that it winds up on the ballot and is defeated there. The "no new taxes ever" crowd may wind up being our best allies in this.

So are mountain bikes subject to the same tax? Oh the outrage.

[72gmc]

I don't have an issue with taxes for the right reasons.

I do question general transportation taxes with "we'll behave this time" promises because transportation funds seem to be the first treasure chest the raiding parties arrive at.

[BobO]

Another nail in the local bike shop coffin.

Bingo.

[r_mutt]

An interesting take:


http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/07/caving-to-resentment-politics-oregon-enacts-a-bike-tax/

[KidWok]

More people will be buying Bike Fridays now?

Tai

[kevinvc]

(5) “Taxable bicycle” means a new bicycle that has wheels of at least 26 inches in diameter
and a retail sales price of $200 or more.

Ryan

What if I buy a bike that is fully built except for the saddle, or without a set of wheels, which I then purchase separately? It's similar to threads here about avoiding airline fees by claiming you're transporting "bike parts" or by packing the handlebars in another bag. My point is that this is not well thought out and poorly written.

I don't think $15 is going to affect anyone's decision on buying a bike. I do think this is a bad idea that serves no useful purpose, is another burden on small bike shops, and will likely cost more to administer than they are predicting. It exists only to garner a couple of votes for the gigantic transportation bill that it is a minuscule part of.

[HenryA]

Not a political statement, really. Not in support of or against any party. But it is true that sometimes when you ask for the government to do more things, it does. The result is not always pleasant.

[sg8357]

More people will be buying Bike Fridays now?

Tai


Who knew Brompton and Bike Friday had a lobby ?

Rivendell & Jan Heine will be singing the praises of 600A All Road Bikes.

[Aaron O]

It's a never ending source of amazement to me when observing how quick people are to notice other people's subsidies, while ignoring the advantages and subsidies that they receive.

[dpk501]

My complaints are strictly ideological; $15 will not affect my purchasing decision. A small handful of my problems with this:

- After administrative costs, this will raise about $1million per year, which is paltry. It will not assuage those who believe bikes don't pay their fare share.
- The money goes into an existing fund for the purpose of bike/ped commuter routes, BUT there doesn't seem to be anything that requires the money from the new tax to supplement the existing funds rather than replacing them, i.e. it may result in no additional money
- Bike shops have to keep all records and file quarterly records. In a state without a sales tax, this is a big PITA for small independent businesses
- The wording isn't specific in exactly what constitutes a "taxable bicycle." It's not likely it will apply to just a frame. Can it be avoided by selling a bike without pedals? A seat? A wheelset?

The bike tax is just one very small part of a much larger transportation bill that has many more and much higher impact negative components. It's a behemoth that includes all kinds of crap to attract enough votes from all sides. It also includes even stupider things, such as a higher registration fee for fuel efficient vehicles, and earmarked projects that will do nothing to reduce congestion.

It's poorly written and ill conceived legislation that no one is really happy about.

This goes right next to the Portland Arts Tax

[cloudguy]

Not a political statement, really

C'mon dude. I gotta another "not-political" statement:#FakePresident.

[verticaldoug]

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2017

I think taxes and registration fees start on page 17 and seem to go on forever.

If it has wheels, you are paying a fee or muliple fees and registrations.

$15 for a bike, seems like you are getting off light. How about the 0.1% payroll tax on everyone?

I think the bicycle crowd opposing this bill is being stupid. It is a tax on essentially any wheel vehicle. In reality, they could put a registration on bicycles and charge you on some semi-annual basis much like cars. On the one hand, they want to use some of the new money from tax and tolls to subsidize electric cars to 2500. Then on the other hand, because electric cars do not consume the gas, they want to charge more for registration etc. The worse your car's gas mileage, the less it costs to register. They justify it by charging .04/g in new tax which eventually increases to .10/g in the future.

It's a funny bill.

[bicycletricycle]

For the record, the same law includes a 0.5% tax on motor vehicles and the bike tax revenue is dedicated to bike/ped projects.

If this is true than I don't see a problem here. A percentage tax with a cap instead of a flat perhaps, 15 for a 200 bike sounds high.

[jumphigher]

My "progressive" state of Oregon has just enacted a one of a kind tax on the sale of new bicycles. All bikes with 26" or larger wheels that cost over $200 will be taxed a flat $15 fee. Article is here (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/07/oregon_just_passed_the_only_bi.html).

There are so many things wrong with this bill, both in concept and in the way that it is written, that it's hard to know where to even begin. It's part of a huge transportation bill that contains multiple taxes and fees and calls for some really bad infrastructure projects.

The hope now is that there are so many things in it that will tick off so many people that it winds up on the ballot and is defeated there. The "no new taxes ever" crowd may wind up being our best allies in this.

Dude, you should be stoked to pay your fair share! First of all, it's not like we're already being nickle and dimed to death on every imaginable tax and 'fee' that can be thought up. Secondly, have no doubt the money will be used to make our lives as cyclists much better and safer! Thank you Oregon legistlature. :banana:

[PacNW2Ford]

If this is true than I don't see a problem here. A percentage tax with a cap instead of a flat perhaps, 15 for a 200 bike sounds high.

The original bill had a percentage, but that was opposed. Don't forget that Oregon has no general sales tax. You would pay more than $15 in sales tax in most states and that would go to the general fund.

[bicycletricycle]

The original bill had a percentage, but that was opposed. Don't forget that Oregon has no general sales tax. You would pay more than $15 in sales tax in most states and that would go to the general fund.

****, no sales tax? I would have questions about who is deciding on how to spend that money but I think cyclists paying a tax to support path/road improvement could be an okay idea.

[ORMojo]

There are certainly flaws in our new transportation bill, but I don't see this as one. The bill fell short of what I had hoped for, which was even more than the first draft would have provided, at about twice the size of the final version . . . but then I probably had my hopes and expectations set too high. But overall, it is one of the best transportation packages ever passed in this state, with the first dedicated sustainable funding for transit, the first dedicated sustainable funding for bike/ped projects, the incentives to purchase electric vehicles, and more. I dare you to try to get anything through a political process that is perfect.

Not only did the first draft of the bill have a percentage tax on bicycle sales, but long before that draft, the legislators worked in-depth with the bicycle stakeholders and analyzed at least six different revenue mechanisms that I'm aware of to raise revenue from, and for, bikes. In the end, one of the main stakeholders told me that while the excise tax isn't great, it was "the least of the evils" necessary to raise dedicated bike funding and start having bikes contribute to funding, and have certainty about getting something from it. Keep in mind, also, that the ~$1.35 million net raised in state funding per year will likely go to projects that will be required to bring up to 50% local funding to bike projects, effectively increasing the reach of the funding.

It bothers me that sources that are generally reliable, such as StreetsBlog, don't have their facts straight when commenting on this. StreetsBlog misstates the anticipated level of revenue, the estimated cost of administration, the opposition (they say "advocacy groups" oppose the bike tax, which is a stupidly easy, broad statement to make, while ignoring that one of the major advocacy groups, the Street Trust - formally the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, is in full vocal support of this).

And, yes, as has been pointed out, the bill raised fees much more on motor vehicles.

I see a problem... other states may follow, then the other problem is, why to buy a bike in a store when you can buy something in the internet and do not tell anybody and save that money, even go out of state driving to get the bike...

I still think most people prefer to see and test-ride a bike in person before buying. The National Bicycle Dealers Association's latest figures state that less than 2% (by units, or <3% by dollars) of bicycle sales are via the internet channel. Going out of state isn't likely to help here - Oregon doesn't have a general sales tax, and every bordering state does, making a purchase in one of those states more expensive than the $15 cost here.

First a sales tax on MMJ, now one on bikes. I believe those are the only ones within Oregon, but no where else( autos, beer, wine, liquor etc ). How very forward thinking :crap:

Huh??? Oregon taxes a LOT more at the point of sale than just marijuana and, now, bikes and new auto sales (now taxed at 0.5%). Among the major ones, we tax alcohol, cigarettes, fuel, by weight and mile on freight, and, of course, property. Oregon was the first state in the nation to impose a gasoline tax.

$15 bucks isn't a whole lot but the idea behind it is all wrong. Economic incentives are a great way to promote better behaviors, this one doesn't seem to do that, in fact just the opposite.

The idea is that the "incentive" will appear on the expenditure side of this, when more and better bicycle facilities are provided.

I doubt this bill will be referred to the ballot box. Although Oregon has one of the most lenient/flexible initiative and referral systems in the country, every major stakeholder/interest group is supporting the bill (AAA, truckers, Street Trust - formally the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, business, local city/county organizations, unions, and more are all in support). It will be difficult to successfully mount a signature campaign, much less a ballot campaign, against, and without, those entities.

[Tony T]

Is that $15 on top of the 0% sales tax? :)

[fuzzalow]

@ORMojo

That sounded like a well thought out response with a grasp of the facts and complexities & tradeoffs. Thanks.

All politics is local. This is illustrative of how democracy works and as stupid & crazy as how legislation can become (see ACA Repeal and Replace) this Oregon legislation seems to work out OK. Congratulations and kudos to the politicians and special interest groups that made this happen.

BTW, you should let your politicians know when they do right by you or especially when they don't act in your interest. Democracy is a participant sport.

[rain dogs]

Maybe car drivers should start paying for environmental clean-up and the contribution of vehicle emissions to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and how that affects climate change... and not in a subsidized way, but a true cost format.

That would be a useful tax.