BIKE: Proposed law for $5 MB set aside

[Jeb Boyt]

<Patrick's post is set out below>

There are three distinct issues raised by the proposed $5 tax:  the 
appropriateness of assessing a fee for trail construction, the fairness of 
applying the tax to all cyclists and the fairness of asking cyclists with 
less income to pay the tax.  The proposed fee will be included in an 
amendment to HB 1292, relating to allocation and use of revenue from the 
salex tax on sporting goods.

First, as to the appropriateness of the fee, surveys consistently show that 
trails are one of the most preferred and requested facilities.  The State, 
in general, and TPWD, in particular, does not have enough revenue to meet 
the state's public land needs.  The fee will generate much needed funds for 
cycling trails.  More trails means more opportunities for cyclists.  Getting 
people on their bikes on a trail can be a great gateway for getting people 
to use their bikes for transportation.  People who drive to a trail today 
may attempt to ride to the trail tomorrow and will also likely start looking 
for riding opportunities closer to home.  In addition, these funds will 
ensure that trails are properly constructed and maintained to minimize any 
impacts to wildlife and water quality.

Second, as to applying the fairness of applying the tax to all cyclists, 
while this fee will not directly benefit road cyclists, it is only unfair to 
those cyclists who never ride trails.  Many cyclists have road bikes and 
mountain bikes.  Also, all cyclists benefit when more safe cycling 
opportunities are created.

Third, as to the fairness of asking cyclists with less income to pay the 
fee.  The fee is structured to apply only to the sales of bikes that cost 
more than $50.  That will exempt many cyclists with less income.  If 
fairness is still a concern, the exemption could be raised to $75 or $100.  
Raising the exemption would also ensure that it does not soon become mooted 
by inflation.

Jeb



----Original Message Follows----
From: Patrick Goetz <pgoetz>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:09:58 -0500

[Now that we've determined that a $5 tax on bikes will indeed save the 
world, as environment-trashing mountain bikers morph into docile bicycle 
commuters before our very eyes, maybe it's appropriate to chime in here.]

I think that this depends on one's definition of fair.  I'm guessing Ms. 
Gray's definition of fair is in terms of ability to pay rather than in terms 
of consumption of resources.  Bicycles in general consume so little roadway 
resources in comparison to cars that this metric is inconsequential.  On the 
other hand, people who buy $2000 bicycles by definition have a lot of 
expendable income, hence can easily afford to pay a higher tax than someone 
who is barely able to afford an $80 Walmart bike.

You might counter that just because someone is *able* to pay more, doesn't 
mean that they *should* be forced to pay more, and that forcing them to pay 
more is *unfair*, but this (very prevalent argument) is also *incorrect* and 
demonstrates a lack of understanding of how money works.  Since this is a 
bicycle and not an economics list I won't go on about this, but suffice it 
to say that money's ability to make more money makes it a strong attractor 
in a dynamical systems sense, and the only way to counteract this effect 
(i.e. prevent all the money from ending up in a small number of places) is 
to lessen the force of attraction by removing some of it from the pile that 
is accumulating (and put it back into the social system that allows it to 
accumulate in the first place).

But if you insist, I would say that a $2000 bike frequently does consume 
more resources than a $100 bike, since the $100 bike will generally be used 
for knocking about town, while a lot of $2000 bikes are used for mountain 
biking, which severely damages natural ecosystems and trails. Since the 
money is going to be spent on trails, one might even argue that only 
mountain bike sales should taxed, and perhaps at a rate comensurate with the 
cost of the bike (for reasons of economic fairness).

Some bike shop owners (unnamed) are eager to see poor people purchasing 
bikes for basic transportation be forced to subsidize the construction of 
more trails so that they can sell more $2000+ mountain bikes to the people 
who will be using these trails.  I'm guessing that these same shop owners 
would be screaming bloody murder if the cost of this tax is placed squarely 
on these same high-dollar mountain bikes rather than being just another tax 
on the poor, thus hurting rather than helping their sales.  Just my cynical 
guess.
-----------------------------------------------------