's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

What is the real deal with this tax arguement?(11 posts)

What is the real deal with this tax arguement?niteschaos
Jul 20, 2003 8:42 PM
I was under the impression that around 90% of all road repair and construction funds come from the federal government. So basically anyone with a social security number and a job pays taxes that eventually trickle down to local road projects. Is this indeed true? If not what are the REAL numbers?

I'm so tired of motorist saying "I pay licence taxes" and "I pay fuel taxes." Well my fuel is food, so I don't have to pay taxes for 89 Octane. And my vehicle isn't responcible for 50,000 deaths a year in this country, your car is. I am not capable of the speeds or the outright damage to those around me that the average 3500 pound 145hp american car can do.

Whether we look stupid to others is beside the point, we have equal PRIVALEDGE to the roads that we pay for. Even driving is not a "right" as so many claim, but a priviledge. Also note that bicycles are the only readily available, inexpensive, and mass produced form of transportation that qualifies as Zero Emission.
No numbers, but some more fuel to the fireninelittlepiggies
Jul 20, 2003 10:06 PM
The relative weightlessness of a bike and rider (especially my bike :->) as compared to a car cause no road damage. How many times have you ever had to re-pave a bike lane because of excess wear.

The government subsidizes every faucit of automobile transportation imaginable. Subsidizing gas prices to substatually lower amounts as compared to our Euro counterparts (not to mention the price of war to keep the gas flowing, but I don't want to make this a political rant). Subsidizing environmental pollution clean up from automobiles. Subsidizing emergency personal that are on call 24 hours a day to clean up the unfortunate carnage on our highways cause by cars. Etc..Etc...

The way I see it, not only are bicyclist improving the overall fitness of the american population, they don't pollute, bikes use fewer natural resources than cars, we wouldn't have to sent people to war to keep our fuel supply, and to address your economic viewpoint, we are acutally saving the government money because they don't have to subsidize our driving. All IMHO of course.
...more fuel....Steve_0
Jul 21, 2003 6:01 AM
roadway paving actually came about to accommodate the bicyclist! At the turn of the (last) century, roadways were prettymuch mud, or cobblestone; both of which the automobile can tolerate. Bicycles cant. The Chicago Wheelman (or some such group) actually started the movement to pave roads.

The way I see it; Automobiles are destroying roadsurfaces actually developed for bicycling. They certainly should have additional taxes and costs.
Actually depends on the road.Spoke Wrench
Jul 21, 2003 5:51 AM
The Interstate Highway system is very heavily federally funded.

Local roads, like city streets are almost entirely funded by property taxes.

State highways have various sources of funding.

Not very far from my house is a historical monument that says that a certain road was originally built by Daniel Boone. That road existed for almost 100 years before gasoline was invented and it was almost 100 years more before anybody thought to tax gas purchases. To say that we shouldn't be allowed to use it because bicycles don't pay gas taxes doesn't make much sense.

Actually, I understand that freedom of movement is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Operating a motor vehicle is only a privilege granted by the state. I could make a case that bicyclists have a greater right to use most roads than autos. Not to mention the fact that we were there first.

None of that is going to impress your average auto driver very much.
Jul 21, 2003 10:28 AM
Can you point out which section of the Constitution mentions freedom of movement?
All the lawyers on this board...Spoke Wrench
Jul 21, 2003 10:32 AM
and you're asking a school bus driver?
Question Answeredlc21998
Jul 21, 2003 5:43 PM
The Constitution protects the "privileges and immunities" of all citizens, which includes the right to travel to the seat of government (D.C.) to seek redress. Thus, freedom of movement. Also, states can't prevent interstate commerce because only the federal goverment can do that.
...thats where your wrong...Steve_0
Jul 21, 2003 5:56 AM
re: "we have equal PRIVALEDGE to use the roads".

We actually have a RIGHT to use the roads; for they belong to the people. Roadways have existed long before the automobile for use in transport, pedestrian, gathering, and play. We, the people have a RIGHT to use the streets we pay for.

Use of an Automobile on these streets is the privledge; not the use of the streets itself.

Having said that, I agree with you.
No arguement there.niteschaos
Jul 21, 2003 3:48 PM
Yeah, just like parks. We can't say those who pay more taxes can kick off those who don't pay any taxes from the soccer field just cause we feel it's our right. An example would be a bunch of adults kicking off kids from the feild so they can play instead. The park is for everyone. But in this case, unlike the park example, everyone does pay for the use of the road.
No New Dealchar
Jul 21, 2003 12:46 PM
Bill brings up some good points here:

i occasionally produce methane emissions (nm)ColnagoFE
Jul 21, 2003 2:00 PM