View Single Post
Old 07-24-17, 12:58 PM
  #12  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,600
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18320 Post(s)
Liked 4,489 Times in 3,338 Posts
Originally Posted by Rider51
Interesting posts. I was most struck by how regressive the tax is, and how vaguely it could be defined, thus hardly written by those with much cycling knowledge.

I mentioned before that the money wouldn't be earmarked for actual bike related items (bike safety, lanes, paths, etc). Here's the primary concern, the state employees pension program (PERS) is slowly devouring much of the state budget, including almost every last thing that isn't earmarked. A bleak situation no matter how you look at it from any angle.

Oregon swallowed by PERS costs | Commentary | Eugene, Oregon
PERS is unique. Apparently at one point, the State of Oregon made a deal with the public employees to take over 100% of the PERS contributions in exchange for not taking pay raises.

The system was supposed to be investment supported, but apparently growth calculations didn't match reality, especially with some big economic bubbles.

Later, the voters have been trying to cut the promised benefits, but it is hard for the state to renege on it's promises.

Perhaps part of the problem was that at least part of the payouts were variable based on rather good investment returns, then the state allowed those to be converted to fixed return plans for the rest of retiree's lives.

Anyway, a bicycle tax shouldn't be added to cover retirement obligations the State has made to its employees.
CliffordK is offline