Living Car Free - tax kick-back

i've been commuting with my bike since last august, and only driving to do laundry and groceries...

wouldn't it be cool that we could get some kind of kick back from the government for helping out with energy saving, lowering pollution, causing less traffic, low insurance costs, etc

i bet a lot more people would start riding bikes again

I'd like to think they would, but I doubt it.

People will do almost anything to avoid work.

It would be nice, but there's no way to trace if they're really doing it or not. Then some fool gets caught and ruins it for the rest of us. :(

Koffee

wouldn't it be cool that we could get some kind of kick back from the government for helping out with energy saving, lowering pollution, causing less traffic, low insurance costs, etc

i bet a lot more people would start riding bikes again

Well you are already getting a quite a tax break by not having to buy so much fuel. The local, state and federal taxes on a gallon of gasoline add up to quite a bit.

For a more direct subsidy write your local congressman in support of:
H.R. 1265, The Bicycle Commuter Act

I think it may now be known as HR 807



The Bicycle Commuter Act would allow
an employer to offer a monthly cash
reimbursement to an employee who
commutes to work by bicycle, providing
a tax benefit to the employer and
helping defray commuting expenses for
the bicyclist.

http://www.bikeleague.org/educenter/hr1265.pdf

Here are the current cosponsors of HR 807.

If your local representative isn't on this list - ask them why not?

P.S. - dates are the date of their sponsorship.

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 2/15/2005
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 2/15/2005
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] - 4/8/2005
Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [GU] - 5/3/2005
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 5/3/2005
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 4/8/2005
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 4/8/2005
Rep Case, Ed [HI-2] - 2/15/2005
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 5/10/2005
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 5/3/2005
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 5/3/2005
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 4/8/2005
Rep Foley, Mark [FL-16] - 2/15/2005
Rep Ford, Harold E., Jr. [TN-9] - 3/2/2006
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 10/6/2005
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 5/3/2005
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 4/8/2005
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 5/3/2005
Rep Hooley, Darlene [OR-5] - 3/2/2006
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] - 2/15/2005
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 5/3/2005
Rep Kind, Ron [WI-3] - 5/3/2005
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 5/3/2005
Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12] - 4/26/2005
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 5/3/2005
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 5/3/2005
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 2/15/2005
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 4/26/2005
Rep Menendez, Robert [NJ-13] - 4/8/2005
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 4/26/2005
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] - 4/8/2005
Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] - 4/8/2005
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] - 4/8/2005
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav [MN-5] - 4/8/2005
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 2/15/2005
Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] - 2/15/2005
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] - 2/15/2005
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 4/8/2005

Gee, I've wondered the same thing; the wealthy guy down the street w a hybrid gets a tax credit, and the small business owner's wife gets to write off the depreciation on her H2 as a "commercial vehicle." And I don't get jack.

Well you are already getting a quite a tax break by not having to buy so much fuel. The local, state and federal taxes on a gallon of gasoline add up to quite a bit.







That really makes no sense.

If that is so, why do people with hybrids get to write off half the price of the cost of their hybrids, while when we buy bikes, we get zero write off?

If they can write it off, so should we.

Koffee

If that is so, why do people with hybrids get to write off half the price of the cost of their hybrids, while when we buy bikes, we get zero write off?

And why do owners of 30 MPG hybrids get a tax break, whereas 40 MPG with conventional technology gets none?

And why do people who drive 50 miles to work (I know several) and buy a hybrid get a tax break, whereas those who drive 2 miles to work get none?

Makes you think they might not actually know what they're doing in DC...

That really makes no sense.

If that is so, why do people with hybrids get to write off half the price of the cost of their hybrids, while when we buy bikes, we get zero write off?

If they can write it off, so should we.

Koffee

Because, 90% of people buy bikes for recreation. There is a pretty good guarantee that people buying hybrids will use them to commute to work, etc. There is no such guarantee when people buy bikes.

Maybe if they put other restrictions, such as "buying a bike, and not having a drivers license", it would work.

Because, 90% of people buy bikes for recreation. There is a pretty good guarantee that people buying hybrids will use them to commute to work, etc. There is no such guarantee when people buy bikes.

Maybe if they put other restrictions, such as "buying a bike, and not having a drivers license", it would work.

So 90% of people buy hybrids for commuting to work? Maybe. Maybe not. Why do we give the benefit of the doubt to people in cars, but not to people on bikes?

I already addressed the difficulties of tracking people and how to figure out the useage. Why is that being brought up again?

What the gov't should do is encourage people to commute- have the employers set up programs that track and reward people who cycle to work. That takes the recreational cyclists out of the picture, though I think even recreational cyclists should be rewarded too- first, recreational cycling is healthy, and it contributes to wellness, and second, even cycling recreationally saves on the earth's resources. So why not give them tax breaks too? It's ok to drive 3 blocks to the park, but not ride three blocks to the park? Why not encourage people to cut out the cars unless doing long distances or big hauls, and just reward people for picking up environmentally safe, healthy commuting lifestyles on their bikes?

Koffee

So 90% of people buy hybrids for commuting to work? Maybe. Maybe not. Why do we give the benefit of the doubt to people in cars, but not to people on bikes?


Because it's reality. I am not saying I like it or agree with it, but yes, 90% (completely made up) of bikes, I see are on Saturday mornings on the bike paths by people doing a 10 mile loop to "get in shape", the mountain biker on the trails every Sunday afternoon, and the roadie doing their club ride/training ride on the weekends. There is not much utility in such a use of the bike, and these same people would get in their cars every weekday.

90% of cars (made up statistics again), on the other hand, are used completely for utilitarian use, and hybrids value utility over comfort/luxury. You hardly ever see any cars used for "just the weekends" for recreation.

Presumably, the government is giving this tax break because of the utilitarian use of the hybrid car as opposed to a conventional car.

And this is where the government should step in- if they offered the tax break for cyclists and took away the tax break for hybrids, and gave some kind of financial incentive, then bike useage would go up. If they involved employers at the workplace, then employers would encourage more bike use, and bike use would go up. But the gov't takes the low road, which is easier, and they give the automatic tax break to the hybrids without thought as to what they could do to 1) ease congestion on the roads and 2) increase the fitness and health of people with bicycling.

Koffee

And this is where the government should step in- if they offered the tax break for cyclists and took away the tax break for hybrids, and gave some kind of financial incentive, then bike useage would go up. If they involved employers at the workplace, then employers would encourage more bike use, and bike use would go up. But the gov't takes the low road, which is easier, and they give the automatic tax break to the hybrids without thought as to what they could do to 1) ease congestion on the roads and 2) increase the fitness and health of people with bicycling.

Koffee

I doubt such a tax break would really work by itself. Americans are not yet ready to give up their cars. Here's why:

- If they're willing to buy a BMW over a Honda Accord, and pay the several tens of thousands of dollars, simply for the name, more gas guzzle, and leather heated seats, a few hundred or thousand dollars in tax breaks would mean very little to them.
- They're willing to spend $50 each time at the pump to drive 3 miles to work, over walking, public transit, or bike. That alone would be several hundred (if not thousands) dollar savings each year.
- The infrastructure for getting more people on bikes doesn't exist in most American cities. When I ask people why they don't use their bikes more often for other reasons than training, racing, or recreation, safety is the #1 concern.
- The convenience of the automobile is still really hard to beat. Sure, our city streets are gridlocked, and parking costs are skyrocketing, but to the average consumer, they are willing to pay the extra $ to get to somewhere quicker and more effortless. For instance, my commute from work to school every tuesday/thursday night on bike takes me 1.25 hours to do 16 miles. By car, even in rush hour traffic in LA, it would take 30-45 minutes.

So herein lies the many problems in our society. A tax break would be a good step, but I doubt it would enough to get people out of their cars. Several factors must come into play.

They're excuses. Thinking and behavior doesn't change overnight, but if the government and employers work together to encourage change, it would happen over the long run. We have to start looking to other alternatives anyway, since it's clear our current reserves won't hold up to 20- 30 years from now at the current rate we're going. And since the USA uses up the majority of the earth's resources without regard to the future, it would and should be a major undertaking and commitment by the establishment. By not encouraging such types of changes by the people, we're just going to continue on our current course, and in 20 years, when either oil goes to 500 bucks a barrel or we run out of oil, who knows where we'll be.

I do agree- several factors must come into play, but this is definitely one of those factors. There should be NO tax breaks or rewards for people who drive any type of motorized vehicle, and there should be every tax break given to those who use alternative, non-motorized transportation.

Koffee

Well I think by not driving we already are avoiding a tax that our automobile disposed brethen have to endure - whether it is a hybrid or a Hummer. Buying and operating any car already exposes one to much higher taxation than buying and riding a bike. :) May it always remain so.

One could argue that the good of biking itself should be enough reward.

Koffee - if the irrationality of our tax laws upset you don't read further:



The transportation fringe benefit was
added to the tax code as part of TEA-21
as an incentive to get more people to
use alternative modes of transportation
for commuting. The goal was to reduce
traffic congestion, pollution and wear
and tear on the roads.

Under current law, an employer can
offer an employee up to $100 a month
for mass transit (subway, bus, train,
van-pool, etc.) and up to $185 per
month for parking, which is tax-free


Anybody else suffering from dizziness here? On one hand the purpose of this is to promote use of mass transit and save the roads, environment, etc. Yet so the poor driver doesn't feel left out it also provides help for his parking problem. So would you rather use $100 tax-free to wait for and then ride a smelly crowded bus to work OR get $185 to continue driving your car right to your reserved spot?

As bike commuters we are getting discriminated against by this tax legislation. That is why I, again, urge all of you to contact your representatives. I would do so likewise but, as I live in DC, I don't get a say in such matters.

A tax break on bikes would be nice for us, but I don't think it would do a lot to increase ridership. And it would do almost nothing to discourage the use of cars, IMO. Obviously it would also leave people who walk to work, SOL, along wih people who take a bus.

I would much rather see significant increases in taxes on car users.

I would want to see first, a huge graduated tax on autos and light trucks based on their gas mileage. Efficient cars should be taxed lightly, while gas guzzlers should be taxed to the tune of many thousands of dollars. The revenues should be used to implement alternative transport methods such as cycling, walking and public transport.

Secon, the tax on gas should be gradually raised until gas prices reflect the true cost of usage. Revenues from this tax shoul be usd mainly for pollution reduction and cleanup, and research dollars for cleaner forms of energy.

I would want to see first, a huge graduated tax on autos and light trucks based on their gas mileage. Efficient cars should be taxed lightly, while gas guzzlers should be taxed to the tune of many thousands of dollars.

At one time we had CAFE standards that forced the automobile companies to promote smaller, more efficient cars. But when was that standard last raised - 1980 something? Then we let Detroit make millions of SUV's which, through a loophole conveniently provided, were considered "work" vehicles and didn't have comply with CAFE.


Secon, the tax on gas should be gradually raised until gas prices reflect the true cost of usage. Revenues from this tax shoul be usd mainly for pollution reduction and cleanup, and research dollars for cleaner forms of energy.

A significant increase in the Federal gasoline tax is unlikely. Every sparsely populated western state still has 2 senators and their constituents, who annually drive many more miles than someone on the east coast, aren't going to be favorably disposed.

To quote Bob Dole:


Don't tax me, don't tax you - tax that fellow behind the tree!

A significant increase in the Federal gasoline tax is unlikely. Every sparsely populated western state still has 2 senators and their constituents, who annually drive many more miles than someone on the east coast, aren't going to be favorably disposed.

And you can add our two senators from Michigan to that crowd!

I guess i was talking aout what I think would work, not what I think is politically feasible.

I think the quickest way to subsidize bicycling is to raise taxes on gasoline and diesel while lowering other taxes. Other solutions would be quite difficult to implement. One could also add an automobile sales tax and subsidies to bicycle sales and repair. (Maybe a reverse sales tax- bike shop charges $10 for something, you pay them $9 and the government pays the rest.)

why do people with hybrids get to write off half the price of the cost of their hybrids

Huh? My family only got a one time $2000 income deduction for the purchase of a Prius in Oct. 2004. The in pocket benefit of a deduction is a fraction of that and does not come close to makng up for the extra cost I paid over a non hybrid vehicle of similar type. We get no other benefits.

The current lifetime mpg of this Prius is 49.8 for over 15k miles of use.

Al

Huh? My family only got a one time $2000 income deduction for the purchase of a Prius in Oct. 2004. The in pocket benefit of a deduction is a fraction of that and does not come close to makng up for the extra cost I paid over a non hybrid vehicle of similar type. We get no other benefits.

The current lifetime mpg of this Prius is 49.8 for over 15k miles of use.

Al
Do people also get the writeoff for the hybrid SUVs and hybrid performance cars that get like 20 mpg or less?

I don't know much about cars, but I read that many hybrids are "bred" for higher performance rather than better mileage. Is this true?

Do people also get the writeoff for the hybrid SUVs and hybrid performance cars that get like 20 mpg or less?

I don't know much about cars, but I read that many hybrids are "bred" for higher performance rather than better mileage. Is this true?
1. It doesn't appear so, but a deeper look is needed. Certainly the sub 20mpg hybrid trucks don't qualify and not all hybrid vehicles get the same $ benefit.
2. This is sadly true, early generation hybrids were about economy, the more recent generation is about performance and/or minimal improvement in economy.

Check here for info on the tax benefits as well as which vehicles qualify:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml

Also from this page you can find info on the mpg of all current hybrids
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs.shtml

Al

^^^ absolutely, car mileage peaked like 20-30 years ago, ever since the size and power of american vehicles has increased while maintaining roughly the same mileage averages

The Prius is a prime example, its a fairly large car for a "small" car........properly designed and shrunk a bit and you might get into the mid 50mpg-60mpg range using hybrid tech in it. But here's the rub, it can be done w/o hybrid as well, and cheaper. The payback crossover for the hybrid vs standard drivetrain is way beyond the useful lifecycle of the vehicle. What it does do quite well is add a fair amount of power where it counts--accelerating from slow speeds and recovering braking power while getting better mileage than its normal drivetrain counterpart. The manufacturing costs material wise is substantially bigger too. I pray nobody ever starts pumping milions of these things onto the streets.

Bottom line, like power on a bike, there are no shortcuts, you must deal with physics. Better mileage means less mass and lower speeds, anything else is an effort to use efficiency w/o sacrificng the primary factors that determine how much it takes to move the vehicle down the road. Fuel injection has prettymuch cured fuel delivery problems, its a mature tech, so is automatic transmission design and most other car systems. Basic engine design still remains the same, just tweaked a bit, but even after 100 years of experiments it still remains only about 15-20% efficient. Could car makers make much higher mileage cars, sure, quite easily. Public doesnt want them, YET.......wait till december 2006 when fuel is about $4.50/gallon.

But when was that standard last raised - 1980 something?

I believe it was modified this year, but not really for the better. It's 'different' with more categories than just car and truck.


Then we let Detroit make millions of SUV's which, through a loophole conveniently provided, were considered "work" vehicles and didn't have comply with CAFE.

The only exemption provided is for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of over 8500 lbs, if memory serves. Things like the F-150, Chevy 1500, TrailBlazer, Explorer, etcetera, don't qualify.

The only good solution is to increase the gas tax. Couple it with a decrease in payroll tax such that it's a net tax decrease.

ElJamoquio

Do people also get the writeoff for the hybrid SUVs and hybrid performance cars that get like 20 mpg or less?

I don't know much about cars, but I read that many hybrids are "bred" for higher performance rather than better mileage. Is this true?


Note the Hybrid Honda Accord. It gets about 10 mpg better than the normal Accord. Of that, 6.5 mpg was based on conventional technology - basically, cylinder deactivation. That type of technology costs about $300-$500 per vehicle, rather than the $3000-$5000 per vehicle the 3.5 mpg the 'hybridization' of the vehicle returned.

Would the world be better off with one hybrid vehicle getting 10 mpg better, or ten vehicles, getting 6.5 mpg better? Should we be subsidizing hybrids?

I'd like my employer to give me a day off for every 20 days that I ride or use alternative transportation. My free time is worth more than cash.

As a former IRS employee, I can attest that using income tax benefits to manipulate social policy is a wrongheaded approach. First of all, our tax system is already too complicated - this only benefits wealthy people who know how to sneak through the loopholes. Second, the IRS is a tax law enforcement agency (and they're surprisingly good at that job). It does not have any expertise in transportation policy - or for that matter healthcare, disaster relief, social welfare (although it administers the Earned Income Credit, America's largest - and most successful - welfare program), or any of the other things it's asked to deal with.

Finally, and most importantly, tax rebates are only helpful for people who actually owe taxes. As a poorly-paid graduate student, I could double my income without incuring a significant tax liability - only those people with middle- and upper-class incomes would benefit.

Other suggestions that have been proposed in this thread, like a higher gas tax (I suggest looking up NYT columnist Thomas Friedman's 'Freedom Tax') are much better ideas. But nothing will make things change overnight - the 60 years of car-oriented infrastructure where most Americans live is a very strong financial incentive for them to stay with the transportation status quo.

I agrre that the tax code is way too complicated, But I think it has to be used as a part of policies towards social change. We need to build communities that facilate walking/biking/public transport and upgrade the infrastructure in exsiting places.
It seems like the employer end is the best place to start encouraging bike commuting, as there is no real way to check if people are biking to the store, or to bike up their kids at school.
I also believe that you need both a carrot and a stick. Tax benefits for using alternative means of transport and penalties for excesive driving.
The problem is there is no way to make a law that could be "fair" across the country. The tax breaks on SUVs were originaly menat to help farmers buy big trucks. The transpertation needs of someone living in rural kansas is very different than someone living in San Francisco. Its a tough thing to solve.

Logistically speaking, it shouldn't be too hard to prove who is using their bike recreationally and who is using it to reduce energy use. If someone doesn't have a vehicle registration (no car), but owns a bike and works outside the home, they would obviously qualify for a tax break. If someone does own a vehicle AND owns a bike, a simple yearly accounting of vehicle mileage should suffice. I run a business that keeps inventory and I have to account for my inventory each year. The starting inventory of each year must match the ending inventory of the previous year. Similarly, the starting mileage of your car should match your prior year's ending mileage. If you're putting 15,000 miles on your car... you probably don't qualify. If you only put 2,000 miles on your car, it's pretty clear that you're reducing your energy use and only driving for necessities and greater distances. Doesn't seem tough to me.

But as to whether it would make more people bike, I don't know if that's the case until our cities have better bike infrastructure. I can't help but feel that most people wouldn't put up with what I do on my morning commute. The anger, the aggresive drivers, the close calls, the lung-damaging pollution. Until we have dedicated bike paths (not just lanes which aren't respected or observed by drivers), the option of biking anywhere is always met with a certain excessive risk.

Having biked in Sweden where they have these incredible bike roads off away from the main road and away from traffic and which get you around cities and rural areas alike, I can say that the tax break wouldn't be the deciding factor. The ABSOLUTELY PLEASANT experience would be the deciding factor.

I already get a "tax break" by not paying for gas, repairs, or parking. I get free underground parking for my bike, a $100/mo luxury for everyone else.

Money money money! Forget about how much money everyone else is getting and think instead of what you are getting. (here's a hint: it's not money)

wouldn't it be cool that we could get some kind of kick back from the government for helping out with energy saving, lowering pollution, causing less traffic, low insurance costs, etc
That will never happen as long as we allow corporatists to the control policy making.

Refunding to car-free citizens, the average $7000/year/vehicle incured by our government would be a good starting point ...
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=2103912#post2103912

If you read the "Transportation Costs and Benefits" report you will see that there are numerous "indirect costs" associated with ownership which we all must bear through taxes including, but not limited to Traffic Services, Fuel Externalities, Residential Parking, Roadway Land Value, Traffic Congestion, Environmental Costs, Vehicle Fuel, Roadway Costs, Non-residential Parking, Crash Damages, Land Use Impacts, Equity Impacts, etc.