Debate about Tax Credit for Bicyclists in the US House of Representatives [Archive]

Scot_Gore

12-23-07, 08:25 PM

Andy, do you really think an act of congress will serve the interests of cyclists?

How big would a tax break have to be to get, say, 1% of commuters to ride their bikes to work 25 times in one year? Should the tax break be given if only one day were traveled by bike? How would such a thing be enforced? If it is not "enforced", why wouldn't it simply be claimed by all?

Why are you advocating a tax break for the rich?

I am glad that you pointed out the dangers of building nuclear power plants designed and built by Soviet engineers! We wouldn't want another 4000 people killed like there were in the Chernobyl disaster!

Have you considered that your reaction to nuclear power is a bit, well, hysterical?

If you actually studied the proposal you would know that it's an amendment to an existing tax incentive enjoyed by van poolers, mass transit users, and drivers who pay for parking. The amendments adds bike commuters into the mix of transit users who already enjoy these benefits. As far as enforcement and abuse, it could be implemented in much the same way the existing benefits are for transit, parking, and van pool users. I've not noticed rampant abuse or fraud of these already existing 10+ year old benefits, so perhaps your concerns are a bit...well....hysterical.

ChipSeal

12-24-07, 02:11 AM

If you actually studied the proposal you would know that it's an amendment to an existing tax incentive enjoyed by van poolers, mass transit users, and drivers who pay for parking. The amendments adds bike commuters into the mix of transit users who already enjoy these benefits. As far as enforcement and abuse, it could be implemented in much the same way the existing benefits are for transit, parking, and van pool users. I've not noticed rampant abuse or fraud of these already existing 10+ year old benefits, so perhaps your concerns are bit...well....hysterical.

Scot, did you view Andy's video? If you had then you would know that I was responding point for point on his comments therein.

So I will ask you, should we look to congress if we want to promote cycling?

What costs do bicycle commuters incur, and why should taxes be demanded from me to off-set them? I am annoyed by the parking subsidies we are already giving to motorists, (In the form of curbside parking on PUBLIC roads.) and now you tell me I am being taxed to pay for the parking of commuters also? :eek:

No, I have not studied the proposal, but neither has any congressman or senator! (Which is a separate scandal all by it's self!) If they can make law without reading it, surely I can comment on it without reading it!;)

CommuterRun

12-24-07, 03:20 AM

A tax break for bicycle commuting, by itself, I could live without. But being that other forms of energy efficient/lower pollution commuting get breaks, why should cyclists not? The main thing is to me that the recognition, on the federal level, of bicycles being viable transportation, would be very, very good.
Pinhead: "Bicycles don't belong on the road."
CR: "Really? Then why does the federal government give me a tax credit as a low emissions vehicle?":)
Pinhead: "<Fume>.":mad:
:roflmao:

mandovoodoo

12-24-07, 05:24 AM

Tax incentives and disincentives seem a reasonable use of Congressional power to encourage or discourage activities in line with government goals.

I suspect the founding fathers would find the current system of taxes quite unpalatable.

Scot_Gore

12-24-07, 08:26 AM

So I will ask you, should we look to congress if we want to promote cycling?

I already do, these are all existing programs and regulations:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/legtealu.htm#sec1807
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferoutes/
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/policy/memo91.htm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/b-ped.htm
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/docs/pb_memo1999Guidance.pdf

What costs do bicycle commuters incur, and why should taxes be demanded from me to off-set them?it!;)
Unless it's been changed in this latest round of negoiations the program won't actually use tax money, but rather reduce tax revenues to the government, aka it's a tax cut. The money will be from your employer who will enjoy a business tax break for providing you with the benefit. Much like how most health insurance, child care, and out of pocket medical expense is handled through pre tax deductions and FSA plans. I currently get my bus pass through the Transportaion Fringe Benefit Act from my employer. Just like they buy my bus pass each month there's nothing that says they couldn't buy my lights, or my studded tires, or my balacava, or my bike for that matter.

Scot

ChipSeal

12-24-07, 05:29 PM

I already do, these are all existing programs and regulations:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/docs/pb_memo1999Guidance.pdf

Scot

I found this part interesting-

"Federal transportation policy is to increase nonmotorized transportation to at least 15 percent of all trips and to simultaneously reduce the number of nonmotorized users killed or injured in traffic crashes by at least 10 percent. This policy, which was adopted in 1994 as part of the National Bicycling and Walking Study, remains a high priority for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). TEA-21 provides the funding opportunities, planning processes, and policy language by which States and metropolitan areas can achieve this ambitious national goal."

Now that we are 14 years on, how has that worked out for you? How many more years will you give this obviously failed program to achieve it's goal of a 15% of all trips by nonmotorized transportation? No doubt employer tax breaks for bicycle commuters will push it over the top! :p

In my opinion, this congress is the least likely outfit to promote anything, let alone cycling! I can't think of any single thing the federal government does in a way anyone would consider timely, efficient, and well. Your faith in them, while charming, is at best naive. ;)

Tailwinds to you scot, and merry Christmas!

The Human Car

12-24-07, 07:38 PM

I found this part interesting-

Now that we are 14 years on, how has that worked out for you? How many more years will you give this obviously failed program to achieve it's goal of a 15% of all trips by nonmotorized transportation? No doubt employer tax breaks for bicycle commuters will push it over the top! :p

In my opinion, this congress is the least likely outfit to promote anything, let alone cycling! I can't think of any single thing the federal government does in a way anyone would consider timely, efficient, and well. Your faith in them, while charming, is at best naive. ;)

Tailwinds to you scot, and merry Christmas!

It got us this law: http://michie.lexisnexis.com/maryland/lpext.dll/mdcode/216f9/2170c/217b1/217b7?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm
This State Bike Master Plan: http://www.e-mdot.com/Planning/Bicycle/FINALB.PDF
This Regional Bike Master Plan: http://www.baltometro.org/content/view/301/323/
(This is required by all Metropolitan Planning Organizations and there is some power here if you can assert it.)

That law changed a motorized only design from this:
A brief run down on I-95 MD 24 interchange – up to 3 lanes of fast non-pulsated exiting or merging on to MD 24, a median that separates entering traffic from thru traffic as well as separating a thru cyclist from the bikeable shoulder built just for them, in short a cyclists and pedestrian hell.

To this: http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20071111110139607

The law helped get us (some) of a Master Planed hiker/biker trail back into a major highway project (ICC.)

The combination of two help turn MTA from no bike racks on buses to a fully equipped fleet in ~a year.

In general it has helped preserve most of the bikeable shoulders that we do have and has created some new ones as well but mostly it has helped build trails with the most notable one here is the Great Allegany Passage Trail.

Also the state is realizing that it is not meeting the goals of this program and is going to require and fund complete street training for all road engineers.

The states have a lot of control on how they implement the program and if people would only realize it, they could have a lot of control over what the state does with the money. It’s your government people!

Happy Holidays to all!

Andy Dyson

12-25-07, 10:27 PM

Thanks for your reply, Chip. I have a feeling we're pretty far apart on the issues here, but you ask me honest questions so here goes with my answer

Andy, do you really think an act of congress will serve the interests of cyclists?

hysterical?

Maybe. What I was talking about here regarding the interests of cyclists was urban transport cyclists--not that I'm uninterested in recreational cycling of various kinds. Yes, only one congressman currently advertises that he rides a bike for transportation, but I don't think that means that congress can't or won't do anything that encourages urban cycling. I think that the point of this tax credit is to encourage more people to ride for transportation, and I think that congress could encourage that to happen. Yes, I think that local efforts and grassroots initiatives are probably more likely to encourage cycling, but I don't think that congressional support for cycling can hurt it.

How big would a tax break have to be to get, say, 1% of commuters to ride their bikes to work 25 times in one year? Should the tax break be given if only one day were traveled by bike? How would such a thing be enforced? If it is not "enforced", why wouldn't it simply be claimed by all?

Well, I admit to not knowing the details of the practicalities of this idea, but suffice it to say that tax credits do exist to encourage different types of behavior and that people who set these systems up know how to do so. Not perfectly, but they do work.

I think that reimbursement would be the easiest way to make something like this work. Receipts from a bike shop, registration at a company bike room, letter from employer, etc. Accountants are used to this kind of thing in other circumstances, so I don't think it would be too hard. Could there be fraud? Certainly, but that's not a reason to quash the idea right away, because any system can be subverted if necessary.

Why are you advocating a tax break for the rich?

I don't see how it's for the rich. It is for people who have jobs and make enough money to want to itemize deductions, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily an elite. It would include all bike messengers, for instance, because they're usually paid as private contractors. Whatever you say about the "immortal class" I can say I never met a rich one!

Have you considered that your reaction to nuclear power is a bit, well, hysterical?

Hysterical? I've had a while to mull over Chernobyl, and I certainly don't think that it was the kind of thing that could only have happened in the Soviet system. I.e., I think there is a finite chance of something like that happening somewhere else--including here in the USA, and wherever it happens, wind blows around the world. It's a small chance, as I admitted, but it's a small chance of a very bad thing happening. Very bad. I don't know where you got the 4000 deaths figure for Chernobyl (perhaps you were being sarcastic and it went over my head) but several hundred were directly killed and there are many horrific birth defects, threat to agriculture, etc.

Also, although nukes are zero emissions, there is not a foolproof way to deal with the waste at this point. Want it in your back yard? Please send me a link to any good news about this issue! I don't hate technology or even big business as long as there is a government of the people that is more powerful than business, but I just don't trust the current technology or business system to safely dispose of nuclear waste.

Long winded I admit... but I had time on my hands due to Christmas.

Call that hysterical if you like. I just wanted to emphasize that Rep. Boehner was ridiculing a simple, safe, cheap solution to some of our energy needs (bicycling) while simultaneously advocating nuclear power which is an energy source that could easily turn around and bit us in the ass.

mandovoodoo

12-26-07, 06:54 AM

I don't find encouraging people to cycle unreasonable from a national perspective. I see a fair number of poor people cycling for transportation. Encouraging employers to support this type of activity would be fair. I'd put in a bike rack and work with my accountant to help out my employees. No biggie. All our employees currently cycle in a good deal of the time, anyway! But the parking isn't ideal. Not that we have many employees.

Although an aside, coal burning releases more radioactive materials in the US than nuclear plants ever thought of. Waste remains the main problem. The plants themselves are quite safe. Chernobyl was an inherently dangerous design without adequate physical or administrative safeguards. I'd worry more about chemical plants, hazmat through cities, gas pipelines, and the like. Plenty of those things are really worth a second look!

dynaryder

12-26-07, 10:37 AM

mconlonx

12-26-07, 11:26 AM

Money = respect in much of the world, especially at the level politicians are playing at. Recognition for cyclists as a commuter tax break would be great: I can buy a hybrid or other efficient car and get a tax break--why no tax break for motorcycles which consistently get better milage than cars, or bicycles? If gov't wants to encourage efficiency and is giving out tax breaks already, it is certainly discriminatory and almost nonsensical not to offer the same breaks to those who ride.

And how exactly would a tax break for bicyclists be a "tax break for the rich"? I have more of an issue that way with the tax break on SUVs and Light Trucks, which was put there to give independent contractors a break, but which has very much been utilized by those wealthy enough to afford such vehicles and accountants who can jigger their return to take advantage of this.

ChipSeal

12-26-07, 12:09 PM

Thanks for your reply, Chip. I have a feeling we're pretty far apart on the issues here...

I don't know where you got the 4000 deaths figure for Chernobyl (perhaps you were being sarcastic and it went over my head) but several hundred were directly killed and there are many horrific birth defects, threat to agriculture, etc.

"The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed."

"In addition, the IAEA states that there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer) corroborating UNSCEAR's assessments."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

The reports of the Chernobyl disaster were highly exaggerated, which is typical for our media and the anti-nuclear hysterics. The danger posed by nuclear waste is likewise inflated.

These outlandish fears have real human costs. Food poisoning could be nearly eliminated through irradiation, but anti-nuke activists have successfully blocked it's widespread use with false and hysterical claims. Result: Unnecessary deaths and illness.

I agree we are far apart on the issues. I imagine that may be due to our understanding of the facts of the things we talk about. Ignorance is an expensive problem, and our popular media isn't dissipating it.

ChipSeal

12-26-07, 12:17 PM

And how exactly would a tax break for bicyclists be a "tax break for the rich"?

It would be a tax break for your employer. In the class warfare language of the Democrat leaders, all employers are "rich". :rolleyes:

Most regular Americans recognize this.

joejack951

12-26-07, 02:17 PM

These outlandish fears have real human costs. Food poisoning could be nearly eliminated through irradiation, but anti-nuke activists have successfully blocked it's widespread use with false and hysterical claims. Result: Unnecessary deaths and illness.

Not true based on what I've read. Irridation has a chance of killing the bacteria by partially cooking the meat, but if it isn't completely successful in killing off every last bit of bacteria, the bacteria will come right back to it's pre-irridation level. Partially cooked meat isn't very appetizing looking either.

The real fix for the problem is better standards for cleanliness at meat packing facilities and on the farm, such as not feeding ground up cow to cows and not mixing cow feces in with the meat.

[Completely off topic post, sorry. But if you want to read more about the topic, check out "Food Politics" by Marion Nestle :)]

The Human Car

12-26-07, 05:47 PM

FWIW I really do not trust the government with nuclear power:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist1.htm
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/nuclear/reactor/calendar/calendar.html

I also believe that cycling can achieve near or greater modal share then mass transit during nice weather far cheaper then what it takes to support mass transit.

StrangeWill

12-27-07, 05:35 AM

I am glad that you pointed out the dangers of building nuclear power plants designed and built by Soviet engineers! We wouldn't want another 4000 people killed like there were in the Chernobyl disaster!

Have you considered that your reaction to nuclear power is a bit, well, hysterical?
Ugh it's clear evidence that people are too scared to look at facts when they make claims like you pointed out, if anything Three Mile Island is an example of a horrible reaction plan gone completely right, with 100% containment. Since then reaction plans and reactor resigns are WAY safer, and whats worse, all we have are AGING nuclear power plants now, thats real safe.

Anyway, anyone anti-nuclear is generally anti-brains, nuclear has been a heavy suggestion from the scientific community for a long time, and have had to beat around people who don't know any better for awhile, not only those that think they're bombs, but other that think incidents like Chernobyl are reasons for alarm.

/rant

FWIW I really do not trust the government with nuclear power:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist1.htm
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/nuclear/reactor/calendar/calendar.html

I also believe that cycling can achieve near or greater modal share then mass transit during nice weather far cheaper then what it takes to support mass transit.

You do realize it takes a lot more than a bomb to crack open a nuclear reactor? Terrorist targets are simply myths, it would take an insane amount of force to crack one to cause a leak, much easier to just bomb the mall or something, at least that is in the scope of reality. Not to mention building a dirty bomb would be MUCH easier, and can be set off anywhere, including a downtown crowded city.

And no, as long as the USA has regulations on how Nuclear Powerplants are built, there will never be a Chernobyl incident in the USA, Chernobyl was a horrible design, with many MANY things going wrong with it, quite awhile ago, technology has improved, we are not the soviet union (which was trying to build power plants on the cheap because they were broke), and the ENTIRE WORLD has learned from the incident, it's not worth the risk of shaving a few million off the design specs.

I loved how my Astronomy teacher would go on and on about how the "public" needs to be educated, and stop making irrational decisions that are screwing over where we COULD be, the guy was a bloody genius, and an awesome teacher at that. It was also an extremely good point on why we took general education classes, at least in the science field, but it still seems like those that were uninterested were still walking away just as ignorant as before.

The hugest part that makes me smile is seeing those Global Warming fanatics yelling "we have science on our side" about global warming, but as soon as Science says it's time for Fission, and that we need to develop Fusion, they're screaming that Science wants to poison them, build nuclear bombs and get power off of them, and turn out planet into the sun.

I'm just asking for some bloody consistancy.

The Human Car

12-27-07, 11:17 AM

Ugh it's clear evidence that people are too scared to look at facts when they make claims like you pointed out, if anything Three Mile Island is an example of a horrible reaction plan gone completely right, with 100% containment. Since then reaction plans and reactor resigns are WAY safer, and whats worse, all we have are AGING nuclear power plants now, thats real safe.

You obviously have not lived in Harrisburg, PA, 100% containment, ya, right.

And ya they do have way safer designs now but nobody is willing to put any money down on unproven designs, so we are getting mostly the same old same old.

Elkhound

12-27-07, 12:22 PM

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

And we all know how reliable and accurate wikipedia is.

StrangeWill

12-27-07, 01:20 PM

You obviously have not lived in Harrisburg, PA, 100% containment, ya, right.

And ya they do have way safer designs now but nobody is willing to put any money down on unproven designs, so we are getting mostly the same old same old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Health_effects_and_epidemiology
The scientific community is largely agreed on the effects of the Three Mile Island accident. The consensus is that no member of the public was injured by the accident. "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year.They also removed the core, sure the facility is irradiated, but as for outside the plant, you can live without fear of radioactive contamination. Then again, as usual, maybe people think science is wrong again, no matter the numbers to back it up.

5,000 people were recommended by the governor to leave, not by any scientific manner obviously, over 140,000 left, nice to see them leave a life behind over a dose of radiation they receive every 4 months naturally.

And we all know how reliable and accurate wikipedia is.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/1352207&from=rss

mandovoodoo

12-27-07, 06:46 PM

MrCjolsen

12-27-07, 07:11 PM

If you go car free in South Carolina, you also don't pay property tax on your car, but you can't have a driver's license without showing proof there is a car insurance policy with your name on it.

I real curious about this. It's been bugging me for several days.

What does a person have to do if they don't own a car and need a license? I can think of many scenarios where they would need one - work, travel, in order to rent a car etc.

Also, if this is indeed true, it seems that one could challenge this law from a constitutional standpoint.

The Human Car

12-27-07, 07:21 PM

Re: Three Mile Island
Yes there is no scientific or agreement that the rise in birth defects in Harrisburg was attributed to the incident. It’s just one of those freaky coincidences, maybe it was just something in the water or milk.

As to where we should get the power we need, that’s the rub. Too many options are just not cool.

Out of curiosity we are already building nuclear power plants so why are they being discussed in the energy bill? What’s new or different that is being purposed?

ChipSeal

12-27-07, 09:12 PM

And we all know how reliable and accurate wikipedia is.

Elkhound, you diminish yourself. The source is not Wikipedia. The quote from other sources is found there- IAEA and WHO. Why would the United Nations World Health Organization lie about this?

ChipSeal

12-27-07, 09:24 PM

Out of curiosity we are already building nuclear power plants so why are they being discussed in the energy bill? What’s new or different that is being purposed?

It doesn't matter, and it certainly hasn't been discussed. The Democrat leadership demanded a vote on the re-worked bill with less than 24 hours of publishing it out of conference committee. No one who voted for or against the bill new more than a part of the contents, and there was no debate. Yet another broken promise from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid.

10speed

12-27-07, 10:34 PM

Sorry guys..... Haven't you ever heard of a faint.You are all argueing about nuking when you should be discussing bike credits. In 2 years politicians will say we tried that but there was no interest.The bike credit idea is an excellent idea, now in an amendment to a bill,right now shot up as a trial balloon.Those who oppose it know if commuter biking hits 15% then there will be alot more accomodations made to further encourage the use of bikes as commuter transport. This in turn would lower the demand on gasoline which then would inturn drop the price of fuel. We then would have no reason to be in Iraq or protect Saudi Arabia.This could then drastically change the political view in this country. So in this forum lets advocate legislation that would improve the climate for riders everywhere. Also realize that when we ride a bike instead of take the car we are in a nonviolent way, turning our favorite form of transportation into a weapon against terrorists by depriving them of the money recieved from oil profits to pay the families of suicide bombers(Did you ever think of Trek as a defense contractor). Atomic energy is a viable short term solution. People would freak if they knew that the coal in this country could last for the next 100 thousand years. A thousand times what oil is in the whole middleeast. We as bikers can take the lead in many other ways.We just need to watch out for sneaky politicians who, when we are given an opportunity to change for the better the enviroment of our nation, instead represent greedy self interest. FIGHT TERROR ! RIDE A BIKE!!!!!

StrangeWill

12-28-07, 03:15 AM

Funny about 3 mile island. I visited a relative with a cycle shop, then drove right by the plant during the accident. Didn't find out about it until that evening!

US plants are safe, if we'd build a next generation they'd be much safer. Coal plants aren't safe, leading to pollution and mining deaths.
Yeah that is kinda nice, apparently they're still using half the plant too.
However I think if you want an interesting view of a melted down plant, the ONLY place to go is Chernobyl, simply because the scale of it, the cities, the plant itself, are simply awesome.

Elkhound, you diminish yourself. The source is not Wikipedia. The quote from other sources is found there- IAEA and WHO. Why would the United Nations World Health Organization lie about this?
Not to mention Wikipedia is a gathering of sources, it just shows one's ignorance as to how Wikipedia works. It's a piece of software, not a book, use it properly. ;)

Re: Three Mile Island
Yes there is no scientific or agreement that the rise in birth defects in Harrisburg was attributed to the incident. It’s just one of those freaky coincidences, maybe it was just something in the water or milk.

As to where we should get the power we need, that’s the rub. Too many options are just not cool.

Out of curiosity we are already building nuclear power plants so why are they being discussed in the energy bill? What’s new or different that is being purposed?

Since when? I thought we stopped building them over 15 years ago:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec8_3.pdf

crtreedude

12-28-07, 03:43 AM

Our current form of government (USA - not here) uses taxes and credits as a means to manipulate the population. Punishment and reward. They tax things that they would like to reduce and credit things they would like to increase. You don't pay tax on the interest on your house payment, for example. Why? Because the government wants you to have a house. You do pay tax on the interest on credit cards.

By giving a tax credit for riding a bike they encourage you to ride a bike it would be assumed. As long as they continue this mode, I see nothing wrong with including cycling as a positive thing to reward.

Now, the issue regarding if you should be punished for somethings in the form of taxes or rewarded for others in the form of credits is another. In truth, what is the difference between paying a fine for breaking the law and paying more tax, except one you can not appeal?

Upsetting myself here the more I think about how much the government thinks it is their job to manipulate us. Not that I think it will change. I do know that down here my taxes are very simple, no credits, pretty much a flat tax (called value added) with an income tax that kicks in over a certain amount. (the majority never pay it) No capital gains tax, no estate tax. The government did try the manipulation route and the whole country nearly shut down in reaction. :eek:

So, I don't have a problem with cycling being considered a good activity. I do have a problem with the idea of being led around like a donkey with a carrot and a stick in the form of credits and taxes.

just my dos colones

Scot_Gore

12-28-07, 05:56 AM

I real curious about this. It's been bugging me for several days.

What does a person have to do if they don't own a car and need a license? I can think of many scenarios where they would need one - work, travel, in order to rent a car etc.

Also, if this is indeed true, it seems that one could challenge this law from a constitutional standpoint.
I suspect that the original poster is mistaken and the requirement is for your cars lic. tab and not the drivers lic. to drive, but I don't live in the state and could be wrong.

jimmuter

12-28-07, 07:20 AM

I suspect that the original poster is mistaken and the requirement is for your cars lic. tab and not the drivers lic. to drive, but I don't live in the state and could be wrong.

I found this on the SC DMV web site. It still seems a bit vague:

Insurance Information

Before a driver’s license can be issued or renewed, you must furnish current insurance information. You must provide the company name of your automobile insurance company, which must be authorized to do business in South Carolina. If you or any relative in your household does not own a vehicle, you must indicate that fact on your application.

http://www.scdmvonline.com/Dlidentity.aspx

Andy Dyson

12-28-07, 12:09 PM

...You are all argueing about nuking when you should be discussing bike credits.

Sorry, 10-speed, I guess it was a mistake to mention the nuclear power debate in my original post and expect the discussion to remain about the tax credit. It is relevant in that the congressman certainly thinks that encouraging nuclear power is more important than encouraging bicycling, but not worth the distraction.

FYI, I think you are talking about the word feint, meaning a ruse rather than faint which is what happens when you get a big dose of radiation or don't drink enough while riding a bike.

Happy and peaceful 2008

The Human Car

12-28-07, 12:53 PM

At first I thought the bill was about a new nuclear powered car. That would make our roadways a whole lot safer. :eek:

Elkhound

12-28-07, 03:29 PM

Why would the United Nations World Health Organization lie about this?

Politics. The UNWHO--like the rest of the misnamed United Nations--would say that the sun rose in the West if it were under political pressure to do so.

Elkhound

12-28-07, 03:38 PM

I have written to the SC DMV for clarification. I will post their answer.

StrangeWill

12-28-07, 04:53 PM

Sorry, 10-speed, I guess it was a mistake to mention the nuclear power debate in my original post and expect the discussion to remain about the tax credit. It is relevant in that the congressman certainly thinks that encouraging nuclear power is more important than encouraging bicycling, but not worth the distraction.

FYI, I think you are talking about the word feint, meaning a ruse rather than faint which is what happens when you get a big dose of radiation or don't drink enough while riding a bike.

Happy and peaceful 2008

You mention taxes and nuclear power, guess where the science lover is going to go? ;)

10speed

12-29-07, 05:00 AM

biknbrian

12-29-07, 10:18 AM

I'm sitting here at a nuclear plant right now and finding this debate interesting.

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/bv2.html

In my opinion the nuclear industry is one of the best run, safest industry in the world. I'm fine living 4 miles from here, but the black sludge drops that ocaasionally fall on my propery from the coal burners down the road do concern me. Also I think that right now the only technology capable of significantly reducing greenhouse gas emmisions is nuclear. I also think it is very unlikely that terrorists could cause a significant radiation release.

On the other hand there is no way to assure a 0% chane of an accident ever occuring somewhere on the planet. Spent fuel is also real problem, even with reprocessing or different reactor designs to reduce the amount. What's to say that our government or society doesn't colapse at some point in the future. Certainly it's pretty likely in the next several thousand years. Who's going to deal with the fuel then? I'm one of the persons who might be considered responsible for this sort of thing, but if my paycheck ever stopped coming I wouldn't be hanging around very long. It is imperative that an extremely long term storage solution be found before the next gereration of reactors are built.

I'm a believer in human progress. There is no reason why we should be afraid of any technology, automatically ruling it out as a solution to our problems. I believe that nuclear power is quite safe now and will be much safer yet with the next generation plants, however the fuel storage issue needs to be resolved first.

biknbrian

12-29-07, 10:48 AM

On the other subject

Our current form of government (USA - not here) uses taxes and credits as a means to manipulate the population. Punishment and reward. They tax things that they would like to reduce and credit things they would like to increase. You don't pay tax on the interest on your house payment, for example. Why? Because the government wants you to have a house. You do pay tax on the interest on credit cards.

+1000, I don't think that the government should try to influence anyone's behavior. I don't agree with commuting tax breaks, even though I'd qualify. I also don't agree that alcohol and cigarettes should be taxed anymore than anything else even though I don't smoke but do drink. Our government should have absolutely no concern with any of our lifestyle choices. They should not try to dictate right and wrong.

Scot_Gore

12-29-07, 03:36 PM

On the other subject

+1000, I don't think that the government should try to influence anyone's behavior. I don't agree with commuting tax breaks, even though I'd qualify. I also don't agree that alcohol and cigarettes should be taxed anymore than anything else even though I don't smoke but do drink. Our government should have absolutely no concern with any of our lifestyle choices. They should not try to dictate right and wrong.

Bear in mind that the transportation fringe benefit act dosn't dictate anything.

First, it's completely optional for your employer to particpate. It dosn't mandate that your employer offer you any part of the program. My last employer offered none of them, my current employer offers mass transit and parking benefits, but does not offer the van pool portion. If your employer offers the plan, nothing requires you to use mass transit or pay to park. It's not anymore coercive than them offering a 401K plan. 401K isn't requiried by law and if one is offered you don't have to elect to put money in it. Do you believe everyone particpating in a tax differed savings plan is being strong armed by the Man?

Second, the idea that these kind of incentives are an example of some kind of coercive totalitarianism is it's own form of extreamism IMHO. People who think this is an example of the government "meddling" in your cycling are not paying attention to what's being presented. Stop Signs (aka specific behavior mandated by the government at an intersection) do more to control you than small incentives like this.

biknbrian

12-30-07, 09:00 AM

Bear in mind that the transportation fringe benefit act dosn't dictate anything.

First, it's completely optional for your employer to particpate. It dosn't mandate that your employer offer you any part of the program. My last employer offered none of them, my current employer offers mass transit and parking benefits, but does not offer the van pool portion. If your employer offers the plan, nothing requires you to use mass transit or pay to park. It's not anymore coercive than them offering a 401K plan. 401K isn't requiried by law and if one is offered you don't have to elect to put money in it. Do you believe everyone particpating in a tax differed savings plan is being strong armed by the Man?

Second, the idea that these kind of incentives are an example of some kind of coercive totalitarianism is it's own form of extreamism IMHO. People who think this is an example of the government "meddling" in your cycling are not paying attention to what's being presented. Stop Signs (aka specific behavior mandated by the government at an intersection) do more to control you than small incentives like this.

All my life I had thought that I wanted to live my life free to make my own decisions without someone else’s influence. But lately I’ve had a revelation thanks to all the interesting things I’ve read online…

You see good people, about myself I’ve discovered this new thing,
when I give up complete control I’m so happy I could sing.

Because Great Leaders it’s so plain that anyone could see,
despite the fact we’ve never met you know what’s best for me.

So Great Leaders I now have some things I’d like to ask,
I sincerely hope that you’ll have time for this little task.

Tell me first Great Leaders, when I must work should I go by car?
Big or small, fast or slow, or by bike if not too far?

And if I ride my motorcycle, a helmet should I wear?
What if I really don’t like it cause it messes up my hair?

For those times that I feel I’d like to smoke and to drink,
Please tell me Leaders about these things, what is it that you think?

About the herb, oh Great Leaders, some say it’s not so bad.
If I could get your opinion I’d be so very glad.

Now if I smoked I might get hungry so tell me what to eat.
Maybe some more fruits and veggies, maybe less red meat?

If I’m not home then would you mind if I did eat out,
Or would this turn me into an obese and lazy lout?

Oh Great Leaders please tell me if I should own a gun,
Or if someone might hurt me should I always turn and run?

I know that you’d protect me if I could make a call,
But if I could not get to a phone, how would you know at all?

And if I do reach out, how long till you get here?
Should I just huddle in a ball filled with morbid fear?

Do you suppose that I could maybe watch a little TV,
Or would more exercise be a much better thing for me?

Oh great leaders please tell me could I play a violent game,
Or would I then be compelled to rape and kill and maim?

About my kids, oh Great Leaders, how do they like to roam,
Please pass a curfew so we all know when they should be home.

For my retirement my Great Leaders should I save some more,
Or should I go blow my whole paycheck at the nearest store?

Do you suppose oh Great Leader that I could maybe gamble,
It seems ok to me but my money you’d surely better handle.

I must also ask if it’s ok for men to be with men.
Or if my faith permits polygamy, oh Greats Leaders, what then?

You see Great Leaders there are so many thing that you must surely tell.
Your moral compass must guide our fine nation away from the depths of Hell.

So in you my Great Leaders I place the utmost faith,
I know that you will always keep me oh so nice and safe.

Because I know you will always do what is the best for me,
I love the law, I needn’t know if my milk’s hormone free.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071113/milk_labeling_hormones.html?.v=2

The Human Car

12-30-07, 02:59 PM

...however the fuel storage issue needs to be resolved first.

+ 1000000000

10speed

01-09-08, 07:38 PM

With things such as critical mass trying to make an imprint on society as a whole, cycling in the future has an interesting future. Those of us who presently use this form of transportation, having expierienced the delightful wonder of combining exercise, travel and other benefits, need to guide others with encouragment so that our enviroment ,both communal and natural, can improve. If we look at presenting the bicycle as a viable choice in the area of human transport. We can see things impossible to think of today. Things such as universal healthcare may be possible without bankrupting us. Our energy bill could focus more on uses other than transportation.This bill is just a piece of that puzzle. We need to encourage our goverment to help. This bill while imperfect could help in that change. For those who are against this bill I have one request. If you don't like the idea of tax credits suggest a better idea to convince people addicted to gas out of their bucket seats and onto a bicycle seat!