tandempower

It has occurred to me that while many opposed to public spending will oppose bike route funding just for the sake of opposing the funding, the same people might support tax exemptions for living car free. Here are a few possibilities:

1) Property tax exemption: similar to a homestead exemption or other property tax exemptions, the taxable value of someone's homestead could be reduced by a given amount if they don't have a vehicle registered.

Such a tax reduction could be justified in that a) living car free reduces wear on roads and the need to widen them for growing traffic volume b) encouraging people to live car free allows for more economic growth with less traffic congestion, parking spaces, etc.


2) Employer tax exemption for car free employees: This exemption could be a reduction in some business tax, such as sales tax, to be claimed by employers per car free employee they have on their payroll who works a certain number of hours.

This can be justified by encouraging employers to facilitate bike commuting or other car free transit by providing amenities, organizing carpooling, coordinating rides to transit stops, etc.

3) property tax exemption for providing easements to build multi-use paths through private property: This would encourage property owners to allow multi-use (bike) paths to be built through their properties.


4) Can you think of any other potential tax exemptions that would encourage car free living and pay back some of the benefits that it provides for everyone else by reducing congestion, wear on roads, infrastructure-expansionary pressures, economy-limiting bustle/congestion, etc.?

Ekdog

Those sound like good ideas, but I think I'd rather keep on paying taxes and have them used for improving cyling infrastructure and mass transit.

tandempower

There are plenty of other taxes to pay. Plus I'm only talking about exempting specific amounts, not the entire taxable value. Are you just saying this because you're against all forms of tax breaks, period? If so, it's too bad that you can't see that there could be supporters of car free living who are not pro-taxation. Too often Republicans get stereotyped as having certain political views just because they don't support bigger government as the best approach to issues (not to turn this thread into a rep vs. dem discussion)

btw, how did you reply to this thread without viewing it? Shortly after posting it, I saw the counter read: 0 views, 1 reply. That's not possible, is it?

Ekdog

I'd rather not get into a discussion about "big government" as this isn't the place for it and the mods would likely move the thread to P&R if we got involved in such a conversation. In fact, if I were you, I'd cut the politicking out of your second post.

Regarding your second paragraph, I did read the post before I responded.

DX-MAN

There's a commuter tax credit for riding your bike to work already in place. While I think it should be bigger ($20/month max), I'm just glad it's on the books. (My job doesn't deal with it, they say it's too much trouble for $20. Typical excuse, they can't just "do" something to benefit one of theirs.)

SparkyGA

I've got a better one, lets reduce the taxes purchasing a new vehicle to make it more affordable and then add more tax on top of the sale of a new bicycle, as it is just a luxury item...

Thanks Canadian Government!

Roody

Canada really did this? If so, I assume you're being sarcastic when you thank them?

Roody

+1. I think the timing is unfortunate for this topic. Tempers are pretty short in America right now when it comes to taxation and governance. People who participate should be extra careful about starting flame wars and off-topic rants, IMO.

Roody

I believe this tax credit has expired, but I'm not sure.

The trouble with some of these fancy tax schemes is that they're just more trouble than they're worth for governments and taxpayers alike. They usually don't do much good, either.

spdntrxi

1. Property tax pays for a whole host of items... so what's next.. I have no kids so I should not pay for schools right.
2. Atleast in California that already have programs for carpool.. heavily subsidized already..There are programs for riding you bike too already setup.
3. I'm ok with that one, but I think they would try to buy the land or just "take" it.. Having the public on private property opens up liability to property owner.
4. You use the same roads, don't ya ? Not buying gas or paying the DMV is saving you taxes already. By riding you bike you are exhaling more CO2 which hurts the ozone and causes global.. excuse me climate change.. see where I am going.

B. Carfree

The only tax break I want for being car free is to be exempt from a much larger gasoline/diesel tax. Of course, I would only be exempt in the sense that I very rarely purchase the stuff. If I rent a car and drive it, then I happily pay our fuel tax, tiny though it is.

chewybrian 

The solution is not a subsidy for bikes, but an end to all the subsidies for cars. If people had to pay the true cost to use their cars directly, they would think twice before hitting the road. In that environment (aka reality) the bicycle would hold much appeal without any special incentives.

Ekdog

+1

We could start by eliminating subsidies to Big Oil:

"Oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process."

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/bu...tax.html?_r=2&

Machka 

1. Property Tax ... have you investigated where property taxes go? What services are provided courtesy of property taxes?
And in many places, property taxes depend on the size of place you own. So if you chose to rent or own a small apartment with no parking for automobiles, you probably would pay less tax than if you chose to own a large property with ample room for garages.

2. As for the rest, you suggest that someone should facilitate bike commuting or other car free transit by providing amenities, organizing carpooling, coordinating rides to transit stops, etc ... or in other words, a whole pile of infrastructure-expansionary pressures. But then you suggest that the people who want all those things should pay less tax. Do you have any idea how much the things you are suggesting cost?

Just as a quick example, a fairly lengthy (170 km), but unpaved MUP was recently built in the area where we lived. Any guesses how much it cost?

tandempower

Thank you. All I'm doing is proposing ideas that would work in jurisdictions where tax exemptions are more popular than tax-funding. Obviously I could also post a thread suggesting new taxes and new programs to fund car free living using those taxes but I like to try the more challenging road of cooperating with Republicans. Please don't flame me for taking this approach.

tandempower

I'm divided on this topic. On the one hand, I think everyone benefits from having an educated public (to the extent public education actually has an effect), but maybe people without kids should have some exemption from school-funding taxes, if only partially.

I'm not saying that car free people don't benefit at all from roads. Obviously we buy things delivered by truck, etc. We don't, however, generate any demand for extra lanes, and sprawling distances, so a great deal of public spending on roads, traffic signals and other controls, etc. would be significantly less if a significant number of people would go car free. Plus we are paying extra for everything we buy because personal automobile expenses are built into to everyone's salary, which is factors into the pricing of everything.

I'm focussing more on electorates that resist progressive measures, especially when they involve spending more tax money. California is widely viewed as progressive.

I believe it's in the constitution that government can't just take land without compensating the owner fairly. Buying it can be expensive. Liability is indeed an issue. Maybe some form of low or no payment lease could be used to transfer liability away from the owners and tax-breaks given in lieu of payment.

I've heard this about exhaling CO2 before but living bodies exhale CO2 anyway, whether people drive or walk or ride a bike, a skateboard, or a pogo stick. The issue here isn't CO2 but infrastructure (road) costs and the time and money saved by reducing congestion and facilitating more business per dollar spent on road network maintenance and expansion.

tandempower

That's true but what (tax) incentive is there for people to live car free without changing where they live?

How does carpooling increase infrastructure-expansionary pressure? More people per car means less cars per trip on the roads. Less cars per person-trip means less traffic and less pressure to expand road networks, no?


Less than adding additional (automotive width) lanes to area roads?

Machka 

Carpooling is just one thing you mentioned. Of more significance is "facilitate bike commuting or other car free transit by providing amenities".

As soon as you start wanted things like bicycle paths or MUPs, bicycle parking, etc. etc., it starts costing money.



Not much!

I'll give you a little hint ... if you were thinking $1 million, you're way off.


You want to go work in Local Government for a little while ... your local council/shire/municipality. Work in the Infrastructure Services Department. Work in the Rates Department. Might be a very eye-opening experience for you.

Ekdog

Why don't you just come out and tell us how much it cost instead of talking down to us and playing games? It might be an eye-opening experience for you.

I can tell you what the original 80 kilometers (since expanded to 140 km.) of physically separated bike paths cost us here in Seville: €225,000 per km., as opposed to the €31,000,000 per km. that it cost to build a metro line. I call that a bargain, especially when you consider that the former moves more than twice as many people as does the latter and is much cheaper to maintain.

https://www.paralelo36andalucia.com/l...la-eficiencia/

Juha

We have very high taxes built in car and fuel prices, and also a yearly tax-like payment per each car. Avoiding those is my exemption.

--J

tandempower

Automobile-sized lanes cost more, as do automobile-sized parking spots. A tax exemption for employers per car-free employee would encourage installing bike racks, locker-room with showers, etc. As long as the automobile costs are taken for granted, car-free costs seem like extras. When employers and employees get the choice between allotting money to the automotive infrastructure and amenities OR saving some of that money by encouraging car-free commuting, it becomes a different story.

For a long time, I had trouble understanding all the negativity toward cycling I encountered because it's just obvious to me that automobile use is not in some kind of danger of being eliminated. Now I'm starting to realize, however, that there's a certain bonus involved with having automobile use taken for granted in funding and laws. So, unfortunately, I think there are many people who are simply in fear that if alternatives to driving become a viable alternative, that at least some people will lose the option to drive because of economic pressures. There's sort of a solidarity mentality that if everyone refuses to budge in choosing transportation alternatives, the economy will HAVE to continue to support automobile dominance.

In reality, alternatives are going to have to grow just to keep automobile infrastructure and sprawl from overloading. It's been doing this for several decades, at least, and there's a slowness to recognize it because so many people just focus on their own automobile use as an individual regardless of what everyone else may or may not do to reduce automotive traffic for them.

Thank you, EKdog, for posting numbers. I've seen some examples of road-studies recommending leaving roads narrow instead of expanding them and the savings are significant. Two-lanes plus bike lanes costs significantly less than four-lanes plus bike lanes. Multi-use paths set apart from roadways are ideal but those will come eventually one way or another if sprawl-growth can be reduced and car-free local traffic is gaining popularity.

DX-MAN

If the city would LET me, I'd post THIS on a BILLBOARD in my yard!

Roody

Amen.

tandempower

If this refers to the unpaid-externalities, I don't think that argument works on most people because they figure that if they're getting away without paying for something currently, then it must not need to be paid for.

As for paying tax for cars, I wonder what the percentage of various costs, prices, fees, etc. would be if you calculated how much of what you pay goes toward paying automotive expenses. Considering that even the lowest-wage employees drive cars, it would be significant for every business or organization. Then consider how much higher everyone's rent is because rent has to cover automotive expenses of landlords.

That means you're paying automotive expenses twice; once for people as part of their wages, a second time for their landlords as part of their rent-allowance. Then consider that all their other costs are also paying for other people's driving. Now you start wondering how much the cost of everything would go down if everyone wasn't paying everyone else's driving expenses.

If you just count it as a percentage of GDP, everything else seems to overshadow it because those costs factor in the driving costs as well. But when you consider that all the other costs you're paying, from insurance, to rent, to groceries, to clothes, all have driving expenses factored into them, the percentage would be much higher.