Saturday, January 04, 2014

Bike Tax Unreasonable For Wrong Reason, And Hello

Hello! You may know me from such places as Wonkette, where I usually lurk because they don’t allow comments, or the bar, where I get progressively drunker and yell at sawdust. Or you don’t know or care who I am. That’s not nice. But I respect your opinion to fuck off.

I’ve “known” The actor212 for a number of years -- off and on -- from the Internet. Apparently snark blogs are also good for getting men writers together.

For my inaugural post here at Simply Left Behind, I’d like to discuss Reason. Not the capacity for making sense of things, applying logic, or for establishing and verifying faces, as Wikipedia defines it, but rather the libertarian website for reasonable people. In particular, this post by Scott Shackford about a Chicago councilwoman proposing a $25 annual tax on cyclists. 
“When you tax something, you get less of it.”
We’re off to a great start. Especially when the examples provided are cigarettes, alcohol, and gasoline -- all of which we have plenty of and are enjoyed by millions. I am pretty upset each are so heavily taxed because how can I afford to fill up my car with an environmentally damaging substance to travel to purchase things that damage your body in all the good ways? And what, Scott, would these revenues be used for?
“The revenue can be used for good things, proponents say, like government programs to help children, the environment, and improve citizens’ health.”
But, as Scott rightly explains, if you tax these things, people will spend less money on them, resulting in lost revenues. Which is part of the Nanny State’s diabolical plan to slightly improve California’s air slightly, get smokers to quit smoking, and help families with young children. Nice Prius, you infant. Now cough up some bike taxes. Apparently, even though people are spending less money on smokes, the tax revenue may save the state some loot -- $93M in FY 2011/12.

Scott describes how the Nanny States now hates the environmentally and health conscious cyclists because of budget shortfalls. Granted, it may be foolish to provide more subsidies to automobile drivers than mass transit users but Lance Armstrong only has one taxable ball.

The best part about all of Scott’s post is that he never mentions a good reason why this tax is a bad idea. No, it is not the Nanny State wanting to check your diaper, but because it would only raise as much money as it would take to implement. Forbes, what say you?
“... a bike registration fee would raise some $10 million for the city of Chicago is a pipe dream. Almost every cent would be used simply to administer the program”

Interesting reasoning there.