Quote:
Originally Posted by IanWatson
This is an old trope that comes up over and over again in discussions about cyclists. It needs to be sent to the graveyard. The truth is, government already generates taxation revenue from bicyclists: cyclists pay property tax and income tax.
While cars do have some fees directly associated with them (registration, gas tax), those fees do not come close to covering the infrastructure they require; most of it is paid out of general revenue.
In places where they have tried to tax cyclists (license plate schemes, etc.) it quickly becomes clear that the income is mostly offset by the bureaucracy required to collect it. There's no way you can charge anywhere close to the level you charge for a car registration; no one is going to pay $250 to be allowed to ride their $250 bike. So you end up with a system where you're paying staff to issue, track, and enforce on licenses that bring in $25 each. The net result is barely any revenue, on top of a disincentive for cycling (which has societal benefits in terms of fitness and lowered pollution).
|
Agreed. I recall hearing that the majority of municipal revenue is generated from property tax. Fuel tax and HST probably doesn't directly contribute as much to municipal coffers.
This line of argument would suggest that people that don't own property should not be allowed to have input into how public funds are spent. It doesn't work like that. I pay property tax, but I don't think that any voices should be excluded from the discussion.
Another item which many critics seem to miss is that a huge portion of the current funding for cycling infrastructure is federal money which is specifically targeted for this infrastructure. It can't be re-purposed.