| Re: California bicycle recycling bill follow up
I think the way the CA plan was going to work is that the old bicycles would
be seperated into different materials and sold as scrap. Perhaps I am wrong
about this. But I would support the other plan of taking old bikes and
refurbishing them to sell or give away to needy individuals.
Ken
<papercut@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1109735740.845359.236330@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> By recycling, do they mean recycled into a useable bicycle, or simply
> recycled to a scrap metal collector? The words of David O'Donnell
> make it seem the former. Which is even crazier than charging the tax in
> the first place.
>
> I guess it's not really a waste of *every* taxpayer's money, since the
> only people who would be paying this tax are bicycle buyers. But for
> *those* taxpayers/bicycle buyers, it would be a complete waste of
> money.
>
> The article is skimpy on details. It sounds more like a deposit than a
> straight tax, since some of the money is refunded when the bike is
> recycled. I suppose this may be the only (admittedly weak)
> justification for the tax, a incentive to keep bikes from being
> abandoned on the streets?
>
> I know Calif needs the revenue, but if that's the case, why not just
> make it a tax going into general revenue, and not wasting money to
> subsidise a "recycling" program? Not only does this proposal seem to be
> additional tax on bicycle consumers, it just creates another bureacracy
> to administrate itself. Government for the sake of government.
>
|