California bicycle recycling bill follow up

03-01-2005, 02:01 AM

some taxpayers are calling it a waste of money!
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

I tend to agree.

Ken

--
More of my mind dribblings: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
And my homepage: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

03-01-2005, 06:55 PM

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.

03-01-2005, 06:55 PM

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.

03-02-2005, 02:00 AM

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

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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.
>

03-02-2005, 02:00 AM

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

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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.
>