Good article : "Are you due a Covid-19 refund?"

MrEarl said:
How about the cycle lanes, signage, traffic lights etc that the cyclists are using?

... Its long past time that the cyclists paid something towards the services that they use.
Click to expand...
... or are not using as is a lot of the time
 
MrEarl said:
How about the cycle lanes, signage, traffic lights etc that the cyclists are using?

... Its long past time that the cyclists paid something towards the services that they use.
Click to expand...

I think most cyclists also own cars, so would be contributing that way. I think we need to encourage people to cycle, its healthy and if more people cycle it's a good thing all round. The petty arguments cyclists v motorists are pointless IMO, get as many people cycling, running , walking as possible as it is good for mental and physical health and hopefully we see the benefits as a country on the health system. One of the positives of this covid19 is I see lots more people out exercising.
 

Forget arguments about motorists -v- cyclists, making assumptions about who owns a car and a bike etc.

It's very simple, if the public want infrastructure, then it has to be paid for. One group should not be carrying the cost for another, all groups should contribute. What happens as less revenue comes in from vat and excise on fuel, motor vehicles, etc. which is a very likely outcome of this current crisis that we find ourselves in?

I do agree with you about the benefits of getting more people out cycling, walking etc btw. But if they want facilities that need to be paid for, then the money has to come from somewhere.

Sorry, I know we're taking this thread further off topic btw. Mea culpa
 
Last edited:

I cycle to work from a two car household, there are many things that are unfair. I would not pay more to cycle if they brought in a fee I would just take my car. I do very little driving as does my wife but we pay high road tax , I'd rather see road tax levied onto fuel prices as more you use the more you pay .
Everything is not always going to be fair, I think we need to incentivis people to make choices that are better for public health and environment, I've no problem with someone paying no tax on an electric vehicle they use daily compared with my car which is expensive tax but left at home.
Cycling should he encouraged as it will pay for itself long term if people cycle they will generally he healthier and less of a burden on the state. Cleaner air etc from .
 
MrEarl said:
One group should not be carrying the cost for another, all groups should contribute.
Click to expand...

Beyond the general tax-payer, what is that one group that is paying the costs of all others in this scenario?
 
MrEarl said:
Motorists are paying for resources enjoyed by cyclists, Leo.
Click to expand...

And cyclists are somehow exempt from paying tax? Cyclists are paying for resources used by motorists, likewise pedestrians and those who don't also drive. The notion that motor tax or fuel duties directly funds road maintenance is a fallacy.
 
Leo said:
And cyclists are somehow exempt from paying tax? Cyclists are paying for resources used by motorists, likewise pedestrians and those who don't also drive. The notion that motor tax or fuel duties directly funds road maintenance is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Hi,

If that's the case, then let's drop motor tax, vrt, fuel tax etc and see other general forms of taxation increased for everyone, instead.

Not all cyclists have motor vehicles, and some may not even be tax payers, yet they use part of the road network and expect it to be maintained, with specific markings and facilities required and that's before we talk about the cost of independent cycle lanes.
 
MrEarl said:
If that's the case, then let's drop motor tax, vrt, fuel tax etc and see other general forms of taxation increased for everyone, instead.
Click to expand...

What are the benefits of a narrower taxation base? Why specifically motor tax or the others listed? It's not like they play any special role in the road maintenance budget? Significantly more of it goes to funding Irish Water than roads infrastructure, same again for social housing!

I don't have children, but I'm not upset that some of my motor tax goes to pay towards the building and maintenance of schools. I don't use libraries, but again, I've no issue that some of my motor tax pays for those too.

MrEarl said:
Not all cyclists have motor vehicles, and some may not even be tax payers, yet they use part of the road network and expect it to be maintained, with specific markings and facilities required
Click to expand...

So your argument is public infrastructure funding should be prioritised for those that pay most tax? Many drivers are net recipients of state supports, should they be banned from driving until they can pay their way?
 
Can I have a refund if I have a car and no bike?
 
The group that is paying for everything is the top 10% of earners, not average income earners. Their road tax doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the scheme of things.

Should they get their own roads? Middle income households with 2 or 3 kids are massive net recipients from the State (other taxpayers). Should they be banned from using the roads? A single person earning €200,000 a year is paying about €100,000 in taxes and getting very little back for it. If they cycle to work should they have to pay an additional tax while the middle income household pays very little income tax and are net recipients to the tune of tens of thousands in services for them and their kids?

Sorry, but you are talking absolute nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register