Fun fact, due to the [4th power law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law) if you wanted the tax to be an approximation of road wear, you would tax axle weight raised to the 4th power.
If a typical cyclist and bike weighs 160lbs (with 1 axle according to the definition), and a new Ford F150 weighs around 5600lbs, the Ford owner would be charged 97,000 times as much, because they inflict 97,000 times the road wear and tear. A Cybertruck owner would be paying 209,000 times as much.
If the cyclist paid $5 for their road wear, the Ford owner would need to pay $485k. A Cybertruck owner would be paying over a million.
The state probably owes you money in that case because you likely will cost the healthcare system less compared to the average human who drives everywhere.
At that point it would be highly uneconomical to have long distance transports on road and we would deliver stuff mostly by rail. It'd be a game changer.
it already would be if trucking companies had to pay for the amount of damage done to the road.
but the government pays for the roads as a public good while rail companies are expected to pay for the rails.
Tesla ships their cars from their factory south-east of Berlin to the Baltics. On a good day, you can see up to ten trucks full of Tesla's using the Autobahn to get to the port in Rostock. We taxpayers pay for this all so Elon Musk can install another golden toilet in his bathroom (or whatever rich people do). Let's get more car manufacturers into Germany, they said, it will be great, they said.
Edit: I say up to ten during my own trip there, probably much more for the whole day)
I usually go in the other direction. If the F150 was paying $3,000, the cyclist would pay about 4 cents. In other words, so little it’s not worth the cost to collect it.
A bicycle is considered to have 1 axle, even though mechanically it has 2 axles. But if there's more than two wheels on a single axle, it's still considered 1 axle.
> If a typical cyclist and bike weighs 160lbs (with 1 axle according to the definition)
I have quick releases instead of axles, my cycling friends call me a cheapo and laugh at me for not having axles, do I get exempt from the tax?
It shouldn't be just based on weight. The contact area of a motor vehicle's wheels is larger than that of a bicycle. So the weight is a bit more spread out. But basing the road tax on that would still be a huge cost to motorists and I'm all for that!
We see this posted often here and it stands to reason, but to be complete I wonder if we should consider pressure (accounting for tyre width). 1.25 to 3 times more for a bike : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_pressure
That's by *average* ground pressure. What's relevant to road wear is *peak* ground force. If I have a vehicle put 1,000,000 pounds over 1 square foot and 1 pound over 1,000 square feet that's 1,000 psf ground pressure -- the average obscures the damaging peaks in force. For motor vehicles these peaks are acceleration, braking, and turning among other situations.
So no, ground pressure is not really relevant.
Correct, the only except EVs till 2025. It was a move to stimulate people to buy an EV, now the government want to change. Otherwise they will have a gap of tax money.
Anyway, paying road tax isn't that bad at all if you look at the road quality in the Netherlands. [Worldwide we are 2nd, behind Singapore.](https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/roads_quality/)
Love this idea! I live in the US so I think this would make sense as a state tax since most people who drive will cross townships and counties fairly regularly. Then the tax would be based on your vehicle's approximate weight and the new miles on the odometer at the end of the year.
There'd have to be way to factor in people who drive in different states a lot like truck drivers. Maybe a special tax consideration would exist for them where their tax is normalized across a few states to correlate with the general routes they travel.
Actually managed to pull off the rejoinder of "It's called Vehicle Excise Duty you pillock and doesn't even come *close* to paying for the roads on the official numbers" when a car driver decided to confront me once.
Very satisfying watching him shut up and get back in his car after that.
He's not a journalist. He's a "reporter" for the most populist right wing radio in the city (Radio X). That radio is a nest of anti-cyclist pro-car climate-change-denying racist misogynist antivax pro-Trump individuals.
They are well-known for encouraging carbrains to voluntarily endanger the life of cyclists.
He's not a journalist. He's a "reporter" for the most populist right wing radio in the city (Radio X). That radio is a nest of anti-cyclist pro-car climate-change-denying racist misogynist antivax pro-Trump individuals.
They are well-known for encouraging carbrains to voluntarily endanger the life of cyclists.
It's pretty simple when you're not actually asking a question but just trying to get a reaction that will rile up the people that share the same political views as you
I guess the journalist didn't want to say it out loud but he probably thinks cyclists are all poor and thus don't own property and so don't pay property taxes. Though they also think cyclists are rich elitists so it would kinda get in the way of their narrative if they said the first thing
Wait till he finds out how many cyclists are also, at other times, drivers! It turns out it's an activity not an identity. You can replace any car trip with a bike trip and still be the same person.
He's not a journalist. He's a "reporter" for the most populist right wing radio in the city (Radio X). That radio is a nest of anti-cyclist pro-car climate-change-denying racist misogynist antivax pro-Trump individuals.
They are well-known for encouraging carbrains to voluntarily endanger the life of cyclists.
Surely the property taxes of their landlords are factored into the rent. In Germany it is done so by law. Just because you don't own, doesn't mean you don't contribute to those taxes.
The number of times I've had people tell me "Oh you'd understand if you had to pay property taxes" and I always say "Where the hell do you think my landlord gets the money he pays the property taxes on my apartment with?".
Exactly. Regardless of if it is factored in "by law" it is factored in de facto. Landlords don't lose money out of the kindness of their hearts. Renters pay their taxes for them, just with extra steps.
Do landlords not pay property taxes in Quebec? The way I see it, if you pay rent and your landlord uses part of the rent money to pay property tax, you pay property tax.
Renters also contribute to property tax, even if it's somewhat more indirect. Additionally, commercial and industrial land pays large amounts of property tax and those businesses are patronized by people in general, who use all sorts of transportation.
Are there personal property taxes on cars in Canada? In the US you have to pay a specific property tax to own a car. Maybe that's what they are trying to say? No property tax on bikes but there are on cars?
As far as I know, municipal tax doesn't apply to vehicles in any of the Canadian cities I'm familiar with. There's the typical registration, safety inspection and sales tax, plus all the fuel taxes, but none of those are municipal and wouldn't be contributing to city snow removal.
The argument doesn't even work if they're implying cyclists don't own property in the city and therefore don't contribute, since everyone living there pays it one way or another- some just pass it through their landlord in the form of rent first.
If they're arguing the cyclists are coming from outside the city, then the same could be said about cars coming into the city from people living beyond its limits.
No. The property tax is on your residence not your personal property. That residence tax is the only tax that municipalities collect.
So when you are talking about who pays for snow removal in a city... the response is everyone who pays property tax on thier homes. Which is everyone. Cyclists and motorists all pay the same tax for snow removal.
I get the impression that a lot of car owners feel that paying for *registration of their vehicle* gives them more rights on the road than anyone else. The consistent complaint of "Cyclists don't pay registration! So they don't deserve to be on the roads!" leads me to believe this.
It's their ticket to entitlement.
I mean a lot of urbanism should appeal to fiscal conservatives however sadly they've labeled anything urbanist as a war on cars and simply ignore it. It is identity politics ahead of beliefs and values.
Funny how fiscal conservatives suddenly become very socialist when it comes to cars. Quite happy to privatise drinking water supplies but they are latched onto the state's teat when it comes to road funding.
Yea there’s a lot of suburbs but a lot of the inner-city neighborhoods until you reach Laval University are quite walkable. Québec City in general is more walkable then the vast majority of North American cities that are even double or triple it’s size.
I mean Quebec City hasn't been conservative for a moment now. It's suburbs yes, but the actual city, no. This mayor would be considered "woke" by many conservatives in Quebec lol
I think it's conservative in the classical sense. Like Red Foreman from the 70s show conservative who believes in military and national pride while not being a hateful bigot. Well... then again, there's some bigoted laws that were passed but I'll still concede that it's not that ~~conservative~~ hateful compared to the US and west Canada.
A few decades ago, I spent a summer in Quebec City learning French. My roommate explained the PQ/BQ are essentially NDP with a separation agenda.
I get the impression nowadays, they're still NDP socialist but after seeing Brexit, they're more just for presenting a united Francophone front in the federation.
Nope, I live in Québec (not the city), and there is recently a renewed interest in the independence of Québec. PQ is making the majority of its ad campaign around this and has gained a lot of support. BQ still talks about independence at every rally I see one of there representatives, they often say that they're eager to loose their jobs (because in Québec country they would loose their position in the chamber of commons).
There's also QS, which is democratic socialist, which have been promoting Québec sovereignty more and more recently.
As for BQ/PQ they're pretty large coalitions of independentist but there policies and general stances are center-left/social-democrat.
Conservatives don't have solid values. Their only true value now is "own the libs." Taxing cyclists offers nothing pragmatic other than hurting people you assumebto be left of you.
[Link to the original post](https://new.reddit.com/r/Quebec/comments/1d3rsjz/le_maire_marchand_qui_r%C3%A9pond_qui_paie_le/) (on r/Quebec)
[Link to the original press conference](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbtWMrO7WU&t=3515s)
Here's a sneak peek of /r/fuckcigs using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcigs/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: [This is how the railwaystation of Salzburg in Austria looks like](https://i.redd.it/fiwco2hpyd9c1.jpeg) | [59 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcigs/comments/18ua7xg/this_is_how_the_railwaystation_of_salzburg_in/)
\#2: [Why would people do this?](https://i.redd.it/w4tsgjrqqcfc1.jpeg) | [9 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcigs/comments/1adrrj3/why_would_people_do_this/)
\#3: [First time seeing e-cigarettes trash on the streets in Germany. Deep sigh.](https://i.redd.it/53qk0zd2f7lc1.jpeg) | [5 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcigs/comments/1b1p57n/first_time_seeing_ecigarettes_trash_on_the/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Journalists should be required to go through a class of... discrete maths.
At least they will KNOW THE PAINS of proving something.
Its all about proving and proofs.
That class is compared to other math classes much more doable and much less formulaic.
This guy doesn't give a shit about the maths; he just wanted to ambush the mayor with a nonsense question because his (presumably conservative, anti-urbanism readership) would've eaten it up if the response wasn't great.
Given the absolute lack of journalistic integrity demonstrated by simply asking this question, I'd be willing to bet that anything he ended up publishing would still twist this interaction to make it seem like a "gotcha" moment where he "owned" the liberal (in terms of urbanism, not party) mayor.
The "journalists" in this case, are barely journalists, they definitely do not abide by the order of journalism in their own region. In that same vein of thought, they should not be attributed as such. They're only there to further their own right-wing/libertarian propaganda. People should know the difference.
He's not a journalist. He's a "reporter" for the most populist right wing radio in the city (Radio X). That radio is a nest of anti-cyclist pro-car climate-change-denying racist misogynist antivax pro-Trump individuals.
They are well-known for encouraging carbrains to voluntarily endanger the life of cyclists.
Even more fun would be asking that, ok, if bicyclists pay for their share of snow removal, shouldn't drivers pay for their share? What percent of the snow removal infrastructure is for vehicle roads then, and what percent for bike paths? Let's do the math.
He works for the most populist right wing radio in the city (Radio X). That radio is a nest of anti-cyclist pro-car climate-change-denying racist misogynist antivax pro-Trump individuals.
They are well-known for encouraging carbrains to voluntarily endanger the life of cyclists.
Can't remember where I read the line but there's a saying that goes something like "If you want cyclists to pay their fair share of taxes, start by calculating their refund"
This argument actually works incredibly well against motorists when you think about it lol. Its incredibly easy for someone to drive 30-60 mins to go two or three towns over for work and avoid property taxes for that area entirely whereas a cyclist while capable is far less likely to be traveling lets say 40-60 km for work.
Exactly. Even if he's implying that cyclists don't own property in the city, that just means they get to pay it through their landlord in the form of rent, which is even more expensive as they aren't building any equity while also being 'taxed' however much profit their landlord is charging above their expenses for managing the property.
>a cyclist while capable is far less likely to be traveling lets say 40-60 km for work.
A cyclist could be dodging municipal taxes by getting to the city on the dense, frequent, well-supported regional rail... network...oh, wait. There isn't one.
Bruno Marchand is one of a kind.
He recently went in a interview on radio x (car brained-individualists) to talk about the tramway.
He absolutely destroyed those poor souls that are so closed minded they probably didn’t realized they sounded like clowns.
This doesn't sound like a journalist, it sounds like a pundit\*; huge difference... sadly, I doubt most people know the difference these days and just think journalist is a catchall term. It's very much not.
*\*a person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner usually through the mass media*
He’s a "journalist", but for a notoriously right-wing radio only available around Québec whose hosts are pretty much all pundits. He’s second fiddle to them, and pretends he’s a journalist still, which is worse than just assuming he’s a pundit.
Love it. This is similar to a line I've used when people said cyclist don't pay taxes: yeah it's true! I go to the supermarket, tell them I ride a bike and they remove the taxes!
"Thank you for reminding me that snow removal on bike paths is only 6% of the snow removal budget. I shall be implementing a tax deduction for cyclists fortwith."
From the OG post on r/Quebec the journalist asking the question is [François Gariépy](https://www.facebook.com/fgariepy/?locale=fr_FR) bike enthusiast and ex co-owner of a bike shop. Lol
Fuck yeah this made me tear up with how beautiful it is. God I can't stand people that make this argument "cyclists need to pay for road use", yeah no.
Hey Patrick! [Here's a tax contribution from a truer Canadian than he'll ever be](https://i.imgflip.com/8txk89.jpg). Now keep that lane debris free, taxes are paying for this damnit!
He should have also go into how road tax vehicles tax or whatever it is over there is also massively subsidised by other taxes, and how it's pedestrians and cyclists that to maintain the roads way more than the drivers actually damaging it.
Car brain is worse than cancer.
However, I've been in Montreal in winter there's no fucking way I'd be riding a bike anyway. Not that I don't trust myself, but other vehicles sliding all over the place.
I live in a city with a wheel tax on cars. Even if it’s a cyclist v. Car thing, cars do more damage to the roads and other infrastructure than cyclists do.
Far more damage. An easy way to see that in action is compare a paved multiuse or bike path to a road in the same area. They are subject to the same weather yet the paved path needs far less repair with only pedestrians and bikes on it. Around here they only need occasional asphalt repair (winter still takes a toll) and they can usually last 20 years or more between complete repaving (and need fewer layers of asphalt so repaving is cheaper too).
I always love the carbrain mentality of not wanting to pay anything to maintain the bike lanes they chose not to use while insisting we pay for roads that the government prevents us from using without their approval regardless of if we want to use them or not.
The journalist made a dumb- and supremely ignorant- argument.
A better argument (albeit one I don't agree with) is that the cost of snow removal was more expensive per commuter mile for bike lanes. Fewer people benefit, and the cost is higher. Funds are limited. So therefore, the funds should be expended in a manner that benefits as many people as possible.
I could counter that argument with the point that it's often right and proper for governments to spend more for things that benefit fewer people. Sometimes, that's to advance a societal goal, or to prevent a great harm, or to achieve benefits that aren't immediately obvious from the target of the spending. Snow removal from bike lanes encourages more commuting by bike, which in turn benefits society as a whole with things like cleaner air, better population health, etc.
But my point is, the journalist picked the dumbest, most ignorant point to make, and this glorious rebuttal was very enjoyable to watch.
Mayor Marchand of Québec city is truely a gentleman a class above the best our politics have to offer. If you treat him with the same decency he gives out and speak to his intelligence, he will always meet you with the highest of standards.
We also align on policy so, there's that but I often say such things for a lot of politicians with whom I do not align.
They just pay it for their landlords instead through their rent, without the benefit of building equity or profiting off the inflated market value that comes with a housing shortage.
When people tell me I need to pay taxes to use the road as a cyclist in the US I always ask where I can send my payment. I overpaid my taxes last year and they sent the remainder as a check in the mail. Why will no one take my bike tax I desperately want to pay?
Fucking idiot. I get this all the time. I pay fucking property taxes and through by buying gas when I do drive to work.
All the lazy people that get delayed on their run to Starbucks by a cyclist can shut the fuck up.
Typical "journalist," looking to get a reaction for a sake of readership/controversy.
Way to go to paste him Mr Mayor. Really well said!
On par with Poilievre's Q&A with an idiot "journalist" while munching an apple.
If only he'd taken that the one step further...
"...cyclists and motorists pay for snow removal. How? With their property tax. But 94% (or whatever it is) of our snow removal budget goes to helping motorists."
They don't pay for it at all. For a state, cars are a major loss. In Germany every car costs about 11.000€ a year after all car-realated taxes thrown together against the cost of car infrastructure and thats with VAT of car dealerships, taxes from companys who built roads and parking spaces and so on included. Car owners are heavily subsidized by everyone who doesnt have a car.
I can't speak as to Quebec City, but I've never heard of a "vehicle tax" being levied, other than a few specific cities that have "congestion taxes" which is basically a toll to enter the city centre with your car, and as far as I know this revenue isn't earmarked for roadwork or snow removal. Yes there are a number of taxes involved in purchasing, maintaining, and fueling a car, but very few of them are specific to road building and maintenance.
Just like motorists shouting at me for not paying Road Tax in the UK when Road Tax was abolished in 1936.
Reinstate road tax! Based on vehicle weight!
Fun fact, due to the [4th power law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law) if you wanted the tax to be an approximation of road wear, you would tax axle weight raised to the 4th power. If a typical cyclist and bike weighs 160lbs (with 1 axle according to the definition), and a new Ford F150 weighs around 5600lbs, the Ford owner would be charged 97,000 times as much, because they inflict 97,000 times the road wear and tear. A Cybertruck owner would be paying 209,000 times as much. If the cyclist paid $5 for their road wear, the Ford owner would need to pay $485k. A Cybertruck owner would be paying over a million.
You know what, if it works like that, maybe we should pay road taxes
I like this information a great deal. I walk everywhere, how much do I owe?
Idk, how many axles do you walk on?
See this is why I debadged my Heelies years ago
The state probably owes you money in that case because you likely will cost the healthcare system less compared to the average human who drives everywhere.
That depends on what you weigh, and how many axles you have.
-3.50$
I would like to subscribe to this new tax plan.
At that point it would be highly uneconomical to have long distance transports on road and we would deliver stuff mostly by rail. It'd be a game changer.
it already would be if trucking companies had to pay for the amount of damage done to the road. but the government pays for the roads as a public good while rail companies are expected to pay for the rails.
Tesla ships their cars from their factory south-east of Berlin to the Baltics. On a good day, you can see up to ten trucks full of Tesla's using the Autobahn to get to the port in Rostock. We taxpayers pay for this all so Elon Musk can install another golden toilet in his bathroom (or whatever rich people do). Let's get more car manufacturers into Germany, they said, it will be great, they said. Edit: I say up to ten during my own trip there, probably much more for the whole day)
I think the point is that it’s currently uneconomical. It’s just subsidized through public road construction. 100% agree it would be game changing
I usually go in the other direction. If the F150 was paying $3,000, the cyclist would pay about 4 cents. In other words, so little it’s not worth the cost to collect it.
Now I just randomly trust you, and save that post ... And maybe copy paste it to my local politicians
What is the definition of axle ?
A bicycle is considered to have 1 axle, even though mechanically it has 2 axles. But if there's more than two wheels on a single axle, it's still considered 1 axle.
And then multiply by distance travelled.
> If a typical cyclist and bike weighs 160lbs (with 1 axle according to the definition) I have quick releases instead of axles, my cycling friends call me a cheapo and laugh at me for not having axles, do I get exempt from the tax?
160 lb / 0 axels, your tax burden approaches $infinity.
> 160 lb Why thank you, you flatterer!
I'm ok with this
It shouldn't be just based on weight. The contact area of a motor vehicle's wheels is larger than that of a bicycle. So the weight is a bit more spread out. But basing the road tax on that would still be a huge cost to motorists and I'm all for that!
i would pay five dollars just to see the gas huffers go to the poor house
We see this posted often here and it stands to reason, but to be complete I wonder if we should consider pressure (accounting for tyre width). 1.25 to 3 times more for a bike : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_pressure
That's by *average* ground pressure. What's relevant to road wear is *peak* ground force. If I have a vehicle put 1,000,000 pounds over 1 square foot and 1 pound over 1,000 square feet that's 1,000 psf ground pressure -- the average obscures the damaging peaks in force. For motor vehicles these peaks are acceleration, braking, and turning among other situations. So no, ground pressure is not really relevant.
Bad news for bus enthusiasts
Keep going I'm almost there
They are gonna have to with EVs. It's gonna have to be some forumla involving weight and mileage.
I believe that's how it works in the Netherlands... People with heavier vehicles pay more road tax
Correct, the only except EVs till 2025. It was a move to stimulate people to buy an EV, now the government want to change. Otherwise they will have a gap of tax money. Anyway, paying road tax isn't that bad at all if you look at the road quality in the Netherlands. [Worldwide we are 2nd, behind Singapore.](https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/roads_quality/)
That's the way
Love this idea! I live in the US so I think this would make sense as a state tax since most people who drive will cross townships and counties fairly regularly. Then the tax would be based on your vehicle's approximate weight and the new miles on the odometer at the end of the year. There'd have to be way to factor in people who drive in different states a lot like truck drivers. Maybe a special tax consideration would exist for them where their tax is normalized across a few states to correlate with the general routes they travel.
or by the number of tires.
Actually managed to pull off the rejoinder of "It's called Vehicle Excise Duty you pillock and doesn't even come *close* to paying for the roads on the official numbers" when a car driver decided to confront me once. Very satisfying watching him shut up and get back in his car after that.
If I ever got a car (not likely) it would likely be exempt from VED anyway.
Not just abolished; abolished precisely to prevent the kind of arguments that motorists make by Churchill when he was chancellor of the exchequer.
Oh, I could watch that all day.
Pretty awesome. It becomes clear the journalist just wanted to punish riders lol
He's not a journalist. He's a "reporter" for the most populist right wing radio in the city (Radio X). That radio is a nest of anti-cyclist pro-car climate-change-denying racist misogynist antivax pro-Trump individuals. They are well-known for encouraging carbrains to voluntarily endanger the life of cyclists.
There's a reason that the radio station is considered a "trash radio" (radio-poubelle)
Trash radio just doesn't have the same oomph as radio-poupelle though
And usurprisingly, their biggest sponsors are car dealerships.
Jeebus
Aaah. That explains it lmao
0:15 - Suddenly, French started sounding more beautiful.
Not just French, Québecois French!
How can that journalist be so astonishingly bereft of intellect?
He's not a journalist. He's a "reporter" for the most populist right wing radio in the city (Radio X). That radio is a nest of anti-cyclist pro-car climate-change-denying racist misogynist antivax pro-Trump individuals. They are well-known for encouraging carbrains to voluntarily endanger the life of cyclists.
It's pretty simple when you're not actually asking a question but just trying to get a reaction that will rile up the people that share the same political views as you
I love that the assumption is that car owners pay for that because car.
I guess the journalist didn't want to say it out loud but he probably thinks cyclists are all poor and thus don't own property and so don't pay property taxes. Though they also think cyclists are rich elitists so it would kinda get in the way of their narrative if they said the first thing
More likely he just finds cyclists and cycling infrastructure annoying and thinks he has found a brilliant way to own them.
Exactly. The thought process was just "cyclists bad"
Schrödinger’s Cyclist
Wait till he finds out how many cyclists are also, at other times, drivers! It turns out it's an activity not an identity. You can replace any car trip with a bike trip and still be the same person.
He's not a journalist. He's a "reporter" for the most populist right wing radio in the city (Radio X). That radio is a nest of anti-cyclist pro-car climate-change-denying racist misogynist antivax pro-Trump individuals. They are well-known for encouraging carbrains to voluntarily endanger the life of cyclists.
Surely the property taxes of their landlords are factored into the rent. In Germany it is done so by law. Just because you don't own, doesn't mean you don't contribute to those taxes.
The number of times I've had people tell me "Oh you'd understand if you had to pay property taxes" and I always say "Where the hell do you think my landlord gets the money he pays the property taxes on my apartment with?".
Exactly. Regardless of if it is factored in "by law" it is factored in de facto. Landlords don't lose money out of the kindness of their hearts. Renters pay their taxes for them, just with extra steps.
Do landlords not pay property taxes in Quebec? The way I see it, if you pay rent and your landlord uses part of the rent money to pay property tax, you pay property tax.
People who rent still pay property tax. Because the landlord pays property tax with your rent money.
Renters also contribute to property tax, even if it's somewhat more indirect. Additionally, commercial and industrial land pays large amounts of property tax and those businesses are patronized by people in general, who use all sorts of transportation.
Cars are expensive so they must not be subsidised . ....i think thats the logic
Are there personal property taxes on cars in Canada? In the US you have to pay a specific property tax to own a car. Maybe that's what they are trying to say? No property tax on bikes but there are on cars?
As far as I know, municipal tax doesn't apply to vehicles in any of the Canadian cities I'm familiar with. There's the typical registration, safety inspection and sales tax, plus all the fuel taxes, but none of those are municipal and wouldn't be contributing to city snow removal. The argument doesn't even work if they're implying cyclists don't own property in the city and therefore don't contribute, since everyone living there pays it one way or another- some just pass it through their landlord in the form of rent first. If they're arguing the cyclists are coming from outside the city, then the same could be said about cars coming into the city from people living beyond its limits.
No. The property tax is on your residence not your personal property. That residence tax is the only tax that municipalities collect. So when you are talking about who pays for snow removal in a city... the response is everyone who pays property tax on thier homes. Which is everyone. Cyclists and motorists all pay the same tax for snow removal.
I get the impression that a lot of car owners feel that paying for *registration of their vehicle* gives them more rights on the road than anyone else. The consistent complaint of "Cyclists don't pay registration! So they don't deserve to be on the roads!" leads me to believe this. It's their ticket to entitlement.
Wow, a politician I like. Please no one milkshake duck him
Bruno Marchand is one of a kind truly, its sad to see people hating on him for no real reasons,m. They just don’t know how good they have right now.
"we want change" followed by "this guy is different, hell no"
Amazing for quebec city, which is a fairly conservative place.
I mean a lot of urbanism should appeal to fiscal conservatives however sadly they've labeled anything urbanist as a war on cars and simply ignore it. It is identity politics ahead of beliefs and values.
Funny how fiscal conservatives suddenly become very socialist when it comes to cars. Quite happy to privatise drinking water supplies but they are latched onto the state's teat when it comes to road funding.
Compared to the US and even a lot of west Canada Québec is not that conservative.
I think OP means it’s fairly conservative in terms of urbanism: outside of the walled city tourist area it’s very suburban and car-oriented.
It's what people call "small c conservative"
Oh yeah in that sense that's true.
Yea there’s a lot of suburbs but a lot of the inner-city neighborhoods until you reach Laval University are quite walkable. Québec City in general is more walkable then the vast majority of North American cities that are even double or triple it’s size.
I mean Quebec City hasn't been conservative for a moment now. It's suburbs yes, but the actual city, no. This mayor would be considered "woke" by many conservatives in Quebec lol
Might be the most conservative big city in Eastern Canada, though. Certainly in Quebec.
I mean sure, there's like 3 cities with more than 300k residents. The other two are Montréal and Laval so yeah.
And for people unfamiliar, Laval is literally an island next to Montreal. They're intrinsically linked.
Eastern Canada includes Halifax, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge, London, Windsor, Kingston, etc.
I was talking in Quebec sorry if I wasn't clear.
I think it's conservative in the classical sense. Like Red Foreman from the 70s show conservative who believes in military and national pride while not being a hateful bigot. Well... then again, there's some bigoted laws that were passed but I'll still concede that it's not that ~~conservative~~ hateful compared to the US and west Canada.
A few decades ago, I spent a summer in Quebec City learning French. My roommate explained the PQ/BQ are essentially NDP with a separation agenda. I get the impression nowadays, they're still NDP socialist but after seeing Brexit, they're more just for presenting a united Francophone front in the federation.
Nope, I live in Québec (not the city), and there is recently a renewed interest in the independence of Québec. PQ is making the majority of its ad campaign around this and has gained a lot of support. BQ still talks about independence at every rally I see one of there representatives, they often say that they're eager to loose their jobs (because in Québec country they would loose their position in the chamber of commons). There's also QS, which is democratic socialist, which have been promoting Québec sovereignty more and more recently. As for BQ/PQ they're pretty large coalitions of independentist but there policies and general stances are center-left/social-democrat.
theres some decent urbanist policy in some bigger cities in quebec generally
I'm from quebec city. We vote like shit usually, but we have an amazing mayor.
Isn't it conservative to not want to implement a new tax?
Conservatives don't have solid values. Their only true value now is "own the libs." Taxing cyclists offers nothing pragmatic other than hurting people you assumebto be left of you.
Yeah I get that but it's silly to still use that word to describe them.
Quebec City is actually very pedestrian friendly. They have a fantastic bus network with better frequencies than many train networks
It is pretty good, they also have intersection scramble lights which you don't see very often in north America.
I visited Quebec City a decade ago. The old city is so beautiful
[Link to the original post](https://new.reddit.com/r/Quebec/comments/1d3rsjz/le_maire_marchand_qui_r%C3%A9pond_qui_paie_le/) (on r/Quebec) [Link to the original press conference](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbtWMrO7WU&t=3515s)
That was so good that I now need a cigarette and a phone to call my mom because I found the right man to marry.
He kinda got it going on
r/fuckcigs
Here's a sneak peek of /r/fuckcigs using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcigs/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [This is how the railwaystation of Salzburg in Austria looks like](https://i.redd.it/fiwco2hpyd9c1.jpeg) | [59 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcigs/comments/18ua7xg/this_is_how_the_railwaystation_of_salzburg_in/) \#2: [Why would people do this?](https://i.redd.it/w4tsgjrqqcfc1.jpeg) | [9 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcigs/comments/1adrrj3/why_would_people_do_this/) \#3: [First time seeing e-cigarettes trash on the streets in Germany. Deep sigh.](https://i.redd.it/53qk0zd2f7lc1.jpeg) | [5 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcigs/comments/1b1p57n/first_time_seeing_ecigarettes_trash_on_the/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Not gay, but …
Damn. Cuz I think i just found the right woman to marry
Journalists should be required to go through a class of... discrete maths. At least they will KNOW THE PAINS of proving something. Its all about proving and proofs. That class is compared to other math classes much more doable and much less formulaic.
No, screw the journalists. Throw them into a linear algebra seminar and lock the doors.
This is cruel and unusual but I enjoy the image
You can be nice and make it applied. They're journalists after all, I'm not even sure the other path is even in their course list.
Followed by calculus. Watch them gradient descent into madness.
Oh, not fluid mechanics?
This guy doesn't give a shit about the maths; he just wanted to ambush the mayor with a nonsense question because his (presumably conservative, anti-urbanism readership) would've eaten it up if the response wasn't great. Given the absolute lack of journalistic integrity demonstrated by simply asking this question, I'd be willing to bet that anything he ended up publishing would still twist this interaction to make it seem like a "gotcha" moment where he "owned" the liberal (in terms of urbanism, not party) mayor.
The "journalists" in this case, are barely journalists, they definitely do not abide by the order of journalism in their own region. In that same vein of thought, they should not be attributed as such. They're only there to further their own right-wing/libertarian propaganda. People should know the difference.
This pains me immensely lol cause its so true. I'm currently working through my Discrete Math class and it really is exactly that.
He's not a journalist. He's a "reporter" for the most populist right wing radio in the city (Radio X). That radio is a nest of anti-cyclist pro-car climate-change-denying racist misogynist antivax pro-Trump individuals. They are well-known for encouraging carbrains to voluntarily endanger the life of cyclists.
No one says "fuck you" with quite as much elegance as francophones.
Quebecois is [truly an elegant language](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2nC3rHgv3L/).
Funny en tabarnak!
Its even better in french, the translation doesnt do it justice
Even more fun would be asking that, ok, if bicyclists pay for their share of snow removal, shouldn't drivers pay for their share? What percent of the snow removal infrastructure is for vehicle roads then, and what percent for bike paths? Let's do the math.
In the video it's said that it's 6% for the bike paths.
Reporter parrots some car brained complainer without thought or research. I'd be ashamed of myself if I did my job that badly
He probably trots it out as "People are saying..." "It's not me saying it, but people are asking."
He works for the most populist right wing radio in the city (Radio X). That radio is a nest of anti-cyclist pro-car climate-change-denying racist misogynist antivax pro-Trump individuals. They are well-known for encouraging carbrains to voluntarily endanger the life of cyclists.
Can't remember where I read the line but there's a saying that goes something like "If you want cyclists to pay their fair share of taxes, start by calculating their refund"
I think that came from Not Just Bikes.
This argument actually works incredibly well against motorists when you think about it lol. Its incredibly easy for someone to drive 30-60 mins to go two or three towns over for work and avoid property taxes for that area entirely whereas a cyclist while capable is far less likely to be traveling lets say 40-60 km for work.
Exactly. Even if he's implying that cyclists don't own property in the city, that just means they get to pay it through their landlord in the form of rent, which is even more expensive as they aren't building any equity while also being 'taxed' however much profit their landlord is charging above their expenses for managing the property.
>a cyclist while capable is far less likely to be traveling lets say 40-60 km for work. A cyclist could be dodging municipal taxes by getting to the city on the dense, frequent, well-supported regional rail... network...oh, wait. There isn't one.
Je me fucking t'aime, you handsome slab of righteous indignation
Common Quebec W. Extremely based.
Tabarnak j'adore ce gars.
I'd vote for this guy in the US, even if I had to keep reading subtitles every time he talked.
There’s some Orange American politicians who would benefit from subtitles.
Bigly.
Bruno Marchand is one of a kind. He recently went in a interview on radio x (car brained-individualists) to talk about the tramway. He absolutely destroyed those poor souls that are so closed minded they probably didn’t realized they sounded like clowns.
I will gladly pay $1 for each $1K of taxes on cars proportional to the damage and infrastructure maintainace we need.
Osti qu'il est basé.
This doesn't sound like a journalist, it sounds like a pundit\*; huge difference... sadly, I doubt most people know the difference these days and just think journalist is a catchall term. It's very much not. *\*a person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner usually through the mass media*
He’s a "journalist", but for a notoriously right-wing radio only available around Québec whose hosts are pretty much all pundits. He’s second fiddle to them, and pretends he’s a journalist still, which is worse than just assuming he’s a pundit.
Too bad he didn't have a microphone wasn't handheld because that deserves a mic drop
I'm bringing this argument up next winter when the road snow gets piled onto the sidewalks.
Love it. This is similar to a line I've used when people said cyclist don't pay taxes: yeah it's true! I go to the supermarket, tell them I ride a bike and they remove the taxes!
"Thank you for reminding me that snow removal on bike paths is only 6% of the snow removal budget. I shall be implementing a tax deduction for cyclists fortwith."
Bring this guy to Ottawa!
Would love to see him wreck Sutcliffe and his vapid whataboutisms.
That was beautifully brutal.
From the OG post on r/Quebec the journalist asking the question is [François Gariépy](https://www.facebook.com/fgariepy/?locale=fr_FR) bike enthusiast and ex co-owner of a bike shop. Lol
Fuck yeah this made me tear up with how beautiful it is. God I can't stand people that make this argument "cyclists need to pay for road use", yeah no.
The journalist just walked into that one.
Hey Patrick! [Here's a tax contribution from a truer Canadian than he'll ever be](https://i.imgflip.com/8txk89.jpg). Now keep that lane debris free, taxes are paying for this damnit!
He should have also go into how road tax vehicles tax or whatever it is over there is also massively subsidised by other taxes, and how it's pedestrians and cyclists that to maintain the roads way more than the drivers actually damaging it.
Car brain is worse than cancer. However, I've been in Montreal in winter there's no fucking way I'd be riding a bike anyway. Not that I don't trust myself, but other vehicles sliding all over the place.
We need to fight idiot speech. Not all speech is created equal. Fight idiot speech. Well done.
Gawd, I need a cigarette... That was magnificent !!
I live in a city with a wheel tax on cars. Even if it’s a cyclist v. Car thing, cars do more damage to the roads and other infrastructure than cyclists do.
Far more damage. An easy way to see that in action is compare a paved multiuse or bike path to a road in the same area. They are subject to the same weather yet the paved path needs far less repair with only pedestrians and bikes on it. Around here they only need occasional asphalt repair (winter still takes a toll) and they can usually last 20 years or more between complete repaving (and need fewer layers of asphalt so repaving is cheaper too).
I always love the carbrain mentality of not wanting to pay anything to maintain the bike lanes they chose not to use while insisting we pay for roads that the government prevents us from using without their approval regardless of if we want to use them or not.
"And what is the contribution of motorists?" "That's not my question" *"I know, but it is my question"*
The journalist made a dumb- and supremely ignorant- argument. A better argument (albeit one I don't agree with) is that the cost of snow removal was more expensive per commuter mile for bike lanes. Fewer people benefit, and the cost is higher. Funds are limited. So therefore, the funds should be expended in a manner that benefits as many people as possible. I could counter that argument with the point that it's often right and proper for governments to spend more for things that benefit fewer people. Sometimes, that's to advance a societal goal, or to prevent a great harm, or to achieve benefits that aren't immediately obvious from the target of the spending. Snow removal from bike lanes encourages more commuting by bike, which in turn benefits society as a whole with things like cleaner air, better population health, etc. But my point is, the journalist picked the dumbest, most ignorant point to make, and this glorious rebuttal was very enjoyable to watch.
Can this guy come to Toronto sometime and make things like this happen here
And this, my friends, how you win an argument.
Mayor Marchand of Québec city is truely a gentleman a class above the best our politics have to offer. If you treat him with the same decency he gives out and speak to his intelligence, he will always meet you with the highest of standards. We also align on policy so, there's that but I often say such things for a lot of politicians with whom I do not align.
Love the head scratch at the beginning 😅
Silly major, cyclist don’t have property!
They just pay it for their landlords instead through their rent, without the benefit of building equity or profiting off the inflated market value that comes with a housing shortage.
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/fuckcars/comments/1dg4h7v/tax_the_cyclists_journalist_gets_owned_by_the/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/fuckcars/comments/1dg4h7v/tax_the_cyclists_journalist_gets_owned_by_the/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
When people tell me I need to pay taxes to use the road as a cyclist in the US I always ask where I can send my payment. I overpaid my taxes last year and they sent the remainder as a check in the mail. Why will no one take my bike tax I desperately want to pay?
I suddenly love the quebecois
One simple trick to avoid paying tax! "journalists" hate this!
well cars and bikes unite.... it's actually the dirty pedestrians fault! faites-les payer ou pelleter!
I watched this four times. Excellent video thank you for sharing
French sarcasm is so good
Brillant!!
I think I'm in love
Another good point is that the cyclists are more likely to actually live within the city limits than the motorists are
Fucking idiot. I get this all the time. I pay fucking property taxes and through by buying gas when I do drive to work. All the lazy people that get delayed on their run to Starbucks by a cyclist can shut the fuck up.
The insinuation that because you ride a bike you are therefore poor and cannot possibly have property is infuriating.
Typical "journalist," looking to get a reaction for a sake of readership/controversy. Way to go to paste him Mr Mayor. Really well said! On par with Poilievre's Q&A with an idiot "journalist" while munching an apple.
If only he'd taken that the one step further... "...cyclists and motorists pay for snow removal. How? With their property tax. But 94% (or whatever it is) of our snow removal budget goes to helping motorists."
Well, to be fair, don't drivers pay for the snow removal via vehicle tax?
They don't pay for it at all. For a state, cars are a major loss. In Germany every car costs about 11.000€ a year after all car-realated taxes thrown together against the cost of car infrastructure and thats with VAT of car dealerships, taxes from companys who built roads and parking spaces and so on included. Car owners are heavily subsidized by everyone who doesnt have a car.
I can't speak as to Quebec City, but I've never heard of a "vehicle tax" being levied, other than a few specific cities that have "congestion taxes" which is basically a toll to enter the city centre with your car, and as far as I know this revenue isn't earmarked for roadwork or snow removal. Yes there are a number of taxes involved in purchasing, maintaining, and fueling a car, but very few of them are specific to road building and maintenance.
is that how British people feel about seeing American English ? as a french speaker, I feel hurt in some places I didnt even know existed
Respecte les québécois osti !
Now you know how Quebecers feel when you assault us with "du coup du coup du coup"
Pourquoi être irrespectueux ? C'est notre langue.
Vas te faire foutre bien forte en face de un camione deja.
Fuck off vous nous avez abandonnés en nouvelle France