OT: Total top 50 tax burden.....

[leeinator]

states...........

Welcome to the 50 United States

State information resources for all things about the 50 United States including alphabetical states list, state abbreviations, symbols, flags, maps, state capitals, songs, birds, flowers, trees and much more.

the50unitedstates.com

 

[jethreauxdawg]

TLDR

 

[OG Goat Holder]

You are losing @leeinator

 

[85Bears]

 

[champdawg.sixpack]

Consumption taxation is the answer. That, and make bike riders buy tags and insurance. Share the road? Fine. Pay for the road like we do you speedo wearing 17’s

 

[mstateglfr]

Consumption taxation is the answer. That, and make bike riders buy tags and insurance. Share the road? Fine. Pay for the road like we do you speedo wearing 17’s

Let's not make this a repeat of the dumb thread from a few months ago where the same stupid demand was suggested.

- pretty much everyone who rides a bike already pays for tags because they drive too.
- if they are riding instead of driving, they are actually causing less wear and tear on the roads, so you should be happy.
- the cost of a tag for a bike, based on infrastructure wear, would be so minimal that your point wouldn't be made.
This is as dumb as crying over walkers not paying tags for their shoes to touch sidewalks.
- cyclists with homeowners/renters insurance are almost always covered if they are at fault for an accident. You are demanding they be insured when almost all already are.


This is such a non-issue in practice that it seems like you are either woefully uninformed or you have an axe to grind.

 

[johnson86-1]

Let's not make this a repeat of the dumb thread from a few months ago where the same stupid demand was suggested.

- pretty much everyone who rides a bike already pays for tags because they drive too.
- if they are riding instead of driving, they are actually causing less wear and tear on the roads, so you should be happy.
- the cost of a tag for a bike, based on infrastructure wear, would be so minimal that your point wouldn't be made.
This is as dumb as crying over walkers not paying tags for their shoes to touch sidewalks.
- cyclists with homeowners/renters insurance are almost always covered if they are at fault for an accident. You are demanding they be insured when almost all already are.


This is such a non-issue in practice that it seems like you are either woefully uninformed or you have an axe to grind.

You’re just addressing straw men instead of the actual argument that cyclist are *** holes and therefore we’d like to penalize them.**

 

[leeinator]

You are losing @leeinator

What am I losing?

 

[HotMop]

Let's not make this a repeat of the dumb thread from a few months ago where the same stupid demand was suggested.

- pretty much everyone who rides a bike already pays for tags because they drive too.
- if they are riding instead of driving, they are actually causing less wear and tear on the roads, so you should be happy.
- the cost of a tag for a bike, based on infrastructure wear, would be so minimal that your point wouldn't be made.
This is as dumb as crying over walkers not paying tags for their shoes to touch sidewalks.
- cyclists with homeowners/renters insurance are almost always covered if they are at fault for an accident. You are demanding they be insured when almost all already are.


This is such a non-issue in practice that it seems like you are either woefully uninformed or you have an axe to grind.

 

[mcdawg22]

Consumption taxation is the answer. That, and make bike riders buy tags and insurance. Share the road? Fine. Pay for the road like we do you speedo wearing 17’s

That second part could get someone elected.

 

[mstateglfr]

All of it? Something specific?
I mean, the points I make are well established.

 

[HotMop]

All of it? Something specific?
I mean, the points I make are well established.

 

[Maroon13]

Arkansas should be closer to 50. In addition to what is listed..... They have a personal property tax that isn't shown on here. They tax 4wheelers, boats, trailers... due every October. It sucked.

 

[El Perro Grande]

Leave out the inner-city bike riders trying to survive. Cyclists that block rural roads and highways are top earners. They cause ineffecient vehicle travel, costing others fuel and time. Cyclists should have a tag burden to travel. Also makes it easier to flock them. I can't believe the left and right can't come together on this. For the left, another tax on the rich and more surveillance. For the right a way to fight elitist, left leaning road hogs.***

 

[Walkthedawg]

You’re just addressing straw men instead of the actual argument that cyclist are *** holes and therefore we’d like to penalize them.**

I can feel the energy of one right now that is dipping into whatever liquid that applies those tights they wear to hit the road in front of everyone trying to get to work.

 

[RotorHead]

Let's not make this a repeat of the dumb thread from a few months ago where the same stupid demand was suggested.

- pretty much everyone who rides a bike already pays for tags because they drive too.
- if they are riding instead of driving, they are actually causing less wear and tear on the roads, so you should be happy.
- the cost of a tag for a bike, based on infrastructure wear, would be so minimal that your point wouldn't be made.
This is as dumb as crying over walkers not paying tags for their shoes to touch sidewalks.
- cyclists with homeowners/renters insurance are almost always covered if they are at fault for an accident. You are demanding they be insured when almost all already are.


This is such a non-issue in practice that it seems like you are either woefully uninformed or you have an axe to grind.

You obviously don’t drive the Natchez Trace very frequently. It’s not about wear and tear on the roads….more about going to work at 515 am and having an odd light array flashing ¼ of the way in the lane you’re driving and trying to confirm what you’re seeing because oncoming traffic is a squatted truck with their LED high beams on and glowing rims….bicyclists on the trace have a bad rap for a reason

 

[dickiedawg]

…you are either woefully uninformed or you have an axe to grind.

Pretty much a one-sentence summation of the internet.

Consumption taxation is the answer.

Personally, I prefer the idea of paying taxes on what I elect to spend rather than effectively working 10 of every 40 hours for the federal government. But I think there are real problems with it.
The main argument you’ll hear against consumption tax is that it’s regressive, disproportionately impacting those with less to spend.

 

[ll Martain ll]

You obviously don’t drive the Natchez Trace very frequently. It’s not about wear and tear on the roads….more about going to work at 515 am and having an odd light array flashing ¼ of the way in the lane you’re driving and trying to confirm what you’re seeing because oncoming traffic is a squatted truck with their LED high beams on and glowing rims….bicyclists on the trace have a bad rap for a reason

Ill never understand the hatred towards bikes/bikers on the trace. It's a parkway, not intended to be a commuter road. It's funded by the national park service, not MDOT.

If people don't want bikes on car roads, let's build more dedicated bike trails (like Longleaf) instead of being angry about it.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Ill never understand the hatred towards bikes/bikers on the trace. It's a parkway, not intended to be a commuter road. It's funded by the national park service, not MDOT.

If people don't want bikes on car roads, let's build more dedicated bike trails (like Longleaf) instead of being angry about it.

Came to say the same thing, he used a terrible example

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Pretty much a one-sentence summation of the internet.



Personally, I prefer the idea of paying taxes on what I elect to spend rather than effectively working 10 of every 40 hours for the federal government. But I think there are real problems with it.
The main argument you’ll hear against consumption tax is that it’s regressive, disproportionately impacting those with less to spend.

We dont care about the poors. They shoulda just decided not to be poor like the rest of us did right after we cut our own umbilical cord and bootstrapped our first business.***

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Ill never understand the hatred towards bikes/bikers on the trace. It's a parkway, not intended to be a commuter road. It's funded by the national park service, not MDOT.

If people don't want bikes on car roads, let's build more dedicated bike trails (like Longleaf) instead of being angry about it.

I don’t mind the idea of bikers on the road. I do question the sanity of any on 463. I also get pissed when they don’t obey the rules. I don’t care if it’s hard, stop at the stop sign. You are out there for exercise right? More stops = more exercise.

 

[FreeDawg]

You’re just addressing straw men instead of the actual argument that cyclist are *** holes and therefore we’d like to penalize them.**

Hey bro, let’s get 27 of our best friends, all put on spandex, and block a road way of normal traffic by going 10 mph in a 45! Totally normal considerate behavior!**

 

[ckDOG]

Taxes follow people and the infrastructure and services they want. Tax man gonna get his from people with money no matter how he structures them.

 

[MagnoliaHunter]

Hey bro, let’s get 27 of our best friends, all put on spandex, and block a road way of normal traffic by going 10 mph in a 45! Totally normal considerate behavior!**

and it's usually spandex 3 sizes too small. I don't want to know any guy that well.

 

[stateu1]

Hey bro, let’s get 27 of our best friends, all put on spandex, and block a road way of normal traffic by going 10 mph in a 45! Totally normal considerate behavior!**

Losing 15 whole seconds on your commute must be brutal.

 

[aTotal360]

You’re just addressing straw men instead of the actual argument that cyclist are *** holes and therefore we’d like to penalize them.**

I'll go a step further and say cyclists should be burdened with 100% of the road tax.

 

[vhdawg]

My two bicyclist complaints:

1) The ones that want to share the road but blow through stop signs like they do not exist.

2) The ones that ride on the Natchez Trace multi-use trail and a) use high intensity strobe lights to blind me while running or b) who shout at me from behind as they approach in order to startle the crap out of me while I have airpods in rather than just being careful to not hit me on a trail surface that's plenty wide for the both of us.

Edit: 3) This guy I've seen occasionally on Pear Orchard who rides in the opposite lane toward you on a section of road that doesn't have a sidewalk, but to be fair I don't think he's a "bicyclist" by the traditional definition, he's just some idiot on a bicycle.

 

[mstateglfr]

You obviously don’t drive the Natchez Trace very frequently. It’s not about wear and tear on the roads….more about going to work at 515 am and having an odd light array flashing ¼ of the way in the lane you’re driving and trying to confirm what you’re seeing because oncoming traffic is a squatted truck with their LED high beams on and glowing rims….bicyclists on the trace have a bad rap for a reason

- Correct, I don't frequently drive the Trace.

- You are defending this concept by saying it is justifiable because it would be a financial penalty. That makes it a very unserious idea. Requiring a vechile tag because you are emotionally triggered by a legal activity, isn't a justifiable concept to implement as a tax.

- Do you want buggies driven by Amish to have to pay and be tagged? And do you want farm equipment/implements to have to pay and be tagged?
...those both use public roads and travel significantly slower than posted speed limits.

- The Trace is a Parkway that is managed by a Parks Dept...I think. It seems like ou could have used any number of other roads as a better example.

- Your rant seems to complain about how squatted trucks are lit up more than bicycles. Kinda funny- equal hate former everyone on the road at 515am!
Haha, I do know how that can feel- just annoyed at all.

 

[mstateglfr]

My two bicyclist complaints:

1) The ones that want to share the road but blow through stop signs like they do not exist.

2) The ones that ride on the Natchez Trace multi-use trail and a) use high intensity strobe lights to blind me while running or b) who shout at me from behind as they approach in order to startle the crap out of me while I have airpods in rather than just being careful to not hit me on a trail surface that's plenty wide for the both of us.

Edit: 3) This guy I've seen occasionally on Pear Orchard who rides in the opposite lane toward you on a section of road that doesn't have a sidewalk, but to be fair I don't think he's a "bicyclist" by the traditional definition, he's just some idiot on a bicycle.

Yeah, those are pretty common complaints/frustrations.
Some further thoughts on them...

1- Blowing through stop signs on a bike is lame. It creates annoyance and frustration with those who see it.
Instead, cyclists should use an 'Idaho Stop', which is a legal action in 14 states and DC. It requires cyclists to slow and yield at stop signs. NHTSA data from a few years ago supports the claim that it is safer overall for all road users.
Blowing through stop signs is obviously unsafe and I justifiable. That goes for bikes, scooters, cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc.

2a- bike lights that are pointed too high are 17ing infuriating. It's dangerous in the road and angering to others on trails/MUPs.
I imagine the cyclists don't realize it's pointed up too much...at least it's my hope that it's done out of obliviousness and not intentional.

2b- if a cyclist says nothing when passing, a lot of walkers/runners get angry because they are startled by the bike passing.
With all the walkers/runners in their own world because they are alone and listening to music, it's a no-win situation when passing. You say something and some get annoyed. You say nothing and some get annoyed.
Trail sharing can be tough when it's busy.

3- salmoning by riding a bike at traffic is insane. I almost hit an old guy that was salmoning in rainy traffic and was shook up from it. It's totally unjustifiable and wildly dangerous.

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

I want to see their numbers.

I live in Texas, and I can assure you that I pay more than 1.74% of my household income on property taxes.

 

[patdog]

I want to see their numbers.

I live in Texas, and I can assure you that I pay more than 1.74% of my household income on property taxes.

Heck I live in Mississippi and I don't spend much less than that. And I'm not in a particularly high tax county or city.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Yeah, those are pretty common complaints/frustrations.
Some further thoughts on them...

1- Blowing through stop signs on a bike is lame. It creates annoyance and frustration with those who see it.
Instead, cyclists should use an 'Idaho Stop', which is a legal action in 14 states and DC. It requires cyclists to slow and yield at stop signs. NHTSA data from a few years ago supports the claim that it is safer overall for all road users.
Blowing through stop signs is obviously unsafe and I justifiable. That goes for bikes, scooters, cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc.

2a- bike lights that are pointed too high are 17ing infuriating. It's dangerous in the road and angering to others on trails/MUPs.
I imagine the cyclists don't realize it's pointed up too much...at least it's my hope that it's done out of obliviousness and not intentional.

2b- if a cyclist says nothing when passing, a lot of walkers/runners get angry because they are startled by the bike passing.
With all the walkers/runners in their own world because they are alone and listening to music, it's a no-win situation when passing. You say something and some get annoyed. You say nothing and some get annoyed.
Trail sharing can be tough when it's busy.

3- salmoning by riding a bike at traffic is insane. I almost hit an old guy that was salmoning in rainy traffic and was shook up from it. It's totally unjustifiable and wildly dangerous.

I still say just stop. You chose to ride a bike on a road designed for cars. Stop like the rest of us. I don't care that you have to clip/unclip. I'm fine with an "on your right/left" when a bike is approaching from behind on a shared walking/biking trail. I prefer it to silence and surprise. I keep my airpods on adaptive or just pass through while doing outdoor activity for many different safety reasons.

 

[vhdawg]

2a- bike lights that are pointed too high are 17ing infuriating. It's dangerous in the road and angering to others on trails/MUPs.
I imagine the cyclists don't realize it's pointed up too much...at least it's my hope that it's done out of obliviousness and not intentional.

My counter to this would be that you're on a multi-use trail, everybody that's here is slower than you and is already looking out for you, so just turn it off, unless maybe it's getting dark. But broad daylight, kill the strobe, you don't need it.

 

[vhdawg]

I still say just stop. You chose to ride a bike on a road designed for cars. Stop like the rest of us. I don't care that you have to clip/unclip. I'm fine with an "on your right/left" when a bike is approaching from behind on a shared walking/biking trail. I prefer it to silence and surprise. I keep my airpods on adaptive or just pass through while doing outdoor activity for many different safety reasons.

Oh yeah I'm not out there on noise suppression mode, they just wait to holler until a half-second before they pass, when by then I've heard their tires anyway so now you're just startling me.

 

[Darryl Steight]

We finally made the top 20 in something. And if I am mathing this correctly, Mississippi will/would be #1 once the income tax is eliminated. That seems like a good thing.

Also, the bottom 10... ouch.

 

[patdog]

I don’t mind the idea of bikers on the road. I do question the sanity of any on 463. I also get pissed when they don’t obey the rules. I don’t care if it’s hard, stop at the stop sign. You are out there for exercise right? More stops = more exercise.

These days, if you're riding a bike on a public road I question your sanity. It's just too dangerous. Especially with everyone on their damn cell phone while driving.

 

[stateu1]

These days, if you're riding a bike on a public road I question your sanity. It's just too dangerous. Especially with everyone on their damn cell phone while driving.

15-20 years ago I rode a lot. Often early AM in the dark. Traffic was not as bad in DeSoto County back then, but is still wonder WTF I was thinking.

 

[mstateglfr]

I still say just stop. You chose to ride a bike on a road designed for cars. Stop like the rest of us. I don't care that you have to clip/unclip. I'm fine with an "on your right/left" when a bike is approaching from behind on a shared walking/biking trail. I prefer it to silence and surprise. I keep my airpods on adaptive or just pass through while doing outdoor activity for many different safety reasons.

Yeah, expecting cyclists to come to a complete stop is totally reasonable.

I do hope that everyone who gets irrationally triggered by a bicycle not coming to a full stop are equally outraged every time a car/truck/van doesnt come to a full stop at stop signs and instead slows down hard then rolls thru or turns at 5mph, or slows down hard and then turns right on red at 5mph.

Seems reasonable to expect consistent outrage. Though with how frequently vehicles also slow roll through stop signs and slow roll into right turns on red, people would be in a constant state of anger every time they drive.
At least this would be the case in my metro. Maybe the Jackson MS metro is full of drivers who always come to complete stops and let their vehicle rock back before proceeding.

 

[johnson86-1]

We finally made the top 20 in something. And if I am mathing this correctly, Mississippi will/would be #1 once the income tax is eliminated. That seems like a good thing.

Also, the bottom 10... ouch.

It would be a very good thing provided we kept spending flat to match it. At the state level, spending per person is just as good of an indicator as tax burden, as they are ultimately going to converge. The income tax won't be eliminated unless we keep spending low enough to be triggered, so who knows if it will ever be eliminated.

Then there is also the question of what we are going to do with PERS (or what a court is going to try to demand we do with PERS) when the time comes. We're pretty much acknowledging that we aren't going to pay what the current formula provides. Maybe as early as 15 years from now under slightly pessimistic but not doomsday assumptions. We can pay 40% of PERS benefits at that point, so there is going to be a fight over whether we can stay even moderately taxed while not making full pension payments.

 

[FreeDawg]

Losing 15 whole seconds on your commute must be brutal.

My man, I can create human life in 15 seconds. Don’t impose your value of time on to me as I am a value of time maximizer