Logical Legal Political Argument for Exempting Cycling Gear From Taxation

[Bret Cahill]

Most states do not tax food because it's considered a regressive tax.

But if you eat food and do an energy balance on your body, then it
means you _must_ go cycling to burn off the calories.

In order to be consistent, bicycles, inner tubes, spokes and other
cycling stuff should be tax free.

Do a mass balance and you'll get the same argument for tax free toilet
paper.


Bret Cahill

 

[Gary Young]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:37:22 -0800, Bret Cahill wrote:

> Most states do not tax food because it's considered a regressive tax.
>
> But if you eat food and do an energy balance on your body, then it means
> you _must_ go cycling to burn off the calories.
>
> In order to be consistent, bicycles, inner tubes, spokes and other
> cycling stuff should be tax free.
>
> Do a mass balance and you'll get the same argument for tax free toilet
> paper.
>
>
There's a Canadian bike messenger who successfully lobbied and litigated
to make messengers eligible to take a tax deduction for food, on the
theory that it's the equivalent of gasoline for which commercial drivers
take a deduction:

http://www.messmedia.org/messville/FOODTAX.HTM

As far as I know, efforts in the US to do the same haven't gotten very
far:

http://tinyurl.com/2pef79