[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [at-l] "Backpack Tax"

Despite the good intentions behind this proposal, it does strike me as an
essentially poorly thought out idea...

First of all, there is no way to know how the funds raised will be
used...There is no formal plan for governance--so likely it will end up as
another federal revenue stream--which may be used as intended...or may
eventually get diverted.  How will you feel if more money goes to other use
groups than your interests support?  

Furthermore, how would the Feds make sure the interests of every user group
gets properly reflected in the spending of the funds--this means everyone from
rock climbers to ATV users--interests that are frequently in conflict? For
example, how could funding be balanced between "How to be an outdoorswoman"
weekends (hunting workshops sponsored by state wildlife divisions) and low-
impact interests? 

If Timemaker's example of soda deposits is any guide--then it will make gear
more expensive.  Here in the mid Atlantic, we don't have deposits on
beverages--and it's substantially cheaper to purchase (even with the deposit
amounts properly deducted) than in New England, where there are deposits in
many of the states.  Why?  Soda manufacturers have rationalized this as a way
to recoup their administrative costs, and they spread it to nearby non-deposit
states as well...So plan on adding another 3-5% to that user tax, so the
manufacturers can pay for the bean counters.  By the way, here in Virginia,
you never see abandoned cans on the sides of roads, either.  Folks recycle
their cans with curbside pickup.

Frankly, the definition of outdoor equipment is very loose.  There is a good
possibility that all winter coats, sunglasses, radios, petroleum products
(i.e., anything with a dual use) could be taxed the way the bill is currently
written. What's more few folk who purchase even clearly outdoor equipment ever
use it for outdoor recreational purposes.  What it boils down to is a federal
sales tax--much like Europe's VAT.

There is no clear sign that if this money is distributed to State and Federal
wilderness organizations, that the funds would be effectively used.
Presently, the U.S. Park Service is in a 3 year experiment charging higher
entry fees to parks (a much fairer proposition)--midway through, however, many
parks are having difficulty managing the higher funding flows.  This purchase
tax would bring much much higher levels of cash in.  Don't be surprised if
this leads to more wasteful projects like that $333 thousand earthquake proof
outhouse at Delaware Water Gap.   

While you may praise the idea of higher funding for parklands, consider that
there will be a period of significant learning adjustment until institutions
(read:  bureaucrats) are built to ensure the money gets well spent.  In the
process, park institutions will be dramatically changed (for instance some
folks talk about paving the AT to make it more accessible--now they'll have
the cash available to do so, if they can convince the right decision makers).
The most likely outcome--my previous example is really an extremely unlikely
possibility--the extra funds will be used to build up bureaucracies. 

Finally, this will make getting outdoors more expensive.  We will be paying
higher entry fees and then get hit with this tax to boot.  Or should I say, on
boots!  

Incidently, this bill has been tossed around for a couple of months now...If
you object, write to your congressperson now!  

Mary




* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

==============================================================================