If so, you could make me the queen of England through the program and it would still be useless. My (large high-tech) employer isn't interested in administering this or and any of the other fringe benefits, including the existing bike commuter benefit, public transport benefit, etc.

When will Washington get it right? For programs like these to work, they must be be a deduction (or credit) on the individual's tax return; not administered as an employee benefit. Do you think the people who need it most have access to these benefits? (i.e. does McDonald's offer their employees access to pre-tax transit passes?)

sigh.

@15 Andrew - totally agree. Simplify. Just make driving more expensive. Lawmakers are afraid of raising gas taxes so they do stuff like this.

You think bicycle, my neighbour thinks new hunting rifle.

Both require hand-eye coordination and physical exhertion I suppose.

Let's eliminate tax-subsidized payments for driving to work... and raise the gas tax (or a mileage tax) to a level that reflects the actual cost motor vehicles put on society.

Then people would see the real cost differential between driving and biking... all while making the tax code a little simpler, not more Byzantine.

In the meantime, I'll put this nice tax break toward my local gym membership, but it's hardly an endorsement of cycling as anything more than recreation. I think it will be years before we see federal legislation that truly incentivizes cycling.

Of course our market is not, "free", per-say. In spirit though I think it's fair to say it is. Now, if the government provides financial incentives to use, say mass-produced bicycles over handmade ones, wouldn't that upset you if you were making handmade bikes? Hence my assertion that this is an age old argument.

Let's go with bikes=good, and cars=bad. That's fine and I understand the surrounding argument as well about health and all. I get it, I really do. One still cannot deny that this idea is messing around with a free market. Even though it is arguably for a good cause, doesn't change what it is.

I'm not a big fan of government endorsed monkeying about in the market. I have a lot of friends working in the motorcycle industry, and they feel especially juked because the motorcycle is still a far better choice, environmentally anyway, than the car. They view tax incentives like this as the government paying their market not to buy their goods and services.

Lastly, this leaves poor people, who almost categorically never even file, out in the cold yet again. Seriously. I think a better idea is to commission, and buy some, "Bikes for the People", and hand 'em out. Serves both purposes of diminishing SOV trips, and promotes good health. Plus adds the benefit of being available clear across the economic spectrum.

Okay, got that you Vance-haters. I'm not in opposition, I just don't think this is very fair in a free market. Which I oppose BTW. I further think that the benefit, after all is said and done, will be negligible for people who actually get tax refunds and stuff. Much like manufacturer coupons. Seriously, who cares about a $0.10 discount on a box of cereal? The Mans though have to pay those up front to retailers, and the spend cagillions. Coupons are a huge expense to them and a big deal.

The primary goal of the bill is improved health, although there is no reason efficient transportation / use of resources cannot be an agenda item as well.

Keep in mind your tax savings is only as much as the deduction multiplied by your marginal rate. $100 - $300 dollars or so per $1,000 deduction, for most of us.