Is I-695 really what's best for the "little guy"?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Is I-695 really what's best for the "little guy"?

I've done a little research on the MVET, and discovered something interesting. If I-695 passes, people with older cars could actually see a tax increase!

Example: 1988 Honda Civic DX sedan License renewal fee: $23.75 MVET: $30.00 - $30.00 (Referendum 49 credit) = $0.00 Total under current system: $23.75 Total under I-695: $30.00 Tax increase: $6.75

Ridiculous example? No more ridiculous than saying 695 is for the "little guy", when owners of expensive cars will benefit the most.

Now, some people say that everyone should pay the same for the same roads. I'm willing to consider that, but not by making our state's tax system even more regressive than it already is. If the sponsors of 695 were really concerned about the "little guy"--such as the "little guy" who can't even afford to own a car--why not go after the regressive sales tax first? That would benefit everyone, including car-lovers.

-- Tony (laserman22@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999

Answers

Oops--math error. The tax increase is only $6.25.

-- Tony (laserman22@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

The "little guy" on a "little budget" is pained a "lot more" by even a "little amount" than anyone who's got any disposable income at all. Besides, saying that rich folks have less of a right to their own money than poor folks do is somehow judgemental and arbitrary. Perhaps if someone steals from a high income person, the police should more or less let it go, but when a poor person is the victim, all possible measures should be taken.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 26, 1999.

Tony... I agree with you up to a point, the $30 lic fee may not benefit everyone, and may be better for some than others. BUT, I contend that the lic fee is the least important part of I-695. I feel that the fact that we will be able to impact state spending by controlling some of the state income is the reason to vote for I-695. Lets hope that foolish state spending is at the apex of its life.

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), August 26, 1999.

I agree with Ron's. I don't think there are to many people paying $27.00 in this state for tabs, and it's high time us voters have a say on how are money is getting spent

-- Jack Spiering (Jas-Sas@Webtv.net), August 27, 1999.

I'm one who will have to pay extra on my cars. But will still vote for this issue anyways. Someday I may wish to purchase a newer car!

-- Bob (saintbob@wa.freei.net), August 28, 1999.


I am still looking for an answer on the following issue. What is the deal for trucks? Does a small pickup that does not pay tonnage, get off free? Is a camper free, or does it make the pickup into a motorhome?

The initiative sets the fee at $30 for "license tab fees", which are defined to include the general fees paid annually for licensing "motor vehicles, including cars, sport utility vehicles, motorcycles, and motor homes."

The initiative does not set the fee for trucks of any size or description, or trailers (including camping trailers), or campers on trucks (which are licensed and titled in Washington). What about ATV licenses, for dirt bikes etc? Trucks are motor vehicles, but are exclused from the definition in the initiative. Trailers and campers are not "motor" vehicles, and are also excluded. I have not looked at all the laws repealed to see what is left on which to base a license fee for trucks, ATV's, trailers and campers. Does anyone know? (no guesses please)

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 28, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ