Businesses are required to pay property taxes on assests in excess of $3000.00. Right now, we're ALL exempt from property taxes on car because of the current MVET. With I-695, the exemption will disappear, and businesses will now have to pay property taxes on the vehicles they own.

What I want to know is why both the pro and anti I-695 groups are avoiding the fact that businesses will pay property taxes on the vehicles they own.

That's why I'm voting for I-695, because it's a break for the little guy. There will be no huge shortfall of funds because businesses will now pay property taxes on the vehicles they own.

There will also be no shortage of funds because government agencies are free to raise fees and taxes after the election and before Jan. 1, 2000.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 27, 1999

Answers

"What I want to know is why both the pro and anti I-695 groups are avoiding the fact that businesses will pay property taxes on the vehicles they own."

Probably because it really isn't an issue by itself. Businesses currently have to pay the MVET on vehicles they own just like individuals. If the businesses have to pay property taxes on their vehicles after I-695 passes, then individuals will have to do the same thing. Not exactly a great campaign platform for the Pro side.

"That's why I'm voting for I-695, because it's a break for the little guy."

"There will also be no shortage of funds because government agencies are free to raise fees and taxes after the election and before Jan. 1, 2000."

These two statements seem to be at odds with each other. On one side you say that this will be a break for the little guy, but then you claim that government agencies could raise taxes and fees before January 1st to cover their losses. I believe the City of Lakewood and several other cities that would be hit hard by 695 are already considering utility and other taxes to make up for lost revenue should 695 pass. The taxes cities have at their disposal to raise traditionally are more of a burden to lower income people, so that "break for the little guy" may not be such a break after all.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

Again, neither side is willing to address the issue that businesses will have to pay a property tax that individuals don't. Patrick says if businesses if have to pay the tax, then so do individuals. Not so. Individuals do not require a license from the state of Washington. If a business wants a licence in our state, then they are agreeing to pay property taxes on assets over $3000.

Patrick then goes on to say that "a break for the little guy" is in opposition to governmental agencies raising taxes and fees. Apparently, Patrick did not read or understand all of posting. The "break for the little guy" comes from the fact that businesses will pay a property tax on vehicles and individuals won't. Obviously, any taxes or fees raised by governmental agencies will lessen the "break for the little guy", but it won't eliminate it.

Again, why won't either side of I-695 address the issue that businesses will pay a property tax on vehicles and individuals will not???

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinksy@msn.com), September 27, 1999.

"Again, why won't either side of I-695 address the issue that businesses will pay a property tax on vehicles and individuals will not??? " Well Matt, I suppose it's cause neither side really cares! The anti-695 types basically are pro big government and the fact that ANYBODY is paying taxes is, to them, better than the alternative. Most (but not all) of the pro-695 crowd is anti-tax, but have seen the business community get serious tax breaks recently, while the "little guy" hasn't gotten anything. Then, when the AWB, Boeing, and numerous others who recently "got theirs," with recent B&O and other corporate tax reductions came out AGAINST 695, the bulk of 695 supporters became sufficiently incensed to not CARE if the business community benefits from 695 or not. If the business community keeps this anti-695 rhetoric up, they risk a true backlash, where the populists supporting 695 will join the liberal-socialists and say, "stick it to big business." We can fund ALL of the state with corporate income taxes, getting rid of MVET and sales tax and property taxes for individuals. Also likely the congestion problem and suburban sprawl problem as well, as all the businesses take off for Idaho and Oregon.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 27, 1999.

Matthew, pretty much everyone in the know assumes that if the personal property tax is reinstated, it WILL include individuals. If you can cite evidence to the contrary it would be appreciated, especially since it was pointed out in a recent post that all the county assessors have voted to oppose 695, and if it passes, that they not be the ones required to collect the personal property tax.

Further evidence working against your theory is that prior to the MVET, individuals WERE assessed a personal property tax on their cars. An exemption was granted when the MVET was put in place, and as it is well known, I-695 deletes that exemption. Having a business license has NOTHING to do with the requirement to pay a personal property tax.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

Patrick

You write "especially since it was pointed out in a recent post that all the county assessors have voted to oppose 695"

Where did you see this? The article I posted stated very clearly "County assessors from across the state met for their annual conference Thursday in Pasco and OVERWHELMINGLY APPROVED A RESOLUTION OPPOSING ANY EFFORT TO IMPOSE THE STATE'S PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ON VEHICLES."(caps mine)

And as I stated in a reply to you "(although if you actually read it, fine)". Obvious you only read what you wanted to and not the entire article.

That should be enough evidence to the contrary.

Ed - correcting injustices whenever I see them.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.

Ed, The Assessors voted to ask the legislature to relieve them of the obligation to collect the tax, since counties will not get any more money to pay for the much larger expense they will incur.

They did not agree that the Initiative does not require property taxation by repealing the property tax exemption. They knew it would, and said ouch when they computed the added cost of taxing vehicles in each county instead of uniformly throughout the state as the MVET is collected. Even the legislature is limited by I-695, if it passes. Under the constitution, they can't amend any part of the initiative (including the repeal of exemption from property taxation of vehicles) for 2 years unless both houses approve the amendment by 2/3 vote. The Assessors will be stuck with a killer expense, but counties won't get money to pay for that or for the loss of MVET. One county said that the cost of assessing and mailing out tax stuff required for personal property taxation of vehicles would cost them nearly $1 million in 2000, without counting all the hearings, seizure and sales of cars for unpaid taxes.

If you want a different message to get to the legislature about what priorities it should substitute for the priorities in the MVET statute inserted last year by Referendum 49, then you need a different initiative. This one demands that huge expense, but provides no revenue and no priorities.

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), September 28, 1999.

B Dick

The post by Patrick said that the assessors voted to oppose I-695 according to another post. This was a blatant lie and I was responding to it.

Yes the assessors dont have the money to collect property taxes on all the vehicles they would be required to. But you also missed the quote from Barb Wagner, who said AND IF THE VOTERS ARE SAYING THEY WANT A $30 CAR TAB, THEY ARE NOT SAYING THEY WANT OTHER TAXES ON VEHICLES. What part of this are you people not getting?

Also you are correct when you say but provides no revenue and no priorities. What it does do is get the politicians from stealing our money, and gives the people of this state a voice in what should be and shouldnt be funded.

If you want to keep paying more of your wages to the state so be it. And while youre at it please tell them you will be so kind to pay my part to. Im sick and tired of having my money stolen from me. The legislature passes spending bills, which most never read completely. And we the people are stuck with the consequences.

And why are more taxes needed anyway? Cant these people make budget cuts once in a while, instead of always spending more? I havent had a raise or COLA in two years, yet the state just raised theyre spending by 11%. I cant go out and tell my employer I want an 11% increase and use the power of the state to enforce it.

Ed - still waiting for a reply from Patrick.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.

Sorry Ed for not getting back to you sooner, but I do have a life and a job to do, so I can't exactly be on the computer, parked on this message board, constantly hitting refresh. From what I recall, I posted the last message about 12 hours ago, and I have to admit I was sleeping for a good 8 of those hours. But I'll endeavor to get back to you quicker in the future.

You're right, the article doesn't explicitly state that the assessors voted to oppose I-695. I made my comment based upon the title "County assessors association says No, thanks to car tab measure." But the article doesn't say if they voted to oppose the initiative outright.

As Bob pointed out though, it doesn't affect the statement that I was making, that the assessors assume that they WILL be asked to collect a personal property tax on individuals(why pass a resolution asking the state not to enforce something if it isn't something that can be enacted in the first place?).

And Ed, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a city employee? If you are, then don't you feel a little bit guilty about getting a paycheck that is almost entirely funded by (from your perspective) stealing? You've mentioned in the past that you're perfectly comfortable loosing your job if 695 passes, but in the mean time, aren't you bascally validating and encouraging further stealing by the government by continuing to take a paycheck from them?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.

" You've mentioned in the past that you're perfectly comfortable losing your job if 695 passes, but in the mean time, aren't you bascally validating and encouraging further stealing by the government by continuing to take a paycheck from them? " Not really. If you have followed my posts, you'll recognize that I believe that we over subsidize the ferries and transit. Does that mean that I don't use either? Of course not. The only way I can get any return on the money that is taxed from me to support these services is to use them. That doesn't meant that I would fund them at current levels if I had the option to change their subsidies. And given that the state is going to run the ferry anyway, even my fare covering 16% of the costs of doing business is worthwhile to the state, because it's a revenue of a few bucks with little or no marginal cost. The crew would have manned that boat, burned essentially that amount of fuel, etc. no matter if I rode or not, so the $3-4 is all revenue for them. Similarly, unless the government was going to NOT FILL Ed's FTE AND refund the tax savings to the public, Ed might just as well have kept working for them. Why are YOU trying to place a guilt trip on Ed, when you so clearly believe that bigger government is better government, and by being a government employee, Ed is contributing to something that you apparently believe is desirable?

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 28, 1999.

Let me start out by saying that I am not trying to MAKE Ed feel guilty. Only Ed can do that to himself. All I'm saying that if I was in his position, with his views, I would feel guilty. If Ed can rationalize his decision, then so be it.

Although your analogy is along the same lines, I don't believe that it is as powerful relation as it could be, since you are talking about using a service in which you don't approve of the funding proportions, but still consider the service to be fairly useful. Ed, on the other hand is providing the services, and may in fact be providing a service that he himself considers to be non-vital (he hasn't mentioned what it is he does, so I'll leave it up to him to tell us or not.)

The analogy that comes to my mind is a doctor that is vocally against abortion, but performs them because the money is good and if he doesn't do it then someone else will. Yes, it's a job that puts money on the table, and refusing to do it won't even make a dent in the cause, but at the very least you can say that you aren't contributing to the problem.

Again, that's just my personal view. But I'd like to hear Ed's explanation if he has one.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.

Patrick Trying to catch up with previous response. So when someone catches you in a lie its no big deal? As you state You're right, the article doesn't explicitly state that the assessors voted to oppose I-695 then As Bob pointed out though, it doesn't affect the statement that I was making

The statement you did make was that the assessors voted to oppose I- 695. No where in the article does it state that. Not one quote from one of the assessors questioned even mention a vote on opposing or backing I-695.

What they did vote on (with one dissenting vote) was to not impose the property tax on vehicles.

Also according to your statement . I made my comment based upon the title "County assessors association says No, thanks to car tab measure." So you actually have not read the article have you.

Patrick you say on another post that I have put words into your mouth. Sorry but your foot is already stuck in there so there is no more room.

Finally I love it when a liberal is backed a corner with the truth they start making personal attacks, i.e. And Ed, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a city employee? If you are, then don't you feel a little bit guilty about getting a paycheck that is almost entirely funded by (from your perspective) stealing? You've mentioned in the past that you're perfectly comfortable loosing your job if 695 passes, but in the mean time, aren't you bascally validating and encouraging further stealing by the government by continuing to take a paycheck from them? No I dont fill guilty about getting paid for working an 8-hour day. Do you? And yes I consider what the government does as stealing. Anytime someone takes something they did not earn that is stealing. I work, so I earn my pay. The government doesnt work, so they steal. And again if I do lose my job and I find another on my own without the assistance of the government. Thank you.

Now on to Pats new tirade.

*Let me start out by saying that I am not trying to MAKE Ed feel guilty. Only Ed can do that to himself Pat, I dont feel guilty in the least. The city pays me to do civil engineering work for 8 hrs a day. I do the job, and a good one at that, put in my 8 hrs (usually more, but I dont put down O-T for it) then go home.

*Ed, on the other hand is providing the services, and may in fact be providing a service that he himself considers to be non-vital (he hasn't mentioned what it is he does, so I'll leave it up to him to tell us or not.) I think I provide a good service. Designing water and sewer lines, streets and assisting the people whom come into my office with their questions. I have always tried to be as helpful has I can, because if the people are paying me I want them to get their moneys worth. I call people back to make sure if theyve had a problem that it has been or is being taken care of. I dont consider my job vital or non- vital, I was hired to do a job and I do it. So if I lose it, no big deal. I do consider law enforcement (which I used to do) and fire fighting vital.

PS (sorry, Word says it should be capitalized) Im home taking care of my Akitas. What about you? PSS if you ever happen to be in this area e-mail and Ill take you to lunch. This is just politics, and I dont hate anyone, not even the guy who ended my police career.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.

I love how plain text can turn one man's calm response into another man's "tirade." Especially when there are only a few of us who refrain from using profain language and insults.

So what do you want from me Ed? I acknowledged that I misread the article which caused me to make the mistake of assuming the assessors officially oppose I-695. Should I now grovel before your feet and beg for your forgiveness?

Or perhaps I should point out that your comment: "What they did vote on (with one dissenting vote) was to not impose the property tax on vehicles." is also an incorrect reading? What the assessors said (and I read both the article you posted and one written by the Olympian) is that they don't WANT to collect the personal property tax, not that they were NOT going to impose it.

See, the state basically tells the assessors what they need to assess (at least property taxed on the state level). It isn't up to the assessors to decide if they want to follow those orders or not. If they don't, then the Governor can freeze that county's funds. Extreme? Yes. But it did happen a few years back when Chelan County decided that they didn't want to enforce the GMA. So again, if you would take the time to read the article (I assume you did read it since you typed it in), you would see that they voted to oppose the imposition of the tax, NOT that they wouldn't collect it if they were told to. A slight, but significant difference.

Fine, you don't feel guilty. To you, the word "government" seems to be this faceless scapegoat, instead of the collection of individuals that it really is. A vast majority of these people probably share your belief that they work very hard for their money, and provide a very important service, even if they only provide part of that service. So if they do deserve to receive payment for their work, then where does the money come from? From what I'm hearing you say, you don't care where it comes from. It doesn't matter that the government is stealing from the people to pay your salary. You're mad about it taking hard earned money away from the people, but you're okay with it giving that money to you for doing a job for it.

If that's how you feel, then it's not like it's my problem. But I just wanted to know if you were aware that you're decrying the taking of the same money that you

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 29, 1999.

Item 1: "Let me start out by saying that I am not trying to MAKE Ed feel guilty. "

Item 2: "Fine, you don't feel guilty. To you, the word "government" seems to be this faceless scapegoat, "

Item 3: "If that's how you feel, then it's not like it's my problem."

Patrick- I assume you are either TOTALLY LACKING in self-insight, or simply consider the truth to be infinitely malleable (depends upon what your definition of is, is) if it serves the "higher purpose" of justifying your political opinion.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 29, 1999.

Craig, Let me make it clear that I have no problem with Ed's justification of holding a government job. I may disagree with him and say that I would not feel the same way in the same situation, but I'm not saying that HE should feel guilty because I would in his place. I asked him if he felt guilty. He said no, and explained why. I pretty much explained how I would feel in his situation. So if I ask someone why they support 695 and afterwards I tell that person that I disagree with their opinion, am I trying to make them feel guilty?

On the old message board I was on the opposite side of a similar situation with Westin, who thought that I should feel guilty about supporting the MVET now and not continuing to pay it if 695 passes. I gave him my opinion, which he basically found unacceptable because it didn't conform to how he would feel in my situation. The difference here is that I accept Ed's belief even if I don't share it.

I asked him a question, he answered it. If Ed thinks that I was trying to make him feel guilty then I apologize. As I stated several times, that was not my intent. But then again, you seem to be the only one who is taking issue with that.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 29, 1999.

Pat-

I am perfectly willing to take you at your word, that you are not attempting to bend the truth here (indicating of course that you ARE totally lacking in insight).

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 29, 1999.

Patrick

As I said in an e-mail to you, I don't think your trying to make me feel quilty.

Ed- back to being civil

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), September 29, 1999.

I was reading and glancing thru the various posts between pat and ed, and was (until just now) kind of concerned that my company Blackstone limousine would have to pay property taxes on my vehicles, even though i wouldn'[t have to pay the $1200 price tag for the tabs as it stands now... (per vehicle) ... but i dont want to pay property tax either... so... if the property tax doesn't exist, then one would have to put it to the vote of the people whether they could... if the tax does exist, but hasn't been used... one could argue in court that it is an obsolete law, like not allowing women to undress in front of pictures of men.... (circa 1890) ... however, my vehicles are leased from a company in california.. I DON'T OWN THEM ... therefore i won't be responsible for the taxes.

-- TJ Anderson (yesto695@blackstonelimo.com), September 29, 1999.

The limousine company may have to pay the property taxes, depending on how the property tax laws are worded, and the contract with the leasing company. In any case, the property taxes should be less than the license tabs.

Furthermore, I-695 will make the government more responsive and accountable because it empowers the people to have more of a say when taxes or fees are to increase. Thomas Jefferson would be proud of us.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 29, 1999.

In summary, if the exemption from paying property taxes on vehicles is repealed by 695; the tax is reinstated by that vote for both business and personal vehicles. Since the property tax is less than MVET, the tax payer will see a small benefit. In exchange, the tax collector will see a huge increase in collection costs which will eat up much of the tax revenue that should go to providing services. And this is supposed to be a good thing because?

As I have said several times, this initiative doesn't even do what it is trying to do well, and what it is trying to do is wrong-headed.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 02, 1999.