Do you spend 2.2% of your income on tabs?

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

Then you're driving a car you can't afford!

Seriously, though, if you accept that Tim's (mythical) 2.2% decrease in state revenues is not a big deal, then you must also admit that the $150 that will be saved by the average car owner is an even SMALLER deal, being somewhere around 0.7% of the average yearly income.

And another thing: why $30? Who thought of that number? Was it based on a rational analysis of state budget needs as compared to overall tax burdens? Or was it simply grabbed out of a hat?

Inquiring minds want to know.

-- Peter Hartikka (hartikka@aol.com), October 12, 1999

Answers

"Seriously, though, if you accept that Tim's (mythical) 2.2% decrease in state revenues is not a big deal, then you must also admit that the $150 that will be saved by the average car owner is an even SMALLER deal, being somewhere around 0.7% of the average yearly income." That's right. There's a difference however. It's the taxpayers money, not the politicians.

"And another thing: why $30? Who thought of that number? Was it based on a rational analysis of state budget needs as compared to overall tax burdens? Or was it simply grabbed out of a hat?" And if you read the recent revelations of the politicians who set up the 2.2% rules in 1990, it's apparent that THEY GAVE THE MVET TREMENDOUS THOUGHT. "DUH, how much do you think we can steal without a backlash?" Apparently 2.2% is too high a number, as it turns out. ;)

-- The Craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 13, 1999.


"Do you spend 2.2% of your income on tabs? Then you're driving a car you can't afford! "

Could be Pete, BUT IT'S MY FRIGGIN' MONEY. That's a significant difference.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999.


" 'And another thing: why $30? Who thought of that number? Was it based on a rational analysis of state budget needs as compared to overall tax burdens? Or was it simply grabbed out of a hat?' And if you read the recent revelations of the politicians who set up the 2.2% rules in 1990, it's apparent that THEY GAVE THE MVET TREMENDOUS THOUGHT. "DUH, how much do you think we can steal without a backlash?" Apparently 2.2% is too high a number, as it turns out. ;)"

Nice way of dodging the question. So I'll ask again: why $30? Why not $5 or even $0? Less is more, right?

Right??

-- Peter Hartikka (hartikka@aol.com), October 13, 1999.


"Nice way of dodging the question. So I'll ask again: why $30? Why not $5 or even $0? Less is more, right?

" I wasn't dodging it, I was answering it. He picked a number that he thought he could sell, just like the politicians did. The difference is that the car salesman was apparently a better judge of human nature than the politicians. They didn't think that people would revolt over the 2.2% and he knew better. The jokes on the politicians I guess, huh?

-- The Craigster (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 13, 1999.


Peter--"Nice way of dodging the question. So I'll ask again: why $30? Why not $5 or even $0? Less is more, right?"

It's my understanding $30 number was chosen to put us "in line" with surrounding states.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 13, 1999.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ