I just got my renewal notice for my tabs due November 30th. $750.00 - can you believe it? Between the three cars in my family I pay $1200 per year for tabs. That in and of itself would be enough to vote yes, but my mind is firmly made up now that I have been listening to the "NO" on 695 adds.

I pay tab fees for my car. I want my money to be used for transportaion. After listening to a long list of places that my auto tab money goes, most of them having nothing to do with transportation, I was enraged. Transportation in Seattle frankly sucks... Our mass transit system is horrible compared to cities like Washington DC or San Fran.

I assumed we were making the best use of our tax dollars, but the "NO" campaign has convinced me that too much of our tab fees have been diverted to support programs that should be funded from the general fund, and have no relationship to transportation related issue. Our money has been unwisley divereted, while our tranportation problems worsen. Think about what we could have accomplished if tab fees been correctly applied.

Until such time as I can be assured that my tab fees will go directly to (and only to) transportation, road building and mass transit, I will support initiatives like I-695.

Vote "YES" on I-695

-- John (jbunn@msn.com), October 15, 1999

Answers

I agree there should be a better corralelation between use fees and expenditures but, is all of our sales tax used for... building sales?

Aside from that, you should look into the real effect of this iniative before you make a move towards buying that fourth and fifth vehicle that I'm sure you need so badly.

Hidden deep beneath the regressive licensing tax change is a change to how we levy ALL taxes and fees.

After 695 is passed, providing it isn't struck down by the courts for combining two issues into one iniative, all tax and fees proposals will be governed by the people with direct votes.

I worry about this populism and the precedence of 695's wolf in sheep's clothing together setting the stage....

Do you own property? Well under 695 and this new way of writing initiatives, someone could double property taxes in exchange for a small decrease in the sales tax.

The campaign banner will read LOWER SALES TAX BY %1!! More people pay sales tax and will of course vote their wallet, so as a result you will be out of house and home. Where will you park all your cars then?

I advise you to think further than your next tab payment when considering 695.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 15, 1999.

Billy--"Do you own property? Well under 695 and this new way of writing initiatives, someone could double property taxes in exchange for a small decrease in the sales tax

The campaign banner will read LOWER SALES TAX BY %1!! More people pay sales tax and will of course vote their wallet, so as a result you will be out of house and home. Where will you park all your cars then?"

This is almost a textbook example of a strawman argument. The only place I something like this would pass is Seattle (given 52% of Seattle's residents/families are renters).

In general, your reasoning breaks down at "vote their wallet." Who would vote for an undirected tax decrease that's coupled with an immediate increase of their other taxes? More specifically, an increase that's greater than they could expect to receive back from the tax decrease.

"I advise you to think further than your next tab payment when considering 695."

I agree, but we've probably different motivations.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 15, 1999.

John, I agree with what you said about the No campaign convinced you to vote yes, but for a different reason. I noticed that all the things they said would be cut involve the Seattle, Puget Sound area. I grew up over there, but now I live near the Tri-Cities, and I am sick and tired of having to pay for a Sports Stadium that I can't afford to attend, or mass transit that I will never use, or put up with those idiots that think it's a smart thing to shut down our dams. I think there is a chance that police, fire and other essential services may suffer, but I think this inititive will force government agencies to rethink weather or not they need the services in the first place. I guess I'm kind of selfish in not wanting to support the other side of the state, but I think this is one opportunity for us on the east side of the state to send a message saying we are MAD AS ****, AND WERE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE.

-- Sig Landoe (slandoe@bentonrea.com), October 16, 1999.

Essensial 1. necessary, such that one cannot live without it//of the utmost importance//relating to, or arising from, the real nature of a thing or person, basic, fundamental, ideal as perfect as the mind can conceive//containing all the best or most important in a thing. 2. something that one cannot do without//the basic or fundamental pert or element in a thing.

-- Ken (klemay@amouse.net), October 16, 1999.

To a few of you,

First, the MVET was not committed to transportation. It was created in 1937, for whatever purpose the Leg. wanted to use it for. Not until the 1970's was a portion of it dedicated to be used for transportation. Second, if your tired of things like paying for a stadium you will never use, get used to it. People on the East side of the mountains will have no say when it comes to taxes. If it is a tax increase that is good for the west side and not the east, it will pass. If it is a tax increase that is good for the east side, and not the west, it will not pass. Get used to things like the stadium vote. The populatiopn is in the east.

-- (mkpow62@silverlink.net), October 18, 1999.

>>In general, your reasoning breaks down at "vote their wallet." Who would vote for an undirected tax decrease that's coupled with an immediate increase of their other taxes? >>

Anyone who would vote for 695 thinking its a $30 dollar tab initiative.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 18, 1999.

Hey Billy, Did you ever consider the fact that many of us are voting for 695 specifically for the change in the way taxes and fees are passed? I resent the implication that all 695 supporters are only voting for decreased tab fees. I further resent the implication that we are too stupid to understand the full ramifications of the initiative. I suggest you think beyond your socialist defense of big government when arguing against 695.

P.S. Referendum 49 set the precedent for writing initiatives like 695.

-- Matt Napier (mnapier@mit.edu), October 19, 1999.