If this doesn't pass I have a great idea for next attempt

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

If we need to do this again, the next time we should figure out a way to find out who voted for and who against. Then, those who voted against will be sent a tab renewal for the same amount they pay under the old system and those for the initiative a renewal fee of $30.00. That way those who support unfair and high taxes have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. The rest of us can live with increased liberty and with more of our hard-earned money in our pockets.

-- Terry Pennington (terrypen@gte.net), October 18, 1999

Answers

Genius there Terry... can't wait till you have the liberty of not being allowed on the highway because you didn't pay the tax.

Seriously, the thing to do if you believe that populist tax levying is better than representative, is to write an inititiave, call it 69, requiring a vote by the people on each new tax / fee levy.

If that one passes why then next up is an initiative to lower MVET taxes to $30.

This is the order in which it should have been done in the first place, as it is 695 will probably be ruled unconstitutional if it does pass.

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


This is a nifty idea, Billy, 'cept you forgot one thing. It doesn't mention LOWERING taxes (695). It just mentions that the pol's will have to come to me, er uh, us, whenever they want to RAISE a tax. We already have the power to LOWER taxes... it's called the initiative process. Ergo, 695. We can lower or remove any tax we want to, if we can get it on the ballot. Admittedly, the political system has made it very difficult for the little guy to get something on the ballot, whereas it's much easier for our elected officials to get something on the ballot. But, we do have it, and it's working right now. This IS the vote to lower the taxes, Billy. We don't have to 'create' a 'system' to allow us to lower taxes, then vote on that.

-- Paul C. Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 18, 1999.

I'm just curious where Billy works being he's so against the I-695? Does he have something to lose or is he a government employee? It seems the majority of the people against I-695 work for the government or have a tie to them somehow. I'm all for the government having to ask us about taxes. It's time people stood up for their rights and their hard earned money. Why is it other states can afford to have tabs without having the excise tax added, but Washington can't because too many things will be lost due to not enough funding from our tax dollars? Do you think any government officials will answer that honestly? Perhaps the idea to fingerprint welfare recipients should be the next initiative so that one check per family is given instead of sometimes 2 to however many social security numbers and identifications they have in different names. Maybe that would help the state with some funding!

-- Benita (jmb@ewa.net), October 18, 1999.

Wow Terry, why don't you do the whole country some good by running for president in 2k ? Bush wouldn't stand a chance against your "free lottery tickets" campaign. Maybe after the election you could figure out who didn't accept a free lottery ticket and force them to pay the jackpot..

-- NO voter (heyyoufools@pro695.com), October 19, 1999.

"I'm just curious where Billy works being he's so against the I-695? Does he have something to lose or is he a government employee?"

Well you've just suggested to everyone then that you are working for the Yes campaign and in the pay of car dealers.

But no, the conspiracy theory that voters saying No on 695 all work for the man is patently false, specifically I don't work for the government and I have talked to many like myself who think that 695 is a bad idea in part because:

a) it puts the cart before the horse.. we should consider changing our tax levying system FIRST and THEN consider specific tax changes. The initiative proponents are either foolish or disengenous as they have hidden the tax structure beneath a tax rebate, e.g. the "$30 tabs" campaign signs.

b) the effects on said hidden changes in tax structure are unknown and dangerous, it could well be the populist model is even more highly subject to manipulation by big business than the current one.

c) because it would make the MVET a regressive tax

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 19, 1999.



If you can't come up with $30 a year to drive, you belong on the bus. This is a FULL employment economy! I'm sure beig hearted, compassionate liberals will be lining up with extra checks for $30 to help the downtrodden. Or are they only generous with OTHER people's money?

-- Brian (tigger@mashell.com), October 20, 1999.

"c) because it would make the MVET a regressive tax " The MVET IS a regressive tax. Joe Sixpack buys a Ford 250. Pays $22,000. Sticker price is $25,000. MVET is $625 (in Snohomish County). He rolls it into the financing at 8.75%, over 5 years. He'll ultimately pay about $700 out of pocket for the original MVET. Might just put the renewals on the old MasterCard. Finance those suckers at 18% over the course of the year. That'll be another $700 for the first year, declining slowly over the next five. He takes the standard deduction, as most low/middle income people do. Rich guy goes out and gets a car for his daughters 16th birthday. Sticker price is $25,000. He pays $22,000 cash. MVET is again $625. He pays cash for both. MVET cost $625. Except rich guy itemizes deductions (most do). He's in the 31% marginal rate (only modestly rich). Uncle sugar gives him back $194 on his return. Net cost? $431.

Now let's review the bidding: Cost to rich guy is $431. Cost to poor guy is $700.

Right Billy. I can sure see where changing to a flat fee for both would make the MVET MORE regressive. Boy I'd bet that Joe Sixpack would be just cussing you out for making him pay that regressive $30 rather than that equitable $700. Why don't YOU run for office Billy? With a platform like that, I'm not even sure that you'd get your OWN vote.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 20, 1999.


Billy:

If you are suggesting that I work for car dealers or with them or whatever you meant....wrong answer. I am not tied in with them other than the fact that I, like almost everybody else, purchased a vehicle from a car dealer. But you were correct in saying that I am for the YES campaign. What person who wants to know where their money is going isn't?

-- Benita (jmb@ewa.net), October 20, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ