Have read lots of info on vehicle "property tax" concerns, but with the passage of 695 what happens to the state's current ability to tax a vehicle as "personal property" at 1.5%? Was this addressed in 695? It wouldn't be a "new" tax and has nothing to do with "property taxes", caps, etc.

-- Dickson Lee (LEESMEADE@WILLAPABAY.ORG), November 10, 1999

Answers

This was addressed in a memo to assessors, from the Department of Revenue, on September 20. The interpretation is that without further action the property tax is restored on vehicles by approval of the initiative. Action by the state is expected to repeal that, but it remains a good example of the poorly written provisions that will require exceptional action by government to avert one disaster or another.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 11, 1999.

As usual, socialist DB, you're suffering from selective amnesia.

"Some 695 opponents had said that if the car tax were abolished, county assessors would have to tax vehicles as personal property. Locke said that would work against the spirit of the initiative and that he would try to block any such attempt." (Seattle Times, Nov 4, 1999, Page B1)

There isn't going to be a personal property tax on cars. Locke knew it from the beginning and so did you. But, your win-at-all-cost Goebbels-worthy campaign continued to spout the lie.

Face it DB - you LOST. Not only did you lose, you got TROUNCED. But, it's okay, you're welcome to pay your pre-695 tab fees voluntarily and put your money where your mouth is.

"When the pitch is 'Pay us what we want or we will cost you more,' it is the type of negotiations one usually sees when doing business with one of the five families in New York."

--U.S. District Judge Joe Kendall, citing the Allied Pilots Association in contempt of court for their illegal American Airlines "sickout."

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), November 11, 1999.

You're fired!

Ronald Reagan telling the AOPA that no one is indispensible, not even people with an "AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS NEVER HAVE A NICE DAY," whiney bumper sticker on their cars.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 11, 1999.

Hey Zowie:

How this is relavant to my point about DB not having his facts straight, I'm not real sure. Nevertheless, since you brought it up, I figured I'd take this opportunity to educate you a bit, son.

AOPA is the Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Association, a general aviation PAC.

If you had the facts, you'd be referring to PATCO, the Professional Air Traffic Controller's Association. And yes, Reagan did say "you're fired" to them, as well he should have. PATCO would never have forced that strike had they given a rat's ass about something other than fattening their coffers. Collective bargaining agreements with "essential" government employees such as teachers, police officers, and air traffic controllers expressly forbid strikes. Therefore, Reagan was perfectly within his rights to do what he did. In fact, he is to be congratulated for showing some courage in standing up to the socialists and Mafia dons that run the unions.

Actually, this does relate to 695 in a way - if the large majority of government employees are deemed "nonessential", why do we need them in the first place? It was the extortionate license tab fees that was paying their salaries.

"When the pitch is 'Pay us what we want or we will cost you more,' it is the type of negotiations one usually sees when doing business with one of the five families in New York."

--U.S. District Judge Joe Kendall, citing the Allied Pilots Association in contempt of court for their illegal American Airlines "sickout."

Support a Husky-Free Northwest!

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), November 11, 1999.

Sorry Joe-

Too many alphabet organizations. I meant PATCO but typed AOPA. Worse yet, I got my renewal from AOPA just last week. Must be the Alzheimers kicking in. I hate it when that happens. Oh well, maybe next year I'll be able to hide my own Easter eggs.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), November 12, 1999.

I don't have my facts straight? Actually, I do. As of today, I-695 would repeal the exemption of vehicles form the property tax. That is the interpretation of the Department of Revenue, with advice from the Attorney General. Something needs to happen to change that. Either the legislature needs to take an exceptional action to repeal that part of the initiative, and I don't know if they can do it; or the D of R opinion will need to be challenged and the challenge win in court.

YOU may have confidence that the property tax will net be applied to vehicles, but that will not be because of the initiative. The initiative was poorly written, with this as one of the unintended consequences. If the Legislature manages to repair this part of the damage it would do, great. It is still bad law.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 12, 1999.