Paid Early, Cancelled Check, Now Screwed

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

It is being written in the papers about people not paying their car tabs until Jan. We are one of those people. We paid the tabs in October 1st (they weren't due until Nov.), then stopped payment a few days later. The tabs came anyway. We returned the tabs along with a fee we were charged. We are parking the car. Now we are told we may not get tabs at ANY TIME unless we pay the original price. We have also been told that if we were to sell the car we would also have to pay the $495.

What information could you give on this? I know we are not alone.

Mike Leaf

-- Mike Leaf (mwleaf@aol.com), November 23, 1999

Answers

As long as you never put the tabs on your car it seems to me that you are entitled to a refund. They will try to bully you into paying, but if you never put them on you received no benefit from them and the tax should be uncollectable, stick to your guns, they will probably ultimately back down. Perhaps a class-action law suit is in order.

-- Tod Karlson (TodKarlson@aol.com), November 23, 1999.

According to news releases on or about Nov. 10, you will be turned over to a collection agency and forced to pay additional fees. Sorry.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 23, 1999.

This topic was actually discussed on KVI a while back. Unfortunatly you may be SOL. Apparently you can't purchase something and then, instead of taking the product back, just cancel the check. By entering into a sales agreemen, you need to go through the agreed upon channels for refunds.

Say you bought a BBQ at Target and decided you didn't want it. If you then just cancelled the check and took the BBQ back, you'd probably have a heck of a time fixing things with the store manager. Instead, you take the BBQ back and, within the limits of the store's refund policy, get your money back.

So what's the state's refund policy? Considering that the words "customer service" have probably never been uttered by the DMV, who knows. Good luck though. The difference between the gov and Target is that they work for us. Maybe that can help.

-- JR (jrule@yahoo.com), November 23, 1999.


Sometimes the general stupidity of some people makes me laugh.. I-695 does not releave anyone from the 1999 tab fees.. there is something here that shows the mentality of zealot I-695ers... get a grip pay the penalties for your stupid move and get a life..

-- Moonhunter (moonhunter47@yahoo.com), November 24, 1999.

I wonder how many of the people who cancelled their checks were 695 supporters... hmmmmmm. Especially given the fact that whenever you make the suggestion that the anti 695 proponents continue to make their original payments, the only response is deafening silence. After all, altruism is only altrusim if it's not at the point of a gun, right?

-- Paul Oss (jnuat@earthlink.net), November 24, 1999.


Hey, Paul--if I send in my old MVET tax, will you agree to not drive on the highways I help pay for? It's interesting that all the pro-695 folks with suggestions like yours would love to have anyone but themselves pay for services that benefit everyone. Now, what were you saying about altruism?

-- Curious (looking_out_for_#1@screw.everyone.else), November 24, 1999.

troll--"if I send in my old MVET tax, will you agree to not drive on the highways I help pay for? It's interesting that all the pro-695 folks with suggestions like yours would love to have anyone but themselves pay for services that benefit everyone. Now, what were you saying about altruism?"

I realize you were just trolling, but I have a variant on your idea. I think they ought to have two (multiple???) types of license plates. $30 for normal plates and $1000 (large number off the top of my head) for "platinum" plates that would allow SOVs to use the HOV lanes.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 24, 1999.


"I realize you were just trolling, but I have a variant on your idea. I think they ought to have two (multiple???) types of license plates. $30 for normal plates and $1000 (large number off the top of my head) for "platinum" plates that would allow SOVs to use the HOV lanes. " This is an OUTSTANDIG idea. It ought to be implemented. As soon as the bus riders pay for dedicated lanes for their buses.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 24, 1999.

It's very simple, just put tolls on ALL the roads. The technology is available to do it. Then I wouldn't have to subsidize development in other parts of the state with my gas tax. Heck, if I'm just driving around town, should I be paying for more lanes for parts of I-5 or I-405 just so that commuters can go a little bit faster during rush hour? During my travel times, I rarely come upon any congestion. In fact, a toll system would be the closest thing to 'Farebox Recovery' to help determine usage (ridership) of specific parts of the road system. If I'm not contributing to congestion, why should I pay to relieve it?

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), November 25, 1999.

Jim:

Why? How about you are part of a community, that needs a transportation system? The trucks on the road services businesses and stores that benefit the community, and some you even shop in. People going to work will staff businesses that keep the economy of the area going, that you benefit from. Even if you don't drive at all, you benefit from those that do.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 25, 1999.



db, "Why? How about you are part of a community, that needs a transportation system? The trucks on the road services businesses and stores that benefit the community, and some you even shop in. People going to work will staff businesses that keep the economy of the area going, that you benefit from. Even if you don't drive at all, you benefit from those that do."

So am I to assume that roads are the ONLY transportation system available? If congestion is an issue for the trucking industry, then the price of goods should go up accordingly, and a cheaper method would be found. Unless the trucking industry feels it's worth putting up the capital needed for 'truck only' lanes on the highway. If commuters feel they are losing money by being caught in traffic, then they should find a way to cope, either by shifting work times, working from home, walking, or by them PAYING specifically for the road improvements they feel they need. Tolls would be a method to determine who uses what roadways at a given time, and the costs would be distributed accordingly. One of the reasons the Seattle Times is becoming a morning paper is due to the problems in distributing the paper during the day. Market forces are making the decision for them. My issue is simply that road improvements don't go through the same scrutiny that public transit projects do, nor in the same method. I tend to agree with the idea that free access for 'the masses' should be retained (although it sounds strangely socialistic, doesn't it?). Building a 2 lane road without pedestrian and transit infrastructure is the cheapest way to access an area. However, road improvements are automatically made, simply because it is assumed that we choose to use the car, when the pedestrian/transit imrovements are lacking, because we burn gas to deal with it. There's still plenty of urban roadways where there is no safe way to negotiate a route unless it's in your car. We don't have 'toll' walkways, so how do you know if someone is choosing one mode over the other? Using gas tax money for capital improvements to make roads larger than 2 lanes is using tax money to solve a problem that is not necessarily mine. That is a subsidy. Making a transportation system that relies on one type of supplier for the vehicles (and fuel), has put us in the same situation the country was in at the turn of the last century with the railroads.

"The cost of losing alternatives went unpaid until automobiles got too popular, leaving us with a society build around car-commuting, and no way else to go." - Kevin A. Wilson

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), November 25, 1999.


Jim Cusick wrote, "So am I to assume that roads are the ONLY transportation system available?"

No, just the one that has become the most necessary. You and Craig Carson should discuss transportation system planning. It's really his thing. My comment was on your apparent unwillingness to recognize the public benefit, including the benefit to you, of an effective highway transportation system. What is necessary in any specific area should be based on the need, and recognition that resource control is a major form of social engineering (though often with limited effectiveness). Users pay a share of the cost of all forms of transportation, in some ways. The general public pays a share of all forms of transportation, in some ways. The fuel tax replaced tolls, as a convenience in the method of collecting the road use fee.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 26, 1999.


Yeah but, then it just becomes a question of "my subsidy is better than your subsidy", which really is the isssue, isn't it?

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), November 29, 1999.

I thought the issue was to reduce taxes, and the MVET was a convenient target.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 29, 1999.

You're right, I've been reading too many of Craig's posts.

I'm just a gearhead who thinks the way to evaluate his transportation modes is to try to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. That can be difficult when the taxing methods and cost evaluations are figured differently for autos than for other modes. For instance, what is the automotive equivelant of 'farebox recovery'? There is none. How can you tell if the money is put to good use? Hence, my idea of toll roads. Are empty buses inefficient use of the vehicle? Vehicles that can hold 5/6 people, with only one person in them isn't that much more efficient. A gas guzzling Cadillac that is always full would be relatively efficient. If a bus route seems to be too frequent to fill the bus, do we look at the automobile in the parking lot/driveway, inactive for at least 3/4 of the day as efficient use of the vehicle? No, we enjoy the convenience, even if the co$t is high. How many people do you know, when they've finished a car deal say "Wow, I only paid $2,000 a year to own that car!"? They love to tell you how much they "made" on the deal/trade-in, when that isn't the net effect at all. Unless you are an astute buyer of collectable automobiles, or are a car dealer, to most of us, the car is an expense. I just think there are more effecient ways to spend my money than have all of it go to my cars (and I do most ALL of my own work, except wheel alignments and machine work, and major bodywork), and be forced to pay a gas tax that goes towards congestion problems that aren't mine.

"Should tax dollars provide short-term solutions? Well - is the provision of alternate routes a legitimate cost of maintaining roads? Is a mass transit tax a fair trade for less congestion?" - Kevin A. Wilson

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), November 30, 1999.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ