WA Dept of Revenue Data

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

The Washington State Department of Revenue published A Revenue Research Report in January 1999. It is entitled "Tax Reference Manual". Here are some data that may be of interest.

(1) Total State and Local Revenue for 1995 is $35,765,100,000. (page Overview -2). The MVET collected that year $654,528,000 (page 132). MVET = 654,528,000/35,765,100,000 x 100 = 1.8% of total revenue

(2) Page 41 on gas tax: "Currently, ELEVEN other states have rates in excess of Washington: Hawaii (based on the local rate for Honolulu) 32.5 cents; Connecticut, 32 cents; Rhode Island, 28 cents; Montana, 27 cents; Wisconsin, 25.4 cents; Idaho, 25 cents; Utah 24.5 cents; Nevada and Oregon, 24 cents; Maryland and Nebraska, 23.5 cents." Washington's rate is 23 cents plus we pay 18.4 cents in federal gas tax. THIS MEANS THAT WASHINGTON HAS THE 12th HIGHEST GAS TAX. So every time you purchase 10 gal of gas you pay $4.14 for the roads. Other states maintain their roads with the gas tax. Why not Washington?

(3) Page 136 gives data that shows new car registrations in Washington is 25% below the national average. When I-695 passes, new car registrations should at least come up to the national average. Think what a boost to our economy that will make. Not to mention that each car sold will add 8%+ to the sales tax collected.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (fastfile@aol.com), July 31, 1999

Answers

All the states you listed have several million dollars of advantage...because I don't believe they have a ferry sytem to support. The courts have ruled that the ferry system is part of the Washington State highway system, and therefore must be funded from money that would otherwise go to highways. Is anyone on the westside of Puget Sound supporting this issue?

-- Mike from EW (abc@abc.com), July 31, 1999.

People would be happy to invest in private ferry sytems and the transportation would be much more accessible to everybody. Government doesn't need to be the only game in town but too many people have been deluded into thinking that only th government can do things right.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), July 31, 1999.

We had a private ferry fleet a few decades ago (some of us have been here long enough to remember). Guess what, it was horrible. Hundreds of little boats (the Mosquito Fleet) shuttling passengers (not too many car ferries), not very reliable, pretty expensive. You want to return to those days, ask someone who lived through it. They would not agree with you, especially since we've grown and "suburbanized" a little bit since then.

Or you can ask the private firm that looked into the privatization of the ferry sytem a few years back. Their conclusion was that the system could use some privatization of things like dock workers and other areas, but a complete privatization would be suicidal. Hundreds of smaller boats crossing the Sound (hmm, traffic jams on the water anyone?), HIGHER prices (boats are pretty expensive to run), and not enough desire to invest in a system that will have minimal profits at best but is essential for our continued economic survival.

-- Patrick (abc@abc.com), July 31, 1999.


They just recently finished resurfacing a large section of Aurora/99. Now when they stripped the top layer off they left all of the metal access covers (manholes) protruding four to six inches above the surface (I've never seen so many access covers anywhere else). Then they laid down the new surface. Now everywhere else in western civilization they make the road surface even with the access hole covers to provide a smooth driving surface. Not here. No way. The covers are three to four inches lower than the road. Are the tractors that we use too ignorant to surface a road properly? Or did our government engineers order them to do a substandard job to make sure our vehicles stay in a state of disrepair?

The Aurora bridge was just recently repaired and now it has been stripped again to ready it for another repair. Why?

Seattle just started what they call 'resurfacing' the neighborhood streets. They put down a thin 'spray' of oil and then covered it with gravel. Then they drove over it a couple of times with some kind of roller (not steam,,cold). Then they came through with some other equipment that removed the excess gravel.

Of course there was a minimal amount of oil and now the roads are a different color because of the rocks but all the bumps, cracks and potholes are still there.

These people do NOT put the money they have already extorted from use to good use. They do NOT repair the roads properly.

Why should they be allowed to continue to DEVASTATE US?

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), July 31, 1999.


Here is a fourth item from the Dept. of Rev. Tax Reference Manual.

(4) On page Overview - 11 Washington was ranked 10th highest taxed state in the nation in 1995. (No data is presented after that date in the publication). The Tax Foundation (last year) ranked Washington as the 8th highest taxed state and this year Washington is 6th the highest taxed state in the nation. (Go to www.lowertaxes.nu) and click on May 17 to see the ratings by Tax Foundation.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (fastfile@aol.com), July 31, 1999.



I agree on the gas tax--a reasonable alternative to 695, since it would generate revenue in direct proportion to how much one uses the roads. Our gas tax has been a constant 23 cents since 1992, where it should be 39 cents just to keep up with inflation! There's plenty of room for compromise between 23 cents and 39 cents. See www.wsdot.wa.gov/fasc/keyfacts/keyfacts.pdf, page 29--"State Gas Tax vs. Inflation and Growth". We chould trade a reduction in the MVET with an increase in the gas tax, without slashing funding for transportation. Let's not blindly cut taxes and pretend we can cover it with our one-time (NOT annual) rainy-day budget reserves.

However, that's all I agree with you on at this point, until convinced otherwise. Haven't we beaten the dead horse of comparing ourselves to other states long enough? That's the problem with 695--just because other states have cheap license tabs, some think that we should as well. But most other states have an INCOME TAX to generate revenue. I went to the Dept. of Revenue website, and I found THREE different rankings of the tax burden for the 50 states.

1. For fiscal years 1992-1996, Washington ranked 12th for state & local taxes per $1000 personal income. 2. For fiscal years 1994-1996, Washington ranked 10th for state & local taxes per capita. 3. For fiscal year 1996, 11 other states had a higher tax burden than Washington.

By the way, there is no tax data after 1996, so that doesn't take into account changes since then (Referendum 49 cut taxes, the RTA raised them for 3 counties, etc.).

So, what is it? 12th? 10th? 8th? 6th? Here's what I'd really like to see--a ranking of the states in terms of QUALITY OF LIFE! I wouldn't be surprised to see that Washington ranks way up there because things such as education, transit, roads, parks, libraries, etc., get funded! You can bet that quality of life is going to sink fast if 695 passes, since our roads are going to be a congested nightmare.

-- Esposito (abc@abc.com), July 31, 1999.


He also failed to mention all those little 1's, 2's and 3's behind a bunch of those states collecting a smaller gas tax.

Nebraska (#13) at 22.8, North Carolina (#16) at 21.2, and Massachusetts (#17) at 21 cents a gallon all have a variable taxes based upon the gas price at the time. Look at when the survey was done, January 1999. Gas prices were at record low levels, meaning so were their taxes. Now they aren't so low. Move Washington to #15.

South Dakota and Tennessee at 21 cents have local gas taxes in addition to the state tax. Move Washington to #17.

West Virgina at 20.5 cents also applies its sales tax to gas. Move Washington to #18.

Washington used to almost exclusively pay for road construction using gas tax revenue. Then last year we all voted on Referendum 49 which shifted the MVET to pay for transportation costs. That's why the MVET goes to pay for road construction. The people voted for it LAST YEAR!

-- Patrick (abc@abc.com), July 31, 1999.


Guess What?

(1) Washington also allows local gas taxes (RCW 82.80.010). The maximum is 10 percent of the state tax or 2.3 cents per gallon. This addional tax must be approved by voters. The data shown did not include this additional tax.

(2) Take a look at what the Evergreen Freedom Foundation has to say about the waste in the department of transportation and the Ferry system. According to their research DOT is about 50% efficient with our tax dollars. They give a laundry list of suggested improvements. If you care enough go look them up.

(3) Only King county turned down R-49. This is the county that it was designed for. However, the liberals have taken it to the WA Supreme court and have asked for a rulling by Novenber 2. Their contention is that only gas tax money can be spent on the roads and it is against the WA constitution to use the MVET money.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (fastfile@aol.com), July 31, 1999.


This is what:

1) Washington allows a local gas tax, BUT NOBODY HAS ONE!!! That's why the data shown doesn't include the additional tax. It doesn't exist. The other states that have instituted local gas taxes also have their local governments pay a sizable portion of their transportation costs.

2) I often look at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's site. I just wish that their last review of the DOT was less than a year old. Besides, isn't John Carlson a member of the Foundation? What was his take on I-695 again?

3) And why do you bring up the fact that King County rejected R-49? First of all, there are projects all over the state, not just King County. If you remember, a project list wasn't even made up when the election was held. The list was made during the legislative session. Finally, "the liberals" is one state senator, Michael Heavey. One senator does not constitute an entire political ideology.

-- Patrick (abc@abc.com), July 31, 1999.


Anyone who puts FREEDOM in their title is little suspect. Over the years we've seen any number of studies on the inefficiency of government. Everyone knows government is inefficient...but the alternatives (anarchy)are worse. There is now a Blue Ribbon committee of some the best minds, from all diciplines in the state that have been appointed to look at this very issue...efficient, funding and policy. They have two years (one left) to come up with their findings and report the Governor and Legislature. I would prefer to let this group do its work and see what their recommendations will be. It just might set a new course for transportation rather than tear it apart.

-- Mike from EW (abc@abc.com), July 31, 1999.


Is a subjective issue. There could never be a usable stastical measurement of 'quality of life' because everyone has a different opinion. And opinion is the only factor in 'quality of life'.

Some people believe that living on the 30th floor in downtown Manhattan is the ultimate 'quality of life'. And other people believe that living in a mountain cabin with no neighbors for a hundred miles is the ultimate.

Some people believe that Seattle is the most magnificent place in the world. And other people have actually been someplace else.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), July 31, 1999.


OK, let's go to some objective rankings. How about funding per student? Average teacher salary? Student/teacher ratio? Time spent stuck in traffic? (We're already way up there--why move further up by cutting funds for transportation.) Number of transit riders per capita? (i.e. number of cars NOT ON THE ROADS.) Miles of bicycle trails? (again, the more miles, the fewer cars on the roads.) Cost of living? Per capita income? Unemployment rate? Number of Forbes 400 companies in Washington? Net in-state migration (how many people move TO Washington vs. FROM Washington)? Number of smog alerts? (Will those go up as more cars hit the road? Probably.) Water pollution? Price of electricity? Crime rates? Apartment vacancy rates? Number of special elections per year? (That will go up, along with the cost, if 695 passes).

I could go on, but I know one thing--"You get what you pay for." The opposite is also true--"You don't get what you don't pay for." If we don't pay for our transportation infrastructure, WE DON'T GET IT! But we DO get more congestion. Great!

-- Esposito (abc@abc.com), July 31, 1999.


Esposito, If you want to pay 39 cents per gal. in gas tax, please do so. I'm sure the station will take your money. If you want to fund all the Higher Ed. programs around, send them a check. Just keep your hands out of my pocket book.

-- Chuck (abc@abc.com), July 31, 1999.

Hey, Chuck, was I talking about "higher education" specifically? NO. I'm talking mainly about K-12 education--you know, educating the next generation of this nation. And if you haven't noticed from the text of I-695, raising higher education tuition is one of the only items that wouldn't have to be voted on if 695 actually passes. By the way, the legislature already granted the colleges and universities some local authority to raise tuition beyond what the legislature approves. Happy? As for the gas tax, did you even read my entire post? I said that there's plenty of room for compromise. But if you think 23 cents has the same value today as it did 7 years ago, what can I say?

-- Esposito (abc@abc.com), July 31, 1999.

I think it was Will Rogers who said, "Thank goodness we don't get all the government that we pay for." Art

-- Arthur Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), July 31, 1999.


John Carlson is with the Washington Institute Foundation and not the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. Both organizations are watch dogs for abuse in government spending. Both organizations cannot take a stand on any initiative. But they can present information.

We wish they would look into the huge surplus amounts the cities and counties have (and the transit districts). Then compare the MVET revenue they get to their total budget. Guess what it is usually 2% or much less.

Of the Department of Transportation, the Evergreen Freedom foundation want's to know why the DuPont interchange near Ft Lewis was done for 1/2 the cost in 1/2 the time with private money. Why is the taxpayer spending twice as much and waiting twice as long for the same improvements done with public money?

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), July 31, 1999.


The reason why the Dupont interchange was done so quickly is because all of the regulatory agencies, the county, and the city of Dupont bent over backwards to get the interchange built quickly so that Intel would build a factory a Dupont. They did so because they know the factory would bring them more revenue from taxes. Also, Weyerhauser provided the money quickly, the Federal government tends to want to provide it in stages. Consequently, it was possible for WSDOT to "fast track" that project. Normally interchanges are built with mostly federal funding and will not bring the promise of a new large factory with them, so the environmental and regulatory agencies go at their usual pace.

Other than that, the reason why transportation cost more in WA than alot of other states is that our highways cross alot of streams, lakes and rivers, because we have an unusually high amount of them in this state. Bridges cost alot more per mile than roads. If you want to compare transportation costs between states, make sure you compare WA against a state with alot of water crossing.

-- Dorothy Rita Voss (dorothyv@yahoo.com), August 02, 1999.


Believe it or not we do NOT have a lot more rivers and streams than most states. We don't have as many roads as many states. And we don't have nearly as developed highway systems as many states. We don't have the inclement weather that many states have that mess up the roads and slow down construction and repair. What we do have is a government that charges excessively for the things we do need and drags it's feet when doing them. It also spends more for lower quality work. Transportation should not cost more and traffic should flow more smoothly if the roads were designed properly to begin with. We are far behind most of the country in traffic-flow engineering and far ahead of them in the expenditure for it.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 03, 1999.

Just look around your neighborhood, and make note of all of your neighbors who have cars parked in their driveways from "vistors/relartives/friends" who "just arrived yesterday/are visiting" from Idaho, Oregon, Colorado, etc.

You'll also notice that their license tabs always seem to expire in about "11 months."

Just another example of how opporessive the MVET is in this state.

-- Dean Ekman (deanekman@msn.com), August 03, 1999.


Dorothy makes a good point. Roads and overpasses can be built for less money in less time. The government needs motivation to do it and I-695 will provide that motovation.

Consider a couple of statements from the Evergreen Freedom Foundations report on "Highway Robbery and the Washington State Gas Tax:

(1) Massachusetts reduced road maintenance by 32% in two years by privitizing 40% of their state roadways. So why is Washington still paying more for less?

(2) A careful look at the facts shows there is no lack of revenue. The problem lies in a lack of accountability and stifling of needed reforms.

It is time for our leaders to step up to the plate and make the needed changes in our laws that will allow Washington to share in the economies enjoyed by other states.

Thanks Dorothy for making the point that the state can do much better because it has done it with the Dupont interchange.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 03, 1999.


You may want to look at the information at the following address:

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/i-695/695august.htm

It gives the details of predicted reductions in anticipated revenue, due to I-695; including which counties and cities will be effected and by how much.

-- dbvz (dbvz@freei.net), August 19, 1999.


I have read the Office of Financial Management Report and here are my general reactions.

1) There has been a tendency in our state to hide taxes to fund programs that don't readily gain support and the MVET is an excellent example of how they hide taxes. Why is 24% of a MOTOR VEHICLE tax being used to fund criminal justice, publice health and "other programs" (whatever they are)?

2) It does appear that local traportation districts will be hit the hardest by the initiative. This revenue will have to be made up from another source. It is reasonable that they can institute their own sales or gas taxes to make up the shortfall.

3) The measure would increase license renueal from $23.75 to $30 which would bring in an additional $31.2 million.

-- K. Loucks (kaljhsjr@sttl.uswest.net), August 21, 1999.


I would like to respond to abc about education an funding it. Here's another twist rember our lottery rember voteing for or aginst it I DO i voted for it i had just turned 18 an became a regesterd voter in this state. rember the platform our most corrupt polatitions used? thay an i quote the funds genarated by this will be used to fund our schools.... has it? NO! that money has been going into the genral fund where most of our legaslators get there money to fund pet projects........NOT OUR SCHOOLS that thay fund by taxing my property more..... I am not a well off property owner I am just a E-5 in the NAVY born an raised in this state trying to raise my famlie here. Former GOV Lowery tryed to push a state income tax an the people here said NO! I am sorry to be on my soap box but Am VERY TIRED OF OUR ELECTED OFFICELS MISS SPENDING OUR MONEY IN THIS STATE AN I BELIVE THERE ALOT MORE PEOPLE THE SILENT MAJORITY.....

-- JEFF KAISER (PUTER2FX@YAHOO.COM), August 25, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ