$30=no money for needed things

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

I-695 is a crappy crappy idea. Yes auto licensing is expensive, I paid over $400 last year. But this I-695 doesn't have any provisions for replacing the money that will be lost. And that means that many state programs will suffer. Metro will have to raise its rates by 300% to cover the loss. Do you know who rides Metro? People who can't afford cars for the most part. You are trying to save money for the upper middle class with their brand new SUV's by forcing the cost onto the people who can just barely get by as it is.

I-695 sucks. There's no way around it. Fix it so that the lost money will be replaced by taxes from another source, or get it the hell out of here.

-- J. R. (photo702@hotmail.com), July 31, 1999

Answers

Fix it? Nothing TO fix.

You want to make up for the reduced revenue? Then vote for the increased budget requests from the various governments.

Of course, when 695 passes, you can always do what I suggested that Patrick do: feel free to continue to give the extra money you've been paying to the agencies of your choice.

No sense in you actually KEEPING that money you believe BELONGS to the various agencies of our benevelant government.

But stay the hell out of MY wallet.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), July 31, 1999.


Here in my little corner of the state, public transportation has a HUGE surplus in the bank. If they charged NOTHING to the riders right now, they would still be able to operate just fine.

MVET accounts for 3% of my county's budget. I, for one, would be amazed and horrified if my elected officials couldn't cut their spending by 3%, and would remember that in 2000. And, since transportation probably includes federal block grant monies, it's probably not even as much as 3.

WA resident

-- WA resident (WAres@my-deja.com), August 01, 1999.


JR, You said,"You are trying to save money for the upper middle class with their brand new SUV's by forcing the cost onto the people who can just barely get by as it is." But the truth of the matter is, when I drove a 1982 Honda Civic the $133.00 they wanted for my tabs was a devistating blow to my budget. But now that I have prospered and drive a nicer car and make a better income the $650.00 I pay makes me angry, but does not impact me nearly as bad as the $133.00 did. I support I-695 for several reasons, but one of the reasons is because I can remember the pain I felt in trying to come up with $133.00. I support it because I am compassionate towards those that need the money the government so ruthlessly steals from them in rediculous taxes and fees.

-- Jeff (jeff@dcsseattle.com), August 02, 1999.

I totally agree when someone has the guts to say that these anti- 695/anti-everything people need to get a clue and get a life. They keep repeating everything like a hippy mantra. Maddjak is right. It's always some whining about rich people. Well rich people have earned what they have and have all rights to keep it all instead of giving it away to whine-and-cheese liberals like Gary Locke. Privatize the schools and also the libraries, we don't need them to teach communist b.s. to our children. Their the only precious resource we have! And this election is about them. The opinion of whiny cheesy liberals is irrelevant anyway because they always say the same things! Tim Eyman is right it's right to give it all back to the PEOPLE and not Big Government. We will vote for I-695!

-- Micheal McKinley (goldenwater@hotmail.com), August 03, 1999.

I am one of the working poor. I have a van that the taxes are $257 a year. I can not afford tabs and the van sits in my driveway undriven. With the $30.00 tabs not only will I be able to afford to put plates on the van, and then drive it; What would happen is the people that have Idaho plates will then register their cars, RV, trucks in Washington. Extra income for the state. With more cars being able to afford tabs (and not sitting), the state will collect more gasoline, oil taxes. Everyone WINS.

-- Marvin Newcomb (coffee@BigFoot.com), August 03, 1999.


What I cannot understand is that so many people think the government has a right to our money; somehow WE'VE got to make up that "loss."

Why? Anyone who's ever been in business knows that you sometimes have to deal with budget cuts - 2% is NOTHING (how about those of you who've lost a day's pay sometime in the past because you took an extra vacation day or sick day, or weren't scheduled to work? What did you do on payday when your SMALLER check arrived? I'll bet you spent less money because you didn't have it any more).

We have a government culture in this state that expects money - we vote to limit property taxes, so the government increases assessments. We're considering voting to eliminate the MVET, and they're having cold sweats about it.

Every dollar that goes to the economy, whether it's to an IRA, savings account, grocery store or (dare I say it)night club HELPS the local economy. All government does is consume.

I say that anyone voting "no" on I-695 doesn't understand the real issue.

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


You've got to be kidding!?! I-695 is one of the best ideas to come around to this liberal tax & spend state of ours. Yes, I can say that being born & raised here. With passage of this law, our tax dollars can no longer be justified on $600 toliet seats. Maybe the state, county & cities will do what every other body in the state has to do-- go to Eagle and actually pay $10 for real goods. This hooey that our state is going to "run out of money" is bull.

We actually pay more money in taxes than Californian's do. They support how many hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants on less than what we pay. Tell me how that is done?

Our state has simply gotten carried away with taxation. Looked at your phone bill lately? How about your utility bill? Every bill seems to have some new tax added to it. It's about time that we stand up for ourselves and tell the politicians to start being just a little more responsible with OUR money. Yes, never forget, it is OUR money!

-- Corinne Kirshner (cmkirsh@gte.net), August 09, 1999.


Corrine, that bit about "illegal immigrants" stood out like a sore thumb! Es decir, it blew a big racist hole in your argument, not to mention being economically backwards. (Although I'm sure Mr. Eyman, who also co-sponsored I-200, won't be offended by it!) It's actually more like this, Corinne: Illegal immigrants SUPPORT the economy by providing ridiculously cheap labor for corporations who in turn make ridiculously high profits on the backs of these people. And it's funny how the only time that the call goes out to deport them is when jobs get scarce. Were you conjuring the usual ignorant (and "populist") B.S. about "those people" all being on welfare? I just can't respond to that constructively, Corrine. Entonces, go to your room and don't come out until you've purged the racist poison out of your system!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 09, 1999.

Jeff-

Illegal immigration is not inherently racist and shouldn't be a taboo issue for discussion. I don't blame illegal immigrants, I've been in a number of foreign countries and I thank God that I had the good fortune to be born her. Had it been otherwise, I'd do whatever I could to sneak in to. I do think that your constant emphasis on multinational corporations is misplaced. I think that commerce benefits all. Are there disparities in opportunity? You betcha. But, in my humble opinion, that biggest problems are political and cultural. I've watched generations of Mecican leaders get rich on PEMEX oil revenues and other natural resources while the people continue to suffer. I have a friend who tells me it dates back to the Conquistadores, when the leader got to keep all he could steal, the Lieutenants got next dibs, etc. But this was going on long before there were multinational co

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 09, 1999.


Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou......finally someone is standing up to government, to say "enough is enough". I'm tired of hearing how the state will suffer if I-695 passes. Who cares if I suffer?? I'm a widow, with four children at home, working part time to supplement social security the children and I recieve. For 5 years now since my husband's been gone, I've dreaded April and October, property tax month....and feel so helpless, at the mercy of government, as the taxes cont. to increase. I also choose to drive a leased vehicle, the dreaded SUV, which I love, and have every right to drive what I wish......but in Feb. the tabs on it will be $700.00+.....almost double what my monthy payment is. Is this fair? NO! I am not "upper middle class", I'm a widow, a single MOM.....struggling to survive on a day to day basis. God Bless Tim Eyman, and everyone who cares enough about families like mine to vote YES to I-695!!!!!!!

-- Terri Schweigert (yourfriendterri@Juno.com), August 10, 1999.


Terri can also thank I-695 for adding personal property tax on her SUV. The only reason it isn't required to be collected by existing law is a little exemption section found in RCW 82.44.130 saying that so long as the MVET chapter remains in effect, vehicles are exempt from normal property tax. We don't have to wait for damned politicians to try to raise taxes and wait for our vote. By voting for section 3(19) of THIS INITIATIVE we do it ourselves. This is our only chance to vote on this raise. If you hate high car tabs, wait till you have to vote for I-695 requiring the filing of a personal property tax return every year for your car and payment of property tax on it instead. It will be nearly as high (about 2% vs. 2.2%), and most of it will be wasted in collection. If you want to get rid of taxes on your car, find something written a little better. This one only requires a vote of the people if government later decides to raise taxes. It doesn't say anything about requiring a second vote when by this vote I (not the government) vote to raise (impose) property tax on cars by repealing the only law which keeps that from happening.

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), August 10, 1999.

There will not be a property tax or any other tax on automobiles without a vote of the people and Mr. Dick knows this. Because he has been involved with other discussions in this forum. He merely wishes to attempt to scare you.

By the way property is taxed at 1% of value with voter approval for anything more than 1%. Your car is taxed at 2.2% of value. Mr. Dick would have you belive that 1% is more than 2.2%. Those opposed to I- 695 do not like the idea that voter approval will also be required to raise your property tax (or any other tax).

Be aware of some of the liberal techniques used to scare and divide the people so they can stay in control by using our tax dollars against the people.

(1) I-695 will produce an income tax. (answer Not witout a vote of the people and a 2/3 vote of the leglislature.

(2) Some feel that anyone with a newer car than them must be rich. So they propose the idea that anyone who can afford a newer car can afford it. So tax the richer.

(3) They use any argument involving class warfare they can such as rich versus poor. Make people dependent on the liberals so they will vote them back in power.

An argument could be made that those who do not drive new cars (like Govenor Locke (1993 station wagon) and can afford a newer car are the ones that are selfish because they are keeping their money away from the poor. There is the argument that those who drive a newer car have it for the apparance of wealth. That they are the ones that are actually poor because the car payments and taxes take all of their disposable income.

Those opposed to I-695 would have you think the sky is falling and only voting against I-695 will save you. The fact is that by voting I-695 will erode the power base of those that feel that bigger government is the answer to all your problems.

So let's send the message that they must stay out of our pocket books. We want a voice in determining what state and local government services are essential. Just what part of we cannot afford it don't they understand?

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 10, 1999.


I won't be scared by the rhetoric of the Mr. Dicks that oppose I-695, he says to "wait" for something better to come along! I know that $30.00 license tabs will be far less than what may or may not be added to my property taxes, which is very debatable. So, for now, I still see an initiative that speaks to my needs. Yes, it is true Mr. Dick that the governmemt will find someway of sticking it to me and raising my taxes, I will continue to work to pay the taxes. Last April, I went to my place of employment picked up my paycheck and went directly to the auditors and gave it all to them. I'm thankful to have a job that allows me to pay my taxes, but it would be nice to spend some of that on a family vacation or something equally rewarding. So don't tell me to wait for something better!! The time is NOW, I'm tired of giving and giving, now is the time to say YES to I-695, and NO to the state of Washington, big business and the rest of you who are out of touch with the needs of the people of Washington State!!!!

-- Terri Schweigert (yourfriendterri@juno.com), August 10, 1999.

Okay, Terri, just don't go bombing any Federal Buildings, okay?

-- Emiliano Del Guava (que_extranjera_amiga@yeehah.com), August 10, 1999.

To Emiliano Del Guava (better known as Jeff). Do you really think that Terri is an alien? Is that an outer space alien or an illegal alien? Will I-695 not be applicable to widowed, working aliens? Possible tu eres mojado? O possible un campechino?

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 10, 1999.


Querido Senor maddjak, yo si me llamo Emiliano. Vivo dentro la Red, y dentro su cabeza tambien! No me llamo Jeff, pero me gustaria mucho ser jefe del mundo! Quiero que tu comprenda que nunca me gusta cuando unas personas que quiere verse como Pobres Trabajadoros Pobres (lo siento, amigo!) se enfadan sobre los inmigrantes illegales. A veces asi es como ser hipocritos! La gente que viene de Mexico si son muy trabajadores, y casi nunca reciben "welfare"; en cambio, estos si ganan poco dinero desde los companias ricos que les emplean. Porque los Taxpayers Enojados les odian asi? Me parece que no puede que ser un caso del racismo! Como es verdademente la Via Americana! Como decia mi amigo alemano Arnold, hasta la vista, bebe!

-- Emiliano Del Guava (lacuentaporfavor@correocaliente.com), August 10, 1999.

ing federal buildings is not in my thinking.....but as always the jerks come out of the woodwork when any intelligent person tries to have a rational conversation. This is a democracy, and last I heard we as American citizens are still free to voice our opinions. We are also able to vote, thus the joy I'm feeling that someone actually started an initiative that gives me some control.... at the polls to say to our government that they need to find a better way to improve our roads than by forcing me off the road with exorbitant excise taxes!!! YES for I-695 !!

-- Terri Schweigert (yourfriendterri@Juno.com), August 10, 1999.

Terri don't be bothered by Jeff, He appears in many of the posts disguised as a mojado, a redneck or whatever but he is a product of our illustrious U.W. And Jeff......Arnold isn't German.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 10, 1999.

If 5% is going to devastate Washington State government than what the hell are they doing with the other 95%?

-- Glenn (glenn@racing.com), August 12, 1999.

Republicans AGAINST I-695 http://www.noi695.org/

-- Sandy Olsen (sparkle@olywa.net), September 14, 1999.

What the government is trying to do is wage a scare tactic against the people. I-695 is exactly what every state needs. It will put a stop to the millions of dollars that are wasted every year in all of the construction projects. Anybody ever see 2 men working while 8 stood by and watched? I thought so. This will just make the government more accountable. They no longer will get a blank check. If there needs to be more money raised then they will have to pose a good arguement for it and let the people decide if it is necessary. Once again the power will be in the people's hands. Everybody needs to pass this in November!

-- Denver Morford (denver@foxinternet.net), September 28, 1999.

Sandy went to the site you listed. Most of the links on the side panel don't work and I did not see any statements opposing 695 from elected officials on the statement page. Just FYI

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), September 29, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ