Section 3(19) of I-695 repeals RCW 82.44.130, which reads: "Ad valorem taxation barred. No motor vehicle shall be listed and assessed for ad valorem taxation so long as this chapter remains in effect."

The Washington Constitution requires all real and personal propery to be taxed, except such as have been exempted by the legislature. This is the only statute I can find which exempts vehicles from personal property taxation.

Why would I want to vote to repeal the only statute which keeps me and every other vehicle owner whose car is worth more than $3,000 from filing a personal property tax affidavit listing my car every year and paying property tax rates on its value?

Isn't the personal property tax I-695 Section 3(19)adds much more costly and wasteful to administer for the same amount collected than the MVET it also repeals?

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), August 02, 1999

Answers

From the Secretary of State's site: Ballot Measure Summary This measure would establish license tab fees at $30 per year for motor vehicles regardless of year, value, make, or model, beginning January 1, 2000. Existing taxes and fees relating to motor vehicles would be repealed. The measure provides that voter approval would be required for any tax increase enacted by the state or any city, county, or special district. "Tax increase" would include new taxes, tax rate increases, **tax**base**expansions**, and tax extensions.

Clearly, the SecState does not think that 695 will allow property tax to be applied to motor vehicles WITHOUT A VOTE, but even if it does, the property tax rate will be substantially less then the current rate for tab fees.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 03, 1999.

I-695 requires voter approval for any new tax or tax increase. The RCW's are listed as Title.chapter.section. So RCW 82.44 is the chapter mentioned in RCW 82.44.130. As far as I can determine there never has been a property tax imposed on motor vehicles. It appears that RCW 82.44.130 was a protection to prevent the state from imposing an additional property tax on motor vehicles.

Please remember that prior to the 1930's property tax ran the state, county, and city governments. The sales tax and motor vehicle excise tax were imposed in 1936 and 1937.

From 1932 to 1938 there was a major tax revolt in State. In 1932, 1934, 1936 and 1938 the 40-mil Limit on property tax were passed (Initiatives 64, 94, 114, and 129). The reason they were passed every two years was to prevent the state from ammending the initiatives with a simple majority vote. The state can ammend any initiative with a 2/3 vote of both houses. Finally in 1944 the Amendment #17 Sec 2 Art VII of the consitution was approved.

Property was valued at 25% of value until 1972 when it was chaned to 50% of value. To prevent property taxes from doubling, the 1% limit on property tax was approved. In 1974 property was valued at 100% of the market value. The constitution says your property is to be valued at it's true and fair value. Currently the state uses true and fair MARKET value.

It is important to realize that the county treasurer has the right to 1% of the market value of your property each year for non voter approved taxes. Additional property tax is collected by EXCESS levys which require 60% voter approval (to protect the property owner from being over taxed). Additional property tax is collected from new construction. And finally additional property tax is collected by the county assessor inflating the value of your property each year. I-695 will stop the inflating of property values and require voter approval for any tax increases.

If the voters were to decide to levy a property tax on motor vehicles, it would be limited to the constitutional 1% limit on property. As it stands now the excise tax on motor vehicles is 2.2%.

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

Westin's response suggesting that the Secretary of State doesn't think property tax on vehicles would be added by I-695 isn't what the Secretary of State says or what the Initiative says. The Secretary of State simply says that AFTER ADOPTION of I-695 new taxes, increases or extensions in future years would require a vote. Section 3(19) of the Initiative IS A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE which says that it repeals RCW 82.44.130 (the only exemption which keeps vehicles from being taxed now), so we will be voting to impose property tax for 2000, even if it can't get bigger without another vote. No second vote is required to keep collecting that new tax, only to increase it. My problem is with the huge hassle of filing a personal property tax affidavit every year for my vehicles. I do it for my business personal property, but to make nearly every car owner do it every year is a royal pain, and a huge rathole at every assessor's office.

Both Westin and Benham say that it doesn't matter anyway, because the property tax imposed by I-695 is substantially less than the excise tax it replaces. Benham says that property tax is limited to 1% and that excise tax is 2.2% of value. Only REGULAR property tax is limited to 1% of value. Excess levies in nearly every community make the total property tax we typically pay about 2% of value. Maybe they think a typical 2% property tax, which costs far more to administer to collect than a 2.2% excise tax is great! I get to pay nearly the same, but much more property tax will be wasted on collection and will not be available for the purpose collected.

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), August 03, 1999.

I-695 merely extends the provisions of I-601. This is implemented into Washington laws as RCW 43.135. It requires a 2/3 vote of both houses to impose a new tax, and if the new tax would extend the spending limit, it also takes a vote of the people.

So the argument that the state will empose a property tax on automobiles is just another scare tactic. Do you think those who want to stay in Olympia will vote to impose another tax. Remember over 500,000 signed the initiative and polling shows 73% voter approval.

It may take a little time but our elected officials will get the message and finally support I-695. Gov. Brown of California orginally fought Prop 13 but when he finally saw that the voters were overwhelming in support of it, he supported it. Howard Jarvis, one of the authors of Prop 13 was a conservative Republican. He ended up voting for Brown. After Prop 13 was passed Gov. Brown comment was: "we now have our marching orders." In time Washington officials will come to the same conclusion.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 04, 1999.

Your statement "we will be voting to impose property tax for 2000". Is completely untrue. Removing the exemption is not the same as imposing a tax. And no one has addressed the two parts of this section. One part removes the exemption and the other part restores the classification of 'vehicle' to the mobile home which is no longer mobile. Which in effect removes it from the 'property' classification and applies the $30.00 tab fee to it. I may be wrong, but I think that the one part can't be accomplished without the other. And removing the exemption makes the vehicle 'subject' to a new tax but a new tax may not be imposed without a vote of the people.

-- maddjak(pero porque no idiomas otros?) (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 04, 1999.

Hey Maddjak, glad to see your bad grammar knows no language barrier! Here's a little tip for you: agreement of gender of adjectives and critical thinking tend to go hand in hand. Es decir, sloppy grammar betrays sloppy thinking. Don't take it too personally. I am confident that those times when your gray matter kicks in always coincide with those times when you're thinking of ways to defend I-695. Ciao!

-- The Stupid Genius (speak@englishor.die), August 04, 1999.

Webmaster, please remove the reply from the one who calls himself the stupid .... His response adds nothing but an insult.

I appreciate your new format!

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 05, 1999.

Monte & maddjak. If I-695 passes, you are right that the politicians might hesitate to create a new property tax on vehicles, if they were required to do so. That is the difficulty. They are not allowed to MAKE THINGS TAXABLE in Washington. The Constitution itself makes all property in Washington taxable, and it only gives the legislature power to EXEMPT specific types of property FROM THAT REQUIREMENT. The legislature did exempt vehicles by RCW 82.44.130, but I-695 Section 3(19) will specifically repeal that exemption, leaving vehicles taxable. The legal effect of a vote on I-695 will be to reimpose the constitutional requirement for taxing vehicles, without any vote by the legislature on that issue.

Normally the legislature could act to exempt vehicles from property tax again, but if the exemption is repealed by initiative, the Constitution will keep the legislature from undoing that repeal for two years without a 2/3 vote of each house. This will not be a NEW tax imposed by politicians, but one imposed by the Constitution and by voters. I recognize the confusion, and the intent to require voter approval to extend tax to new things. But a vote on the initiative IS JUST SUCH A VOTE. The property tax on vehicles will not be a "new tax," because it will be imposed by I-695. If we pass the initiative, WE make vehicles subject to property tax!

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), August 05, 1999.

Actually, the legislature already made vehicles taxable, unless exempted by law. RCW 84.36.005 says: "All real property now existing, or that is hereafter created or brought into this state, county, and other taxing district purposes, upon equalized valuations thereof, fixed with reference thereto on the first day of January at twelve o'clock meridian in each year, excepting such as is exempted from taxation by law."

This is just another reason why no new vote will be required to tax vehicles on value for the first time in over 50 years, if the exemption for vehicles is removed by I-695. Voters just get to decide whether to adopte I-695, which substitutes a more wasteful tax for the one which it reduces.

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), August 05, 1999.

I have seen reference to the $3,000 head of household value exemption from property tax for motor vehicles. I'm sorry to say that motor vehicles do not qualify for the exemption. RCW 84.36.110 states in part:

Start of quote ============================ RCW 84.36.110 Household goods and personal effects--Three thousand dollars actual value to head of family.

The following property shall be exempt from taxation:

(1) All household goods and furnishings in actual use by the owner thereof in equipping and outfitting his or her residence or place of abode and not for sale or commercial use, and all personal effects held by any person for his or her exclusive use and benefit and not for sale or commercial use.

(2) The personal property, other than specified in subdivision (1) hereof, of each head of a family liable to assessment and taxation of which such individual is the actual and bona fide owner to an amount of three thousand dollars of actual values: PROVIDED, That this exemption shall not apply to any private motor vehicle, or mobile home... ============================ End of quote

Just some more food for thought...

Tom King

-- Tom E. King (wsac2@coopext.wsu.edu), August 05, 1999.

Webmaster, please remove all posts which are critical of I-695. I fail to understand there logic, theirfore they must be stupid. And how are we sopposed to continue being right with all this complicated retoric stuff they keep throwing at us?

-- Impoverished SUV Owner (iamright@youre.not), August 05, 1999.

Bob and Tom:

Section 2 of I-695 state: "For the porpose of this section "tax increase" includes but is not necessarily limited to, a new tax, monetary increase in an existing tax, a tax rate increase, and an expansion in the legal defination of a tax base, and an extension of an expiring tax."

I-695 is repealing "existing taxes on motor vehicles". Clearly any attempt to substitue a property tax on vehicles would be "an extension of an expiring tax", Which I-695 does not allow. Further I- 695 does not allow a monitary increase in an existing tax (it specifically mentions property tax) or the expansion of the legal defination of a tax base without voter approval.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 06, 1999.

Monte. I understand that I-695 does require voter approval to increase future taxes or to add new things to be taxed, but that only applies to taxes imposed by legislative authorities of governments after the Initiative becomes effective. Courts do not construe statutes to impose procedural preconditions contained in them upon sections specifically repealed by the statute which creates the new preconditions. If I-695 had not contained the repeal of the vehicle exemption from property tax, it is true that section 3(19)of the initiative could have precluded the legislature from doing so next year without a vote of the people. Despite your protests, however, it does not, keep the people from voting in this vote to do just that now. That is all that section 3(19) does. It repeals the vehicle exemption and reinstates the property tax, without waiting for the legislature to do anything requiring voter approval.

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), August 07, 1999.

It is with bitter sweet feelings that I suport I695, I work for a city and depend on the city recieving revenue to pay my wages. I feel after reading several pages of this forum a couple of things stand out to me, One; tax payer revolt is at hand and govt has to be sent a strong message to fix the problem of taxes at all levels, NOW, and this includes the federal system. If they don't more I695's will be coming down the road. Prop 13 in California was thought to be the end of that state as we knew it, but some how "shock" it managed to continue. Two; the issue of vehicles being subject to property tax. I recently received my vehicle license renewal forms and will receive the one for my motorhome. Yes I'm one of those, but I knew how much it was gong to cost when I bought it. It hurts when I pay it but I do pay it. Not like many who buy a motorhome then use a trip permit, or license in another state (hoping not to be stopped) for the next few years. They avoided paying about $2000.00 each year in fees. Now to the point about taxing the vehicles as property, I compared what I pay in property taxes for my house and vehicle license. If I added the total value of all my vehicles it would not even be half the value of my home, closer to 40% but what I pay in fees for those vehicles is more than I pay in taxes for my house. I would at the same rate for my house pay on my vehicles about 75% less, I would welcome property tax on my vehicles. And unlike property the value of the vehicles will go down as will the taxes. It is an easy test of values. Just add up the value of each vehicle (use what ever resale guide such as the Kelly Blue Book or NADA for average retail value.) Then look at your last property tax statement for the current value of your home. Add the amount you paid for property taxes then what you paid to license your vehicle(s)when you make the comparison it should be easy to see which is the cheaper rate. I think I695 is too extreme in many ways but it is time for Olympia to wake up and represent not resent the public.

-- mike chaney (chaney.m@worldnet.att.net), August 07, 1999.

I thought we should resurect this one, since new information applies to the question. As I noted on another thread, On September 20 a memo was sent addressed to all county assessors, by the State Department of Revenue based on advice from the Office of the Attorney General. It details their understanding of the effects of 695, and includes an interpretation of the issue of this thread. They agree with Bob Dick. The initiative repeals the exemption, and by that act it reimposes the property tax on vehicles. It does so by a vote of the people, when (if) they approve the provisions of the initiative.

As for the tax amount being less than MVET, that's only part of the issue. Such a new system would be expensive to setup and operate, and difficult to manage. If property tax on vehicles works like property tax on homes, where it is registered makes a difference in the tax rate. The state can't find all the motorhomes registered out of state. How can the couty assessors verify every vehicle is being assessed at the proper address? I thought 695 was about elimination of waste and inefficience, and here it will create it. If the tax savings of the vehicle owner are reduced, and the waste in collecting the taxes are increased, this initiative loses some of its appeal.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 16, 1999.

d

How can "this initiative loses some of its appeal" when your not going to vote for it in the first place. No one is twisting the governments' arm to turn around and raise new taxes except themselves. Your right about a new system being expensive to setup and manage, so why do it?

Why can't they live with in their means, I do. When has this government lower the budget or the federal government for that matter. Do we need to subsidize studies on cow flatulence, or how do bees fly?

Ed - hard to type with these oldie but goodies playing on AMC.

p.s. contacted the owner of the '82GT. Think I've got it in the bag.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 16, 1999.

Ed, I know how odd it sounds, but this is one time where it isn't the government which wants to raise taxes by imposing an property tax on vehicles that costs more to administer than all of the revenue it could bring in. They don't want to raise anything. We do, if we vote for I-695. Only voter approval of I-695 will reinstate personal property tax on motor vehicles instead of MVET. State or local governments won't be passing any laws or ordinances to impose property tax on vehicles, and they don't need to do any, since our vote does it for them. They will hate it, since its more wasteful than anything dreamed up since 1937, but they won't have any choice but to try to collect it. There are even penalties if they don't try to do what the law requires.

The property tax is a little less than the MVET, if you don't count special levies which make it larger in some communities. My only gripe is that it's just that after we go to all the trouble to fill out personal property tax returns, and pay this different tax on our vehicles, all that money is wasted, because it costs so much more to collect than the MVET WE choose to replace it with.

We'd get both tax reduction and less waste on administration if we just asked the Legislature to fix the MVET to make it lower and more like property tax in amount, but kept collecting it at tab time, instead of in April and October. I know they didn't before, but do you have any doubt that they will now? I don't. Initiatives are persuasive tools, even when they fail because of drafting problems.

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), October 17, 1999.

Bob

I don't think the legislatures have listened to a single word the voters have said. They knew this was a huge issue last year and tossed us a crumb of $30. Then when they were in session this earlier this year neither Locke nor they brought it up. And according to them it wasn't even a priority this year. Now with poll numbers in the 60's and over 500,000 signatures Locke and the rest are saying "please don't vote on this, we may do something about it next year"

If you don't believe that last sentence then go to my post on Locke's plans for the MVET. He doesn't have one. So yes I have a big doubt that they will address it if it fails. Because as I stated on another post they will probably say "see we told you that the people don't want a tax cut".

So Bob, I'm not willing to give them another chance. They've had several and haven't done a damn thing with them.

Ed - fool me once shame on you, fool me a thousand times shame on me.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 17, 1999.

Ed:

Lose some of its appeal to the supporters, obviously. If your goal is to save money and reduce government waste, this initiative is not the tool to do it with.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 17, 1999.

Bob-

I'd buy 695 for the popular plebescite on taxes alone. My guess is we'll get that. Then if the courts rule that the personal property tax has been reinstated on vehicles, we'll get to have ANOTHER initiative next year that, in all likelihood, will be MORE draconian than 695. My guess is that no one will attempt to reinstitute the personal property tax, but if they do, it'll be the Pyrrhic victory of all time.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 17, 1999.

Craig:

You seem to have missed the point. If you vote for 695, and it is approved, YOU will have reimposed the property tax on vehicles. Not some government official. To expect anything else is to expect the government to ignor the law as changed by the provisions of the initiative. If they can ignore that one, why not the one that sets the fee for tabs at $30?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 18, 1999.