Why have we not heard of any proposal on the table to fix the unfair nature of the MVET? So far all I have heard about is all the problems that will be caused if we pass I-695. Where is our state's leadership?

If the MVET was a FAIR tax, I beleive most people would willingly pay. This assumes the tax is used for roads, etc. and not peanut buttered across many programs. If EVERYONE in WA state new about how the MVET really functions, they would DEMAND change. Almost everyone I speak to is unaware of the depreciation schedule used in MVET (100% for 2 years), nor how vehicle value is determined (based on MSRP).

Can anyone who is opposed to I-695 (or otherwise concerned) please respond?

Ed

-- Ed Plunkett (edwardoplunkett@worldnet.att.net), September 13, 1999

Answers

You ask "Where is our state's leadership?" They are leading us down the garden path for another bout of consensual rape.

I-695 WILL fix the MVET and put a damper on the greed of the State.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 13, 1999.

MVET is merely a revenue producing device. There never was another rationale for it. In order for bureaucrats to consider removing MVET, they would require another "revenue source" to offset the funding lost.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 13, 1999.

Thanks for the contributions so far, but I was really looking for some input from those opposed to I-695. Any takers?

Ed

-- Ed (edwardoplunkett@worldnet.att.net), September 14, 1999.

I'm sorry Ed, but our local anti 165 guys (Jeff, d, BB, and a few others) have a long track record of either not showing up, waffling, weasling, or changing the subject when presented with questions, the only reasonable answer to which would tend to disprove their viewpoint. Apparently on this thread, they are working the "not show up" option. You may have to content yourself with sarcastic comments from the I-695 supporters, or track them down on threads which they have started where they will (possibly) feel too embarassed to ignore you. That will allow you at least to experience the waffle, weasel, or change the subject modes, but you will still be unlikely to get a meaningful response.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 14, 1999.

Craig writes:

"I'm sorry Ed, but our local anti 165 guys (Jeff, d, BB, and a few others) have a long track record of either not showing up, waffling, weasling, or changing the subject when presented with questions, the only reasonable answer to which would tend to disprove their viewpoint."

The alternative of course being Craig's constant refrain that all politicians are the devil incarnate.

On Ed's point, I don't really think the MVET is all that unfair in most cases. In fact, I happen to like Washington's system. I have every opportunity to opt out of as much of the tax burden as I can. I can buy a cheaper car or a cheaper house and save a helluva lot of money. We don't have an income tax, where you have no chance to opt out of the tax burden. If you're smart with what you buy in this state, you don't pay as much money in taxes as a guy who is dumb.

Cars are a horribly stupid investment anyway. It's a much better idea to spend your money on stocks or mutual funds or something that actually appreciates in value, unlike a car.

What do you do to change the inequities in the MVET? I see no reason why the depreciation schedule couldn't be based on a bill of sale. That means if you buy a car for $5000 that has a blue book value of $10,000, you shouldn't be penalized for being smart. Let the MVET be collected at that $5000 rate and have it depreciate from there.

As far as MVET going exclusively to roads, R-49 shifts MVET money to roads. And 695 takes away R-49.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 14, 1999.

BB-

"The alternative of course being Craig's constant refrain that all politicians are the devil incarnate. "

If this is a constant refrain, produce one statement that I've made to that effect, on any of the postings.

I simply believe that they take the line of least resistance. Right now, it's easier for them to do what the special interest groups and the lobbyists want, rather than what the general public wants. The obligation is on the public to resist more. That's what we are doing with Initiative 695. We are going to resist A LOT once it passes.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 14, 1999.

Craig:

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you have an agenda you ARE in a special interest group. If you have any interests, they are special to you and those you share them with. If you try to get government to do anything for your special interests, you LOBBY for it. The job of the legislature and other elected officials is to balance these interests, since the special interests of developers can conflict with the special interests of the environmentalist. Most people are members of several special interest groups, some of which actively lobby.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 14, 1999.

Craig writes:

"If this is a constant refrain, produce one statement that I've made to that effect, on any of the postings."

I know you've never said that politicians are the devil incarnate. I just wanted to make a little point. You jumped right up when I made that comment...but you lump me in with despotic tyrants like Pol Pot and Mao Zedong in another thread.

It's kinda annoying when somebody goes wild with the rhetoric, isn't it Craig?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.

Having an interest in your OWN well being, your OWN financial status and your OWN money does not make you part of a special interest group.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.

BB-

"I know you've never said that politicians are the devil incarnate. I just wanted to make a little point." This is called a fabrication.

"You jumped right up when I made that comment...but you lump me in with despotic tyrants like Pol Pot and Mao Zedong in another thread."

Second verse, same as the first. Produce one statement that I've made to that effect, on any of the postings, in context please.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 15, 1999.

Craig writes:

"Second verse, same as the first. Produce one statement that I've made to that effect, on any of the postings, in context please."

Well, here you go.

"Did you intend to merely put him in a re-education center until he's too old to speak (or breathe), or was the idea that the state should authorize a REAL LATE term abortion for Mr. Westin. Worked in Cambodia (sort of) and in the PRC during the Great Cultural Revolution. Let's see, there's d, Mike, ......... (damn, that's only a Gang of Two, need to find a couple more converts, maybe BB would agree"

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 15, 1999.

Mao was not one of the Gang of Four. Neither was Pol Pot. And the context was that d had just recommended the ELIMINATION of Mr. Westin. I did NOT state that you were a member of this group, merely that d could ask your opinion.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 15, 1999.

I DID NOT suggest the elimination of Mr. Westin. Check your information. I stated I believed he was wrong.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 15, 1999.

Just to set the record straight, I believe you are refering to this post:

Here's the perfect cut for government to start with. Westin! If that's the best he can do, we don't need him.

-- Mike Powell (mkpow62@silverlink.net), September 14, 1999.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 15, 1999.

d-

It looks to me that you are recommending that the government "cut" Westin. If that isn't what you meant, what did you mean? If I owe you an apology, I'll be glad to apologize. BB, you were merely a suggestion for a potential supporter of d, no defamation intended. You have supported his(her?) position on rare occasion.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.ney), September 15, 1999.