Will my 1999 one ton pickup be paying the $30.00 tabs? Or because I pay for tonnage will I be excempt from this new I-695? Thanks Gary

-- Gary Birrenkott (BIRRENG@aol.com), September 24, 1999

Answers

Gary:

The initiative specifies $30 tabs for cars, sport utility vehicles, motorcycles, and motorhomes. That's it. It repeals the MVET, and the property tax exemption for vehicles by reference. Proponents will tell you the property tax thing needs another vote, but the repeal of the exemption imposes the property tax with the same authority that the repeal of the MVET has - by reference.

As for a 1 ton truck, since you buy tonnage, my read is that is the section of the law that applies to all trucks from 6,000 GVW on up. No $30 fee, but tonnage applies.

The question I have had, and have seen no answer for, is what about trucks under 6,000 GVW, campers, trailers of all kinds (including camping), off road vehicle licenses (dirt bikes, etc.), and anything else that is currently licensed but does not fit into the 4 listed vehicle types that get the $30 tabs? Do they pay nothing, since they don't pay tonnage?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 24, 1999.

d'

There you go again waging the opposition's war of TERROR and FEAR on Washington Citizens!

I-695 removes the excise tax on all motor vehicles. The $30 license fee (which is increased from $23.75 to $30)only applies to "general vehicles. Licensing fees for all other vehicles remain unchanged. Those who own pickups, trucks, utility trailers, off road vehicles, etc. can determine their licensing fees by looking at the "OTHER" portion of their registration. For example a 4000 lb pickup (with a utility trailer) will license for $37.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), September 25, 1999.

Benham:

Where did you get that information? My comment was that I couldn't get an answer before, not that I knew the answer. How is asking for a straight answer a campaign of fear and terror?

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

d'

Nice try. However, you have seen me answer this question several times in several different threads.

-- RD( Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), September 25, 1999.

Benham:

Actually, no, I have never seen you answer the question.

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

Although opposed to 695, I would be interested in knowing how much the other vehicles would cost also. I am new to this forum, so you can't accuse me of waging "Fear and Terror"

-- Abe "AbeyBaby" VanElswyk (talgo79@hotmail.com), September 26, 1999.

Abe: We never did get an answer, did we?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 02, 1999.

d' and Abe:

I gave you the answer. You apparently have a reading problem. I will try to give you a little more detail.

Your car registration is made up of three parts:

(1) filing fee which is usually $3.00

(2) the excise tax (which I-695 eleminates for all vehicles)

(3) the "OTHER" category. This contains the licensing fee. If you want to know what it will cost to license a vehicle (not a car, van, motorcycle, motorhome, or SUB) look at the amount of "OTHER" on the vehicle's registration.

I-695 replaces the licensing fee for vehicles currently identified by state law as "gereral vehicles" (RCW 46.16.060). The re-licensing fee for these vehicles is increased from $24.85 ($23.75 + $0.10+ $1.00) to $30. The licensing fee goes 100% roads, so I-695 will put more money to the roads.

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

Monte writes:

"The licensing fee goes 100% roads, so I-695 will put more money to the roads."

First this $3 billion local surplus nonsense, now this...

As usual, Monte is wrong. First off, 100% of the licensing fee does NOT go to roads.

"Revenues from the annual vehicle license fee are distributed to the Washington State Patrol, the motor vehicle fund, and the Puget Sound ferry operations account. Based on the current distribution formula for those revenues, it is assumed that those additional revenues would go into the Washington State Patrol Highway Fund if the initiative is approved."

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

Secondly, $2 billion in transportation projects are gone if 695 passes. More money will not go into roads than what is currently planned to be there.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 03, 1999.

BB:

There you go again BB.

Perhape you don't have a copy of the WA Constitution. I suggest you get one and read Article II, Sec. 40. ALL LICENSING money is dedicated to the roads. Read it for yourself.

"ART II Sec 40: HIGHWAY FUNDS. All fees collected by the State of Washington as license fees for motor vehicles and all excise taxes collected by the State of Washington on the sale, distribution or use of motor vehicle fuel and other state revenue intended to be used for highway purposes, shall be paid into the state treasury and placed in a special fund to be used EXCLUSIVELY for shighway purposes."

Local government have have a HUGE surplus. They are now admitting to $600 million for cities, $400 million for transits, and surpluses ranging from 1% to 30% of yearly budgets for counties. This means that the state and local governments have at least $2 billion in surplus.

The state treasurer does not know the source of the money in the LGIP. Just like the Swiss banker does not know the source of the money in their bank. We do know that the LGIP has an average daily balance of more than $3 billion. The balance caries over from year to year.

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

Monte,

First off, you dodged what I said. Indications are that any new money generated by the licensing fee will go to the WSP, NOT ROADS.

Secondly, try quoting the entire section of the state constitution that you referenced. As section b (3. WSP, 5. Ferries) and section d (tax refund on fuel) clearly state, all the licensing fee revenue in this state DOES NOT go to roads.

>>SECTION 40 HIGHWAY FUNDS. All fees collected by the State of Washington as license fees for motor vehicles and all excise taxes collected by the State of Washington on the sale, distribution or use of motor vehicle fuel and all other state revenue intended to be used for highway purposes, shall be paid into the state treasury and placed in a special fund to be used exclusively for highway purposes. Such highway purposes shall be construed to include the following: (a) The necessary operating, engineering and legal expenses connected with the administration of public highways, county roads and city streets;

(b) The construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, and betterment of public highways, county roads, bridges and city streets; including the cost and expense of (1) acquisition of rights- of-way, (2) installing, maintaining and operating traffic signs and signal lights, (3) policing by the state of public highways, (4) operation of movable span bridges, (5) operation of ferries which are a part of any public highway, county road, or city street;

(c) The payment or refunding of any obligation of the State of Washington, or any political subdivision thereof, for which any of the revenues described in section 1 may have been legally pledged prior to the effective date of this act;

(d) Refunds authorized by law for taxes paid on motor vehicle fuels;

(e) The cost of collection of any revenues described in this section: Provided, That this section shall not be construed to include revenue from general or special taxes or excises not levied primarily for highway purposes, or apply to vehicle operator's license fees or any excise tax imposed on motor vehicles or the use thereof in lieu of a property tax thereon, or fees for certificates of ownership of motor vehicles. [AMENDMENT 18, 1943 House Joint Resolution No. 4, p 938. Approved November, 1944.]<<

Also take a look at Chapter 46.68 of the RCW for more info on revenue distribution from the licensing fee. IT DOES NOT ALL GO TO ROADS.

And now you also claim that local governments have a $1 billion surplus. Of course considering that you were wrong about the $3 billion local surplus (seeing how now you claim it's only $1 billion), and wrong about licensing fees all going to roads, I have no faith in the accuracy of your $1 billion surplus claim.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 04, 1999.

BB:

There you go again!

You claim that the RCW's violate the WA Constitution and that the WSP is not part of the highway system.

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

Monte writes:

"You claim that the RCW's violate the WA Constitution and that the WSP is not part of the highway system."

That's funny that you say that, seeing how I never claimed either. Of course you never said anything about the highway system; you said roads. There's a distinction between the two of course. It's in that section of the constitution that you partially quoted. Maybe if you read the whole thing again you'll see the difference.

I'm still waiting to hear from you about how that $3 billion surplus turned into $1 billion...

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 05, 1999.

BB"

There you go again. First you lie and then you deny. You have squandared your credibility.

I won't respond again. I do not have time. But I will say our Victory stand is large enough to hold everyone. It will be easier for those who "see the light before the vote".

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

Monte writes:

"There you go again. First you lie and then you deny. You have squandared your credibility."

Credibility? Geez, somebody that got caught with their pants down in the Seattle P-I after spouting off about a $3 billion local surplus really shouldn't throw stones.

Minutia is the name of the game when you deal with the state constitution. There is a distinction made between roads and highways. If you're going to play expert, you should know what you're talking about.

You said roads, not highway system, and got caught not knowing the real facts. Again. But you should be used to it by now, I guess.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 07, 1999.