If this intiative does, in fact, pass, and a personal property tax is implemented, how would the vehicle be valued. Also, would it follow the current personal property tax rate? What depreciation schedule would it follow? Thanks,

ae

-- Allan (ae_me@yahoo.com), October 20, 1999

Answers

Allan

For the legislature to enact (or fail to stop) a personal property tax on vehicles,they would be waving their middle finger at the taxpayers for all to see.

Remember Tim Foley? He did just that;where is he now? Un like many people,I don't believe ALL politicians are stupid,but they ALL think we are.

How else would you explain the thrust of their only argument;that the Governor and the Legislature are powerless to reprioritize the budget and fund essentials first,then everything else.

They obviously believe that we are all victims of the present day educational system,which is so bad that there MAY BE people who believe the BIG LIE that what the legislature does,they are powerless to undo.

"A politician's words will not reveal their character.Watch their behavior and believe what you see."

Ricardo

-- Ricardo (ricardoxxx@home.com), October 20, 1999.

These are all questions that would probably have to be answered by the county assessors, but the general assumption is that they vehicle would be assessed at fair market value. Which means a more fair assessed value than it is now, but a heck of a lot more bureaucratic in having to check variables like mileage and judgement calls like condition. It probably would follow the current personal property tax rate, which I believe is about 1.5%, and there wouldn't be any set depreciation value. It would just be set at the market value. So if you got into an accident which reduced the car's condition its value would decrease, but if you restored the car, or added options to it, the value might increase. And then if you currently own an older collectable car and are paying a really low MVET based upon the depreciation schedule and original MSRP you will get clobbered as the assessed value shoots back up to what it should be.

Ricardo, no, I don't seem to recall any Tim Foley's. Perhaps you're talking about Tom Foley? As I recall, he was targetted by a number of special interest groups including the NRA which dumped a whole lot of money into the campaign against him. To claim that going against term limits was the key to his downfall is a bit simplistic. Case in point, a number of legislators worked to get term limits at the state level overturned. Where are they now? Still in the legislature.

And Ricardo, I thought one of the major reasons behind 695 is because politicians are currently "waving their middle finger at the taxpayers for all to see." Somehow you think they'll change their ways if 695 passes? Don't get your hopes up.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 20, 1999.

The Leader OnLine, October 20, 1999

Assessor will tax vehicles if I-695 passes By Fred Obee Leader Staff Writer

Barring lawsuits or legislative actions that prevent it, the Jefferson County Assessor said this week he will have no choice but to begin assessing motor vehicles for imposition of a personal property tax Jan. 1, if I-695 is approved by voters Nov. 2. "If it passes I'm going to follow the law," said Jack Westerman III.

Westerman said he will be required to start assessing vehicles (including travel trailers and campers) because I-695, a measure to replace car tab fees with a $30 flat fee, repeals the exemption of motor vehicles from personal property taxes.

Without the exemption, put in place in 1937 when the motor vehicle excise tax was created, Westerman said he will have no choice.

"I don't necessarily believe the proponents intended this. They just didn't realize this would be the effect," Westerman said.

If he is required to assess vehicles for a property tax, Westerman said the process will be a nightmare.

Jefferson County has 27,000 registered vehicles, and, to make matters worse, Westerman must determine the location of each vehicle as of Jan. 1 at noon, probably through a survey of vehicle owners.

"That's the way the personal property statute reads," Westerman said. And he added, the tax rate will be different depending on where the vehicle is located.

"There are about 35 tax code areas," Westerman said, including school, water, cemetery, park and recreation and hospital districts, to name a few. "I have to know which one of those 35 tax code areas the vehicles are located in."

Marcus Hoffman, a proponent of Initiative 695 who spoke at the Port Townsend Community Center last week, said the threat of a personal property tax on vehicles is just another scare tactic employed by government officials to dissuade voters from favoring the initiative.

"They don't want you to have power," he told the crowd. Hoffman also pointed out that county assessors in a recent regional meeting determined it would be impractical to assess vehicles.

Westerman said what the assessors actually did was recommend to the Legislature that the vehicle exemption on personal property taxes be re-instated if I-695 passes.

As for legal actions, Westerman said the initiative doesn't seem to create any strong constitutional problems, and the state Supreme Court has been reluctant to overturn citizen initiatives that pass constitutional muster.

In either case, Westerman said, he will at least have to gear up to assess vehicles so when Jan. 1 rolls around, he's ready to comply with the law.

If he's forced to go through with the assessment, Westerman said he believes it will cost the county about $200,000 in additional staff time and mailings.

Westerman said he isn't surprised voters might be upset with the way the vehicle excise tax is imposed. Currently, the state uses the manufacturers suggested retail price to determine value and the depreciation schedule doesn't come close to matching actual depreciation in the real world.

But, Westerman said, he thinks voters ought to give the Legislature and Gov. Gary Locke the chance to restructure the tax. Locke has promised reform if I-695 is rejected.

"I think people ought to vote no this time and give the Legislature a chance to fix it," Westerman said.

If the property tax is left on vehicles, it would still be a tax cut for most car owners, Westerman said. The average personal property tax in Jefferson County is 1.1 percent, and the motor vehicle excise tax is 2.2 percent, based on an inflated value.

The Leader OnLine )1999 Jefferson County Leader. P.O. Box 552 (226 Adams St), Port Townsend, Washington 98368, USA.

Looks like I will have no alternative but to vote this guy out of office.

-- Ray Jenkins (Rayjay@olympusnet.com), October 22, 1999.

Ray:

Read the material in "Where Will The Property Taxes on Cars Go?"

You want to vote out of office an official who will do what the initiatve requires him to do, and what the state Department of Revenue and the Attorney General agree the new law (if passed) would require? If you want him to ignore the part of the initiative about reinstating the property tax on vehicles, why can't he just ignore the part of the initiative that requires voter approval of any tax increase? If the initiative becomes law, the way to change it is by a subsequent initiative, a super majority of the legislature, or a court decision. Voting officials out of office for following the law is certainly possible, but what does that tell the next official? Don't follow the law, but somehow devine what the popular will is.

If you don't like what the initiative will do, vote NO. It is poorly written and does not deserve your vote. This unintended consequence is just one example of the problems it will create.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 22, 1999.

Don't tell me who I should or shouldn't vote for, you little weasel. You're afraid to even give your name. I intend to vote against ALL officials who fought passage of this in any way. And I don't want to hear any moralizing from the left. When they were ready to pillory Clarence Thomas over allegations, but said "boys will be boys," for the White House Pervert when he got caught by the DNA, they lost ANY claim for moral superiority EVER. They defined politics as being more important than morality, I didn't.

-- Ray Jenkins (rayjay@olympus.net), October 22, 1999.

Ray:

An excellent demonstration of the rational thought behind your convictions. I commend you.

Officials who carry out the mandates of the initiative, if it passes, have not "fought against" the initiative. The assessor gave his understanding of what he is required to do, which agrees with the Department of Revenue and the Attorney General. Even if they have to file a suit to clarify what it means and what is constitutional, that may be necessary to execute the duties of their position in conformance to the law. Vote for whoever you want, but I believe it is dead wrong to mount a political attack on any official that is doing the job they are hired by the people to do.

As for using my full name, you are another reason I don't on this forum.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 22, 1999.

[Vote for whoever you want, but I believe it is dead wrong to mount a political attack on any official that is doing the job they are hired by the people to do.] I believe the liberals have lost the moral authority to ever again lecture to anyone about right and wrong when they excused cigar man. You damn right I'll vote for whoever I want. I no longer value your approval, or that of any liberal.

-- Ray Jenkins (rayjay@olympus.net), October 22, 1999.

Ray:

I am not a liberal. Never voted for Clinton. Your accusations are false, and irrelevant in any case. Conservatives may be more concerned with the damage to representative government, and liberals may be more concerned about the loss of MVET revenue; but I-695 has enough wrong with it to be opposed by either side. The initiative is STILL poorly written, bad law, and does not deserve anyones vote.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 23, 1999.