One of the major big deals the anti-side keeps harping on is the reinstatement of the personal property tax on cars.

If they (or any other government budget writer, for that matter) actually believe that said tax WILL be applied to cars here... then why is it that NONE of the anti's discuss, show, talk about or even mention the hundreds of millions of dollars that the application of such a tax will bring?

The tax is either going to be levied on motor vehicles, or it isn't.

If it is, then a huge revenue stream will be opened up, and the impacts of 695 will be much less then the antis say it will.

If it isn't... then why do they say it is?

They can't have it both ways... can they?

Westin

"Americans in every region and in both political parties have been shaken by the betrayal of public trust ... and the dishonesty of the public officials."...

VP Al Gore, 28 June 87

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 23, 1999

Answers

Westin,

Others might be confused by this part if I-695, but you should not be. You know that I-695 itself precludes an increase in monetary amount, not just a tax rate increase. As a result, it doesn't matter how much more property (like cars) is added to the tax rolls, each government gets nothing more. The only impact is to reduce the tax rate everyone pays on all their property. I-695 doesn't even have the sensible exception in it for monetary increases to stay even with inflation, like I-601 and Referendum 47 have. A city or fire district will not only be kept from increasing any services without an expensive vote, but they will also have to REDUCE services every year there is inflation. That is not sensible or appropriate.

Property tax will be levied on cars if I-695 passes, but that just means each government will get that much less from the rest of their property tax. It means that the loss from MVET is just the first of the losses a city will incur. The next will be that the number of police or the miles of road they can fix will have to be reduced each year, because the same number of dollars buys less during inflation.

It is simply false to say that if I-695 imposes property tax on cars, then governments will get more money, and will suffer less impact from I-695, and you know it. They will get a lot less from cars than from the MVET, and they will get a dollar for dollar reduction in the rest of their property tax to offset any property tax collected from cars.

If I-695 is adopted, it makes government collect less property tax every year without an election each year by each government. It spreads the same property tax load over more property (cars) every year, so everyone pays less, they just have to go through the extra hassle of annually filing personal property tax affidavits. Unfortunately, the part of the existing property tax which would be paid on cars will now be completely squandered on a less efficient collection mechanism. A much lower percentage of the tax levied on cars will be collected than under MVET or property tax on real property. That's why we switched to MVET in the '30s.

You are simply wrong, and you of all people should know it. What we need to do is to reject I-695 and to get the legislature to correct the MVET to base it on real instead of inflated car values, and to fix the illogical depreciation schedule used now.

-- Bob Dick (bdick@harbornet.com), October 23, 1999.

Help you? I believe you may be beyond help, but in response you could look at the excellent explanation if the problems created by reinstatement of the property tax by Bob Dick. The Department of Revenue has instructed county assessors (if it passes) to gear up to make it happen, unless that interpretation of the initiative if overturned by a court. Some revenue will result, but the collection expense will eat up part of it, and the revenue does not replace the losses of the governments that will lose MVET. Some of the biggest losers of MVET get no property tax revenue. Some that get no MVET now, may get some property tax revenue if 695 is approved.

This was clearly not intended by the authors of the initiative, and just shows how flawed the initiative is. Poorly written. Bad law. Vote NO.

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

P.S. See Bob Dick post, in "Where will the property tax on cars go?"

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

Westin

Do you see now why I keep harping about cognitive dissonance?

They just Refuse to get it.

1. We don't want a "fairer" MVET,we want NO MVET. 2. We don't want them to "make up" the lost revenue. We want the budget CUT. 3. These Tax addicts are in a state of complete denial. They need to detox and get into rehab ASAP.

"You're a liberal if....you believe taxes are too low and ATM fees too high."

Ricardo

-- Ricardo (ricardoxxx@home.com), October 23, 1999.

You are a conservative if . . . you believe taxes are to high, and the way to correct it is targeted program cuts that preserve essential services and the historic institutions of government.

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

dbvz..

Is it not fair to consider removal of some programs and historic institutions of gov't? I dare say thats what has led us to the situation we are in with I-695.

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), October 25, 1999.

"Is it not fair to consider removal of some programs and historic institutions of gov't? I dare say thats what has led us to the situation we are in with I-695."

I-695 does NOT remove any program and/or historic government institution. It only gives the government less money to work with and restricts their ability to recover. REMEMBER - The same group of people (and other lobbying influences) that worked the budget before I-695 will be working the budget after I-695. Just saying yes to I-695 does not tell the government how you want them to prioritize the budget.

PEOPLE need to take responsibility to make their views known to their respective representatives. They should also contact all organizations that they are a member of, so that any lobbying efforts done by that organization, are done with membership input.

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 25, 1999.

I agree 695 does not do anything to change government priorities and programs, and if it passes people need to get involved in working within the system to do that. My point was that the change to direct democracy for funding issues is a fundamental change in how government will function, and a conservative position is that such a change should not be initiatied lightly, or for the wrong reasons - like cheap car tabs. I agree we could and should reduce taxes, but by targeted cuts of programs that need to be reduced or eliminated. That way we could debate the merits of the program, and have a real vote on the program issue. That seems to be a safer, more effective, and responsible way to use the initiative process. 695 just says "I want to keep my money, any you guys better figure it out!!!" Not very responsible, and not very informative for those that must pick up the pieces after the vote.

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

""I want to keep my money, any you guys better figure it out!" But the first part of that IS very important d. It clearly establishes the pecking order, that those elected are public servants, not an aristocracy. They work for us. We don't work for them. If they are unhappy with that, they can find different employment. It's a job, not an aristocracy.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 27, 1999.

Craig

You write, If they are unhappy with that, they can find different employment.

What business would hire someone that cant save a dime and is always looking for more money to spend? The business that did would go broke fast.

Sorry, forgot about businesses hiring these people to lobby their friends still in government. Great scam ur career.

Ed  a politician has a license to steal money. and we gave it to them

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), October 27, 1999.

Craig:

If you give orders to your employees with as little specific direction as is in 695, how would they know what to do? We can do better than 695, and should if the voters expect to provide direction instead of follow the direction of others.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 27, 1999.