Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Off topic, but if it passes it will COST US

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post


    Vehicle License Fee Bill SB6900


    There is a bill that the Washington State Legislature is trying topassin Olympia that, if successful, will directly add huge costs to ourvehicle license fees. Everyone needs to know about so this situationsothat you can contact your representatives and voice your objection.

    The bill is SB 6900 and it adds an "engine displacement" fee to thevehicle license tabs upon renewal.

    The fee has a varied amount depending on the size of the vehicle'sengine:

    Engine Size (liters) Rate Schedule
    Up to 1.9 $0
    2.0 - 2.9 $70
    3.0 - 3.9 $225
    4.0 - 4.9 $275
    5.0 - 5.9 $325
    6.0 - 7.9 $400
    8.0 or over $600

    For each car & truck that you own, calculate the rate by matching theengine size in liters to the dollar amount. Add the amounts for eachvehicle and you'll see that the average two car family will be paying$500+ every year in "displacement fees" on top of the normal licensefees. If you have three vehicles, you'll be paying even more.

    The average family is already struggling with the high cost ofgasoline,electricity, food and everything else, and our lawmakers want us topay more, thinking we have unlimited deep pockets. This will do greatdamage to the budgets of retirees on fixed incomes as well.

    Now is the time to be very vocal against this bill.

    I have contacted all of our representatives, and I would encourageeveryone reading this to do the same.



    Here's the web page for the bill where you can read the text:http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6900&year=2007



    Here's the link for contacting your representatives:


    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx









  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    There are better ways to encourage fuel economy than taxation. If it were to apply only to new vehicles made after a certain date, I would be slightly less pissed... What a horrible burden for people.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    For vehicles 17 registered on or after January 1, 2009, the vehicle engine displacement 18 fee under this section is due at the time of initial vehicle 19 registration and any subsequent renewal of vehicle registration.
    makes it kinda sound like (could be the intent to only sound like) it only applies to new vehicles

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Unsure about that. At any rate it's nuts. The libs will say it's a good thing though. I actually found myself using a liberal argument against it elsewhere saying it affected the poor and working class unjustly.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    uncoolperson wrote:
    For vehicles 17 registered on or after January 1, 2009, the vehicle engine displacement 18 fee under this section is due at the time of initial vehicle 19 registration and any subsequent renewal of vehicle registration.
    makes it kinda sound like (could be the intent to only sound like) it only applies to new vehicles
    It will apply to all vehicles. Jan 1 2009 is the effective date if passed. I do not like thier basis for the fee by saying that the vehicles with larger engines are heavier and cause more damage to the roadways. What a crock of ****. If they truly wanted to do it for that reason they should have done it by actual weight.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Did you see the part about the emissions tax? They want to tax us out of cars instead of finding other ways to encourage better, more efficient vehicles.
    Those who can afford the newer, pricier more efficient vehicles will buy them and leave everyone else paying through the nose.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    uncoolperson wrote:
    For vehicles 17 registered on or after January 1, 2009, the vehicle engine displacement 18 fee under this section is due at the time of initial vehicle 19 registration and any subsequent renewal of vehicle registration.
    makes it kinda sound like (could be the intent to only sound like) it only applies to new vehicles
    It will apply to all vehicles. Jan 1 2009 is the effective date if passed. I do not like thier basis for the fee by saying that the vehicles with larger engines are heavier and cause more damage to the roadways. What a crock of ****. If they truly wanted to do it for that reason they should have done it by actual weight.
    Exactly. A new vette isnt doing damage to the road like a new deisel is. Unless your doing burnouts constantly in the vette (which I would do, oh how I want a vette).



    Marcus

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    A vette doesn't do damage to the roadway even if you do burnouts! You just leave your rubber on the road.

    And I don't know why I'm being forced to pay another 325 a year on my Vette (5.7L V8), that thing gets 26 mpg highway. That's pretty damn good, imo. But I'm going to be taxed because I have an engine the same size as the ones in huge diesel trucks?

    Oh, and not to mention my curb weight is under 3K lbs. So tell me again how I'm doing damage to the roadways?

    By the way, Scorpio, I highly recommend them. I have an '85, and you can get them pretty cheap now. Under 10K easily, for anything from the 80's to about 92 or so. Some require TLC, some are pristine, depending on the year. And my insurance is not that expensive, although I have USAA.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    BigDaddy5 wrote:
    A vette doesn't do damage to the roadway even if you do burnouts! You just leave your rubber on the road.

    And I don't know why I'm being forced to pay another 325 a year on my Vette (5.7L V8), that thing gets 26 mpg highway. That's pretty damn good, imo. But I'm going to be taxed because I have an engine the same size as the ones in huge diesel trucks?

    Oh, and not to mention my curb weight is under 3K lbs. So tell me again how I'm doing damage to the roadways?

    By the way, Scorpio, I highly recommend them. I have an '85, and you can get them pretty cheap now. Under 10K easily, for anything from the 80's to about 92 or so. Some require TLC, some are pristine, depending on the year. And my insurance is not that expensive, although I have USAA.
    This is exactly the point they are missing. My Chrysler 300m weighs more than your vette. Hell my Blazer, which gets better gas mileage then my 300m, has a 4.3L and is going to cost me more than the 300m is.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    My 2006 GTO (6.0L V8) gets near 30mpg on the freeway. 16-20mpg in stop and go morning rush hour seattle I5 traffic.

    My 2001 Lexus IS300 (3.0L I6) got 22mpg on the freeway. 11-14mpg in stop and go.

    Our legislators are ing idiots. I have written them for what might be the 50th time this year so far expressing my feelings on the subject in a much more calm and collected manner than this post.

    I decided to leave this part out of my email, though, because I don't want to damage the relationship I've built thus far with my district's reps:

    If you absolutely must pass a tax, I have a suggestion. Tax failure. You guys could singlehandedly support the state government with the legislation you've introduced this session.




  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    My note to my Senator;

    Sen. Berkey,
    I am writing to express my concern with SB6900. This bill will punish people like myself that need to purchase a larger vehicle for my family of 5. The bill says that the size of the engine correlates to the size of the vehicle. This is absolutely false. I have done a little research on a number of different types of cars and have found that an engine above the 3.0 liter size is very common in economical family cars. 4.7 liter and up are found mostly in trucks and larger mini vans. I have a Chrysler 300m that has a 3.5 liter engine and this bill will put an extra $225 yearly expense into my budget.

    To show that the engine size to vehicle weight correlation is completely incorrect and false I would like you to take a 1986 Corvette with a 5.7 liter, a 2004 Dodge Ram 1500 with a 4.7 liter, and a 2004 Honda Accord with a 3.0 liter. The Corvette would cost the most of these in the additional fee because of the engine size when in fact it only weighs 3101 Lbs and gets 22 MPG. The Honda Accord weighs in at 3059, only 42 Lbs less than the Corvette, and only gets 3 MPG better mileage. Now these two are fairly close together in weight but drastically different in the added fees because the Corvette has a much bigger engine. The Dodge Ram weighs an astounding 4934 Lbs with 14 MPG but will cost less in fees under this bill.

    All three of my examples are vastly difference in thier purpose. The Honda and Corvette will do almost exactly the same damage to the roads, as for one purpose of this bill, but the Corvette will cost $325 to the owner and the Honda only $225. The Dodge will do absolutely the most damage to our roadways but the owner of it will only have to pay $275, $50 more than the Corvette.

    For the facts that I have shown you above I would ask you to oppose this bill and urge the Senate to come up with a much more reasonable solution. I would like to ask that the Senate look at creating a bill that would add fees to the registration of vehicles that takes into consideration the actual vehicle weight, not the gross weight as this is the measurment of what the vehicle is capable of carrying and it may never reach that weight limit.

    I look forward to hearing your response and thoughts about SB6900.

    Thank You,
    Jerry xxxxx
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  12. #12
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    My 4.6L gets better gas mileage than your 2.5L, so WTF am I gonna be penalized for?
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    The 'more reasonable solution' would be to end the session and stop proposing new laws since they can't do so rationally.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    Andrew- I can confirm that the bill is dead. See my stock response below, and follow the link for bill information. This bill had no support and wasn't ever a priority.

    Steve Hobbs


    Thank you for taking the time to email me in regard to SB 6900, a bill that aimed to establish vehicle engine displacement and emissions fees. To be direct, I do not support this legislation. Further, this bill received very little support and died without a vote.

    SB 6900 is an attempt to encourage the drivers of Washington to be more conscience of their vehicle choice, not the vehicle’s price. Starting January 1, 2009 there would be a potential fee based on engine size. Starting January 1, 2012 the potential fee would change from being based on engine size to being based on emissions.

    I believe any potential tax should be fair in nature and not more punitive to some than to others. Just because I own a car or truck with a large engine does not mean that I am wasteful or not energy-conscious. For example, I own a 15-year-old truck that I rarely drive, but use on occasion for moving and other errands. Due to the size of the truck's engine, I would pay a large tax, despite the fact that I drive an energy efficient vehicle to and from work. The bill would also unfairly impact off-road enthusiasts and lower income families who have little choice in vehicle purchasing.

    This bill did not come before any of my committees, did not receive a public hearing, and is considered “dead”. Though protecting the environment is a concern, this bill provided more questions than answers, and I did not support it.

    Sincerely,

    Senator Steve Hobbs
    Washington State Senate
    44th Legislative District
    Thankfully, this thread appears to be moot.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Yay!!!:celebrate

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    BigDaddy5 wrote:
    A vette doesn't do damage to the roadway even if you do burnouts! You just leave your rubber on the road.

    And I don't know why I'm being forced to pay another 325 a year on my Vette (5.7L V8), that thing gets 26 mpg highway. That's pretty damn good, imo. But I'm going to be taxed because I have an engine the same size as the ones in huge diesel trucks?

    Oh, and not to mention my curb weight is under 3K lbs. So tell me again how I'm doing damage to the roadways?

    By the way, Scorpio, I highly recommend them. I have an '85, and you can get them pretty cheap now. Under 10K easily, for anything from the 80's to about 92 or so. Some require TLC, some are pristine, depending on the year. And my insurance is not that expensive, although I have USAA.


    This is more along the lines of what I want. C5 Z06 slammed like this one, I would put on some different wheels tho. Put a couple turbo's on it and call it a day. 850whp should be able to beat my corolla when its driving (hopefully this summer I'll be doin 9.99 or better at the track).



    Marcus

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    you know who else has displacement taxes.... the nazi's

    (had a role in the VW bug's design)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    It's not about fuel economy, it's about a way to major bucks into the state coffers. When required to go to a $30 license fee they bastards started adding all kinds of other fees to make up for the lost revenue and this is another on of those tactics.

  19. #19
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    What I'd like to see, if they revive a "tax" like this again, is a more accurate approach that taxes on the basis of true polution. What about all the heavy metals used in the batteries on these Hybrids. Not only does their manufacture create more polution, their waste products after they reach the end of their life cycle is far more damaging.

    Ever wonder why a 1956 Chev Bel-Aire cost only $1200 when it was introduced and a similar car today is over $50,000? Today we have to have cars that are more sophisticated than the computer I am typing this on, can't be maintained by the operator (they require thousands of dollars of test equipment to explain why the heater/AC unit doesn't work), and have a larger percentage of plastic in them than a Barbie Doll.

    If you are ever in an accident you run the risk of being maimed by a safety device (air bags) or being poisoned by the toxic fumes from a burning part.

    Boy, I sure miss my old Bel-Aire
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    My 1971 Dodge Challenger (440ci) would cost me how many hundreds of dollars to register once I finish restoring it, even though I will probably put less than two or three thousand miles a year on a restored collector's car? Ridiculous. That is why a user tax (ie gas tax) makes so much more sense. Drive a lot, pay more tax. Drive a gas guzzler a lot, pay more tax.

    Thank goodness this one died although you can guarantee we will see it again next year.

  21. #21
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    My 1971 Dodge Challenger (440ci) would cost me how many hundreds of dollars to register once I finish restoring it, even though I will probably put less than two or three thousand miles a year on a restored collector's car? Ridiculous. That is why a user tax (ie gas tax) makes so much more sense. Drive a lot, pay more tax. Drive a gas guzzler a lot, pay more tax.

    Thank goodness this one died although you can guarantee we will see it again next year.
    Also, a gas tax will reach into the pocket of that Prius owner that drives 60,000 miles a year. They clog up the road a lot more than I do with my Pickup that only drives 10-12,000 miles a year.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Personally, I do not like gas tax. Not that this tax would be any better!!!

    The best option, IMHO, would be a toll device that bases your taxes on the mileage you drive and the times/roads you drive on. Charge me for the mileage I actually use, charge me for creating traffic during peak times, charge me for using a more costly road.

    If users were forced to pay for creating traffic, they would take the unimportant trips during off peak times... reducing overall congestion... If every mile we drive showed up on a little meter built into the dash, just like a taximeter, it might make people realize the actual cost of driving... I am not an advocate of the environment...too many other people already are so I focus on more important issues... but, none-the-less, I certainly agree that less driving would be a good thing... and unless people see the effects on their pocketbooks, in real-time, people will not change their habits...

    (huge caveat on the device... I do not like big brother... give people the option of how to "feed the meter"... install bright red lights over my license plate or something... require the meter to have a smartcard, or to receive a download or enter a pin, etc... don't have it report my driving, just have it use up my money... technologically, this is far superior and possible... just have it keep a running mileage total, and a running paid mileage total, which can then be compared to the mileage total on the odometer when getting emmissions done... It could receive new GPS mapdata/charging info at each emissions check as well... thus avoiding any big brother worries)

    Thank god this stupid law didn't get any support though...

    (sorry if any of this is incoherent... I'm in class and trying to pay attention to both... and haven't bothered to edit this, for which, I apologize in advance...)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    joshmmm wrote:
    Personally, I do not like gas tax. Not that this tax would be any better!!!

    The best option, IMHO, would be a toll device that bases your taxes on the mileage you drive and the times/roads you drive on. Charge me for the mileage I actually use, charge me for creating traffic during peak times, charge me for using a more costly road.
    Then they have to keep track of when and where you are driving. I certainly don't want the government doing that.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    joshmmm wrote:
    Personally, I do not like gas tax. Not that this tax would be any better!!!

    The best option, IMHO, would be a toll device that bases your taxes on the mileage you drive and the times/roads you drive on. Charge me for the mileage I actually use, charge me for creating traffic during peak times, charge me for using a more costly road.
    Then they have to keep track of when and where you are driving. I certainly don't want the government doing that.
    I'm with you on that. It's none of the governments business where I go and when.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    sv_libertarian wrote:
    Unsure about that. At any rate it's nuts. The libs will say it's a good thing though. I actually found myself using a liberal argument against it elsewhere saying it affected the poor and working class unjustly.
    That's not necessarily only a liberal argument. Don't we justify our opposition to bans on so-called "Saturday Night Specials" on the grounds that such bans effectively price poor people out of the gun market?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •