Off topic, but if it passes it will COST US

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

makes it kinda sound like (could be the intent to only sound like) it only applies to new vehicles

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.

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.

Click to expand...

makes it kinda sound like (could be the intent to only sound like) it only applies to new vehicles

Click to expand...

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 shit. If they truly wanted to do it for that reason they should have done it by actual weight.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

makes it kinda sound like (could be the intent to only sound like) it only applies to new vehicles

Click to expand...

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 shit. If they truly wanted to do it for that reason they should have done it by actual weight.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 :cuss: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.

Click to expand...

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

imported post

My 4.6L gets better gas mileage than your 2.5L, so WTF am I gonna be penalized for?

imported post

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

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Thankfully, this thread appears to be moot.

imported post

Yay!!!:celebrate

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.

Click to expand...

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

imported post

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

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

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.

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

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.