Help! Fairfax car tax (2013, health, work)

[Grsz11]

Originally Posted by dkf747

I agree with you, but I felt that several posters came in on the attack against those with disabilities, or with lower income. I just responded, with an example, of how it is possible. Why do people think they have the right to lecture him on the source of his money, or on what he has the right to own? How is that relevant to his question of whether Fairfax County has tax relief for his situation? If they don't like it, take it up with Fairfax Co. and leave him alone.

The issue is the OP is expecting some sort of special benefit because he cant afford the tax on a vehicle most people cant afford. Nobody was attacking him because he is disabled, and claiming that is the case isn't helpful. However, it is completely reasonable to question why someone who claims to have such limited means would have such an extravagance. Its essentially asking others to pay for his car.

[boyd888]

Originally Posted by dkf747

How is that relevant to his question of whether Fairfax County has tax relief for his situation? If they don't like it, take it up with Fairfax Co. and leave him alone.

Fairfax County does have tax relief for his situation: vehicles built specifically for the disabled are charged basically no tax at all (it's like 0.1% vs 4.5%). They will also charge 0.1% to veterans if who are 100% disabled (though I won't claim to know what exactly qualifies).

[dkf747]

Originally Posted by Grsz11

The issue is the OP is expecting some sort of special benefit because he cant afford the tax on a vehicle most people cant afford. Nobody was attacking him because he is disabled, and claiming that is the case isn't helpful. However, it is completely reasonable to question why someone who claims to have such limited means would have such an extravagance. Its essentially asking others to pay for his car.

It seems that he owned the car prior to disability. So he wants to keep it. That's not anyone's business but his. Tax relief is not asking for anyone to pay for his car. The tax isn't levied to pay for anyone's car, so granting relief does not translate into paying for the car. That claim does not make sense.

[snowdenscold]

Originally Posted by dkf747

Tax relief is not asking for anyone to pay for his car. The tax isn't levied to pay for anyone's car, so granting relief does not translate into paying for the car. That claim does not make sense.

Well, not directly pay, but it can be argued we all indirectly pay as taxpayers since the County has now lost revenue and must make up for it through other means.

[dkf747]

Originally Posted by snowdenscold

Well, not directly pay, but it can be argued we all indirectly pay as taxpayers since the County has now lost revenue and must make up for it through other means.

That's a better way of putting it. It's not paying for the car though. It's paying for whatever the tax is used for, like schools or roads.

[Grsz11]

Originally Posted by dkf747

It seems that he owned the car prior to disability. So he wants to keep it. That's not anyone's business but his. Tax relief is not asking for anyone to pay for his car. The tax isn't levied to pay for anyone's car, so granting relief does not translate into paying for the car. That claim does not make sense.

We can respond to anything he felt compelled to share, just as we can question the juxtaposition of subsidized housing and Whole Foods. But to the point, it appears that 50% disability is insufficient to have the tax reduced, so the options are to trade for an affordable car (which based on the assessed value, the OP could even get cash back) or pay the bill. Its a pretty simple concept that if you cant afford the tax, or upkeep, or whatever on a certain possession its best not to have it.

[Carolina65]

I think taxpayers who make sacrifices like:

- commuting a long distance to work everyday so they can find affordable housing

- driving older vehicles requiring a lot of maintenance they do themselves

- have fewer grocery options due to where they live

- live well within their means and deny themselves luxuries


have every right to question other citizens not willing to do the same.

Note: I did not say *not able* to do the same. I said *not willing* to do the same.***



C

*** which somehow results in them needing public assistance because they aren't willing to do the same.

[airjay75]

I agree with some of the sentiment expressed here, but I do think we know relatively little about OP's overall situation to be making too strong of a judgment on him. If he does in fact have a car that, despite being 7 years old is still worth $30k or more, and he can no longer afford the car tax given his condition, it probably is time for him to sell it and not look to others to pay it for him. But, that doesn't mean he was totally irresponsible at the time he purchased it - heck, he might not have even lived in Virginia at that time in which case an annual car tax might never have even crossed his mind. We all hit hard times in life where once acceptable financial decisions now look foolish. I have even more sympathy for someone who has become disabled while serving our country and is now in a difficult financial situation.

[Carolina65]

You are right...we never know all the details surrounding the situation of a particular poster....but to not be aware of the perceptions that can be created is to communicate in the dark.

This is human nature.

C

[dkf747]

Originally Posted by Carolina65

I think taxpayers who make sacrifices like:

- commuting a long distance to work everyday so they can find affordable housing

- driving older vehicles requiring a lot of maintenance they do themselves

- have fewer grocery options due to where they live

- live well within their means and deny themselves luxuries


have every right to question other citizens not willing to do the same.

Note: I did not say *not able* to do the same. I said *not willing* to do the same.***



C

*** which somehow results in them needing public assistance because they aren't willing to do the same.

Agreed. I was defending those not able, not the unwilling.