Your opinion on King County Prop1 ($60 car tab tax)? (Seattle: low income, sales)

[wutitiz]

First a little history for Seattle newcomers....Prior to 1999, there was a state tax on auto license tabs that was fairly onerous. The tax was fraudulently based on a percentage of MSRP, which of course few people actually pay when buying a car. If GM set the MSRP at $20,000, and you negotiated the actual price down to $10,000, you still had to pay tax as if your vehicle was worth $20,000. It was not at all uncommon for people to pay in the range of $800-$1000 for their annual vehicle tabs.

In 1999, anti-tax activist Tim Eyman ran his signature initiative I-695, which limited the tax to $30 per year for any vehicle. It passed by 56%, but was thrown out by the courts. However, the state legislature and gov (then Gary Locke) got the message, and enacted legislation to greatly reduce the tab tax anyway. Since then, the tab tax has crept back upward, but nowhere near the pre-1999 level. My tabs, which I just recently paid, were about $100 for my 2007 pickup truck.

Now there is Prop 1, election of which to be decided 11 days from today, April 22, 2014. This would impose a $60 annual tab tax on all vehicles, plus a .1% increase in the sales tax. The revenue would go 60% to transit, and 40% to road projects.

It seems to be under-covered for an election of this significance, IMO. Dori Monson is running a poll, currently 80% no, 20% yes, but of course that is a biased sample. More worrisome for Prop 1 advocates is that the Seattle Times is recommending a no vote on Prop 1.

I will vote no as I do on almost every tax increase proposal, since I think that we are wildly overtaxed in general. God only asks 10%, which always seemed pretty onerous to me. Government is within striking distance of 50%, even for a joe sixpack blue collar guy like me. How do you plan to vote on Prop 1?

[Yakscsd]

I'll be interested to follow this thread. For me, the $60 added to the license cost is still very reasonable and low income folks will get a full 1/3 of this back as a rebate as explained in the initiative. Of course I would prefer it was less, but given the state of our transit system, including buses and roads etc., we have to do something. Especially since we pay no state income tax. Washington doesn't run any more efficiently or less efficiently than other states and so we have to get the money for our infrastructure somewhere. For the average person with one car, this is just slightly over $1 a week at $1.15, or $0.16/day. I put more than that in the various penny jars at the register each day. The benefits of this money are greatly needed if we want to retain the quality of life we moved, or stay, here for.

[Hemlock140]

$60/year per car will cost me $180 since I have 3. That amounts to $15/month which is a good investment considering the effect that the budget cuts will have on traffic. For people like me that use the bus to get to work there will be far more time spent waiting and more times to have to stand on the ride, already a problem on some of the commute runs between Seattle and Bellevue/Issaquah/Sammamish. Within Seattle there are already buses that skip some stops because they are full.

[fnh]

I would happily pay $60 extra per year to support public transportation.

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

$60/year per car will cost me $180 since I have 3. That amounts to $15/month which is a good investment considering the effect that the budget cuts will have on traffic. For people like me that use the bus to get to work there will be far more time spent waiting and more times to have to stand on the ride, already a problem on some of the commute runs between Seattle and Bellevue/Issaquah/Sammamish. Within Seattle there are already buses that skip some stops because they are full.

I have a problem with that word "investment." With any investment, there is an expected return on investment. For me it is entirely impractical to commute to work on transit, since my shift starts at 5:00AM and there is no transit route that is remotely competitive with the 30-40 minutes it takes me to drive. For almost everything else I walk. I walk to the grocery, post office, bank, mall etc. so I have no need for transit. Once every year or two I use transit to go to SeaTac airport.

Quoth Confucius: "the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names." This is not an investment; it's a tax.

[Yakscsd]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

I have a problem with that word "investment." With any investment, there is an expected return on investment. For me it is entirely impractical to commute to work on transit, since my shift starts at 5:00AM and there is no transit route that is remotely competitive with the 30-40 minutes it takes me to drive. For almost everything else I walk. I walk to the grocery, post office, bank, mall etc. so I have no need for transit. Once every year or two I use transit to go to SeaTac airport.

Quoth Confucius: "the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names." This is not an investment; it's a tax.

Unless you are taking a helicopter, you have the need for transit as referenced in this discussion and piece of legislation. Roads improvement and repair are part of what this pays for and that effects you. Honestly, your inability to see other benefits outside of your direct and immediate circle is kind of amazing. For example if more people rode the bus, your transit tome to work might be less because there would be less traffic. If the roads were better maintained, you might not need an alignment as often. there is plenty of indirect benefit to you. besides these few examples, the return you get on your investment is an improved quality of life for others, which affects you through things like property values and employment opportunities. I don't care if you call it an investment or a tax, that's splitting hairs and skirting the real issue by focusing on a trivial distinction. We as a society have got to stop thinking only of OUR immediate gains and think just a little about our community and how those gains, while more difficult to identify, help everyone who lives here.

[Inkpoe]

Originally Posted by fnh

I would happily pay $60 extra per year to support public transportation.

The attitude is exactly what's the gov't is banking on... it doesn't actually mean they will put the money back into public transit.

[BATCAT]

I'm voting "yes" (with a few reservations), although I take Metro very rarely myself.

Fares are already high and I don't think more cuts are a reasonable option.

[Ira500]

I'm voting yes. But it's unfortunate that it has to be voted on at all. First of all, back in 1999, the legislature could have pre-empted Tim Eyman and come up with something more fair, but they failed to act, except as a knee jerk reaction, and weren't thinking about fair, they were thinking about votes.
Secondly, Metro has already cut back routes and laid people off. They had temporary funding to prevent further cuts, but that funding is running out soon, hence this vote.
I've heard the arguments against it. One is that Metro is top heavy, and they could just tighten their belts without cutting bus routes. There's a little truth to that. I worked for Metro for 23 years, and indeed there are a fair number of overpaid management screw ups. Asking bus drivers to take another pay cut doesn't seem fair. They've already agreed to give up a cost of living raise and are paying far more for medical benefits. To simply assume that Metro will just tighten their belts and not make cuts if this fails is naive. There's no reason to believe that they won't eliminate 1/6th of the bus service they provide if this doesn't pass. The other reason I've heard is along the lines of " I don't take the bus, why should I pay?"
The answer is, of course, that you live in society, and when you live in society, you get things that other people pay for, and you pay for things that other people get. Should we close all the schools because you don't have kids? Should we close all the parks because you don't use them? Close public swimming pools because you don't use them? Close all the libraries because you don't read books?
It's not a good choice. Public transit funding isn't something that ought to come before the voters every couple of years. And even with subsidies for low income folks, it's still disproportionate- somebody making 300,000 a year and driving a new Beemer will be far less impacted that the poor fool driving a 30 year old beater. So it's a bad choice but it's the only choice, as far as I can tell. Voting no will have a tremendous impact on people who can't afford to own cars, the poor will be punished because " I don't take the bus."

[GoBlueInSeattle]

Originally Posted by Ira500

I'm voting yes. But it's unfortunate that it has to be voted on at all. First of all, back in 1999, the legislature could have pre-empted Tim Eyman and come up with something more fair, but they failed to act, except as a knee jerk reaction, and weren't thinking about fair, they were thinking about votes.
Secondly, Metro has already cut back routes and laid people off. They had temporary funding to prevent further cuts, but that funding is running out soon, hence this vote.
I've heard the arguments against it. One is that Metro is top heavy, and they could just tighten their belts without cutting bus routes. There's a little truth to that. I worked for Metro for 23 years, and indeed there are a fair number of overpaid management screw ups. Asking bus drivers to take another pay cut doesn't seem fair. They've already agreed to give up a cost of living raise and are paying far more for medical benefits. To simply assume that Metro will just tighten their belts and not make cuts if this fails is naive. There's no reason to believe that they won't eliminate 1/6th of the bus service they provide if this doesn't pass. The other reason I've heard is along the lines of " I don't take the bus, why should I pay?"
The answer is, of course, that you live in society, and when you live in society, you get things that other people pay for, and you pay for things that other people get. Should we close all the schools because you don't have kids? Should we close all the parks because you don't use them? Close public swimming pools because you don't use them? Close all the libraries because you don't read books?
It's not a good choice. Public transit funding isn't something that ought to come before the voters every couple of years. And even with subsidies for low income folks, it's still disproportionate- somebody making 300,000 a year and driving a new Beemer will be far less impacted that the poor fool driving a 30 year old beater. So it's a bad choice but it's the only choice, as far as I can tell. Voting no will have a tremendous impact on people who can't afford to own cars, the poor will be punished because " I don't take the bus."

Best response ever.

And the back story to this is that the state legislature has failed to pass a transportation package for 2 years running. One side doesn't want to fund any transit and the other side does. It's been a stalemate between Puget Sound (where the jobs are) and the rest of the state (where half the population is). That's why the County has had to go it alone.

It's a frustrating set of affairs - and likely will continue until Rodney Tom is defeated. Who by all accounts - both sides of aisle - is a prickly, petty, mean-spirited SOB who can't work with anyone.