New tax law.... good, bad, and a little ugly (Atlanta: flat fee, houses)

[gt6974a]

Left out how City/County/State vehicles are exempt which I find very entertaining.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by cittic10

But what's worse are the pointless, waste-of-time-and-money emissiions inspections.

Sorry...gotta disagree with this one. Ensuring that pollution controls aren't being removed from vehicles and they aren't spewing too many pollutants into the air is one easy way we can reduce smog and other pollution. Why do you think it's "pointless" or a "waste of time?" Do you feel the test isn't a valid one or just that we shouldn't test for emissions?

I would actually take it a step further and institute a full annual or biannual safety inspection. Getting the klunker and junker vehicles off the road is important. When I contrast the cars running around on the roads here with those in states with inspections, it's frightening. Things like bald tires, bad brakes, cracked or missing glass, and pieces hanging off the vehicle are unsafe. If the cops won't do their job and enforce the law with regard to equipment, then an inspection is the next best way.

[ATLTJL]

It's pointless on modern cars because for at least the past 10 years, every vehicle sold in this country adheres to California emission standards anyway.

Ensuring that pollution controls aren't being removed from vehicles

This may be a valid concern, but would anybody have a reason to do this? What would be the motivation? Is there any benefit to removing the pollution controls?

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

It's pointless on modern cars because for at least the past 10 years, every vehicle sold in this country adheres to California emission standards anyway.

I don't believe that's correct, but even if I grant it for the purpose of conversation, the goal is to make sure that older vehicles and even newer ones haven't been altered or had catalytic converters removed.

EDIT...I knew we had CA emissions in Massachusetts (my 2007 purchased in MA has CA emissions), but they are not mandatory in GA. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...sion_standards

"The EPA has adopted the California emissions standards as a national standard by the 2016 model year [4] and is collaborating with California regulators on stricter national emissions standards for model years 2017–2025."

[Mattie]

If your cars are already registered, what monies will replace the ad valorum taxes? When we lived in the northeast, we didn't have ad valorum, we paid yearly registration fees , which were considerably less.

I question what will replace the shortfall.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by Mattie

If your cars are already registered, what monies will replace the ad valorum taxes? When we lived in the northeast, we didn't have ad valorum, we paid yearly registration fees , which were considerably less.

I question what will replace the shortfall.

We actually had a more expensive version of the ad valorem in MA called an "excise tax" which was the same thing....a value based tax charged annually.

Here in GA if this thing goes through, you will only pay the one time title tax, and they are proposing adding the Internet tax and other consumption based taxes.

[Mattie]

So, if the cars are fully owned, and we hold the titles, will we pay anything at this point?

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by Mattie

So, if the cars are fully owned, and we hold the titles, will we pay anything at this point?

My car was paid off back in 1999, which is well before we even moved down here, and yet I owe Ad Valorem tax on the vehicle every year. It ain't very much.

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

I understand that some vehicles may need it, but can't we just go ahead and say that unless your vehicle is more than 10 years old, don't worry about it?

Actually, they do just the opposite- anything over 25 years old doesn't require an emissions test, and you'd think some of those vehicles are the ones spewing the most stuff. I'd think a late-70's to mid-80's car that hasn't been properly maintained and is huffing smoke as it runs down the road is belching far more pollutants into the air than anything built in 2000+, but they're exempt. I see plenty of old junkers running around that not only need an emissions test, but a safety inspection as well- they're death traps.

Now, my '69 Camaro should still be exempt

[atvwife]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

Right, that tax already exists and has always existed, so there would be no need to make a new provision for it.

Remember when Dell briefly had retail stores in Georgia? If you bought a PC from Dell during that time, you had to pay sales tax on it. Now that they are closed, it's back to not paying tax. I imagine if you live in Texas, then you do have to pay sales tax on a Dell.

Most of the states require collection of sales tax by companies that have a physical presence in a state, and the taxes are collected only on residents of that state. The reason you would see companies like Barnes and Noble and Dell collect sales tax, even online, was because they had a physical location within the state, vs. Amazon who didn't collect tax, because they don't have a physical location. What states are quickly realizing is that they are losing the tax revenue from out-of-state sales by businesses within that state, and by non-physical location sales. This is the area we are seeing attempted laws passed. The problem is, it will put a huge burden on a state's own small business that sell online. 1) if they have to charge out-of-state residents sales tax, they potentially lose a lot of sales 2)if they are required to pay tax to every state that passes laws collecting online sales tax, it becomes an expensive accounting nightmare 3)if we get into a situation where two states have competing laws, who is going to want to pay sales tax to two states(home state and state of origin for product).