California DMV Registration Fees (Sacramento, Santa Monica: credit, transfer, to buy)

[Clarks]

Wow. Not even worth the bother to try to make corrections. Truly commitable. Liberals gone wild.

Aren't you the guy that says our African American President is going to make us all live in mud huts?

If you think a fact of mine is wrong, show some evidence, quit whining.

[f_m]

Originally Posted by patmsb1

I'll be glad when Arnold is long gone! My fee went from $347.00 to $547.00 in one year because the people in Sacramento can't seem to stop spending are hard earned money

I guess people don't remember (or know) that the registration fee was temporarily decreased in the late 90's and Arnold keep the decrease which was set to expire in the first years when he came into office. So it just when back up, so for about 10 years it has been "low" and now has been allowed to go back up. My registration is only slightly more than it was before the 90's decrease even though I have a newer car now.

[ferretkona]

Originally Posted by patmsb1

Hate the truth? You must be a bleeding heart liberal that refuses to see a problem even if it is right in front of them. When costs go up (schools, hospital care, misc.) what do you think is going to happen eventually. The state will have to start collecting more taxes because there spending more than there taking in. I do agree we have more problems than the illegal immigration issue but all these costs add up. Hospital care, education and misc. services are not free! RULE OF LAW!

Our state needs to remember to spend within the budget, not to squeeze it out of us when they spend above it.

[steel7]

The corrupt ca legislature are the bums to blame for all this. They are now talking about another increase. Im paying $67.00 a yr for my 25 yr old car. Thats too high. If i didnt need a car for work i would do without. Its just too expensive to have a car in ca. Yrs back it wasnt bad though. My registration should be $25.00 yr. The dmv are sneaky rats.

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by eagle7

The corrupt ca legislature are the bums to blame for all this. They are now talking about another increase. Im paying $67.00 a yr for my 25 yr old car. Thats too high. If i didnt need a car for work i would do without. Its just too expensive to have a car in ca. Yrs back it wasnt bad though. My registration should be $25.00 yr. The dmv are sneaky rats.

$67 is a bargain.

Older vehicles should pay the same fees as newer vehicles. Older vehicles use as much resources as newer vehicles. Plus, you can argue the older vehicles aren't as fuel efficient and don't have the latest emissions equipment on them.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

$67 is a bargain.

Older vehicles should pay the same fees as newer vehicles. Older vehicles use as much resources as newer vehicles. Plus, you can argue the older vehicles aren't as fuel efficient and don't have the latest emissions equipment on them.

Your reasons are exactly why older vehicles cost less than newer ones...

The huge variable in cost is the value of the vehicle...

Older vehicles aren't as fuel efficient and don't have the latest emission equipment so they are worth considerable less so that part of the registration is correspondingly less.

Some older vehicles pay many times more than any new vehicle if you buy a classic... hundreds of thousands of dollar selling prices for a 1966 Ford Cobra are the norm and registration fees reflect the higher purchase prices even though the car may have cost $10,000 when new.

The last thing I would want to see is for long term owners of older vehicles to be economically forced to part with their cars... I work with many elderly... some drive less than 1000 miles a year... shopping and doctor appointments.

Maybe CA should have the same fees for all vehicles like some other States where the fee is very modest and in the case of older vehicles it is only charged once and is good for as long as you own the vehicle.

If you think $67 is a bargain... you too can buy an older car and save money too. I think it is way too much and have registered a lot of my vehicles NON OP so the state is getting less money from me with the increased fee as it was with the lower fee... it is a matter of principal... mine.

[ferretkona]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

,,,
The huge variable in in cost is the value of the vehicle...,,,,,,Maybe CA should have the same fees for all vehicles like some other States where the fee is very modest and in the case of older vehicles it is only charged once and is good for as long as you own the vehicle.

In many states that have a even fee for each car, the yearly tax is included on property taxes or state income tax. CA has a low 1% property tax so they spread the load onto the registration.

There are so many people who whine about "high auto registration" , but never think of the savings we have over living in other states. I have a friend who pays $5000 property tax a year on her home, I pay $1250. Both homes have the same value.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by ferretkona

In many states that have a even fee for each car, the yearly tax is included on property taxes or state income tax. CA has a low 1% property tax so they spread the load onto the registration.

There are so many people who whine about "high auto registration" , but never think of the savings we have over living in other states. I have a friend who pays $5000 property tax a year on her home, I pay $1250. Both homes have the same value.

I wouldn't say my Property Taxes are low... not the rate or the amounts paid.

In Oakland, my rate is 1.44% plus a couple of added special assessments... so I pay over $9000 on a 1700 square foot 1955 home

I own a very small strip of median land that adjoins my home and the tax rate is nearly 30%... yes 30% because of the way the 27 fixed assessments are allocated on every parcel...

Don't forget that CA has one of the highest fuel taxes in the Nation so fuel sales are a huge additional source as it the 10.25% Sales Tax and the Smog Inspection Fees and inconveniece imposed...

No matter how I look at it... CA is not a low tax state and many of us pay dearly for choosing to call it home.

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by Clarks

D. Every independent study shows that in the nation, illegals are a wash or a slight economic plus to the nation.
E. Republican farmers created the illegal mess
F. There aren't many Democratic party farmers
H. Illegals in this country are by and large law abiding hard working people.

Wow!

I'm going to dismiss D right away. Maybe every independent study you have chosen to read. There are plenty citing the expenses illegals create. Many of them are paid cash, thus don't pay income taxes. And for those that do have income taxes taken out of their checks, one trip to the emergency room is going to cost more than someone making $20K a year will pay in taxes for several years or more. If one of them runs across the border to have an anchor baby it becomes much more expensive than an emergency room visit...for at least the next 18 years.

Regarding farmers, they have always used immigrant labor. My grandparents worked out in the fields around Kerman when they were young. The problem with too much cheap labor is it doesn't force them to mechanize and automate. Get rid of the cheap labor and you will see big changes in how many farmworkers they hire. And again, "no Democratic farmers" is a false statement.

There are also a lot more illegal immigrants coming here who don't consider farmwork. They can earn as much working at Wendy's or blowing leaves with leaf-blowers from your neighbor's yard into your yard.

In recent years it has been both business interests looking for cheap labor and Democrats looking for votes, diversity bonus points to put in their portfolio, and many other things they do to perpetuate the expenses taxpayers are paying for so they can make money off of the situation.

How can someone here illegally be law abiding? They are here illegally, it is illegal for them to work, with few exceptions, people working in the US are required to pay income taxes, regardless of origin. If you can't provide the right documents to the DMV you don't get a drivers license, and rightfully so. They drive anyway. Furthermore, these people drive without insurance.

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Your reasons are exactly why older vehicles cost less than newer ones...

The huge variable in cost is the value of the vehicle...

Older vehicles aren't as fuel efficient and don't have the latest emission equipment so they are worth considerable less so that part of the registration is correspondingly less.

Some older vehicles pay many times more than any new vehicle if you buy a classic... hundreds of thousands of dollar selling prices for a 1966 Ford Cobra are the norm and registration fees reflect the higher purchase prices even though the car may have cost $10,000 when new.

The last thing I would want to see is for long term owners of older vehicles to be economically forced to part with their cars... I work with many elderly... some drive less than 1000 miles a year... shopping and doctor appointments.

Maybe CA should have the same fees for all vehicles like some other States where the fee is very modest and in the case of older vehicles it is only charged once and is good for as long as you own the vehicle.

If you think $67 is a bargain... you too can buy an older car and save money too. I think it is way too much and have registered a lot of my vehicles NON OP so the state is getting less money from me with the increased fee as it was with the lower fee... it is a matter of principal... mine.

You are trying to make an argument for paying less to register a new vehicle based on value. My post wasn't questioning why they pay less. I was making a statement that registration fees should be the same as newer vehicles, and not based on value. Some value is fair. I'm not sure what that is, but I would go for about $100. I know the people paying $30 a year don't like it, but the fact of the matter is someone with a 1974 Ford Pinto creates as much wear and tear on the roads as someone driving a 2009 Nissan Sentra. And when it comes to reducing emissions the 74 Pinto starts costing us a little more in resources. My argument applies to classic cars too. There shouldn't be higher fees for a classic Mustang that sold for $10000 than one that sold for $1000.

If it were up to me I would apply tiers to the fees based on size/weight, fuel economy, and so on. People with those tiny commuter cars that I hate would pay less. Midsize cars would pay more, etc.