$30 Car Tabs Struck Down (Seattle, Spokane: house, gated, subsidized)

[rkcarguy]

My uncle is in an area where he's hit with super expensive tabs but isn't in the service area for ST, it's stupid.
He recently retired and bought a nice truck to tow a 5th wheel with and his tabs are in the $600 range.
Regardless of what money goes where the damn court shouldn't be turning over voter approved issues!

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by rkcarguy

My uncle is in an area where he's hit with super expensive tabs but isn't in the service area for ST, it's stupid.
He recently retired and bought a nice truck to tow a 5th wheel with and his tabs are in the $600 range.
Regardless of what money goes where the damn court shouldn't be turning over voter approved issues!

Should a person get Social Security if they refuse to pay into it? Your uncle can move out of the taxed area. Pierce County benefits both from Washington state taxpayers AND from ST3. They pay a half a billion dollars less than they get back. They are a taker county, in fact the are the biggest, #1 taker county.

[rantiquity]

Originally Posted by fassopony

"Pierce County and the voters in my district voted overwhelmingly for I-976... my constituents don’t believe light rail will benefit them, just Seattle," said Republican State Sen. Steve O'Ban. "I am deeply disappointed that the court ignored taxpayers, rejected the holding of the lower court, and struck down the voter approved I-976."

The initiative, which voters approved in November, would have capped most taxes paid through annual vehicle registration at $30 and largely revoked state and local authority governments to add new taxes and fees.
Looks like we will be funding Seattle and King Counties socialist crap for a while. Vote accordingly in a few weeks, this is solely on Inslee, King Co, and that deceitful AG who can't defend the people for fear of getting his socialist buddies riled up.

[fassopony]

Originally Posted by rkcarguy

My uncle is in an area where he's hit with super expensive tabs but isn't in the service area for ST, it's stupid.
He recently retired and bought a nice truck to tow a 5th wheel with and his tabs are in the $600 range.
Regardless of what money goes where the damn court shouldn't be turning over voter approved issues!

Yep!

[rkcarguy]

Originally Posted by Seacove

Should a person get Social Security if they refuse to pay into it? Your uncle can move out of the taxed area. Pierce County benefits both from Washington state taxpayers AND from ST3. They pay a half a billion dollars less than they get back. They are a taker county, in fact the are the biggest, #1 taker county.

Look at your state gov't for the fault for that. My family is workers and payers not welfare takers, and telling us to move is akin to the crap we hear from our tax assessors as the never ending lemming train of Californians pours into our state driving property values to the moon. The states B&O tax isn't negotiable for small businesses and puts them at a huge disadvantage to all the mega-retailers and manufacturers that work near-zero tax deals with the state. Therefore in many smaller towns the people can only "choose" from working a job that only pays HALF the bills and getting food stamps and assistance or moving away. This isn't Trumps fault it's the states fault and it's been broken for as long as the B&O tax has existed. The state admitted that it spent 38% of it's entire revenue on welfare and social services in 2008!
Don't worry anyway, there is a huge Seattle commercial exodus in process and your area will be losing tons of tax revenue and WON'T be supposedly supporting the rest of the state anymore.

[tifoso]

Originally Posted by Seacove

The point is the OP says Pierce County is supplementing King County which is not remotely true. King County is the one paying far more into the state (33 other counties to the tune of $3 BILLION a year) than King County gets back. It's not even close.

Your point is correct, of course. Pierce County gets far more back from the state than they put in and King County pays far more in than they get back.

But that's irrelevant. As has been pointed out many times on this thread, where the state gets its revenue has absolutely no connection to where it spends it. So, again: if you have a problem with where the state spends its money take it up with your reps in Olympia.

[tifoso]

Originally Posted by Seacove

Living in California, you might not realize that even the Eastside would rather keep the $3 billion they contribute to the state than send a half a billion to Pierce County. And it's not like they benefit when rail is extended to Tacoma. It's the "ever-aggrieved Pierce County" that benefits there.

"Where did the money go? Ironically the ever-aggrieved Pierce County is the No. 1 recipient, getting $508 million more than it gave in state taxes."
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...eattles-money/

I may live in CA, but I spent my entire working life in Seattle, more than half of that working in public sector finance.

Can you clarify something? You've said that King County contributes $3b more to the state than it gets back (a point I'm not arguing). But here you're saying that the Eastside alone is responsible for that overage. I find this argument rather odd, given the headline on the ST link you've provided which says that the money is Seattle's.

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by tifoso

I may live in CA, but I spent my entire working life in Seattle, more than half of that working in public sector finance.

Can you clarify something? You've said that King County contributes $3b more to the state than it gets back (a point I'm not arguing). But here you're saying that the Eastside alone is responsible for that overage. I find this argument rather odd, given the headline on the ST link you've provided which says that the money is Seattle's.

I was responding to your breaking out the Eastside:

Originally Posted by tifoso

First, the tax revenue generated in King County that is collected under state law doesn't belong to King County, as fassopony has correctly (and repeatedly) pointed out. If King County has a problem with how state revenue is distributed, they can take that fight to Olympia.

And if they pull that off, then Seattle can battle with Redmond, Bellevue, Kirkland, Renton, Kent, etc, and the unincorporated parts of King County over how to share their windfall. Somehow I don't see the citizens of the suburban cities or their electeds necessarily sharing political priorities with the likes of Sawant, Mosqueda, and Herbold.

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by tifoso

Your point is correct, of course. Pierce County gets far more back from the state than they put in and King County pays far more in than they get back.

But that's irrelevant. As has been pointed out many times on this thread, where the state gets its revenue has absolutely no connection to where it spends it. So, again: if you have a problem with where the state spends its money take it up with your reps in Olympia.

Tell that to the OP who stated below. It's no where near the truth. Pierce County gets far more back than they put in, they aren't funding anything.

Originally Posted by fassopony

"Pierce County and the voters in my district voted overwhelmingly for I-976... my constituents don’t believe light rail will benefit them, just Seattle," said Republican State Sen. Steve O'Ban. "I am deeply disappointed that the court ignored taxpayers, rejected the holding of the lower court, and struck down the voter approved I-976."

Looks like we will be funding Seattle and King Counties socialist crap for a while. Vote accordingly in a few weeks, this is solely on Inslee, King Co, and that deceitful AG who can't defend the people for fear of getting his socialist buddies riled up.

As for the "rest of Washington" - their arguments would be more persuasive if they were paying entirely for themselves. I didn't pick the argument but this sounds a bit like Mississippi complaining about New York City, when New York City pays far more than they get back while Mississippi is entirely dependent.

[rkcarguy]

Originally Posted by Seacove

Tell that to the OP who stated below. It's no where near the truth. Pierce County gets far more back than they put in, they aren't funding anything.


As for the "rest of Washington" - their arguments would be more persuasive if they were paying entirely for themselves. I didn't pick the argument but this sounds a bit like Mississippi complaining about New York City, when New York City pays far more than they get back while Mississippi is entirely dependent.

Up here in Whatcom county we are. The last time I looked at the tax/spend rates by county before the state hid them, we were 100.6
There is another problem though, things are quite inverted when it comes to transportation spending compared to gas taxes and weight fees collected on tabs. 130% plus of that is spent in the greater Seattle area, while in some Eastern WA counties its in the 40% range. We all pay nearly half of the operating costs for Puget Sounds Ferries, which are booked out months in advance during the summer and we cant even get on them.
I am all in favor of further localizing of tax and spend, you want it, you vote for it, you pay for it.
The issue with ST is that they have included people who will never be in the service area or will not see service until 2035 or something. If they've got a couple high value vehicles, that's $9,000 in taxes for nothing over 15 years. If they want to make it fair, expand the application of the ST tax AS SERVICE EXPANDS INTO THOSE AREAS.