Comments

1
I think tabs should be charged based on the weight of your vehicle. Heavy cars and their large tires are the real abusers of the roads.
2
It's not the amount it how regressive it is. While many of us can afford the extra hundred bucks there are a lot of people who can't and who need to have a car thanks to not being childless hipsters on capitol hill.

I'm going to vote yes, because what the hell else can I do, but its fucking annoying that our useless government at all levels cannot figure out how to fund things in a more progressive manner.
3
To be honest with you it is the $80 car tab fee being on the same ballot that is probably going to kill the other $20 fee to save Metro. And watching the anti-tax crowd you can see their collective ignorant panic about "$100 More!!! BLAH BLAH!!"

But since the cutbacks in Metro service will force more people to drive (or in my case buy a car after not owning one for over 12 years) I am sure those commutes will be so much FASTER!!! LOL!!!!! (Time to move to Canada)
4
Effect you?
5
@2, Yes it's regressive. Unfortunately, this is the only option transportation benefit districts have. Sound Transit retained its MVET only because it had already used it as collateral for bonds before Eyman's I-776 passed.
6
Do like the rest of the hippies at the Stranger: Get a bike! Ride a bus!
7
Why not just add another $.05 to the gas tax?

(waiting for the I-man fans to chime in.....)

Reply to them in advance: It baffles me how reasoning changes when the $.50 increase in price that BIG OIL inflicts on us time and time again is only "normal price increases" so no big deal, but add a five cent tax to a gallon of gas and the sky starts falling.
8
@4, Actually the word I meant to use was "impact." My brain takes no responsibility for what my fingers type.
9
Love it! I wish the "footlong analysis" were something more people could see.
10
@6, Unlike most of the rest of the hippies, I have a child, and being divorced only complicates the logistics.

@7, The legislature has not authorized a local gas tax option, and the state constitution limits gas tax revenue to being spent on roads only. (A local sales tax on gas would add flexibility, but again, it's not authorized by the state.)
11
I just want to say that I am a cyclist and I am not in favor of using car tabs to gather revenue for bike related projects. I ride every day and when it comes down to it no amount of bike lanes or “sharrows” are going to make it any safer for me do so. I have seen cyclists hit while in their respective lanes. I have my self almost been “doored” many times while riding in my designated lane placed along stretches of curbside parking. The only thing that will make cyclists safer amongst motorists is the reciprocation of both respect and patients from both sides. We are all just trying to get where we need to go, and none of us have anymore right to be on the road than to the other based on what we are riding in or riding on. To force motorists to pay for projects that they are not going to use just adds to the hostility that many motorists feel towards cyclists. This then leads to more cyclist hostility, because nobody wants to be a target. This utopian ideal for the city that the mayor and the city council have is a pretty picture, but in reality, no amount of infrastructure will magically cause bikes and cars to play nicely together. Mutual respect and tolerance from both sides needs to happen first.
12
Well, with the $20 fee we know exactly what it's going to be used for: maintaining current levels of Metro service. What exactly is this $80 going to do? "Improve car, bike, pedestrian, and transit mobility within the city" is too vague.
13
until washington state has income tax, regressive taxes like these become our only options...
14
@2, having children is a choice, just like being a cap hill hiptser is a choice. can't afford kids? don't have any. can't afford skinny jeans, an ironic hair cut and stumptown? don't be a hipster.
15
There is no particular slice of the salami that is much, by itself, but when you stack them up, you realize the whole salami is gone.

Whenever someone justifies additional tax increases on the basis that *this* slice of the taxpayer's income salami is really quite small, my answer is NO FUCKING WAY.

Instead, start with telling me how much income a taxpayer should fork over in total to fund government (10%? 20%? 67%?). Then tell me how you want to spend the resulting take by allocating it among the possible uses. (DEfense, transportation, income transfers, etc.)

But if you try and justify take increases like this Goldy guy does, you are not worth listening to. Mainly because you fail to appreciate the most basic fact of economic choices and policy: there are limited resources, and so we must make choices as to where to take resources from and where to spend them.

This sort of ass-backward reasoning regarding finances ("Hey, *this* number is small, so no biggie, right?") is for bankrupts and politicians who really don't understand that 10 trillion dollars of debt is made up of many, many smaller expenditures.
16
@12, That's coming up in my next post on the subject. Working on it.
17
Sorry but I don't feel badly. I think people who own cars need to start paying a lot more (especially for gas) so that we can get less people driving. We live in an unsustainable car culture that is irrevocably affecting our economy, our foreign policy, and our environment/climate. I am not 100% anti-car - I think car sharing programs in urban areas are genius. However, I believe if people drive a car, they're going to have to pay dearly to do so. Obviously there will need to be a complete culture change in our infrastructure and public transportation made available in the many, many places in this country where there is no such option - but until we make driving a car less of a viable option that isn't going to happen. I lived my life without ever owning a car. Yes I had a license and knew how to drive and rented cars and used Flexcar when I lived in Seattle. But it IS possible to live without owning a car. Now that I am unable to drive due to disability I have to rely on paratransit for most of my transportation needs and while it is public transportation for the disabled I am painfully aware of my much larger carbon footprint than ever before.
18
Goldy, you left out how the $80 will save on a bigger repair bill for a car from the damaged roads and congestion fenderbenders.

(Of course the libertarian solution is everybody buys a $40K SUV to roll over the rutted roads, bicyclists, and pedestrians waiting longer for buses)
19
The fees should be based on the year make of the car. These fees impact the poor too much and to a far greater degree in relation to income. Eighty dollars is nothing to some and a great deal to others. Let's try fairness for a change.
20
i have no problem with there being some sort of fee for owning a car in Seattle .. but a flat fee regardless of the value of the car is insanely regressive. The only way I’d approve it would be if there was some sort of sticker permit for neighborhood parking attached to it .. that way the Seattle U students and downtown commuters who park in my neighborhood for free (and I’m assuming don’t live in town) would not be able to park here for free.
21
I've said it before but I agree with most of your points of view Goldy but you still manage to sound like a complete asshole even when making a compelling argument.
22
@5 I know, I am just annoyed at the fuckups we elected to office who have not been able to fix this problem in decades.

@17 So you're cool with taking a hundred bucks from some poor person with a couple kids and a janitorial job that requires them to work passed when the buses run out to whatever low income area they live in? Or even if the bus is viable for them that extra hour or more a day they have to spend commuting is another hour they have to pay for child care or wonder what their kids are up to.

Taxing drivers more overall is fine, but to all this does is fuck over the people who can least afford it and have the fewest alternatives while doing next to nothing to encourage alternatives or discourage driving.
23
The VLF is NOT regressive. It's much, much more progressive than the status quo, which is forcing people to pay thousands of dollars a year in gas prices and car ownership costs. The flat VLF actually saves people money, with the most gains going to those on the lower end of the scale. That's progressive.

And it's also the only tool available to local government to do something about our deteriorating roads and our need for better transit options. Yes, it'd be great if there were other funding tools available. It would also be great if I won the lottery tomorrow, if Nancy Pelosi were still Speaker of the House, and if nobody ever had to make an "It Gets Better" video because no gay teen ever was bullied.

But we have to make the best of the world we live in. While we can and should advocate for more progressive funding tools, we should absolutely not reject a progressive solution to the regressive problem of making poor people pay money they can't afford on gas and driving because we haven't been able to give them the affordable, fast, reliable transit choices they really, really want and need.
24
Unlike any other tax source we let 100% of fuel taxes go to road building - it's pretty much the only thing you can buy in this state other than food that doesn't contribute to all of the things a society needs (if I buy a TV, the taxes don't just go to communications infrustructure). If $100 is such a problem, maybe it's time to end that rule and ask drivers to start paying their share.
25
What's wrong with the head tax for transportation again?

http://publicola.com/2009/11/12/head-tax…
26
@23 How do you figure? Its not like these minor improvements will somehow mean people don't need their cars anymore. So they have all those costs plus now an additional hundred bucks.

I agree its the only tool we have and I'm a reluctant yes, but that does not mean we can't bitch.
27
Did Goldy eat a foot-long and count the number of bites? 20 bites seems low, although possible.
28
Autos should be taxed out of existence.
29
Goldy, you're such a disingenuous stupid fucking credulous hack, its un-fucking-believable.

I love how you compare the $225 in fees that you face to the $1080 that bus riders face as if you're talking apples to apples. The $1080 is the same cost as if you didn't pay car insurance (which you also pay taxes on), car service (from the basic oil change to buying parts to mechanic fees [which you also pay taxes on]), and a lot of other people are going to be facing tolls to the tune of $1750.

Not to mention the tax that you paid on the car.

Not to mention, the $1080 annual "tax" does not come with the additional actual COSTS of driving (insurance, gas, car payments, vehiclular upkeep).

So, let's talk apples to fucking apples here.
30
I think I'm mostly with giffy here. I'm a reluctant yes.

I hate that it's crazy regressive. I hate paying more. I hate that Eyman has so fucked up our state taxes that we have to resort to this.

But under the current tax laws, we have no other options. I'd love to tax vehicles by weight and/or milage and/or value, but we can't (thanks, Tim Eyman). I'd love to see a more progressive income tax, but we voted it down. I'd love to see a carbon tax on cars, but that isn't going to happen this year, or any time soon. Right now, today, under our current tax structure in this state, this is the only viable option.
31
Short answer: people want government/infrastructure but get red-faced with rage when they're asked to subsidize it. London levies HUGE fees for driving, in a that city that is already INSANELY expensive. Revenue generation aside, more importantly it PROVIDES A FINANCIAL DISINCENTIVE TO DRIVE A CAR, or as most people here refer to it as, A PINKO COMMUNIST WET DREAM COVERED IN ISLAM-O-SAUCE
32
Dear TheMisanthrope, you have an unnecessary potty mouth.
34
The problem with fees for tabs, then, is the occasional driver. They disproportionately affect people who commute on the bus and own a car because they live in greater Seattle. So gas tax would seem to be more fair, but it introduces huge unpredictable externalities (only shit trickles down, and delivery is already an expensive proposition).

Really I think the London model could work, phased in to at first affect mostly commuters (train people coming in to town on the weekends to take the train later). You want to drive into Seattle on a weekday you need a pass.
35
Damn... if only we could have based vehicle licensing fees on some metric that would indicate the owners ability to afford it. Hmm.

Oh! How about basing it on the value of the vehicle?
36
the ironic thing is that nearly every single poor person i know would GLADLY pay the $20 a year or even $80 a year, because they know how critical public transportation is. even people who drive every day because of a smattering of logistical or personal reasons get how important it is.

im aware that im over-simplifying here, but i am a believer that as an urban-living, able-bodied, single-person-commuter, your goal should be to ditch your car. and if you dont want to do that (not that you can't, but that you don't want to), then that is just fine, so long as you pay up and shut up.
37
Dear Sterno,

His name is the MISANTHROPE! Maybe you should look that one up.
38
I think Cato's point @3 should be heeded: Cutbacks to transit will worsen the situation on the roads. If the State, Country and City governments wanted to ensure economic stimulation of our area, they need to make the investments to reduce commuting friction, not increase it, primarily for the bulk of middle- and lower-class workers.

Make it easy for the majority of people to get to work in the most efficient way (lots of people in large vehicles, like buses and trains), and you will grease the wheels of economic recovery.

Cato's case in point: Reducing Metro service will force more people into cars. And we already have bad traffic here.

Having regular and frequent Sounder trains between Everett, Seattle and Olympia would clearly reduce stress on I-5. Increased and more efficiently routed buses would reduce stress on other streets and arterials. Sound Transit on the I-90 and 520 bridges would reduce congestion there. WTF, it's not rocket surgery.

@33 -- Yep, "Convenience Costs"...somewhere, always.
39
oops. didn't mean to italicize everything. Just reduce commuting friction. sigh.
40
Why shouldn't the poor pay? Ever seen what happens to stuff when the poor get it for free? Try places like Cabrini Green back in the day.
41
Dear Sterno,
"Stupid fucking credulous hack" is a phrase from The Stranger itself. Look it up, fucktard. If you don't like cursing, you shouldn't be on this blog, really. Fuck off.
42
@29, Apples to Apples is what you pay the government for the services provided. Driving a car is more convenient to me due to the added flexibility. And yes, I pay extra for that convenience. But most of what I pay extra is not to the government, and is certainly not dedicated to the building and maintenance of roads.

My point is, when you look at the taxes/fees drivers pay toward the maintenance of the roads they use, it's relatively small compared to the value returned. Do the math. Add it up the way I did. You're not being reamed.
43
Treacle you son of a bitch, I don't want to be italicized. Slash motherfucking i mother fucker.

Anyway, I can afford an $80 car tab fee because like David Byrne I don't have a car.
44
$74!! I just paid $201.75 to renew mine.

How is your RTA tax so low?
45
I for one, am glad to see that nobody pays for car insurance, and that it doesn't cost between $500 and $1500 a year for a car, making the $80 look pitiful in comparison.

Oh wait ... It does.
46
@42 I didn't say I was being reamed by the taxes and fees (except for the reaming of the 520 tolls...THAT's a reaming that is 1.5 TIMES the cost of an annual pass). I said that you're being completely disingenuous in your numbers here.

The extra cost of the annual pass certainly does not go towards the maintenance of roads either. That goes to having a vehicle (with its gas, insurance, maintenance fees, and cost) and a driver provided to you.
47
@45 I, for one, am glad it doesn't cost $1080/year for a bus pass making an $80 annual hike in fares look pitiful in comparison.

Oh wait...it does. It can go both ways.
48
I still remember when eyeman's initiative passed and my car tab fees went UP while his went down. We so need to ditch the regressive taxes in this state. $80 isn't bad, nor is discouraging driving. the regressives taxes, however, are bad, and this just adds to it.
49
@10

Goldy, that was my fancy way of agreeing with you... Nice to see some borderline teabaggery coming from the staff every once in awhile... Viva la car!
50
Yes, I can, and I wish it were a more progressive fee as I can afford more. Transit infrastructure, and especially mass transit, is completely vital to our economy and quality of life. Jesus. Our roads look like Afghanistan and our busses like the Tokyo subway already. Are we going to collectively cut off our noses over $80?
51
@17: It's possible to live without electricity also, but most people don't want to. You just live differently without a car, or ready access to a cheap car, or electricity, or the internet, and most people don't want to live that way. Of course, they also don't want to shoulder all the costs of that convenience.

@1: I thought that weight and age of the vehicle were taken into account for tabs.
52
Get rid of that free ride zone. That'll save money and keep a lot of the human shitbags like that "sacred woodcarver" off the bus. Luckily we have the initiative process and car owners (actual taxpayers) can ultimately decide.
53
Sorry you chose to breed, but I don't see how your personal choice means that everyone else who uses the roads has to suffer. You can either swallow your complaints and pay the extra money, or you can give up convenience, but you can't have it both ways.
54
For anyone wondering what the program would pay for, see http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/do… And, just to amuse The Misanthrope, about 52% of the funds would be earmarked towards transit improvements.

And just to note, the proposed allocations would not appear to bring the Major and Street maintenance budgets back to 2009 levels in the 2012 budget.
56
@44, I drive a ten-year-old car. The RTA tax is .3 percent of value. My $11 RTA fee obviously means they value my car at about $3,666, which would seem about right if my car had typical mileage on it.
57
Definition of "regressive": not based on one's ability to pay. I, living on a VA disability check that falls just shy of four figures per month must pay the same amount someone like Bill Gates or Paul Allen would pay.

The departed MVET was based on the vehicle's value, so it was at least progressive to the extent that someone who could afford to drive a Lexus paid more that I would for my 1995 Ford Escort. But back then, that Lexus had a license fee deep into four figures... it was only a matter of time before I-695 or something like it came along.

Oh, and Kelly Blue Book says my '95 Escort is worth $1,050.

Both of these will go down in flames. People are simply tired of being nickel-and-dimed to death, especially for things that provide no real benefit to them personally.
58
"must pay the same amount someone like Bill Gates or Paul Allen would pay"

Does Bill use the roads more than you? Why not take the bus and sell your car?
59
Hey guess what? If you can afford to buy/own/operate a car, you can afford a fucking $80 tab fee once a year.
60
If a person is too poor to pay $80/year for tabs, how do they buy gas? That costs 30x more. Anyone who can afford than can afford $80 for tabs. Regressive, yes, but so is everything else.

61
Yes, I'll fucking pay a lousy $80 extra a year for the privilege of driving my pickup if it goes to improving our infrastructure and mobility for all. Anyone who complains about paying for infrastructure is a sphincter.
62
I say we just add the taxes to cigarettes. They're not essential to life, and more taxes there are always guaranteed money. $0.50 a pack sound about right?

I mean, if you can afford to smoke, you can afford to cover government spending, right?
63
Or, better yet, how about a 1-2% tax hike on taxi fares? They do more damage to the environment than personal cars since they tool around empty a lot.

And, if you can afford to take taxis, you can afford the extra cost since taxis are expensive.
64
Uh, Goldy? You missed all the other taxes we pay for roads. Yes, the gas tax brings in $13.4 million, or 4 percent, of SDOT's budget. But a property tax levy passed by voters in 2007 brings in $60.9 million, (18 percent), while $42.3 million (12 percent) comes from the City's general fund.

NOW go back and add the $80.

And while you're at it, tell us--if $80 isn't too much, what is? $180? $800? Is there any limit? (other than a sandwich).
65
It's less than $7 a month. Yes, I'll pay it, and without whining and bitching about it.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.