Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?id=62852

Legislation (H.B. 1134) has been introduced in the Washington State Legislature by Representative Fred Finn ([email protected]) and Representative Zack Hudgins ([email protected]) that threatens to require annual renewal fees for collector vehicle and horseless carriage license plates. Under the bill, the initial $35 license plate fee for these vehicles would remain and a new annual $30 renewal fee would be added. Under Washington law, a collector vehicle is any motor vehicle that is more than thirty years old, while a horseless carriage is defined as a vehicle that is more than forty years old.

We Urge You to Contact Members of the Washington House Transportation Committee (List Below) Immediately to Request Their Opposition to H.B. 1134

• H.B. 1134 ignores the fact that these older cars are infrequently driven (about one-third the miles each year as a new vehicle) second or third vehicles and deserving of reduced registration fees.

• H.B. 1134 singles out and targets owners of older cars as revenue boosters to compensate for state budget shortfalls.

• H.B. 1134 ignores the fact that many collector vehicles are owned and maintained by low and fixed income Americans who are less able to afford a higher, annual fee.

DON’T DELAY! Please contact members of the House Transportation Committee immediately by e-mail to request their opposition to H.B. 1134. Please e-mail a copy of your letter to Steve McDonald at [email protected]. Also, please forward this Alert to your fellow car enthusiasts. Urge them to join the SAN and help defend the hobby! Thank you for your assistance.

Washington House Transportation Committee

Representative Judy Clibborn - Chair
Phone: 360/786-7926
Email: [email protected]


Representative Andy Billig - Vice Chair
Phone: 360/786-7888
Email: [email protected]


Representative Marko Liias - Vice Chair
Phone: 360/786-7972
Email: [email protected]


Representative Mike Armstrong
Phone: 360/786-7832
Email: [email protected]


Representative Jan Angel
Phone: 360/786-7964
Email: [email protected]


Representative Katrina Asay
Phone: 360/786-7830
Email: [email protected]


Representative Deb Eddy
Phone: 360/786-7848
Email: [email protected]


Representative Fred Finn
Phone: 360/786-7902
Email: [email protected]


Representative Joe Fitzgibbon
Phone: 360/786-7952
Email: [email protected]


Representative Mark Hargrove
Phone: 360/786-7918
Email: [email protected]


Representative Laurie Jinkins
Phone: 360/786-7930
Email: [email protected]


Representative Norm Johnson
Phone: 360/786-7810
Email: [email protected]


Representative Brad Klippert
Phone: 360/786-7882
Email: [email protected]


Representative Dan Kristiansen
Phone: 360/786-7967
Email: [email protected]


Representative Connie Ladenburg
Phone: 360/786-7906
Email: [email protected]


Representative Jim McCune
Phone: 360/786-7824
Email: [email protected]


Representative Jim Moeller
Phone: 360/786-7872
Email: [email protected]


Representative Jeff Morris
Phone: 360/786-7970
Email: [email protected]


Representative Luis Moscoso
Phone: 360/786-7900
Email: [email protected]


Representative Jason Overstreet
Phone: 360/786-7980
Email: [email protected]


Representative Chris Reykdal
Phone: 360/786-7940
Email: [email protected]


Representative Ann Rivers
Phone: 360/786-7850
Email: [email protected]


Representative Jay Rodne
Phone: 360/786-7852
Email: [email protected]


Representative Christine Rolfes
Phone: 360/786-7842
Email: [email protected]


Representative Cindy Ryu
Phone: 360/786-7880
Email: [email protected]


Representative Matt Shea
Phone: 360/786-7984
Email: [email protected]


Representative Dean Takko
Phone: 360/786-7806
Email: [email protected]


Representative Dave Upthegrove
Phone: 360/786-7868
Email: [email protected]


Representative Hans Zeiger
Phone: 360/786-7968
Email: [email protected]
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,732 Posts
no suprise. the voters rolled back registration fees years before the current governor coming in. raising the fees was one of her first priorities so this is just an addition to increasing the tax revenue for a state w/o income tax.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
This legislation needs to be stopped for numerous reasons. First and foremost, it seeks to balance budget sheets on the backs of hobbyists. Secondly, if we allow this to pass, a hike in registration fees for commonly-used vehicles could be next. Finally, this will effect all hobbyists in Washington State. The cars we know and love today will be collectors in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts

·
Moderator & USAF Reserve
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
Out of curiosity, how much does it currently cost per year to renew a regular, or "non-collector car" plate?

If it's $30 or less a year, I don't see a problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Out of curiosity, how much does it currently cost per year to renew a regular, or "non-collector car" plate?

If it's $30 or less a year, I don't see a problem.
Currently, it's $30 to get the plate. It's the new ANNUAL renewal fee on top of that that is the problem with this bill.
 

·
Moderator & USAF Reserve
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
With all the time you have spent correcting the person, you could have looked it up in google. It took less than 1 minute to find the answer.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/vehicleregistration/renewalfees.html
I'm not correcting anybody, I'm asking a question as this thread does not have enough information to make an informed decision on the subject.

From my understanding of the link you posted, it appears that the answer to my question is "it costs $30 a year to renew a regular, non-collector plate". If I'm not understanding the info from your link correctly, why don't you just post the answer to my question instead of being obtuse.

If I am correct, I still think my original thought on this issue is right. I don't see a problem charging collector plate holders the same fee to use the road as other users.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
Then do the research yourself and stop asking everyone else to go lookup the answers for you, when you are more than capable. If telling you to stop being lazy is being obtuse, then yes I'm being obtuse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Bottom line is, collector/antique plates shouldn't be held to the same standard as "regular" plates in terms of fees. These vehicles are infrequently used, so why should they be required to be renewed every year? Doesn't make sense.
 

·
Moderator & USAF Reserve
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
Bottom line is, collector/antique plates shouldn't be held to the same standard as "regular" plates in terms of fees. These vehicles are infrequently used, so why should they be required to be renewed every year? Doesn't make sense.
Why does it matter how often they are driven on the road? If I owned a newer sports car I rarely drive on public roads for whatever reason (to keep the miles down, to keep the value up, to prevent vandalism, because I like looking at it in my garage, etc), I'd have to pay a renewal fee. The changes in this law as proposed actually make sense. Drive the car on public roads = pay a fee. Fees should be equal for all users.

On the other hand, I would support lowering renewal fees across the board for all drivers if they're cost prohibitive. But not for one limited subset of car hobbyists. If a car collector or hobbyist wants to avoid renewal fees, they could stop driving the car on public roads. Instant fee savings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
The whole point of a hobbyist/collectors car subset for car registration fees is because there are restrictions on where and how often you drive the cars. It's like insurance for collectors cars, you are often limited to how many miles you can drive the car and to what kind of events like car club events. If there are restrictions to where the cars can be driven, what is the point of having that subset if collector car owners have to pay the same fee to register their cars for road use.

The state thinks it is going to make money by adding this group of cars that currently only pay an initial fee for collectors car registration into a regular renewal fee. This has implications though that aren't stated in the future budgeting report. Charging an annual renewal fee will mean that people will not register cars that just sit. I paid over $2,000.00 in taxes after buying a Pantera a few years ago. I had to up my loan and eat more interest in my loan to pay those taxes. By adding more fees for operating collector car vehicles on the road they are going to curb the the hobbyist market where these cars continuously change hands. People will stop buying these cars if they keep getting taxed to death. What does that mean to the state. Yeah great they got 30 extra bucks from a lot of people, but a lot of people aren't going to be buying collector cars anymore. What does that mean. That $2000.00 I paid to the state would be nonexistent from a lot of people who would otherwise been buying collector cars. You have to look at the big picture and toward the future. The state is so shortsighted in its thought, they don't research the implications, they just want to punish the hobbyists for the states lack of balancing the budget. It's not black and white, the state will make more money on registration fees yes, but the implications of charging that fee will also cost the state a loss in collector car sales taxes. This is expected though from a government which lacks any kind of foresight. It sounds good on the surface to make money for the state, but in hindsight it will bite taxpayers in the ass. But no one will know because they will never run a report that shows how much tax revenue was lost from collector car sales dropping. That won't show up in any government budget report, you can put your money on that.
 

·
Moderator & USAF Reserve
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
If somebody can't afford a $30 annual tag fee, they probably aren't doing much with the car either. This whole thing is a big deal about nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
You obviously don't understand how our government works. Once they start charging 30 dollars a year, basically that gives the go to raise that fee in the future very easily. Yeah tomorrow its 30 dollars, but when they start raising the fees for everyone's use (and they will), that means collector's goes up as well because now we are all lumped together. You can pay my taxes if you don't mind shedding 30-50 dollars every year. It's not a big deal about nothing, you just can't put it all together. I can't explain it in layman's terms any better than that. You don't even have a car that qualifies as a collector vehicle, so I guess I don't get why you are so eager to volunteer everyone else's money toward this fee. Are you government employed or just rely on government income?

Here is a proposed fee I think they should charge you since you own an almost new M5. You should pay an extra 100 dollar tax every year for 10 years for owning a vehicle which required more natural resources and energy from the planet to manufacturer as opposed to getting more life out of an older car which has already used our planets resources to build. How about them apples? How do you feel about that? Oh thats right they aren't proposing that legislation...
 

·
Moderator & USAF Reserve
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
You obviously don't understand how our government works. Once they start charging 30 dollars a year, basically that gives the go to raise that fee in the future very easily. Yeah tomorrow its 30 dollars, but when they start raising the fees for everyone's use (and they will), that means collector's goes up as well because now we are all lumped together. You can pay my taxes if you don't mind shedding 30-50 dollars every year. It's not a big deal about nothing, you just can't put it all together. I can't explain it in layman's terms any better than that. You don't even have a car that qualifies as a collector vehicle, so I guess I don't get why you are so eager to volunteer everyone else's money toward this fee. Are you government employed or just rely on government income?

Here is a proposed fee I think they should charge you since you own an almost new M5. You should pay an extra 100 dollar tax every year for 10 years for owning a vehicle which required more natural resources and energy from the planet to manufacturer as opposed to getting more life out of an older car which has already used our planets resources to build. How about them apples? How do you feel about that? Oh thats right they aren't proposing that legislation...
I very much understand how government works, and frankly, I'm tired of it.

In my description of "fair", everyone pays the same across the board. No discounts on car registration, except possibly for 100% disabled veterans. This common sense and easy to understand approach solves a number of problems; notably everyone has the same interest in cutting spending and taxes as anyone else. As it stands now we have competing special interests fighting for their own share of public money at the expense of others. This is wrong, and 100% opposed to how America is supposed to be.

While your proposed tax on my car is preposterous, it actually goes along with your mindset regarding tax discounts for car collectors. I already have the privilege to pay fairly high taxes on my car in the state of Nebraska, as they charge an annual Motor Vehicle Tax based on the original MSRP of my car.

Further, your suggested tax on my resource intensive car already exists, except at a much higher level than you proposed. If I had bought the car new, I would also have been assessed a so-called "gas-guzzler tax" of $3,000, to penalize me for making the choice to drive a new, fast car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
If somebody can't afford a $30 annual tag fee, they probably aren't doing much with the car either. This whole thing is a big deal about nothing.
I had a similar discussion with someone from the import crowd who didn't understand why he should care about collector vehicle plate fees. The issue is simple. In 25 years, your daily driver will be a collectible. I'm assuming you enjoy your M5 and if you sell it now, may want another in the future, or possibly another SSP Mustang or '01 Cobra. That being said, because you ignored this fee hike, you will be relegated to paying it.

Moreover, this isn't "a big deal about nothing." Lawmakers may likely be using the collector car community, a smaller pool of constituents, as a test case. If they can increase the fees on us, heck, why not try on the general daily driver population? Enthusiasts shouldn't have to pay more to enjoy their vehicles. $30 a year over time adds up. Dollars I'm certain most would rather use for other things.
 

·
Moderator & USAF Reserve
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
Enthusiasts shouldn't have to pay more to enjoy their vehicles. $30 a year over time adds up. Dollars I'm certain most would rather use for other things.
Enthusiasts would be paying exactly what other motorists pay; not more. As it is they're being subsidized by the other drivers in the state. I'm sure most non-collector car owners in Washington also have better uses for their yearly $30 than to pay licensing fees, but they still have to pay it. This bill fixes the inequity that currently exists.

I don't have a problem paying my fair share for licensing my car, of whatever type, in the future. But only based on the assumption that it is the same price everyone else must pay. Pushing exemptions for certain classes of people just creates bad feelings in the long run. Trying to maintain unfair exemptions now has the potential to turn regular car drivers against enthusiasts in the future. I agree with supporting the rights of car enthusiasts, but why not focus energy on something that actually needs protecting?
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top