|
We need to fight this
I logged on to the web site, read the information and then sent my
representative an email asking him to vote this down. Please consider this. Importance: High Vehicle License Fee Bill SB6900 Hello, There is a bill that the Washington State Legislature is trying to pass in Olympia that, if successful, will directly add huge costs to our vehicle license fees. Everyone needs to know about this situation so that you can contact your representatives and voice your objection. The bill is SB 6900 and it adds an "engine displacement" fee to the vehicle license tabs upon renewal. The fee has a varied amount depending on the size of the vehicle's engine: Engine Size (liters) Rate Schedule Up to 1.9 $0 2.0 - 2.9 $70 3.0 - 3.9 $225 4.0 - 4.9 $275 5.0 - 5.9 $325 6.0 - 7.9 $400 8.0 or over $600 For each car & truck that you own, calculate the rate by matching the engine size in liters to the dollar amount. Add the amounts for each vehicle and you'll see that the average two car family will be paying $500+ every year in "displacement fees" on top of the normal license fees. If you have three vehicles, you'll be paying even more. The average family is already struggling with the high cost of gasoline, electricity, food and everything else, and our lawmakers want us to pay more, thinking we have unlimited deep pockets. This will do great damage to the budgets of retirees on fixed incomes as well. Now is the time to be very vocal against this bill. I have contacted all of our representatives, and I would encourage everyone reading this to do the same. Here's the web page for the bill where you can read the text: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...6900&year=2007 Here's the link for contacting your representatives: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx |
I hear what you are saying, and have done the same. Unfortunately, I think our wishes will fall on deaf ears.
The days of the gas guzzler are over. It is going to cost us if we wish to have trucks that are not fuel efficient. I hate the idea, but I will keep my 8-10 mpg truck as long as I can. |
The point that I MADE TO THEM IS WHAT WILL IT NOW COST TO GET A UPS OR FED EX (oops) or a local plumber or roofer or any trades person for that matter to do a job the cost will be half again as much as it is now. The trickle down effect will kill us in this economy. Farmers and ranchers are already about to kiel over from the price of fuel and now you want to add this to the cost of fuel and insurance to get our product to market? Who do you think will pay the extra cost? Again the trickle down effect will kill everyone in this state. I see milk at $5-$6.00 per gallon with this law enacted and the added cost of fuel. With this law Washington state will be sending a loud and clear message that the law makers do NOT want noncorporate farms or any other noncorperate buisness in this state. Think about it, you are taxing us out of existance.
That is pretty much what I say to them when I e-mail them every three or so weeks about this. |
Originally Posted by Placermike
I hear what you are saying, and have done the same. Unfortunately, I think our wishes will fall on deaf ears.
The days of the gas guzzler are over. It is going to cost us if we wish to have trucks that are not fuel efficient. I hate the idea, but I will keep my 8-10 mpg truck as long as I can. I am thinking that everything I have will be lic. as a motorhome |
Originally Posted by whitebenz
I don't have the luxury of getting rid of both of my trucks as I need them for towing. I will just have to pass on my expenses to the other inocent victoms of our gov. leaders.
I am thinking that everything I have will be lic. as a motorhome In a nutshell, I could buy a 'rice rocket' and save much on fuel, but I don't want one. Therefore, I pay for what I want...Kinda like the difference between eating at El Pollo Loco and dining at the Ritz. |
Exactly. I already pay more taxes than the guy with a sabaru because I buy more fuel which is taxed and so I pay a higher tax. That is why I think it is unfair.
|
It's time to fire all the gov't money takers. Mainly goes into there pocket anyway.
|
I sent an email basically saying if this passes there will be an exodus from this state.
I forgot to mention that this seems to be patterned on the system used by Korea- |
I put my 2 cents in and asked if they were trying do drive everyone but Bill Gates into bancruptcy. I agree that it will kill our economy. As far as Fed Ex and UPS, they don't lincense there vehicles here any way. Being a commercial vehicle they can be licensed in any state and operated here without penality.
|
Ok, either I'm just cranky because I'm still sick, or this proposed bill is just another thing that gets under my skin, but I just shot an email to all three congressmen for my district (2 reps, 1 senator). I'm sure between the cold meds and my anger, I didn't make a lot of sense, but here's what I offered....
Congressman DeBolt, I'd like to take this opportunity to voice my concerns about SB6900, the bill to impose fees based on engine displacements. It would seem yet another piece of legislation has been offered to reduce the money people have in their pockets, and place it in the hands of those that typically use it with less than the public interest in mind. In short, this bill suggests a sliding scale of fees to be imposed based merely upon the displacement, or size of the engine in a motor vehicle. The supposed logic of such, is that bigger engines produce more pollutants, therefore, they should have to pay more for the priviledge of using their vehicles. The irony here is that those with larger engines have to fill up more frequently, and are already paying more tax than other citizens. This bill does nothing but imply that the government wishes everyone to take the bus, and not be allowed to engage in the freedom of owning a vehicle of their own choosing. Creating a bill that treats people differently based merely on the engine in their vehicles does appear somewhat contradictory to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, does it not? Correct me if I'm wrong, but considering the gas taxes already imposed upon the public, one would think we're being made to pay quite enough in recent history. I have just read an article regarding OPEC's comments that petroleum supplies are plentiful, yet the United States has chosen to not increase production, thus artifically inflating the price of crude. This, in turn, translates to higher prices at the pumps, then higher production and transportation costs, then finally, higher costs to the consumer. If ANY of that article is true, it would appear our own "representative" government, is choosing to shove this country into a recession of its own free will. This cookbook sort of fee application fails to take many different contexts into mind. I'm sure the bill has received a lot of support from those that are affiliated with schools like Evergreen State College, where liberal minded hypocracy runs uninhibited. These supposedly environmentally minded people typically buy "green" cars, or smaller cars with smaller displacement engines. I have no argument with smaller engines, but all too often, these people fail to maintain their cars, and they end up running at less than peak efficiency, hence creating more pollution than they were designed to. With regard to the hybrid type of car, yes, they're great at reducing emissions, but noone seems to recall the fact that the production of the lithium-ion batteries in those cars, such as the Toyota Prius, is just as much an environment hazard as the production any larger gasoline engine could hope to be. This bill also shows a complete lack of understanding of the current performance market, which is completely aimed at smaller engine displacements. This aftermarket provides larger fuel injectors, bigger turbochargers, larger fuel pumps, etc...all meant to increase performance, AND fuel consumption, with no relation whatsoever to the displacement of the engine itself. Another angle to view this from is the fact that many private citizens that own their own work vehicles, and have to license them, will have to pay more just to keep their businesses afloat. Landscapers, roofers, carpenters, farmers, shuttle services, etc., are all private businesses that will have to pay more because the vehicles they need have bigger engines. Does the government truly intend to eliminate the small businessman completely? Bigger engines are not the ultimate culprit here....it's those that fail to maintain the engines they own, regardless of size. The issue of pollution and emissions control is much more complex than the simple displacement of the engine in a vehicle. Please tell your colleagues to stop trying to rob the public as a quick answer, and focus on better solutions like fuel cell technology (hydrogen power). With respect, Tim |
Keep it going!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Originally Posted by Behemoth
Ok, either I'm just cranky because I'm still sick, or this proposed bill is just another thing that gets under my skin, but I just shot an email to all three congressmen for my district (2 reps, 1 senator). I'm sure between the cold meds and my anger, I didn't make a lot of sense, but here's what I offered....
Congressman DeBolt, I'd like to take this opportunity to voice my concerns about SB6900, the bill to impose fees based on engine displacements. It would seem yet another piece of legislation has been offered to reduce the money people have in their pockets, and place it in the hands of those that typically use it with less than the public interest in mind. In short, this bill suggests a sliding scale of fees to be imposed based merely upon the displacement, or size of the engine in a motor vehicle. The supposed logic of such, is that bigger engines produce more pollutants, therefore, they should have to pay more for the priviledge of using their vehicles. The irony here is that those with larger engines have to fill up more frequently, and are already paying more tax than other citizens. This bill does nothing but imply that the government wishes everyone to take the bus, and not be allowed to engage in the freedom of owning a vehicle of their own choosing. Creating a bill that treats people differently based merely on the engine in their vehicles does appear somewhat contradictory to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, does it not? Correct me if I'm wrong, but considering the gas taxes already imposed upon the public, one would think we're being made to pay quite enough in recent history. I have just read an article regarding OPEC's comments that petroleum supplies are plentiful, yet the United States has chosen to not increase production, thus artifically inflating the price of crude. This, in turn, translates to higher prices at the pumps, then higher production and transportation costs, then finally, higher costs to the consumer. If ANY of that article is true, it would appear our own "representative" government, is choosing to shove this country into a recession of its own free will. This cookbook sort of fee application fails to take many different contexts into mind. I'm sure the bill has received a lot of support from those that are affiliated with schools like Evergreen State College, where liberal minded hypocracy runs uninhibited. These supposedly environmentally minded people typically buy "green" cars, or smaller cars with smaller displacement engines. I have no argument with smaller engines, but all too often, these people fail to maintain their cars, and they end up running at less than peak efficiency, hence creating more pollution than they were designed to. With regard to the hybrid type of car, yes, they're great at reducing emissions, but noone seems to recall the fact that the production of the lithium-ion batteries in those cars, such as the Toyota Prius, is just as much an environment hazard as the production any larger gasoline engine could hope to be. This bill also shows a complete lack of understanding of the current performance market, which is completely aimed at smaller engine displacements. This aftermarket provides larger fuel injectors, bigger turbochargers, larger fuel pumps, etc...all meant to increase performance, AND fuel consumption, with no relation whatsoever to the displacement of the engine itself. Another angle to view this from is the fact that many private citizens that own their own work vehicles, and have to license them, will have to pay more just to keep their businesses afloat. Landscapers, roofers, carpenters, farmers, shuttle services, etc., are all private businesses that will have to pay more because the vehicles they need have bigger engines. Does the government truly intend to eliminate the small businessman completely? Bigger engines are not the ultimate culprit here....it's those that fail to maintain the engines they own, regardless of size. The issue of pollution and emissions control is much more complex than the simple displacement of the engine in a vehicle. Please tell your colleagues to stop trying to rob the public as a quick answer, and focus on better solutions like fuel cell technology (hydrogen power). With respect, Tim |
Originally Posted by Ford_Six
I sent an email basically saying if this passes there will be an exodus from this state.
I forgot to mention that this seems to be patterned on the system used by Korea- |
I agree that the bill is silly, to charge someone based on their engine size is silly. I think that if they want money for roads and such they could charge based on miles driven per year. My truck sits in the driveway everyday and I use it to tow or on the weekends only. I would agree to a tax (other than fuel tax) based on miles driven. I Will have an unpopular opinion here but I will say it anyway. I happen to agree that Our roads are some of the best in the west. I think that we have alot of cool things in this state like scenic over looks and mountian roads that need to be maintained. It takes money. I am happy to pay for it IF they can show that the money goes towards said objects. I do not agree with a flat fee however, It should be based on miles driven. I also want to tell you guys that we are talking 400 to 500 per YEAR. If you go out of business or that 33 to 41.00 a month makes you go bankrupt it was enivedable and going to happen anyway.
I DO NOT WANT TO PAY MORE THAN I DO BUT, I ALSO KNOW THAT WE COULD USE THE MONEY. |
At the income level I am at, it would mean a blow to my family. I am not some rich guy sitting here, since property prices spiked up I am stuck paying way more for a place than I think it's worth. Pay levels didn't increase when my costs increased. In the last two years, gas has doubled. I have gone from a reliable but thirsty truck to a crappy little tin can on wheels that has a hard time pushing itself down the highway, but still have the truck as backup and to move stuff, haul trailers, etc.
The family rig is a Wagoneer. We use this to go to the store, go out in the woods, go to church, etc. I cannot justify another $325 (more than we paid for this vehicle) every year, just because it has a v8 in it. My 72, it's supposed to have a 390 in it. Are they saying I am going to be paying $400 a year to have this sit right now? I am not putting my family in a little Honda or something because joe jackoff sitting in Olympia says my big engines are a problem. Let's add this up- Courier- $70 Truck- $275 Wagoneer- $325 4x4- $400 That's $1,070 a year EXTRA that I would have to fork over to the greed machine to have metal sitting at my house. Now tell me a family this wouldn't put a dent in. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands