[jlmorton]

Really quite a stretch to call it fraudulent, given that the formula is derived from the State Legislature.

In any event, I have very little sympathy, since the current car tab is at least an order of magnitude too small.

The car tax rate in Singapore is at least 100x higher than the Sound Transit tax. The tax is equal to 100% of the sale price of the vehicle for the first $15,000 USD, 140% between $15,000 and $35,000, and then 180% on any value above that.

That seems a bit too high given the way American cities have been built up, but 1.1% is just absurdly and catastrophically lower than it should be.

[keepkalm]

State Rep. Judy Clibborn, the chairwoman of the House Transportation Committee, said it hadn’t even occurred to her that Sound Transit would use the older method to calculate car-tab fees, which lawmakers long ago decided was unfair.

“Sometimes if you don’t think to ask the question, you make an assumption, because it’s not even on your radar screen,” said Clibborn, D-Mercer Island.

http://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article1...

[jlmorton]

Alternative perspective from the same article:

> The language that specified how the agency would calculate car-tab fees was included in every version of the transportation revenue bill lawmakers considered in 2015, dating to at least four months before the measure was finally approved.

> The topic even came up on the Senate floor in February 2015, when the Senate voted down a proposed amendment to change the car-tab valuation schedule to a third, completely different formula.

> “Each step of the way, this language was there,” said state Sen. Marko Liias, D-Lynnwood, one of the negotiators of the 2015 transportation package. Liias explained how the car-tab fees would be calculated in a short speech during the 2015 floor debate.

Again, you can claim it was misleading, but you can't call it fraudulent.

This is the sort of obviously important detail you expect staffers to be on top of. It's silly to later claim no one had thought of what method would be used to calculate the value of a car when enforcing a percentage tax on the value.

[keepkalm]

>the current car tab is at least an order of magnitude too small.

Your opinion may be clouding your judgment. It's not right to inflate the value because you can't pass a higher rate with legislation. This is why a lot of people don't support transit, because the people advocating it can't be honest.

This is also why Washington State voters keep passing a cap on the car tab fee. Like it or not, the voters of the state still get to decide on the rules that govern them. They agreed to a rate increase on the fair-market value of their vehicle, not for Sound Transit to charge whatever they want because they lost some grant money.

[techsupporter]

> not for Sound Transit to charge whatever they want because they lost some grant money

I really, really, really wish the residents of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority who are pissed off about this would get the message:

SOUND TRANSIT DID NOT SET THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE, THE STARTING POINT FOR THAT SCHEDULE, OR WHEN THE SCHEDULE SHOULD BE USED.

For the love of all that is good and wonderful, go read the Revised Code of Washington (the bit of law that is passed by the legislature and signed by the governor or that citizens can amend themselves through the initiative process).

RCW 81.104.160 [link 1] clearly states: "Regional transit authorities that include a county with a population of more than one million five hundred thousand may submit an authorizing proposition to the voters, and if approved, may levy and collect an excise tax, at a rate approved by the voters, but not exceeding eight-tenths of one percent on the value, under chapter 82.44 RCW..."

160 also states, "Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection or chapter 82.44 RCW, a motor vehicle excise tax imposed by a regional transit authority before or after July 15, 2015, must comply with chapter 82.44 RCW as it existed on January 1, 1996, until December 31st of the year in which the regional transit authority repays bond debt to which a motor vehicle excise tax was pledged before July 15, 2015."

Sound Transit is legally obligated to use the old depreciation schedule instead of the one that was updated in 2003. Again, the legislature wrote that law.

RCW 82.44.035 [link 2] sets out how the valuation for the motor vehicle excise tax is to be calculated: "For the purpose of determining any locally imposed motor vehicle excise tax, the value of a vehicle other than a truck or trailer shall be eighty-five percent of the manufacturer's base suggested retail price of the vehicle when first offered for sale as a new vehicle, excluding any optional equipment, applicable federal excise taxes, state and local sales or use taxes, transportation or shipping costs, or preparatory or delivery costs, multiplied by the applicable percentage listed in this subsection (3) based on year of service of the vehicle."

On this bit:

> This is also why Washington State voters keep passing a cap on the car tab fee.

That is a false equivalence. Those votes are statewide, unlike the votes on the Sound Transit propositions which happen solely in the Sound Transit district. The car tab fee cap keeps failing in the western Puget Sound counties--notice how Tim Eyman can't seem to muster up the signatures for his latest three attempts, because people in Snohomish, King, and Pierce counties aren't signing the petitions and that's where the people mostly live--because voters here don't want to kick the legs out from underneath our transit (AND FERRY!) authorities a second time.

Also, I think it's pretty damn shitty that our "democratic initiative system" gives people in the entire rest of the state veto power over what the legislature tells part of the state it can do with its own tax money. People in Walla Walla, Grant, and Spokane counties don't get to vote for or against Sound Transit propositions and don't pay any of the tax dollars that support them. Why should they get a statewide veto? At what point is a vote "settled law" and the relevant authorities can get on with doing "the will of the people?"

1: http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=81.104.160

2: http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=82.44.035

[keepkalm]

Right, they just used an outdated, unfair, deprecation schedule that doesn't reflect reality. Just happened to still be on the books.

They aren't "required" to use that schedule, it sounds like they are the only ones using it, and Sound Transit wrote the legislation.

So I really don't understand your point. Sure we need transit, but the ends don't justify the means.

[techsupporter]

Why do you think that Sound Transit isn't required to use that depreciation schedule when the law directly says that Regional Transit Authorities (of which Sound Transit is the only one) are required to use that depreciation schedule?

Also, Sound Transit didn't write the legislation. They don't have that kind of clout in Olympia. If they did, explain to me how it is that they keep losing to WSDOT and UW, two state agencies that do have clout in Olympia. That UW Link Station is located where it wound up is prima facie evidence that ST has limited "pull" with the state.

(Notice how amendments were brought to modify the depreciation schedule at least twice and were voted down in the legislature. Senator O'Ban, the vocal critic against Sound Transit, voted in favor of the bill containing the Sound Transit 3 authority--TWICE--before he decided he didn't like it.)