Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mike Darancette
I had heard that the Car Tax was going to be aimed at SUVs and higher ticket autos so that a referendum would become a class issue.

I doubt very much that the Democrats would try to pick on SUVs. The Car Tax is based on a fixed percentage of the value of the vehicle, so more expensive vehicles already pay a higher fee. The Democrats want to take advantage of the fact that the 1998 bill to reduce that percentage rate also allowed it to be restored up to the original rate if the State ran short of money.

The Dems believe they can restore the rate with a majority vote instead of a 2/3 supermajority vote (which is what tax increases normally require), and legally they may be right. At least they have a plausible case to argue in court. But if they start mucking around with the underlying law (i.e., singling out SUVs) instead of just restoring the rate, their case will fall apart. Then they'd need a 2/3 vote, and there are enough Republicans to block that.

Bottom line: SUV will not be targeted, and everyone will feel the pain.

34 posted on 01/24/2003 9:29:42 PM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: dpwiener
The Dems believe they can restore the rate with a majority vote instead of a 2/3 supermajority vote (which is what tax increases normally require), and legally they may be right. At least they have a plausible case to argue in court.

I suspect not. The 2/3 requirement on raising taxes was part of Proposition 13, and legislative measures can't trump voter initiatives. If this passes, they're going to try to call it a 'fee' to get around that requirement. That designation is certainly one thing that would end up in court. During the interview, McClintock said that a court challenge is the last thing that should be tried. He pointed out that the $300 that the state colleted on out-of-state vehicles that were brought here was clearly illegal (both under the state constitution and the U.S. constitution, as was pointed out to the legislature when it was enacted), yet it took ten years of fighting through the courts to get it removed. I'd prefer not to wait ten years for this to be resolved.

39 posted on 01/25/2003 7:18:41 AM PST by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson