Skip to main content

View Diary: Amazing! Washington State defeats I-912 and anti-tax zealots (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think maybe (none)
    you are both right re the MVET.  It was progressive because I think (and maybe I'm completely wrong on this - I'm sure someone will let me know) the tax rate varied depending on value, much like the income tax.  It was regressive in that people who are less well off would still buy new or newish cars, and they are definitely hit hardner than the rich.
    •  That seems like a bad decision... (none)
      on the part of the poorer people. I mean, I'm no libertarian, but if you can't afford a $20,000 car, DON'T BUY ONE.

      http://higherfrequency.blogspot.com

      by Bensch on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 02:31:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cheap cars still cost an arm and a leg (none)
      If someone can afford a Porsche, they won't even notice the tax.  If someone buys a beat up old Ford they found on road dead, the tax really bit into the price.

      It wasn't progressive because it was pretty much flat across the board.  Cheap beaters should have been exempt.  Think of it in miles per tax dollars.  That brand new car is less tax dollars per mile than that old beater near the end of it's life.  And when you replace that old beater with another old beater, you have to pay a tax AGAIN.

      So no, it wasn't progressive at all.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (155)
  • Community (65)
  • Baltimore (47)
  • Bernie Sanders (37)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (29)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Elections (23)
  • Law (21)
  • Hillary Clinton (21)
  • Economy (21)
  • Education (21)
  • Racism (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Environment (18)
  • Politics (17)
  • Texas (17)
  • 2016 (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site