[toofasttooslow]

This ought to make just about everyone's blood boil. Check out our ridiculous congressmen and their money grubbing antics...

I hate this goddamn wannabe socialist state.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/bil...Bills/6900.pdf

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summ...6900&year=2007


(1) A vehicle engine displacement fee must be paid and collected
annually for motor vehicles subject to the fee under RCW 46.16.0621,
except motor homes. The amount of the fee must be based upon the
vehicle engine size in liters, which is correlated with vehicle size
and vehicle emissions. The fee imposed under this section must be used
for transportation purposes, and may not be used for the general
support of state government. The vehicle engine displacement fee is
that portion of the fee, as reflected on the engine size in liters set
forth in the schedule provided in this section, that is in excess of
the fees imposed under RCW 46.16.0621 and 46.17.010. For vehicles
registered on or after January 1, 2009, the vehicle engine displacement
fee under this section is due at the time of initial vehicle
registration and any subsequent renewal of vehicle registration.
p. 1 SB 6900
1 Engine Size (liters) Rate Schedule
2 Up to 1.9 $0
3 2.0 - 2.9 $70
4 3.0 - 3.9 $225
5 4.0 - 4.9 $275
6 5.0 - 5.9 $325
7 6.0 - 7.9 $400
8 8.0 or over $600

[scollins]

I heard this was "dead, dead, dead!" in the legislature this session. But that doesn't mean this isn't going to come up again.

But when does displacement equate to using more fuel? My 2.2L I4 in my Chevy S10 uses more fuel than my 3.0L I6 335i, but I'd pay more for the 335i? Where's the logic? Oh wait, it is Senators Tom, Kohl-Welles, Pridemore, Keiser, and Kline (all Democrats.) There isn't hardly a piece of legislation that ANY of these idiots are sponsors off that I support.....

[toofasttooslow]

Originally Posted by scollins

I heard this was "dead, dead, dead!" in the legislature this session. But that doesn't mean this isn't going to come up again.

But when does displacement equate to using more fuel? My 2.2L I4 in my Chevy S10 uses more fuel than my 3.0L I6 335i, but I'd pay more for the 335i? Where's the logic? Oh wait, it is Senators Tom, Kohl-Welles, Pridemore, Keiser, and Kline (all Democrats.) There isn't hardly a piece of legislation that ANY of these idiots are sponsors off that I support.....

I haven't heard one way or another if it's dead or not. They're still looking for a way to tax us into submission and they'll find it eventually. The best part of the bill is the financials though. Check out all the "expenses" we would be paying for. Things like a new call center at $150,000 the first year and $35,000 per year after just for the facilities.


After 01.01.2012 you would be charged based upon your emissions (grams per mile) that your vehicle could potentially create. Not how much you drive, but how much your vehichle could *potentially* pollute. I have a Chevy diesel as well as my bimmer. It's a beater truck that I use every once in a while for dump runs or Home Depot pick-ups. It's probably worth a grand total of about 2500 bucks, but I would have to pay over $400 each year to register it? What are they smoking...

[scollins]

Originally Posted by gum5h03

I haven't heard one way or another if it's dead or not. They're still looking for a way to tax us into submission and they'll find it eventually. The best part of the bill is the financials though. Check out all the "expenses" we would be paying for. Things like a new call center at $150,000 the first year and $35,000 per year after just for the facilities.

It didn't make the 3rd Cutoff: http://www.leg.wa.gov/documents/lic/...rts/cutoff.pdf

That is a procedural thing though, and the Senate could bring out to the floor if there were enough votes. That RARELY happens, so SB6900 is considered dead for the remainder of this session.

2008 is a "short session", meaning the legislature will recess sometime in mid-March (60 day session.) That generally means the short session sees fewer bills filed than the longer session. However, when I was down there a few weeks ago for some meetings with legislatures, some of the Republican leadership were just amazed at how many bills were filed this session. The numbers are staggering.

Personally, I don't think a new law should be passed until two laws on the books are repealed. Government is becoming too bloated and wasteful. I think it is telling that the largest employer in the US is the "government", and the largest employer in every state is also "government." When was the last time you heard of government layoffs? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

[toofasttooslow]

Originally Posted by scollins

It didn't make the 3rd Cutoff: http://www.leg.wa.gov/documents/lic/...rts/cutoff.pdf

That is a procedural thing though, and the Senate could bring out to the floor if there were enough votes. That RARELY happens, so SB6900 is considered dead for the remainder of this session.

2008 is a "short session", meaning the legislature will recess sometime in mid-March (60 day session.) That generally means the short session sees fewer bills filed than the longer session. However, when I was down there a few weeks ago for some meetings with legislatures, some of the Republican leadership were just amazed at how many bills were filed this session. The numbers are staggering.

Personally, I don't think a new law should be passed until two laws on the books are repealed. Government is becoming too bloated and wasteful. I think it is telling that the largest employer in the US is the "government", and the largest employer in every state is also "government." When was the last time you heard of government layoffs? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Good find! That's good to know that it's mostly dead...

I wouldn't put it past them to revisit it the next session though. It is a revenue machine bringing in a half billion dollars per year.

Totally agree on the government bloat. They should be do more with less, not tax more and do less.

[asdflkijd]

wow.. we should boycott/ protest