• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

WA SAWS News: WA State Proposed Senate Bill SB6900 - Establishing vehicle engine disp

ou can feel free to send in your money, the government needs it.

What exacty is unAmerican?

Asking those who are using more resources than others to pay more for it?

We pay by the gallon for the lower MPG big vehicles so why is this any different.

Besides we will pay $45,000 dollars for a F350 Powerstroke diesel but whine about this idea of paying $200 to cover the impact of the heavy truck and diesel emissions.

Selfish is denying your actions impact others and not "man"ing up to your responsibilities.

You play you pay.




You can volunteer to send in as much money as you like. I feel that I am overtaxed and pay more than my fair share. You can pay to play all you want, but I choose to keep my money.
 
W
Oct 29, 2001
1,242
132
63
Spokane
I am willing to pay for the damage my actions cause for the priviledge of doing what I want.

As am I. However, I am tired of paying more every year and getting nothing in return. The west side of the mountains gets pooched EVERYTIME there is a tax increase to fix the roads that are in disrepair. How many times are they going to raise the gas tax and blow it on roads that don't need repaired.

They pulled the funding for the North/South freeway here in Spokane even though it is something that should have been done 20 years ago. Now they want me to pay even more to fix roads I will never see, your killing me.

Besides we will pay $45,000 dollars for a F350 Powerstroke diesel but whine about this idea of paying $200 to cover the impact of the heavy truck and diesel emissions.

If that is true then shouldn't the guy driving the 1965 Belvedere that is billowing smoke and weighs as much as a new truck have to pay up? Let's make sure everyone pays equally shall we.

This is all just the tip of the iceburg people. If we end up with another Clinton or an Obama in the Big House we are going to be paying up even more.
 
Last edited:
1
Nov 27, 2007
182
7
18
I have made contact with all Republicans in the transportation committee all have said this bill should not make it out of committee. There are to many big issue tickets and this will get pushed to the bottom so there is hope.!!!!
 
P

papa bear

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
548
64
28
Hobart, WA
I accept responsibility for the impact of my actions on the world and would gladly pay my dues for the priviledges I have access to in this great country. It takes money to keep up with progress and growth.

Poor arguement.

Our tax system is niether fair nor equittable.

One arguement against this newly proposed engine size tax/emissions tax is that it is just a new type of tax that can grow in cost. Another arguement is the entire law is suspect when it excludes motorhomes. If motorhomes are excluded then pickup trucks with campers should be excluded, and if pickup truck/campers are exempted then pickup trucks with tents on the back should be exempted........ A third arguement against this tax is that it was sponsored by Adam Kline, and snowmobilers should oppose all legislation he proposes since his published goal is to eliminate snowmobiles. Personally, I think Adam Kline's intentions should be turned against him - kind of a frontal assault.
 
S
Oct 21, 2004
735
53
28
Puyallup, WA
I drive diesel engine cars which emit more CO2 than a gasser, but produce less CO. They are 2.0L so I would get dinged twice.

As well I have a Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel for towing so I would pay for all three if my vehicle weight was figured in.

I accept responsibility for the impact of my actions on the world and would gladly pay my dues for the priviledges I have access to in this great country. It takes money to keep up with progress and growth.


Since Governor Chris Gregoire came to office the state now rakes in over 5 million dollars a day more than when Garry Locke left.....I don't think that we need any more Taxes Imposed on us at all....In fact how about some relief of a few taxes.
Now on the other hand, for people like you that don't think that we pay enough already.
I think we need to create a special fund that you could donate whatever amount of money above the current tax rate that you would like.
There would be no limit on how much you can give to the fund, just make sure that YOU give enough to make YOU feel justified about whatever it is that YOU are doing that YOU feel so horrible about.
I don't loose any sleep over paying what I consider to be too much in taxes already.
 
G

Good to Go

Banned
Nov 21, 2007
1,792
215
63
North Bend, WA
so you 206 folks.. what are you doing to elect more Republicans??? Or you just going to ***** and whine?

Think I'll just whine...:rolleyes:

I think you'll note that most of us that comment on here actually are involved.



Letter that went out today:



Senators,

This letter is concerning SB6900 and the taxes all will incur. Obviously, I'm opposed to this.

What part of this is so difficult to understand, I ask myself? Called anything a person wants, in the end it's a tax. As a small business owner and private party, I see this two ways.

First, I rarely have more than one employee (that would make two of us in the company at any given average time:rolleyes:); and yet maintain 5 trucks, all at the mid to top range of displacement. So, humor me here; it would be a minimum of $2000.00 per year additional tax (call it what you want) for the business. Who is going to pay? You're correct if you guessed it would be you. Because it will be passed on, to the tune of about $1.41 per hour on our hourly rate. Big deal you say? I'll remember that.

Second, we have two vehicles personally; that's another $800.00 per year tax. Which means I need to bring home approx. $1136.00 gross to make up for this new tax. Which means I'll need to charge another approx. $.59 per hour on my hourly rate, which of course I will. Next time I come to do a repair on your house or business, remember this when I give you the bill.

Oh my, I almost forgot, the 'dirty tax' that is involved here. Let's just say for giggles, that all my engines actually are fairly clean, and we'll average them out at $275 each. We'll just keep it all together this time, to keep it simple. Ummmm, that would be an additional $1925 per year, or approx. an additional $1.35 per hour.

Well gee, that makes, um well, you just raised my hourly rate $3.35 per hour. For fairness, it would actually be more. I based it on 480 hours per quarter. Obviously, I don't get to bill out that, so with an average billable time of 65%, the actual hourly increase to cover the expenses would be about $5.15. Or, about a 5.5% increase. Please, remember this next time you get an invoice.

Oh wait, I'm speaking to the people that have over spent their budget the last two years, are in deep trouble now, and can't figure out how to fix it without increasing taxes. Sarcastic yes, but you earned it.

You cannot legislate people out of their vehicles; into some dream utopia that most would refuse to be a part of anyhow. What part of this is so difficult?



And now to the funny part (or frustrating):

Someone has to foot the bill to replace the roads infrastructure and since the push has been away from everyone sharing the cost, it is only fair to impose "user" fees based on the share people use.

It's called a "Gas Tax". You drive more, you pay more. You drive a rig that is heavier, it usually get's less miles per gallon, hence you PAY MORE. Good God.... next;
Additionally larger vehicles have a greater impact on roads with the damage they do.

I think that vehicle gross weight should also be taxed. Heavier vehicles damage the roads more, so you should pay for your share.

They DO... where have you been? Want to see the tonnage fee on my trucks? BTW, at 5 or 6 miles to the gallon on a good down hill run, trust me, I'm paying a WHOLE lot more than you.

This is a financially based incentive for changes in the industry.

You don't actually still believe that government can legistate changes that are "perceived needs" and aren't market driven, do you???? Pass the kool-aid.

Sir, you are so very far off base, you fell off the cliff. The one on the left.
 

Rolling20s

Member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 21, 2003
363
6
18
44
Cle Elum, WA
"please Lord, isn't it time for Mt. Rainer to erupt and push Seattle into the Sound?"


LMAO!!!!!!!!! That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while!!

of course, there are a few of you 206'ers over there that we like (the ones with snowmobiles, dirt bikes, 4 wheelers and watercraft)
 

plumnuts

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 27, 2007
1,742
695
113
Right side of Washington
"please Lord, isn't it time for Mt. Rainer to erupt and push Seattle into the Sound?"


LMAO!!!!!!!!! That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while!!

of course, there are a few of you 206'ers over there that we like (the ones with snowmobiles, dirt bikes, 4 wheelers and watercraft)

yes.. there are good 206ers.. below post is one
 
Last edited:
G

Good to Go

Banned
Nov 21, 2007
1,792
215
63
North Bend, WA
Got a response from Senator Rodney Tom (Rino turned Dem)..

I understand your frustration. The bill is not going to pass, I didn't even try to get it out of committee. What I wanted to do was start what I believe is an important conversation we as a society need to have regarding how we can reduce our adverse environment impacts, while reducing out dependence on foreign oil from an unstable region. Pouring billions into the Middle East is adding fuel to the fire.
My frustration stems from the auto companies fixation on every car going zero to 60 in under 5 seconds. There are a ton of clean burning diesels in Europe that are getting 50+ MPG. The US auto manufacturers are looked into yesterdays mentality that they can make $10,000 off every SUV sold.
I remember in 2005 when we were debating the clean car bill (HB1397), when a lobbyist out from Detroit told me, "We (auto companies) have Washington DC locked up." Washington State has a rich history of showing leadership, and I believe we must do everything we can to intelligently address global warming. I appreciate your thoughts and feedback.

Best of success,

Rodney Tom
State Senator



Yea, I know, great talking points that don't say a damn thing. Well, except that the bill is dead.

I told him so with a response:

Sir,

I sincerely appreciate the response. I need to correct a couple of items. First, we get the majority of our oil from Mexico and Canada. It's a simple, easily verifiable fact.

Second, conversation is great, but no government legislated program/tax/demand to change consumerism has ever worked. You and I both know it. But market driven circumstances have.

Third, with reference to the Middle East being unstable, you're right: it is, but it's a whole lot more stable now than it was 10 years ago. Does one not think that our continued presence their will not only benefit the region, but in the end, our economy and safety? How could it not?

Forth, you use the term "Global warming" as if it's a fact, when in fact, it is clearly not. In fact, I believe that the proponents now use the term "Climate change", as "Global warming" was lamb blasted by scientists as clearly whacko science. Fact. With the word fact used lots...

Fifth, we do have diesels here; we even have Tier I, then II, now Tier III diesels. And believe me, your paying for them. We have little VW's running around getting great mileage, and little Geos too. They are available, but the idea that you can force a consumer to purchase a product that you forced a manufacture to produce, because you think it's the way you want things, doesn't work. Which is why people by SUV's (or now, overgrown station wagons with big tires). It's because it's THEIR money, to spend as THEY wish.

And last, who cares what profit they make off "every SUV sold"..? What part of "supply and demand", "free market", "capitalism", are we having a problem with?

Bringing me to the last point. All last year I heard complaints about the billions of profit that the oil companies made, and how it was criminal, outrageous, and obscene. So I pose the question? Do you think that a 10-12% profit on my little business that I run is wrong? Doesn't sound like much, and it's a whole lot less than your average big business, say, like a shoe company (Nike rings a bell..I think their profits are in the 30-40% range). So, back to the subject, if I recall correctly, big oil's actual net profit was 8%.. I fail to see what's wrong with that. And of course, like Wal Mart, if one doesn't like it, don't shop there, don't buy their product. Same with SUV's.

I have no doubt that a lobbyist made that comment to you. Takes all kinds. But that one comment doesn't give one the right to propose wrongs.

I offer you substance in my arguments, not talking points. I did appreciate hearing back; but I clearly fear this (and in particular, my first letter) aren't sinking in. It's good that the bill won't pass; but it never should have been introduced, much less written. What say you about the tax increase and its effects had it been enacted?


What's wrong with these people???? Sheesh.
 
Good job Good to Go!

Very sweet reply back Good to Go. Awesome job. To think that facts speak better than spin. Amazing! :D

I haven't heard back from my Senator in the 206 side or my real Senator on the 509 side where I actually vote, but I am pretty sure niether are in the camp that agree with this lousy piece of legislation whether it is going to be voted on by the full Senate or not.
 
G
Nov 27, 2007
103
0
16
74
Mount Vernon WA
Here is how it works...Dems tax fitness services...exercising in a fitness center or health club...sales tax on dues. Then...Oh my gosh...they pee'd off the Y (Young Men's Communist Center) who are health clubs operating as charities...so excluded them because they are nice people and some of them even have kids programs and yoga. But...now the parks and recs health clubs and school and college and university clubs (open to the public because they are a good neighbor...nevermind the revenue stolen from tax-paying clubs) scream bloody murder so they get exempted. Never could get the tax off private club exercisers. Exercise must be bad, like cigs and whiskey.

So...more logical would be to add an enviro tax to fuel. Then big displacement pays more...right? Very fair. You could even let gov and YMCA's out of the deal. But, you foolish thing...expecting govt to be your answer to all your problems...they spend it on a new program to buy votes for demoncrats and lock up a new entitlement that will never go away. They never go away. Give govt money for roads and they spend it on entitlements to assure their power. Then come back screaming about how the roads need help and tax you again.

Be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. Never counter these guys in anger...they won't listen. Come in calm and rational with the facts...and you can even win a hearing. Course you have to care to show up.

Or just have another beer.

Goose
 

plumnuts

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 27, 2007
1,742
695
113
Right side of Washington
I totally agree with associations and groups alerting people to the ideas being proposed, yet I object when they do this and TELL a person what to do in response.

Any intelligent, thinking person will draw their conclusion based on the facts. They do not need hand holding and being told how to react.

On to this subject. I fully agree with this displacement and emission proposal, although not only CO2 but CO should be included.

I am willing to pay for the damage my actions cause for the priviledge of doing what I want.

Someone has to foot the bill to replace the roads infrastructure and since the push has been away from everyone sharing the cost, it is only fair to impose "user" fees based on the share people use.

The auto industry isn't addressing emissions reductions and have gone back to large displacement engine instead of smaller high tech performance engine because they are cheaper for them to produce. The EPA under the current administration is not doing anything and won't allow states to impose higher standards.

This is a financially based incentive for changes in the industry.

Pollution has real impacts that have real costs and someone should be paying to fix them. This emission tax hits those who chose vehicles that pollute more than others. Notice that it starts at zero and increases progressively. Why should someone putting out twice the emission not pay for exceeding their share?

Additionally larger vehicles have a greater impact on roads with the damage they do.

I think that vehicle gross weight should also be taxed. Heavier vehicles damage the roads more, so you should pay for your share.

Why should I pay the same while being responsible while others are doing the real damage and not footing the bill for it?

I drive diesel engine cars which emit more CO2 than a gasser, but produce less CO. They are 2.0L so I would get dinged twice.

As well I have a Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel for towing so I would pay for all three if my vehicle weight was figured in.

I accept responsibility for the impact of my actions on the world and would gladly pay my dues for the priviledges I have access to in this great country. It takes money to keep up with progress and growth.

you should turn down your Thorazine mist... you are starting to not make any sense...
 
D
Nov 26, 2007
491
47
28
44
Wenatchee, Wa
Dear Mr. Helgeson,
I signed on because I have been annoyed, endangered, and angered one too many times by people riding motorized dirt-bikes and other off-road vehicles
that have no damn business anywhere. To me, this bill is narrow — it doesn't include those "personal watercraft," seemingly jet-powered little missiles whose only apparent purpose is to risk death and dismemberment for boaters
and swimmers, for the amusement of spoiled drunk teenagers.

Yes, I am sure there is the occasional responsible person who rides one of these machines on land or water. And yes, like every human being I have been pleasantly surprised to find my stereotypes broken. But why, why, why, do folks insist on motorized "sports"? Those two words are an oxymoron.

There is nothing sporting — athletic, physically demanding — about riding any machine anywhere. And it's a damned annoyance to folks who see the outdoors as a place to go for quiet and solitude and self-exploration. I would be happy to ban the use of the internal combustion engine off-road, by anyone without a handicapped sticker, subject to a stiff fine. Maybe we could call this an anti-obesity measure.

Please circulate this to all motorized sports enthusiasts, so they can remember never to vote for me.

Adam Kline



MtBarr, you don't see the least bit of selfishness/narrow-mindedness here? He is calling motorsports enthusiasts fat, lazy and stupid.

He sees the outdoors (public reasource lands in this case) as a place for "quiet solitude and self-exploration". Well, I consider them a publicly owned resource held in trust for you and me by the federal government. Why should one bigoted state representative be able to deny me access to federally (i.e. public, i.e. you and I) owned ground based on his misguided opinion of what it should be used for?
 
Premium Features