Previous | Mem | Next
 
The People's Exhibit A
davidology
Nov. 19th, 2003
Waiting paid off!  
From www.dmv.ca.gov:

Vehicle License Fee Notice

Governor Schwarzenegger has signed Executive Order S-1-03 rescinding the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) increase that went into effect October 1, 2003.
  • Customers who have paid the full amount will automatically receive a refund by mail beginning in early 2004.

  • Customers who have not already paid their registration renewal may calculate their lower fees by taking the VLF line from the billing notice multiply it by .675 and subtract that amount from the total fees due. Round this figure to the nearest whole dollar.

  • Submit the new amount by mail to the address on your billing notice:
       P.O. Box 94286
       Sacramento, Ca 94269-0001

At this time, the reduced registration amount can only be accepted by mail.

Please remember to pay your registration on time to avoid penalties.

...and with one swift wave of his pen, Ahnold terminates $163 of my car registration fee.

w00t!
 
 
Mood: ecstatic
 
Posted by The People's Exhibit A at 02:10 am | Permalink | 8 comments | Leave a comment
 
( Post a new comment )
ex_prezrober685 on November 19th, 2003 - 05:56 am
Do we love Arnold or what? ;)
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
The People's Exhibit A: FFYR - you never know (my gif)davidology on November 19th, 2003 - 08:07 pm
Gotta say there's about $160 worth of love flowing from me right now =)

...never thought I'd actually be (a little) happy to write a check for $422 to the DMV. :-/
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
driftwoodsun on November 19th, 2003 - 06:03 pm
We've had on ongoing battle over VLFs up here in Washington State over the past 5 years or so.

Out of curiosity, what do (did) the increase in VLFs fund in Cali?
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
The People's Exhibit Adavidology on November 19th, 2003 - 08:20 pm
It's given to local governments to fund fire fighters, police, and other things. It was reduced back in '98 due to a surplus in the state budget. But with the current deficit, it was reinstated.

In all fairness, it really wasn't a new tax as it was spun, and it probably should have been kept. But our registration fees are high enough... I'm happy not to pay it!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
driftwoodsun on November 20th, 2003 - 12:18 am
Understandably. I was against the reduction of fees here, but when it comes time to pay tabs, I don't mind so much that the initiative passed.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
The People's Exhibit Adavidology on November 20th, 2003 - 12:30 am
yea some fees I don't mind. Like the smog impact fee for bringing a non-California emission car into the state. The courts threw that out years ago. I thought that was fair.

I do see the argument against the VLF though, it is sort of like double, triple, quadruple taxation when you think about it. I personally think it should be based on weight and/or rated miles per gallon. After all, the heavier your vehicle, the more damage to the roads, the worse the gas mileage and pollution.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
driftwoodsun on November 20th, 2003 - 12:41 am
Yes, that makes a lot of sense, and the fact that it's a multi-layered tax is a good point.

Even a well-thought-out plan like the one you describe above would probably fail in this state, though, as do almost all taxes levied on cars or for roads (close to all new taxes and tax increases need to pass a popular vote to be enacted here) because people feel that they're overtaxed via the transit system as it is.

Oh well. Maybe one day they'll realize they need to pay for it if they want it to get any better.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
The People's Exhibit A: A.D.D.davidology on November 20th, 2003 - 12:49 am
New taxes here need to be approved by a 2/3 vote of the legislature, which kind of keeps things under control. Although special interest groups are constantly trying to get that overturned.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)