What do you think of proposed new car fee?
“Under House Bill 480,” an AJC editorial says, “a one-time 7 percent fee would be assessed on all vehicle sales. For the first time, that would include vehicles bought from a neighbor or family member or through classified ads or Craigslist, which are currently excluded from sales taxes. In addition, the bill caps the maximum fee at $1,500.”
The editorial continues: “That means the buyer of a used, $21,500 minivan would pay a $1,500 fee, and the buyer of a $150,000 Mercedes would pay the same $1,500 fee. In effect, most of the value of that Mercedes would be immune to taxation, while all the value of the minivan would be taxed. That’s unfair to the point of being outrageous. It wouldn’t be hard to fix that problem. The most straightforward approach would be to simply remove the cap and make all the value of vehicles taxable.”
But Harry Geisinger (R-Sandy Springs), who authored the bill, argues that here in Georgia, “state and local officials have felt entitled to annually collect taxes on cars, trucks and SUVs, by something that is known as “the birthday tax” — a levy due on the birthday of the owner of each vehicle. If the Legislature is successful in eliminating this onerous tax, we will set historic precedent in this state and nationwide when it comes to personal property. We will prove that citizens can own some property without government feeling at liberty to put a perpetual lien on it.”
He continues: “House Bill 480, which eliminates the “birthday tax,” would instead substitute the annual ad valorem tax and sales tax at point of sale for a one-time fee on all vehicles — whether the purchase of a new vehicle or a fee when owners transfer a title in a personal sale. That’s it. End of story. No more levies. No more taxes. No more hidden fees. The owner of the vehicle would own the car, truck or SUV, free and clear of any government levies. Since the average Georgian owns a vehicle seven years, a motorist would no longer have to pay taxes related to that car. Ninety-three percent of Georgians own vehicles, according to the U.S. Census. I can’t imagine in this economic downturn that every one of those motorists wouldn’t rejoice at the news of no more birthday tax.”
What do you think of HB 480 and changing the “birthday tax”?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
47 comments Add your comment
vince neil
March 31st, 2009
9:30 am
it is a tax increase and the republicans, my party, are heading to re-seat the democrats in georgia…
Greg
March 31st, 2009
9:37 am
If my representative votes for this, I will not vote for my representative in the next election. Howard Maxwell – stay away from this tax, far away…
Joshua
March 31st, 2009
10:52 am
The cap on this is absurd, and is clearly another example of Republican pandering to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. If we are going to eliminate ad valorem taxes, do so with no cap on the amount of the initial purchase tax, and set the percentage accordingly. Yes, if you can afford a Land Rover, you can afford to pay (or finance) the additional tax (just as you would have needed to be able to afford to pay the higher ad valorem taxes under the old system).
What is the logic in making middle class people pay more for the vehicles they need to do their jobs, while letting wealthy people pay less for their LUXURY vehicles?
Mishap
March 31st, 2009
10:59 am
It is nothing more than a massively regressive tax on cars against lower income people who tend to buy through casual transactions. I believe the original language was $2,100 but w/ the cap now lowered, it becomes further regressive which is absolutely ridiculous. Why not make it linear without a cap? If the goal is to remove the ad valorem while benefiting the trauma care funding, why not charge the $10,500 that a $150,000 Mercedes would normally pay in sales tax?
I had no problem paying the $2,000 sales tax for my car, as well as the $450, $400, $350, etc I paid in ad valorem thus far. Why is the sales tax suddenly a 7% sales tax a too great a burden for anyone buying a car worth more than $22k? Personally, I think this wreaks of class warfare since the average car new car is closer to 30k. This means a tax cut for new car buyers, especially for luxury car buyers, while older cars are suddenly subject to far more taxes. Anyone voting for this bill will have lost my vote. Either you make it fair by taxing all cars based on their value or not at all.
Kirt Greenburg
March 31st, 2009
11:30 am
I agree with the AJC editorial board on this one. To place a higher percentage tax burden on the less fortunate in a time of recession is irresponsible. If an individual can afford to buy a $150,000 Mercedes, certainly he can pay a percentage tax at the time of purchase. I don’t oppose doing away with an annual lien, but this bill is not the correct solution – let’s find something that is fair and does not consist of regressive taxation.
cep
March 31st, 2009
11:52 am
I wish the AJC would explain the finer points better. As I understand it, on the 2 vehicles that I already own and are paid off, I have to keep paying the birthday tax? Can I sell them to my wife and pay the one time-fee to get rid of the birthday tax? Now, what are the loopholes? Can I buy a car out of state and keep it titled there (my parents would own it)? I like the idea of not having a perpetual lien, but this has the obvious, mentioned flaws. Why don’t they give us the option of paying either way? Either a one time lump sum, or keep on the old system?
Finally, I just don’t believe them. If you look at history, income tax rates were promised to never go above 7%. I predict that if this bill passes, in about 5 years, they will re-introduce the birthday tax and so many of us will have double-paid.
JR
March 31st, 2009
12:46 pm
Let’s call this bill what it is. The luxury car buyer’s assistance program. I’m really looking forward to my property taxes rising because of this bill!
SwedeAtlanta
March 31st, 2009
12:48 pm
If my representatives vote for this they will not get my vote the next time around.
While I don’t necessarily like the ad valorem tax I pay around my birthday each year, the current proposal is ludicrous.
First of all Mr. Geisinger, this has nothing to do with property ownership. You may own all the vehicles you want and not pay ad valorem tax on them as long as you don’t plan on operating them off private property. The tax is associated with the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads and byways. While many of us may agree that having a car is a necessity in this country it is still a privilege and not a right.
Just as we have progressive income taxes, so to the ad valorem tax is indexed based on the value of the vehicle. As the vehicle depreciates, the tax decreases. If someone can afford a $100,000 vehicle they can well afford to pay a tax associated with the value of that vehicle. If a taxpayer doesn’t like paying the tax associated with a $100,000 vehicle I suggest they purchase a car with a lower value like an economy car or a used vehicle.
The proposal wouldn’t be as bad if there were no cap on the title fee. But to suggest that someone purchasing a car for $100,000 should pay the same fee as someone buying a car for $22,000 is absurd. Further this doesn’t address current ownership. People that currently have a vehicle titled and licensed in Georgia will continue to pay the ad valorem tax which, depending on the age and value of the vehicle, could well amount to more than $1500.00 over the lifetime of ownership.
I encourage members of the General Assembly to vote down this discriminatory tax and absent some other rational proposal, leave the status quo. There is always next year to consider changes.
Fred
March 31st, 2009
12:56 pm
Funny how the AJC implies that $1500 isn’t ENOUGH tax for some cars. Two individuals reach an agreement to transfer ownership of a car… somehow, that means the state deserves (as much as) $1500 to sanction it. That’s the story of taxation, no matter how much you pay, there is legislator or bureaucrat somewhere who believes it is in everyone’s best interest to take even more. There’s no end to it. No end to it, ever. We are just wards of the state.
Eleanor Rigby
March 31st, 2009
1:14 pm
More trickle-up economics from the giant brains in Georgia legislature. I’ll be buying and selling my cars in Alabama.
Minerva
March 31st, 2009
1:24 pm
Our Georgia Legislature, bought and paid for. Never met a rich donor they didn’t like or a tax they did unless it helped out the rich donors.
David S
March 31st, 2009
1:25 pm
First, look for a significant decrease in new car sales and an increase in used car sales. Also, since one can assume this is a self-reporting amount, expect way more cash sales and $15,000 vehicles selling for only $2000. “Honest, that’s all it cost.”
As Fred said, this is the government giving nothing in return, but saying that because a transaction has taken place they are deserving of tribute in the form of cash. Of course there will likely be a decrease in revenue, but don’t expect the ignorant legislators to have cut the budget or spending any to balance it out.
This is just a bone being thrown to distract us from every other tax they are planning for the future. Face it folks, the only ones cutting back during this depression are in the private sector. Government will grow as always.
David S
March 31st, 2009
1:27 pm
Just exactly why should I pay more because I paid more for the item.
“From each according to his ability, to government according to their greed.”
Hi there
March 31st, 2009
1:43 pm
This tax is just silly and anyone who votes for this bill will not be re-elected. I will even vote for the other party if that is what it takes. Leave me and what little I have left of money alone and stop taxing the heck out of us. What are we up to now, for about every dollar you make, 78 cents goes to taxes?
Let’s have another Tea Party America.
JR
March 31st, 2009
1:47 pm
Please understand that this fee is paid when you title a car so buying it out of state won’t help. Also, no matter what you pay for a used car the fee is based on a chart prepared by out dear state government. So a junker would have the same fee as a nice one as long as they are the same year make and model. Write or call your senator and governor!
oldmac
March 31st, 2009
2:28 pm
Heck, Zig-Zag Zell Miller tried this taxing “private treaty” car sales before and damn near got run out of town for it. And….the $150K analogy is sort of typical of the “class war” stance the
AJC likes to take. How many $150K auto are sold in GA every year? Couple hundred, tops.
sc
Eleanor Rigby
March 31st, 2009
2:29 pm
Here’s another great idea our legislators might like. How about everyone will pay 24 percent of their income for taxes, with a cap of $15,000. Is that enough blood, sweat and tears for you greedy rich folk?
Eleanor Rigby
March 31st, 2009
2:38 pm
JR, thanks for the clarification. I should have known they would cover all bases and cut us off at the pass. I would also like to remind everyone who may think it’s worth giving up the “birthday” tax, the tax goes down significantly every year and the cost of the tag itself is $35.00, so remember it’s only the tax you’ll be saving. You’ll still have to pay that $35.00 tag fee every year.
Steve
March 31st, 2009
3:10 pm
Hmmm, so my 2008 VW has the potential to get taxed at the same rate as Dr Smoo’s 2008 Jaguar. Does the legislature actually think this is fair?
Wait a Minute
March 31st, 2009
3:17 pm
The author wrote “That’s unfair to the point of being outrageous.” Hmmm, it’s kind of the opposite of income tax. High earners pay a uncapped amount of a higher percentage than low earners. And the low earners must earn over a certain amount before they pay anything.
I agree… That’s unfair to the point of being outrageous!
Houckster
March 31st, 2009
3:22 pm
As usual, the Republicans will tell us what we gain, they don’t tell us what we may lose. Where does this ‘birthday tax’ money go? What is it used for and will we just have to pay this money in another tax that will have to be enacted to replace the ‘birthday tax’?
I don’t enjoy paying taxes any more than anyone else but government operations have to be financed in some way and the ‘birthday tax’ is as good a way as any. In fact it’s much better that Mr. Geisinger’s proposal because when you buy a car you’re faced with a 7% tax up front in addition to all the other expenses which will certainly discourage sales at a time when the OEMs and the auto dealers are hurting.
And I’m completely opposed to a cap on the tax. If you buy a $100K car you should pay the same 7% everyone else does. If you’ve got the money to buy such a ride, you’ve got the money to pay the tax.
One final thought: This should be ‘per driver’ tax rather than a ‘per vehicle’ tax.
Jefferson
March 31st, 2009
3:40 pm
Just eliminate the tax and cut the state & local budgets.
Michael
March 31st, 2009
4:44 pm
All you people who are against the cap are saying it is unfair for the person who spends more on the car to not be taxed on it. I agree somethat but how is it fair now that the more you make, the higher income tax you pay? If you are unproductive, lazy, or incompetent, you get a free ride on everyone else. Lets just adopt the fair tax and everyone will be on the same page (the poor will still get extra rebates and benefits)
DSanders
March 31st, 2009
4:47 pm
The State Legislature is apparently not thinking clearly. The middle class will bear the burden of this TAX. Go right ahead…I’ll be glad to see GA with a Democrat majority legislature again. Then we can get rid of this attempt to make even purchasing a car more difficult for the average guy.
Jefferson
March 31st, 2009
5:32 pm
So Michael, you think you hard work is all it takes to make high income. The income tax structure in GA is 6% pretty much across the board with only the lowest incomes paying less. One day you may see some people with the highest incomes actually do nothing to earn it, they just get it. There is, nor will there ever be a fair tax, the sooner you accept that, the happier you will be with what you have left.
Henry
March 31st, 2009
6:35 pm
Yeah, it’s just a tax increase in disguise for the poor and middle class and those who buy used cars (because they usually can’t afford the new ones). Plus, won’t we have to show up on our birthday anyway to get our tag renewed? I don’t like paying property taxes, but I can at least budget that once annually. This title tax is a big bite at one time. I guess if you are buying the up scale cars, you win, at least in the long run.
I don’t think the AJC has done a good job researching and reporting on this. The editorial board and reporters are getting kinda’ lazy.
RedClay Birdawg
March 31st, 2009
6:39 pm
Although I hate that every year as I celebrate getting older I have to pay ad velorum but I’ve accepted that as a part of owning a vehicle in GA. With GA’s Legislature continued refusal to improve a mass transit system that would actually benefit the general public owning a car is an absolute necessity. Owning a high priced luxury vehicle is a Luxury not a need. I will pay close attention to how Chip Rogers & Don Parsons vote on this issue. I will hold them accountable if they vote for this bill that is horribly unjust to the working class of this state. It is past time for our elected officials to govern in the best interests of the middle class majority instead of the wealthy minority who don’t need their help. As unemployment nears double digits in GA the average joe is getting a pink slip not a golden parachute evidently GA’s elected officials think that parachute should be platinum.
Bumpkin from Lumpkin
March 31st, 2009
6:47 pm
Oh yea, the old “nothing but helping the rich” mantra…the rich this, the rich that…..blah, blah, blah. You all must be stupid or just plain old ignorant to think that only the Republicans cater to the rich. Look at how many of our distinguished Democrats had their hands in the financial mess we’re in. Nothing is going to change until you ignorant party line people realize taht both parties SUCK, and BOTH cater to the rich and special interests. So take the time to understand what you’re complaining about and quit your freaking whining.
Don
March 31st, 2009
6:59 pm
Amazing how much wealth envy there is in these responses. I’m not part of the “evil hated rich” myself but man, Karl Marx would be proud listening to all of these “If these rich people can afford their $150,000 Mercedes then they deserve to get stuck with a higher tax”, mentality. Unbelieveable. You would think we would be trying to lower taxes for EVERYONE and not just certain “classes”. Is there anyone out there that thinks government takes WAY too much to begin with anyway?
I do believe a one time fee would be the better bet but if I remember correctly , I think they already take a sales tax up front as it is and this would only increase it by 7% up to the max limit. Anyone who doesn’t think there should be a limit as to the amount that govt should take from a transaction is out of their mind. This is not about rich or poor unless you just like to make it about that. Its about the AMOUNT of money govt grabs from ALL of its citizens which is deplorable.
Because of the wonderful system of progressive income taxes that we currently have which Karl Marx would be proud to see in action, the hardest working Americans(wealthier) already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes and get a lot less for their money for it too. YOu can only tax the “evil hated rich” so much before you have to tax the people that are consuming the services to no end too.
JR
March 31st, 2009
8:23 pm
Don Strange you have a problem with a disproportional tax on the wealthy but do not have a problem when it is applied to the not so wealthy. Do you really think it’s fair for a person to pay 7% for a $20,000 car and a person that pays $40,000 will only pay 3.5%?
Eleanor Rigby
March 31st, 2009
8:48 pm
Don is just incensed because he’s probably one of these upper-middle class people who think they are rich. Don’t worry Donnie, we are not talking about the likes of you. When the peasants come with the pitch forks you will be spared.
Mishap
March 31st, 2009
9:34 pm
Don, you seem to have mistaken that this is taken in lieu of sales tax which means the $6-10k in sales tax a high Benz buyer would normally pay is now the same $1,500 you would get for a lightly used Honda Odyssey.
I’m not against a flat/moderately progressive tax and I probably have one of the highest tax burdens relative to my actual income. As a single male in my 20’s w/o any dependents or homes, I don’t get very much in return for the 25k Uncle Sam/the state takes from my pockets each year. I’ll never see a dime of social security and I have private health insurance. Next year will be the first year I can actually get more than 2-3 figures on my tax return b/c I’m buying a home and dropping 15k on tuition. As it is, my income is subsidizing every old person, hyper extended homeowner, oversized family, and Wall St. tycoon who hit a rough streak. This tax is instead highly regressive b/c of the low cap and inclusion of casual used car sales of many old cars that are 5-10k which are taxed at 100% of their value instead of a new Lexus which is taxed at 30-50% which is why it is expected to raise $100-150M IN ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUE.
That said, why is the state suddenly deciding to reward me w/ a subsidy to buy more car than I normally would? Is it really a gift for me or one for the local intown Lexus dealer whose 50k GS350 got 5% cheaper up front b/c the taxes get fixed at $1,500. Then there’s the extra 3-4k in ad valorem they used to collect on the car. The 100k MB is a bit out there but there are plenty of 40-60k cars that people buy every day en masse that are suddenly a lot cheaper to buy than the used cars that suddenly get bumped up in cost.
Eric
March 31st, 2009
9:48 pm
DEAD AGAINST THIS NEW FEE!! WHY CAN’T GOV’T JUST LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE!! I DON’T MIND THE BIRTHDAY TAX AS IT IS–AND WOULD REFUSE TO PAY FEE AT CLOSING–WON’T BUY ANY CAR NOR FINANCE THAT FEE.
chuck
April 1st, 2009
10:32 am
If they eliminated the provision making us pay the fee when we buy the car in a private sale, I would be for it. Sales tax is 7-8% already, so this would effectively eliminate the advolrem tax. I have no problem with the cap either.
If however, they leave the fee in there for PRIVATE SALES, what would prevent someone from buying a car for “$100.00″ and giving the owner a gift of $7000.00 on a $7100.00 car?
Don
April 1st, 2009
1:41 pm
Eliminating the tax on a used car through a private party doesn’t make any sense. Why is it more fair for you to pay the tax at a dealer lot and NOT through a private tranaction? Does that not sound unfair to the dealers who will not be able to properly compete with a private party transaction and have a large extra tax burden to collect?
Also, JR, I’m saying the tax should be across the board but only up to a point. I look at it from a point of view that the govt does not need to keep taking more and more of our hard earned money. We should cap it some way. Your looking at it through the eyes of a higher percentage on poor people which I understand but it can’t be avoided unless you let govt take all the money it wants. I look at it as a total maximum cap that ANY one person COULD have to pay the govt. That is a more responsible approach instead of trying to play the class warfare game. Anybody in this country currently has the same opportunity to make the money they WANT to make if they apply it. I hope to be making a lot more money than I am now which would make things a lot easier but I know I have to go get it and I definitely don’t want the govt to punish me harder the more time and effort I put into it.
Just remember, using the govt to take money away from other people that worked hard and made smart decisions to get there does not make your wallet fatter. It only ensures that you will have an even harder time getting there because the govt penalizes you for doing well and working hard.
Mishap
April 1st, 2009
10:56 pm
Don,
Why are you so set on a cap? What about a flat 7% tax is so unreasonable to you? It is a flat as a tax is going to get. You want a 50k car, you pay $3,500. You want a 10k car, you pay $700. Simple as that unless you’re Rep Geisinger who insists on some absolutely stupid jerry rigging to subsidize new cars and dealers while increasing taxes on used cars not sold on lots.
You’re not being penalized more b/c the dollar amount is higher. Remember this is a consumption tax…something all those “Fair Tax” advocates are all about b/c it taxes on what you spend not what you make. Ross Perot, the billionaire, drives some old beater car and if he bought/registered a car in GA, he’d be taxed less than the yuppie who just has to have a new Bimmer who makes 60k/yr. That is unless you implement the cap at some arbitrary limit as they have to adversely place the burden of the tax on those who buy cars of 22k or less. If this was a progressive tax like income tax, cars over 50k would be taxed at 9% for every dollar over, 100k cars would be taxed at 11% for every dollar over, etc. Maybe you could argue that structure would tax success more which isn’t exactly true since nobody said you have to buy a car.
Red Foreman
April 2nd, 2009
5:43 am
Thats it, I am moving to Idaho…
Nickie
April 2nd, 2009
8:15 am
This is STUPID beyond belief! The state is in desperate need of money and the General Assembly is cutting annual revenue! If they are going to do this at least tax the full value of every car at the 7% rate. This is right up there with the failure to require seat belt use in pick up trucks that is costing Georgia millions in Federal highway funding each year.
Jabari
April 2nd, 2009
8:31 am
Sooo, is there any way that we as regular people can stop this? Do we each need to start writing and calling our representatives and start sitting at Capitol Hill?
shortcircuit
April 2nd, 2009
8:36 am
This is another shot at local government by the morons who think they can run the counties and cities etter than the local officials. THIS WILL BE A TAX INCREASE FOR ALL PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE STATE, WHY CAN’T THE DUMMIES IN THE GOLD DOME DO SOMETHING GOOD. YOU KNOE A GROUP THAT CAN’T PASS A SEAT BELT LAW FOR PICKUPS CAN’T BE TO BRIGHT. IT ONLY COST THE STATE MILLIONS OF $ IN FEDERAL AID PLUS WE ARE THE ONLY STATE IN THE UNION THAT DOES NOT HAVE IT. THE REASON BUBBA DON’T WANT TO FASTEN HIS BELT ON THE FARM.DUH YOU ONLY HAVE TO USE IT ON THE ROADS. IT IS SO DEPRESSING TO READ WHAT THE MORONS CAN COME UP WITH EACH TEAR. WE ARE SAFE UNTILL NEXT YEAR
MDinGA
April 2nd, 2009
8:46 am
Completely irresponsible. I’ll be writing my rep to tell him the same.
Yankee
April 2nd, 2009
8:59 am
I’ve got all the cars I’ll need for the rest of my life. Do whatever you want.
Don
April 2nd, 2009
9:15 am
Mishap,
I’m a fair tax guy myself but I’m just tired of seeing govt lately try to find every avenue they can to take more and more and more from us. I’m sick of it. When the income tax was begun the bill stated that they would only be taking 1% of the top earners pay. This is where they started. Now look. We are up to 40% of your pay just to the Feds and then the state takes their share, then the local school district rapes you with enourmous property taxes, every purchase you make at a store is taxed, and on and on and on. At some point we need to cap it regardless of what is percieved at “fair for the little guy”. We have to begin to starve the beast to some extent or it just keeps growing and growing.
Thats my point and where I’m coming from on this. I’m just sick of govt consuming more and more of our money that WE THE PEOPLE earn, not the govt. They don’t do anything at all to earn it. They just take with force.
Pizen
April 2nd, 2009
9:55 am
Actually I kind of like the concept of an up-front fee paid in lieu of ad valorem taxes going forward. I think there should be a cap, although perhaps higher than $1,500, because there should be a limit on what the government can vacuum out of your pockets, no matter how well off you are. The government has an insatiable appetite for your hard-earned dollars, and just because it can take them from you doesn’t mean it should. In fact, quite the opposite.
Dave-in-Conyers
April 2nd, 2009
10:03 am
Once again, the screws are applied to the Middle Class and the Poor.
If a one-time tax is to be applied to any vehicle, it should be for the full price of the vehicle according to the new-car sticker price and/or the used-car Blue Book value. To me, that would be a fair tax solution *iff this bill is applied. For a state struggling with debt, this is no time to reduce revenue which, I believe, the long-run result would be.
My vote would be to stick with the “Birthday Tax.”
*if and only if
Mishap
April 2nd, 2009
11:33 am
Don,
The issue I have is that its a tax shift and increase rolled into a sorry marketing ploy as a tax elimination rather than a real reduction in taxes. People who previously bought a Lexus, Mercedes, Ferrari, etc paid the 6-8% sales tax as well as very high ad valorem taxes based on the value of the car. This bill essentially still generates that revenue and much more by taxing people who deal in cars in the 20k and less arena. I would have seen a tax savings when I bought my Infiniti but that wasn’t a big factor in my decision. I wasn’t happy to see the $450 ad valorem bill three months later but it’s cost of ownership of a shiny new car. Was I unfairly taxed b/c I wanted a luxury car? I highly doubt it b/c the guy buying a Ford Focus pays the exact same sales tax rate and millage rate on his car if he got it from a dealer.
Cars can be a necessity (given GA’s poor public transportation and build the highway and they will come attitude) but can you really say a 50-100k Mercedes is a necessity for transportation? Giving a person who buys the $50k Lexus a 2k(3% effective tax rate) discount simply b/c his car was more expensive seems rather counterintuitive. The guy who buys a 10k used Honda pays $700 now which is a full 7% of the price regardless of if they go private party or to a dealer now. The one guy per year who buys a Rolls in GA will get a tax savings of $26,000 (effective tax rate 0.375%) just on sales tax. Ad valorem would likely be a 5 figure savings as well. I don’t think taxes should cause significant social engineering but creating a cap just makes the tax regressive (much like social security).
Mishap
April 2nd, 2009
11:40 am
Pizen,
If you limit how much the gov’t can vacuum from your pockets, then you create a class of people impervious to taxes. Let’s say we take a flat sales tax structure and then implement caps…if you spend over 1M…you pay nothing in addition. Then those people in the 1M+ spending category would spend freely above that amount. That means the richer you are, the less you would pay in taxes as a percentage of your spending. This means the full tax burden winds up on everyone south of the cap which means it is a regressive tax. Nothing breeds more social discord than turning everyone not wealthy into serfs.
While its true the wealthy do not necessarily utilize gov’t services like highways more, they have in fact benefited from the gov’t structure that allowed their businesses or income to reach those levels. Maintaining a flat/moderately progressive tax structure has been a major part of maintaining peace and stability necessary to foster business regardless of how much high income people lobby to change that fact.