I-912 Split

[Salmon Troller]

SS-

You are more or less on the correct track, but may have missed a couple of points. Yes the legislature is a correct place for the reform, but it is comprised of mainly lawyers, so we seem to be bound up in conflict of interest. The initiative process is likely the only way to get any meaningful change made. The courts are supposed to weigh the facts and compare them against existing law, not legislate from the bench. The last item, reliance upon the insurance commissioner, is not correct at all. The DOI's job is to maintain insurer solvency, to review rate adequacy to assure that solvency and avoid abuse of the public, lastly they review forms for legality and to some degree fairness. He cannot and should not force a company to offer coverage at an inadeqate rate to meet expected losses. There are many problems with this system, but the fact that the insurance companies and the doctors are leaving the State tells us all that this is not smoke & mirrors.

ST

[SomeSailor]

I'm all for transparency of a doctor's malpractice history... and reform... but I just think both of these initiatives wreak of special interests.

And while many of our politicians are attorneys... we need to remind them that they are ELECTED attorneys. If there's a problem... fix it.

I think in both of these initiatives... the biggest winners will be the attorneys and/or the insurance industry. I know that's your bread and butter... but tort reform is the long-term answer. Not caps on damages... or 3 strikes laws for doctors.

[Salmon Troller]

Sorry SS -
I still have no opinion on either of these Initiatives, but feel that at least this is the correct approach. As far as my bread & butter, nope, I don't have 5 cents riding on this deal. Rather something a lot more valuable, my ability to get decent healthcare. Medical Science is a misnomer, it's an art practiced with incomplete information, random results, and Mr. Murphy playing a hand occasionally (something like repairs on an old boat!). The MD's don't have the luxury that Lawyers and other professionals do, to simply pass on a patient any more than you & I can just say, oh heck, I can live with it. Life has risks, you take your best shot and hopefully live to tell the tale. Making someone rich after the fact helps no one.

[SomeSailor]

I hear ya there.

I just don't trust special interest groups. Not even a big fan of initiatives as a rule... altough the gax tax repeal is clever.

I'm not gonna vote in favor of either... just too much room for abuse in them.

[Go Aweigh2452]

yeah, too bad the I-912 doesn't cover us diesel gulpers. Washington was clever in making diesel a different color horse. Therefore we have to put up with the increase every year... that bites big time...

[SomeSailor]

yeah, too bad the I-912 doesn't cover us diesel gulpers. Washington was clever in making diesel a different color horse. Therefore we have to put up with the increase every year... that bites big time...

Actually... diesel and gasoline are taxed at the same rate (.28¢/gal). The gas tax adds an additional 9.5¢ to gasoline between now and 2008.

Gasoline Tax: 28 cents/gallon
Diesel Fuel Tax: 28 cents/gallon
Gasohol Tax: 28 cents/gallon

(source: State Fuel Taxes (http://www.retirementliving.com/RLstate3.html))

Since diesel follows gas around here, I suspect it'll keep it at least reasonable.[/url]

[Go Aweigh2452]

ss, not possible if I-912 gets to axe the gas tax. Us dieselers still pay the extra tax so we will keep paying the 3 cent increase this year and 2.5 next, etc. If it were true about following gas prices, then why are we paying more than gassers? We should be paying less, a lot less.

I know it all boils down to supply and demand and unfortunately, most trucks and big rigs gotta be on the road to haul and make money so they end up on the short stick cause you have to make a living... you can't just park the guzzler and pull the 18 wheeler with a subaru...

Here is the latest from the government:

The U.S. average retail price for regular gasoline decreased by 12.3 cents to 272.5 cents per gallon, falling for the second week in a row. This week's price is 69.0 cents higher than this time last year.


Retail diesel fuel prices fell 0.2 cent to reach 314.8 cents per gallon, falling slightly from last week's record price. Prices were mixed throughout the country, with the Rocky Mountains seeing the largest regional increase of 3.5 cents to 317.8 cents per gallon, tying the West Coast for the highest prices in the country.

So, you cannot say diesel will follow gas prices... not if the above continues.

[SomeSailor]

ss, not possible if I-912 gets to axe the gas tax. Us dieselers still pay the extra tax so we will keep paying the 3 cent increase this year and 2.5 next, etc.

I agree that diesel should be taxed differently than gas. We chose to buy diesel powered vehicles back when fuel was cheaper. They get better economy, and provide better power over a broader RPM range.

That being said though... MOST diesel being used in Washington, is used to generate revenue and places a higher load on the highway system to begin with.

The only fair way to do it (in my opinion), would be through a impact / mileage basis. You'd get an annual safety inspection, where they'd check your vehicle out, record your mileage, check your paperwork and send you on your way. You'd then be taxed at registration based on the miles you drove and zip code you're in. Everyone would then get the tax dollars they need based on the demographics of their area... and the impact they placed on the local roads and infrastructure.

As far as diesel prices following gas prices... It has mostly to do with supply and demand... but there are some other price restrictions the gas guys don't have to deal with.

ULSD (Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel) reduces the sulfur from <15PPM from our normal >500 PPM diesel we burn now. This 80/20 rule begins in June 2006 and is mandatory starting in 2007 in some parts of the country (we are in one of those). They're really worried about how they're going to handle the stuff. As little as 2 gallons of of "off-spec" diesel will contaminate over 2000 gallons of ULSD fuel. So... you're gonna see whole separate tanks and a huge increase in cost. :(

Also be glad you have a pre-2007 model truck. You won't be required to retrofit with a catalytic. My Dodge is already compliant, but the cat is just a blank tube for now.

So much for the good news huh? But, I'm still voting YES for 912.

[Go Aweigh2452]

The only fair way to do it (in my opinion), would be through a impact / mileage basis

That is one way to handle the extra wear and tear on the road. NY has what I think is another good way and less costly to administer and that is to charge for plates based on vehicle weight. The heavier, the more you pay due to the extra wear the heavies create. Additional side benefit is the cost to operate an older vehicle in NY. You pay for the weight and you pay to keep it up to current smog regs which get tighter every year or so. This way it gets too expensive to keep upgrading an older vehicle and they tend to take them off the road. Additionally, you cannot get a renewal tag for your car without proof of current smog passing paperwork. I would go with that over what Tim did to us with the cost of current tags now...

[SomeSailor]

I agree with Eyman's initiative mainly at it's core. I don't like the idea of "blanket" funds to cover state budgets.

While some normal government expense is expected (payroll, administration, services & upkeep), earmarking revenue without having a set spending plan or need is too open to abuse. The most recent gas tax is a perfect example of how I feel disenfranchised from how these monies were to be spent. I don't wanna be the source of funds for expanding the 520 floating bridge anymore than I wanna be the dollar that pays for an off-ramp in Spokane.

I think that each county bears an expense to state regardless of what gets done there. This comes in the form of administrative and maintenance fees, but at the same time, these costs are disproportionate to those of others.

The only fair way to to it, is to calculate what impact YOUR vehicle is having on YOUR roads... and then tax accordingly. This is especially true of commercial vehicles. We have no income tax in this state, but many of the vehicles using the roads are income revenue.

I think if you live in Zip Code 98258... they should be able to say "OK... that's a 6,200 pound, 2002 model Dodge diesel truck... used personally only... .XX¢ per mile road tax and a $30.00 administrative fee... You owe us XXX dollars... Thanks... Next"

It would be so simple to compute and would be GREAT incentive to reduce your mileage. :)

[heymagic]

Can the 912 topic be split out ?

Fuel taxing is the best way to pay for road usage, more driving, more fuel used. It needs to be area biased though. Seattle residents need to pay more for Seattle improvements...or KC biased. I'm OK with paying a share of I-5 maintainance, most of us use part of that roadway....not ok with the Alaska Way viaduct or the bridge to Bill's house...those are localized issues to me. Those areas need to raise their fuel tax, or property tax or license fees. The benefit in those areas isn't to me or likely Randy or Doug. The license fees were too much and when Eyman got them rolled back it went to far the other way, the old pendulum thing. Tabs should be raised to a reasonable amount , maybe $50-$100 a year.

Another thought about commercial fees. If a rig is licensed in Lake Stevens but does business in Seattle then LS shouldn't get the tax money. If a vendor on Alaska Way ships most of his product to Spokane, then a localized road tax, wheteher fuel or property, will increase his fees and the end user ( Spokane) will pay for their share of the improvements. Maybe take a pecent of the mileage deduction on income tax and refund that back to the state for general or zip code road repair. The current blanket gas tax increase actually seems to border on taxation without representation, well benefit anyway.

[SomeSailor]

I plit it out so it doesn't water down the 330/336 talks. (btw... any of you can feel free to split a topic... pretty easy to do)

Yeah... there are a lot of complicated points to it, but I REALLY don't like the idea of my money being decided to ease traffic on the 520, or viaduct. One thing about the localized idea though Gene... I was talking more about localized spending of the cash based on how much is taken in. If a guy has a trucking company in Lake Stevens like in your example, he'd still pay the same amount, but the local economy would get the benefit. Goes to spread the wealth into some of the outlying areas as well. If a driver is down there doing deliveries or such... I think it's a smnall amount compared to teh revenue thats being generated through the sales and income of the goods.

Its a tough issue... but a straight gas tax isn't the answer unless there's some way to equitably divvy the funds up. A fee per mile is fairer, because two cars of the same weight are doing the same wear and tear, regardless of the mileage.

My truck is agood example... I outweigh 2 or 3 average cars, and get decent mileage (18-22mpg)... but I should be paying a larger share... just like the gravel truck rolling along I-5.

Tough call for sure.

[Roel Jansen]

What Doug is suggesting is the about the system we have over here.

We pay road tax based on the weight of the car. Every car on the road must be technically controlled after 3 years. You get a sticker (mandatory on your windscreen) and a copy of the checklist. Mostly it's issued by your garage when you bring the car in for the scheduled maintenance so they don't charge you for it. Otherwise you have car inspection centers who are specialized for that job. Take a couple of hours and you pay about $ 50 for it I think. The sticker is valid for one year. You don't have to worry because you get a reminder when it's your first time or for the yearly inspection.

[SomeSailor]

A lot of states do similar things here. As I've mentioned before, Texas has a sticker in the windshield that takes care of all of that stuff. Your smog, proof of insurance, safety inspection and highway use taxes are all paid for through those stickers. It even replaces the tab on your license plate. They cost the average Texan $65 per vehicle.

The state of Texas generates $1.2 billion dollars per year in taxes for the state through safety stickers and another 2.6 billion per year in fuels tax revenue.

Their registration is cheaper ($65/vehicle) and their taxes are lower (20¢/gal) than ours here... and their roads are better.

http://www.distributiondrive.com/Texas%20Vehicle%20Registration%20Sticker.jpg

[heymagic]

If you try to adjust for weight , trucks already pay tonnage, then you still have to account for miles driven also. Then you have to consider that even though some rigs may weigh more, they have bigger, wider tires and may actually weigh less per sq. inch on the roadway. No easy answer or formula. Definitely U-Haul should pay more than Ma Kettle taking her kids to school. I still think they should send the bill for the bridge to Gates..a neighborhood improvement. :argh

[SomeSailor]

I still think they should send the bill for the bridge to Gates..a neighborhood improvement. :argh

That one probably chaps my arse the worst... Who needs a wider bridge to to Medina? :(

In Texas, they have different plates and stickers for different vehicle classes. Folks who own farms, get Farm to Market tags, and are exempt from road taxes, trucks get commercial plates and are paid on weight alone, ordinary cars and trucks would be the ones based on mileage and appropriated by projects they vote in for their area.