Will the new Governator be able to repeal the car tax?
10-12-2003, 01:17 PM
#31
Porsche Nut
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally posted by Robert Henriksen
Man, you guys make Texas look so good.
We pay about $65/year, per car. I think if it varies between cars at all, it's based on the car's GVWR, not its value, to reflect wear & tear on the roads.
Man, you guys make Texas look so good.
We pay about $65/year, per car. I think if it varies between cars at all, it's based on the car's GVWR, not its value, to reflect wear & tear on the roads.
Charlie
10-12-2003, 01:20 PM
#32
Porsche Nut
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally posted by ammo_collector
FYI:
In California, you have a "car tax" EVERY single time a vehicle is sold. This means new, used, used from dealership, or used from a private party. This is a requirement to register. In my county, it's around 7%, which is about $4500 for a 60K car.
What the Governator is trying to get rid of is the "registration fee", which is due for each car registered for use in California. This year, it grew from ~$200 to ~$700.
FYI:
In California, you have a "car tax" EVERY single time a vehicle is sold. This means new, used, used from dealership, or used from a private party. This is a requirement to register. In my county, it's around 7%, which is about $4500 for a 60K car.
What the Governator is trying to get rid of is the "registration fee", which is due for each car registered for use in California. This year, it grew from ~$200 to ~$700.
10-12-2003, 01:24 PM
#33
Porsche Nut
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally posted by Boris Teksler
i'm hoping they come up with a system that makes logical sense rather than taxing based on value of the car. the two big ones i would advocate would be:
a) base it on emissions -> therefore the more emissions the more you pay
b) base it on weight -> therefore ahhnold's hummer would cost him a pretty penny.
in both cases the more pollutants you emit the more it cost the state to keep the air clean and the more you weigh the more wear & tear you have on the roads.
Cheers,
Boris
i'm hoping they come up with a system that makes logical sense rather than taxing based on value of the car. the two big ones i would advocate would be:
a) base it on emissions -> therefore the more emissions the more you pay
b) base it on weight -> therefore ahhnold's hummer would cost him a pretty penny.
in both cases the more pollutants you emit the more it cost the state to keep the air clean and the more you weigh the more wear & tear you have on the roads.
Cheers,
Boris
10-12-2003, 01:30 PM
#34
Former Vendor
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tampa
Posts: 6,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charlie,
I think what he is trying to say is when you buy a car, you pay FULL sales tax (8.25% where I live) on every car purchase. In most states that I am aware of, you only pay tax on the difference BETWEEN the price of the new car and the car you are trading in. It was a shock to me here when I sold a Viper and bought a much less expensive BMW850. I thought it would be a no tax thing. WRONG... Man I need to move back to New Hampshire, "Live Free or Die". Here it is "Tax them until they are broke"....
I think what he is trying to say is when you buy a car, you pay FULL sales tax (8.25% where I live) on every car purchase. In most states that I am aware of, you only pay tax on the difference BETWEEN the price of the new car and the car you are trading in. It was a shock to me here when I sold a Viper and bought a much less expensive BMW850. I thought it would be a no tax thing. WRONG... Man I need to move back to New Hampshire, "Live Free or Die". Here it is "Tax them until they are broke"....
