They are actually pushing a bill through that makes sense;
PIERRE, SD – The South Dakota House has approved a measure that would boost annual registration fees for cars and trucks to provide an extra $30 million a year to help counties and townships take care of their roads and bridges.
Representatives voted 53-13 on Wednesday to send the measure to the Senate for further debate. The bill would raise registration fees in two stages. The increase this year would raise an extra $18 million a year, and the second stage in 2013 would raise an additional $12 million annually.
The bill also reduces the number of vehicles eligible to get a discount on the annual registration fee. The discount now goes to vehicles at least five years old. The bill would give that discount only to vehicles at least 10 years old.
I have often thought that our vehicle registration fees could be higher, but I think they also need to be more fair. I think you should pay a higher fee based on (real) weight, gas mileage and usage. Maybe they will figure that out one of these days, but this is a good first step.
“I think you should pay a higher fee based on (real) weight, gas mileage and usage.”
Seems like a nice idea at first, but then you start looking at real world scenarios and it doesn’t make any sense.
Case in point – a family of eight has a full size Ford passenger van with a curb weight of 4700lbs. They average 13mpg.
A family of two has a Chevy Cobalt with a 2975lb curb weight. They average 25mpg.
If we base registration fees based upon weight and gas mileage, the family of eight would pay significantly more even though they are using much less fuel per capita than the family driving the Cobalt.
Usage sounds like an interesting factor but how to you prove it or measure it. Do we want to pay state workers to run out and read odometers every year on ever single car registered in the entire state? Even then miles don’t tell the whole picture as there are a lot of other factors (we wouldn’t want to punish someone who lives in a remote area while rewarding someone who lives in a larger city for instance).
Raising the fees isn’t a huge issue, but just keep in mind that this will be more of a burden on the lower income families than it will be to the middle class or wealthy. If you tack on another $20 to my vehicle registration I’m not going to feel it, but you do that to someone near the poverty line I’m told it probably makes a huge difference… because $20 is the state portion of sales tax on $500 worth of food.
Careful what you wish for. It might make more sense to raise the gas tax by a few pennies which would equalize the taxes to those who use it the most while at the same time promoting conservation. The only negative there is border towns might see their gas sales drop if someone could drive a mile over the border to save 5 cents a gallon (and don’t think people won’t do it).
What about just adding a significant increase in RV registrations. That would hit those who use SD as their home base but never actually live here. Another $45 a year per RV would probably bring in quite a bit, but I wonder if the RV lobby in Pierre would fight them on that one.
Commenting on the picture, i thought our legislature used the governors private jet, oh wait…
“Raising the fees isn’t a huge issue, but just keep in mind that this will be more of a burden on the lower income families than it will be to the middle class or wealthy.”
How do you figure? There are discounts for vehicles older then 10 years. I drive a car that is 11 years old. I don’t know a lot of lower income people driving brand new super duty trucks, unless maybe they are living in them.
“What about just adding a significant increase in RV registrations.”
I have said all along this fee should be at least tripled.
Costner, why is it our job to further socialize those who are unable or unwilling to practice birth control?
The bill ought be amended to charge one rate per vehicle pound. Period. Passenger cars, from Costner’s van to his Cobalt, cause virtually indiscernible damage to our roads. The heavy trucks cause our road damage. They are not paying their fair share. It’s long past time they pony up to pay for the damage they cause.
J2 is right. It should be based on weight. How do they charge for ground beef?
l3wis: “How do you figure? There are discounts for vehicles older then 10 years.”
Those discounts aren’t all that significant, and even middle class or wealthy people can drive old cars. In fact some cars that are quite old are very valuable, so is it fair for someone driving a 1967 Camaro worth $35k to pay less for a tag than someone driving a 2002 Chevy Cavalier worth $1800? Using age doesn’t really make a difference.
My (rather sarcastic) point remains – any increase in fees disproportionately harms the lowest income earners.
John2: “Costner, why is it our job to further socialize those who are unable or unwilling to practice birth control?”
It was sarcasm John… I was using it as an example of how every fee or tax could be made into a class warfare argument. Although I’m not about to suggest people with low income shouldn’t have kids… if that was the case the tobacco companies would be broke within two generations and NASCAR would cease to exist in another 30 years.
(More sarcasm by the way)
If you guy want to base license fees based upon weight alone, why not base it on class and make it a lot easier. Passenger vehicles are one class, but heavy trucks are another. If someone drives a F350 for personal use that is their choice, but a different ballpark than a truck used for hauling lumber or a semi used with a side dump.
The only issue is – any fees charged to heavier vehicles would primarily only apply to business vehicles which would then pass those costs on to the consumer via higher prices, delivery fees etc. It is a great way to disguise higher taxes for us all, but it doesn’t really solve the issue.