Florida Vehicle Registration Fees: Lamborghini Murciélago and Ford Taurus the same

[John N Morgan]

The topic of motor vehicle registration increases was brought up at a fundraiser recently. The problem stated was that Republicans were calling it a fee increase and not a tax increase so they could claim they didn’t raise taxes.
The problem is not what it’s called, it’s what it is: yet another regressive tax structure. Given the chance to revamp the vehicle registration schedule the Republican legislature chose to stay with the regressive weight categories instead of resale value for rates.

Hence, my issue is that the vehicle registration schedule it is grossly regressive. The registration schedule is based on weight not value; hence,
Lamborghini Murciélago (3,638 lb) fee is $70.65
and the Ford Taurus (4,015 lbs) also cost $70.65
(I really don't know if the Lamborghini is legal in the US, but if it is the $70.65 registration fee applies)
Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles"

This is wealth preservation, plain and simple.

John Morgan Democratic Candidate For Florida House of Representatives, District 82

[demosincebirth]

1. they're lucky. In Ca., registration fee is based on value. I have an '07 Cad, and

this years they socked me close to 400 bucks.

[DBoon]

3. my Toyota Prius was half that

and when I owned a 10-year old corolla, it was well under $100

Looks fine to me

[demosincebirth]

20. Your Prius must be worth half of what an '07 Cadillac. Like I said, its

based on the value of the car. The state determines that. I have a '90 chev p/u, and its 85 bucks a year, which I think is a little high. With the deficit we have in Ca., we're never going to get a break on the car tax.

[John N Morgan]

6. Do you consider that fair? Is it in line with the public expectation? I have lived in other states

and paid much more than Florida's rates. I griped, but it was fair.

[demosincebirth]

19. I don't like it, but like it or not, thats what we have to pay...value of the vehicle.

[flvegan]

2. Wait...you want a sort of millage rate taxation based on resale value?

Because what we really need on top of a property appraiser's office, we need a car resale value appraiser's office. Florida couldn't figure out pollution inspection registration. We'd sure as hell fuck this up even worse.

Besides, if you think of it, it's not "wealth preservation" anyway. If a Lambo owner drives 12k miles per year just as someone in a SmartCar, the Lambo driver will, over time pay far more into the local coffers in taxes and services. 8mpg? More gas. $5k tuneup. Tires that are what, $500/each? Insurance.

[Canuckistanian]

4. The point is, Lamborghini owners could afford to pay more.

Easily. And never miss the extra they'd have to pay. And it goes DIRECTLY into local public funds, not indirectly through a possibly distant service shop.

Tax the rich where they live.

[flvegan]

8. Then it shouldn't be based on the car, but on net worth.

You an drive a Lambo making $250k a year. You can drive a Buick and make $2 million a year. That Buick driver can afford to pay more. No, really. Why not do away with all fees and costs for everything, and adopt an income tax type of thing. Sales tax? Based on your worth. Property tax? Based on your worth. Fed tax on that landline phone service? I don't know, let's look at your stock portfolio and figure it out.

Tax the rich. Who cares where they live.

[John N Morgan]

11. Again, I'm feeling concern on your part. Government can't work? Really?

[flvegan]

12. Indeed.

Good luck with your campaign. You're going to need it.

[John N Morgan]

5. I respectfully disagree. Republican incompetence is not a reason to go with regressive tax structure

You seem to be on the side of "government can't work", how do you feel about a public option? Just ask'n.

Second, the upkeep of a car is not a consideration. If you own an expensive car you will pay for it's upkeep regardless of the annual registration fees.

If the Republicans in the state legislature were really into a corporate view of tax collection, they would for go the increase, since it is not what is fair it's what the market will bear. The increase in jobs and contracts would be beneficial and self preserving. Second, in a truly corporate style government tax structure, the legislatures could be sued for not taking the money.

This is just regressive Republican status-quo legislation. Over simplify and put the burden on the low income population.

[flvegan]

10. Public option?

I voted for Kucinich, if that helps you gauge my political leanings.

You are correct, though. Republican incompetence is no reason to do anything. I propose doing away with millage, fees, costs and everything else and basing taxes, fees and costs on the net worth of the person paying them. Sales tax, property tax, hunting license.

Far more fair, and would do away with all regressive costs to low income folks. Sounds consistent to me.

[John N Morgan]

13. Your arguement reaches for perfection and that will not happen. The discussion is about a

regressive tax collection in place in FL. I would like this discussion to be based in reality.

Meanwhile, school kids are being taught in trailers, teachers a paid $5K under the national average, public services, e.g. employment service, are a joke and there are rumors of the legislature selling it's most valuable assets to continue the regressive slide.

John Morgan Democratic Candidate For Florida House of Representatives, District 82

[flvegan]

14. Reality, huh?

Okay. The vehicle registration pays for road works, improvements, maintenance, administration...what else am I missing here?

[deadmessengers]

7. Works fine here in Georgia.

They go by the blue book value of the car with average mileage and depreciation. No one needs an appraiser or anything else.

[John N Morgan]

9. Exactly. The methods do not have to be complicated just provide some non-regressive mechanism.

[John N Morgan]

15. I wonder how negative the unrecs actuall go. I guess the Lamborghini owners are logged in.

Imagine a non-regressive tax structure thats totally fair and even expected, is unpopular on a Democratic blog. I'm amazed.

[Historic NY]

16. In NY the Gov want us to have shiny new plates..my old ones are hardly broke in..

of course the fee to get them is increased. Its not a winning thing here because of the increase I'd give up all my special plates rather than pay almost 500 bucks for my 4 cars (note 3 are classics rarely driven. I bought a new vehicle on July 17th after renewing my old special plates not even 30 days previous. NYDMV charged me $70 just for the privilege of transferring my old plate. People wonder why NY keeps losing people, its the taxes and the Albany circus doesn't seem to care.

[Fla_Democrat]

17. Wow, just... wow

I'm gonna have to keep an eye on your race.... I wanna see how this pans out... :popcorn:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. It depends if its a fee or a tax...you are mixing the two

If its just registration, it should be fixed since a Lamborghini does not cost anymore to process etc than a Buick. If its an value based tax, that is different, the value of the car is the driver. I believe that either approach can be run seasonably well, thought the latter can be gamed somewhat.


A car value tax can not be progressive or regressive, since which car you drive is independent of net worth or income level. I know a very wealthy guy who drives a 65 VW Bug he bought used. I have seen high school kids in driving new tricked out trucks.

In California a long time back, the registration costs were based on value. They called it a fee, but it was lie. IRS allowed us to deduct the part of the fee associated with the tax but not the registration costs.

That you have mixed the two up is not surprising, since many states (including California) do it intentionally so that the sheeple can not see the tax for what it is.