Advisory Votes

Two advisory questions will be on the November ballot, as well.
Be aware that these advisory votes have no effect. They are merely advisory. This is yet another example of Tim Eyman making life unnecessarily difficult, confusing, and expensive. The rather ominous language is very specifically dictated in the initiative Eyman rammed through. That closing language “costing  $X for government spending.” means that someone has made an estimate of how much the tax or fee will actually bring in to the state. Think of it as Bizarro language: it is exactly the opposite of what it looks like.

Advisory Vote No. 14                        House Bill 2768         
Ballot language: The legislature extended, without a vote of the people, the insurance premium tax to some insurance for stand-alone family dental plans, costing an indeterminate amount in the first ten years, for government spending. This tax increase should be:

The Taxation of Stand-Alone Dental Plans Advisory Vote asks voters whether to repeal or maintain a tax on certain dental plans whose premiums are $25 to $50 per member per month,

With the Bizarro admonition in mind, this is a measure we have seen year after year, introduced by the dentists’ lobby. Most businesses pay B&O tax. These dentists do not and they are instead asked to pay a tax on insurance premiums paid for their services. They’ve been trying to get out from under this equivalent tax all this time. Just suck it up, dentists, and pay your fair share.

I will be voting to MAINTAIN this tax.

Advisory Vote No. 15                        Second Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2778 
Ballot language: The legislature imposed, without a vote of the people, certain limitation on the retail sales and use tax exemptions for clean alternative-fuel vehicles, costing $2,000,000 in the first ten years, for government spending. This tax increase should be:

The Modifying Tax Exemption Criteria for Alternative Fuel Vehicles Advisory Vote asks voters whether to repeal or maintain a sales tax exemption on the first $32,000 of the purchase price of qualifying new alternative fuel vehicles.

This one has to do with promoting clean cars, mostly electric. There is a sales tax exemption for buying a non-fossil fuel car. This proposal limits that exemption to the first $32k of the purchase price. The MSRP can be no more than $42,500.00. Sorry, still gotta pay tax on a $100k Tesla.

It sets a most peculiar limit on the exemption, namely 2 months after Dept of Licensing determines that 7500 eligible vehicles have been titled since 7-15-15 –  or 6-30-19, whichever comes first. Why? Got me.

Primary opposition to this bill (already passed and in effect) is that it excludes a lot of cars which cost more than $42,500.00 but which provide far greater range (mostly BMW and Tesla) and that limiting the exemption to cheaper cars provides no incentive to continue research and development on better electric cars. I sympathize with BMW and Tesla, and want to see them continue their research. I hope we can amend the limits at some future date, but for now something is better than nothing, and I suspect a whole lot more people are buying Nissan Leafs than are buying BMWs or Teslas.

Since my favorite environmental organizations, along with Nissan and GM favor it,

I’ll go with a vote to MAINTAIN this tax.