Fees To Rise
Here’s another little Easter egg in the compromise budget.
The compromise budget the Legislature is expected to pass Tuesday includes several fee increases that were not disclosed when the deal was announced last week, according to documents released today.
Drivers will pay $53 for their titles when they buy a car next year, up from the current $28.50, for example. And getting copies of birth certificates will also nearly double, rising from $12 to $20. Death, marriage and divorce records will go up from $7 to $20.
Commercial trucking companies will see a 30% increase in vehicle registration fees - twice as much as what lawmakers had earlier proposed. The heaviest trucks would pay $2,560 a year, up from $1,969.50.
The rise in DMV fees are to pay for a federal mandate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2007 at 1944 hrs
I don’t know where the JS got $28.50 as the price for a vehicle title. New titles are $45 at the DMV, I think replacements are $25. Believe me I know, I deal with them on a fairly regular basis.
Posted by Coop on October 22, 2007 at 2027 hrs
• The DOT would be required to give grants to two dozen communities. Among the awards: $950,000 for Kenosha streets; $100,000 for a pedestrian path and bridge at the Milwaukee Urban Ecology Center; and $800,000 for a West Allis bike trail.
Am I wrong in thinking that the taxpayers of Kenosha, Milwaukee and West Allis should specifically be paying for these projects?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2007 at 0809 hrs
John, What federal mandates are you referring to? I never heard of a mandate requiring Wisconsin to be one of THE HIGHEST in the COUNTRY in heavy truck registrations—another reason my husband will take his truck off the road. A loss in revenue of almost $2,000 from just one small company. (That’s not including the other taxes we’ll no longer be paying.)
So, for all you guys saying, “Good. We no want no heavy trucks no more”, it’s one more business not contributing to the state’s economy. Small trucking companies account for nearly 80% of the entire fleet on the road today. Keep discouraging the small guys so the giant companies can start to charge whatever they want for freight hauling. And up goes inflation….
Wisconsin Democrats just keep making it harder to start and maintain businesses here. As if it wasn’t hard enough.
Thanks again Governor Doyle, for making it hard to convince even my own husband why we should stay here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2007 at 0910 hrs
Actually, if you track back the LFB documents, the heavy truck fee first came in the Assembly budget.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2007 at 0950 hrs
Cathy,
Heavy trucks put put more wear and tear on highways and bridges than cars by a multiple of thousands. So we already subsidize trucking.
This increase only begins to bring them up to their fair share for maintaining the infrastructure they help use up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2007 at 0959 hrs
Cathy- The federal mandates are dealing with licenses and making them more secure.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2007 at 1005 hrs
I am less hostile to fees than taxes. A fee is directly paid by the consumer of a service or an item as opposed to a tax where the service or good is paid for by others who may or may not directly or indirectly benefit from the service. Typically (though not often enough) items paid with tax funds at least indirectly benefit everyone.
For example I hunt and fish. Why should John PETAman (idiot though he may be) pay to support my hunting and fishing through taxes? I do not like fee increases anymore than other increase in a price, but lets face it our economic system is subject to inflation.
For example. License security measures for trucks should be paid for by the truckers or trucking industry. Sure, the cost will be passed on but such is life. However, road construction maintenance costs are reasonably born by society ala taxes. The roads benefit everyone and even if most people did not drive the benefits of getting goods and services distributed definitely provides benefit to society as a whole.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on October 23, 2007 at 1029 hrs
PUlease. The fee increase was originally proposed by Guv Doyle in the last bi-ennial budget and again this time.
Heavy trucks also pay federal highway use taxes that each state gets (more money for fuel than the everyday driver), and alll sorts of other fees in addition to a license plate that costs over 50x a car!
BTW: the trucks that come THROUGH our states are plated much more affordably than here in good old Wisconsin.
We won’t have to worry about that anymore, though…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2007 at 1029 hrs
BTW: the trucks that come THROUGH our states are plated much more affordably than here in good old Wisconsin.
And they should be paying a surcharge. Or god forbid a toll.
We can go through the whole economic argument if you want.
I would rather pay higher prices (let’s say for the tramsportation component) for goods that I choose to buy rather than subsidize the 2 or 3 Semi rigs I am sitting behind because they are hogging the road.
Been on I90 after midnight lately, you cannot even get into a rest area most of the time and these guys drive like they own the road I am paying for.
When truck fees are 1Kx the car fees let’s talk. Otherwise get on the phone to Ryan and talk to him about those fed fees and taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2007 at 1055 hrs
I am less hostile to fees than taxes. A fee is directly paid by the consumer of a service or an item as opposed to a tax where the service or good is paid for by others who may or may not directly or indirectly benefit from the service. Typically (though not often enough) items paid with tax funds at least indirectly benefit everyone.
I’m all for fees vs. taxes when they support a service.
For example, when I go to Devils Lake I’m happy to pay an admission fee. I understand that the park needs upkeep etc. (Although with the lack of amenities there, I am quite certain a private company could provide more for less, but i digress)
I like that if I don’t like the fee structure at Devils Lake, I can choose to go elsewhere. (which I do feel there is a moral obligation to keep public land affordable for the public to use)
But people in MKE who never go to Devils Lake shouldn’t have to pay for it IMO.
I’m not a big fan of paying fees to the government to support their bureaucracy of administering fees on me.
As far as licensing fee’s. I’m curious how much of those fees ACTUALLY goes to consumables used by those who pay the fees and how much of those fees do nothing more than support the government machine that administers them. And I would question just how much of a ‘service’ is really being provided for those fees. Are those fees accurately cost-based proportionate to the services provided for them. It doesn’t seem so…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2007 at 1330 hrs
Gee, PIR, you’re for 1,000x the fee for a semi plate vs. car? So you’d be happy with a $45,000/year licensing fee….get ready not to get your goods.
Brilliant….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2007 at 1404 hrs
BTW: the increase in plate fees, registrations, etc. are not going to the federal government to pay for the Real I.D. Act.
They are going into a coffer to try to repay interest on the outrageously huge amounts of borrowing this gov has done and for his thievery of the transportation fund.
Last I checked there was no mandate from the feds to steal $ from Peter to pay Paul…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2007 at 1406 hrs
Xx, are you also considering that fees might not cover the true costs of of providing a benefit? You pay for overhead and administration and hopefully even profit in the private sector, why not pay for overhead when the service is handled by government?
Posted by John Foust on October 23, 2007 at 1433 hrs
Xx, are you also considering that fees might not cover the true costs of of providing a benefit? You pay for overhead and administration and hopefully even profit in the private sector, why not pay for overhead when the service is handled by government?
When the administration and overhead costs contribute to the value of a service I’m all for it.
When there really isn’t a ‘service’ provided at all, but rather just the cost of enforceing government regulations, I don’t find a lot of value there.
What is the ‘value’ in having people register their vehicles?
So they can issue a license plate to track you? What value does that provide the consumer?
I understand gas taxes. I think they are a very good measure of the ammount of ‘use’ people put on the roads. Drive more, buy more gas, pay more gas tax. Large vehicle, use more gas, buy more gas, pay more gas tax. I’m happy to pay gas taxes that go to the maintenance and construction of roads. I use roads… If I decide not to use the roads, I won’t buy gas, I won’t pay much in gas tax. Very efficient method of taxation for usage.
But a flat registration fee? Where is the value? Pay the government for the priviledge of them keeping a record of what is mine? Not a good value if you ask me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2007 at 1444 hrs
Check out the $2.10/ton increase in the waste tax as well. I work in the industry and we are already making plans to pass the added cost on to the customer. Whether they know it or not this will be felt by every person in the state. This combined with the registration fees will have a major effect on our business.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2007 at 2315 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134035
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 08:52 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 104
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 09:21 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).