Abolishing Car Taxes

"body">from Virginia voters. Meanwhile, in Texas,
The car tax is the last vestige of an abusive andDemocrat Gary Mauro is campaigning against
long ago discarded tax system. It's the oldRepublican Gov. George Bush, Jr., on a platform to
personal property tax - when the tax assessorabolish the state's sales tax on motor vehicles.
pawed through your belongings and told you howBush opposes the plan. In Georgia, Republican Guy
much you had to pay to keep them. The USAMillner has proposed ending that state's car tax
and European Commission are currently calling forfor a saving to taxpayers of $475 million. In
significant changes in the way passenger cars areSouth Carolina, Gov. David Beasley proposed in his
taxed. The intention is to gradually apply the userState of the State address last month to phase
pays principle to motorized transport. According toout the car tax over a period of six years.
DG TAXUD, the envisioned taxation system willAbolishing the Car Tax: AB 1776
ensure a more appropriate internalization of theA car represents security of transport. Even if
external costs of private cars - an importantpublic transport is adequate for most journeys,
principle for which T&E has long been arguing.people still want a car for the odd occasion or
Taxing the actual use of private cars is anemergency. There will always be places and times
important step towards sustainable transport. Butwhen public transport doesn't run. The
charges on car user ship ought to complementGovernment could make a contribution
the already existing taxation of car ownership,immediately by abolishing car tax and increasing
and not just replace it. A full internalization of allfuel taxes to offset the loss of revenue. This
environmental costs of cars must recognize thewould have the added benefit of doing away with
problems that result from the still growing suman absolutely pointless and tedious administration
total of cars on national and international roads.system. The point is that public transport will
Road capacity in many regions has reached itsnever be able to emulate the flexibility of private
limits - a fact that is most illustratively expressedtransport and that at present the car has so
by the continuous congestions on nationalmany advantages.
highways and trunk roads. Capacity limits areThe Virginia experience makes a strong case for
reached as well in almost all urban areas, whereCalifornia to abolish its car tax. By doing so,
evermore space is consumed byCalifornia could reduce the overall level of taxation
car-infrastructure such as parking spaces,to what it would have been without the tax
car-dealers or car repair-, maintenance- andincreases imposed during the 1990's, while still
washing-facilities - not to mention streetsproviding for some $14 billion in additional general
themselves. Therefore a taxation system isfund revenues in the last eight years. It would
needed that restricts both private user- andabolish a tax that long ago ceased to bear any
ownership by making sure that road passengerresemblance to its original purpose and intention. It
transport pays for its external costs. The positivewould remove a strong disincentive in current law
response with which carmakers have welcomedthat keeps motorists from shedding older, higher
(and had lobbied for) the abolition of registrationpolluting automobiles. It would provide a significant
taxes illustrates how auto-friendly the proposedspur to economic activity by reducing the cost of
legislation eventually may be. This, however,new vehicles in California. It would reduce costs to
means that transport in general will not becomeCalifornia families of what is a practical necessity
more expensive - but that the sector will just payin the Golden State: the family car. The problem in
differently and still not properly.doing so is the built-in special interests that depend
Thus to create harmonization it will make theon the tax. A $4 billion saving to taxpayers is also
economy more efficient, but does nota $4 billion cut in the governor's proposed budget.
automatically entail environmental improvement.In this case, the beneficiaries are local
As they stand now, the plans of the Commissiongovernment budgets, which are still recovering
to replace Registration Taxes by Annualfrom a multi-billion dollar raid by the state
Circulation Taxes may partially reduce private cargovernment in 1992 and 1993. In order to back-fill
use and thus lower the annual emissions of athis amount, reductions in the proposed state
single car. However, they will not provide anybudget would have to be taken from
incentive at all to refrain from owning a car. Innon-education funds under constitutional provisions
fact, the opposite is the case, because abandoningenacted by Proposition 98. The "non-98" side of
registration taxes will further stimulate thethe budget also funds the Department of
production and consumption of cars. This will beCorrections, a sacred legislative cow.
most tangible in countries like Denmark that wereIn abolishing California's car tax, it would be a
able to limit the growth of motorization rates anddesirable policy and a practical necessity:
maintain a "greener" modal split by ways of higher To hold local governments harmless by
registration rates.back-filling their losses with state funds
It is to be noted that The Government has To work within the revenue
announced that with effect from 6 April 2002,projections of the Department of Finance
the basis of taxation on cars provided by Not to affect Proposition 98 funds for
employers for employees' business and privateschools
use, will be changed to an emissions based Not to affect the administration's
system. Pool cars, provided for business use only,proposed funding for state prisons
and which are returned to site at the end of the Not to affect the administration's
working day are currently not liable to benefit inproposed budget reserve.
kind taxation, and this will continue to be so.The next question is how the funds should be
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions will be used aspreserved, protected and restored to local
the measure to calculate benefit in kind taxationgovernments to replace the VLF taxes they will
on company cars from that date. A taxbe losing. This is a particularly important question,
discourages economic activity, such as work orsince Proposition 47 of 1986 constitutionally
investment. The tax is cut, leading to increasedearmarked VLF subventions for local
economic activity. Liberals then assume thatgovernments, providing a relatively tamper-proof
previous rates of tax would still be collected atand expanding source of local revenues. Even
the higher rate of activity -- which, of course,though VLF subventions could be redirected away
only came about because of the lower tax rate --from local governments in future budgets simply
thus depriving the government of vast revenuesby using them to supplant other sources of local
it is justly entitled to. It makes no difference tofunding, a suitable replacement to the VLF is an
them that economic activity often expands byunderstandably important objective of local
more than tax rates are cut, thus increasing totalgovernment.
revenues. Liberals always still believe that evenAB 1776 establishes a strong protection against
more would have been collected if only tax ratesstate government raids by phasing in a dedicated
had not been cut. In the case of the car tax,portion of future sales tax revenues to replace
liberals assume that additional cars would havethe lost VLF subventions. To protect against
been purchased anyway, without any change inanomalies occurring between high-sales tax and
the tax. And by multiplying the old car tax ratelow sales tax communities, the replacement
times the larger number of cars registered, theyrevenues are placed into a dedicated state sales
come up with mythical revenues that could payand use tax account that will replace lost VLF
for more teachers, police, and roads.subventions on a dollar-for-dollar basis. When fully
Thus, in this paper, we discuss the abolition of carphased in, the sales tax rate required to replace
taxes rule in context of California - one of thethe lost revenues will lock, and the subventions
major and highly populated city of United Statesfrom the fund will naturally expand as the
of America.economy expands. Indeed, this reform greatly
History: In 1935, the Motor Vehicle License Feeenhances the flexibility of local governments to
Act established a state car tax of 1.75 percent ofuse these funds by eliminating the straightjacket
the value of an automobile in lieu of the personaleffect of the 1991 re-alignment legislation.
property tax then assessed on all personalFurthermore, to provide additional protection for
property. The taxes collected under this act werelocal governments, the sales tax provisions of AB
limited to state purposes, including highways. The1776 will be placed in a "Local Government
personal property tax was subsequently abolished,Independence Act," a constitutional amendment to
but the car tax remained. In 1948, the fee wasbe introduced in the Assembly later this month.
raised to two percent. In 1957, the law wasCalifornians pay the third highest combination of
clarified to limit the use of these funds for lawautomobile taxes in the nation, and they pay $3.6
enforcement, regulation and control of highwaybillion more in overall taxes than they would have
traffic, and other state purposes.without the net tax increases of the 1990's. The
In 1988, the law was amended to allow the uselargest portion of the automobile taxes is the
of car taxes for any purpose, and in 1993, 25Vehicle License Fee, also called the "car tax,"
percent of the funds were earmarked foraccounting for an average of $185 per automobile
realignment of health and social servicesannually. None of this money is used for highways
programs. Thus, any linkage between the car taxor highway-related services. It goes instead to
and roads was obliterated. Worse for taxpayers,local government general funds and local health
in 1991 California's car tax was radicallyand social services programs. Abolishing California's
restructured to provide additional tax resourcescar tax would make California families whole for
to balance the state budget as part of an $8.2the massive tax increases they suffered in 1991.
billion increase in taxes and fees that year. Prior toIn this period of economic growth, abolition of the
1991, automobile owners were charged on acar tax could be done while protecting local
ten-year depreciation schedule, based on thegovernment from any revenue loss, preserving
original purchase price of the automobile. The 1991state funding for schools and prisons, and
legislation made three dramatic changes. First, themaintaining the proposed budget reserve. It would
depreciation schedule was stretched from ten torequire an overall reduction in the 1998-99
eleven years. Second, the act provided for aproposed general fund budget of just 9/10ths of
permanent tax on fully depreciated automobilesone percent, or no budget reductions at all if
amounting to 0.3 percent of the price inadditional revenues materialize in the May Revise.
perpetuity beginning in the 11th year. Third, theThe state's booming economy makes it possible
new law triggered a restarting of the depreciationto abolish the tax without touching the state's
schedule, virtually assuring that very few carsschool budgets or even the growth rate in the
would ever reach the bottom of the schedule.schools' funding guarantee. The bill to abolish the
The net effect was a $60 per year increase intax even protects local governments from any
the VLF paid for an average car.revenue loss; it replaces every dollar lost through
Another historical note about the 1991 taxthe car tax with an equal amount from the
increase is also relevant to this discussion. Thestate's share of existing sales tax revenues. To
overall tax increase that year was the largest byanswer local government concerns that the
any state in the history of the nation. Accordingreplacement fund might be reduced in future
to revenue estimates made at the time, theyears, a constitutional amendment has been
entire package amounted to $8.2 billion in additionalproposed to protect against raids by future
taxes and fees, or roughly $1,100 per family. Thelegislatures. In response, on 1997 Virginia voters
tax increase, enacted in the midst of a recession,just delivered a resounding mandate for abolishing
broke the back of California's economy. Althoughthe car tax in that state by electing James
some of those taxes were repealed or expired,Gilmore, who made that objective the signature
many are still on the books. Thus, California'stheme of his campaign. The support for abolishing
Vehicle License Fee began as a substitute for thethe car tax from an impressive coalition of
personal property tax. When the personaltaxpayer groups suggests that strong
property tax was abolished, the tax wasorganizational structure exists for taxpayers to
maintained under a new name. It was originallychannel their outrage at California's abusive car
limited to state purposes, principally for highwaystax.
and highway-related services. Today, it is devotedPutting the real cost of using a car before the
to purposes entirely unrelated to highways. It nowcommuter might change a lot of minds and,
consumes $3.3 billion of California family earnings,incidentally, is a lot more democratic than road
at a time when they are paying $3.6 billion morepricing where a flat rate will have to be paid to
than they would have paid without the 1991 taxget into the city center. The good news is that
increases.California is enjoying a period of economic
Meanwhile, the onerous and outdated automobileexpansion. A combination of projected revenue
tax has proven to be highly unpopular across thegrowth and a one-year postponement of new
country. In the 1997 Virginia gubernatorialsocial spending while meeting all of the above
campaign, Republican James Gilmore's campaigncriteria can accommodate a five-year phase-out
was stalled until he unveiled a proposal to abolishon the car-taxation. It is now established that
Virginia's car tax. Gilmore won a dramatic victoryeven a much reduced rate of economic growth
for Governor and swept a majority ofthan California is currently experiencing would be
Republicans into the Virginia state Senate. He hasmore than enough to cover the phase-out of the
now set about to fulfill his signature campaigncar tax, without affecting Proposition 98 funding
promise, backed by an overwhelming mandateguarantees.