Peoples Press Collective » late fee

New Outlet for Continued Protests against Rice/Ritter/Mullarkey Car Tax

The Peripatetic Pundit — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:59:45 +0000

Now that’s customer service! Colorado citizens protesting the increased costs of vehicle registration and the outrageous “late fees” imposed by the Rice/Ritter/Mullarkey Car Tax (officially, the “FASTER” bill) now have a new outlet to register their complaints (at least if you’re a resident of Park or Moffatt county), according to a recent Denver Post article (2 Colorado counties help public register fee gripes):

Unhappy Motor Vehicle registration patrons in Park and Moffat counties are venting their displeasure over increased fees by filling out postcards provided by the counties and, in some cases, mailed by the counties.

The postcards are addressed to Gov. Bill Ritter, who raised fees…

“It takes the pressure off my staff,” Park County Clerk Debbi Green said of the postcards. “They can vent to the governor.”

Naturally, the usual suspects came out in criticism of the County Clerks for shifting the anger (and blame) where it belongs (at least 1/3 the blame, anyway):

But Pat Waak, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party, questioned whether the practice was legal or practical.

“The clerks … can pay for mailings of postcards to the governor?” she said. “At the very least, given the economy, is this the best use of taxpayer dollars?”

Curiously, this fake outrage and defense of taxpayer dollars was nowhere in evidence when other counties spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to hire additional security (see previous post, “Don’t Get Mad – Get Even“) nor was there even a peep of protest at the expenditure of taxpayer dollars by Ritter’s Department of Revenue director to produce and distribute a “fact sheet” – in reality, a supportive political propaganda piece – on the “FASTER” car tax bill:

Roxy Huber, director of the state Department of Revenue, sent a memo to county clerks this week about the complaints. She included a “fact sheet” that could be given to vehicle owners …

Far be it for me to accuse the Democratic Party Chair of rank hypocrisy, but if the shoe fits…

Meanwhile, the Post perpetuates the propaganda purveyed by Ritter spokesmouth Evan Dreyer justifying the outrageous and disproportionate “late fees” charged under the new car tax law:

“The majority of people in Colorado… never have to worry about a late fee.”

Well, sure, the majority of people in Colorado never get mugged, either, but that doesn’t make it right when it does happen. Ritter (and his apologists) are attempting to marginalize those unfairly impacted by the “late fees” as indolent scofflaws, who have only themselves to blame for not “handing it over” on the governor’s schedule.

This “blame the victim” tactic is belied by the facts. As noted earlier, the majority of people are being charged a “late fee” for something they didn’t have to pay in the first place. As long as the vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, or trailer) hasn’t been using public roads, it was NOT required to be registered (you’ll still have to pay the ownership tax, but the registration fee is linked to use of the service/amenity of public roads).

DON’T BUY INTO THE ‘BLAME THE VICTIM’ LIES! REFUSE to pay this unfair tax (er, fee) – DEMAND an immediate and retroactive rollback whenever the legislature next convenes. Contact Governor Ritter, the FASTER bill’s primary sponsor Joe Rice, and your state representatives (House and Senate) and demand action!

When is a “fee” not a tax? When the Mullarkey Court says so…

CTBC Director — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:54:58 +0000

In a little-noticed ruling issued November 3rd, 2008 (yes, great time to avoid attention, don’t you think?) the Mullarkey Majority on the Colorado Supreme Court quietly handed down an extremely far-reaching decision designed to permanently end-run TABOR and undermine the Colorado Constitution. Like most people, I missed the significance of this case (Barber vs. Ritter) both at the time (my attention, like most Americans, was focused elsewhere) and even after launching Clear The Bench Colorado. However, recent expressions of citizens outrage in response to massive increases in vehicle registration fees and exorbitantly punitive late fees - all part of the so-called FASTER bill (SB 108) passed by the Colorado Legislature and signed into law by Governor Bill Ritter, who continues to defend the increased fees - have turned the spotlight on the issue of fees vs. taxes. Fees vs. Taxes - what’s the difference? A fee is a charge for use of a service or amenity - the amount of which is related to the cost of providing that service or amenity. Thus, licensing fees for hunting and fishing help fund game wardens, forestry service personnel, equipment, and property, etc. while fees for visiting state parks similarly help provide for personnel, property, upkeep, and the like. The key feature of fees is that the user of a given good or service pays, and the funds collected are related to the purpose of providing the good or service. A tax, on the other hand, while it may be applied to a particular good or service or more generally to the population at large, is collected to raise general purpose revenues. Taxes collected may be unrelated, or completely disproportionate, to expenditures. Thus, taxes on sales of goods (alcohol, clothing, etc.) or services (restaurants, dry cleaning, etc.) are not necessarily related to the cost of providing, regulating (e.g. health & safety inspections) or protecting (police, fire, courts, etc.) the goods or services taxed. Government can spend tax revenues on anything it wants. That’s why taxes go into the “General Fund” and expenditures are allocated by the legislative budgetary process. Back in the days when the Colorado Supreme Court apparently still believed in upholding the law instead of engaging in creative exercises of convoluted argumentation to circumvent it (Mullarkey apparently had yet to hit her stride), decisions reflected these definitions and principles. The 1989 Bloom v. City of Fort Collins decision (mangled almost beyond recognition in the Barber v. Ritter ruling) was clear:

A fee is distinct from a tax in that, “[u]nlike a tax, a special fee is not designed to raise revenues to defray the general expenses of government, but rather is a charge imposed upon persons or property for the purpose of defraying the cost of a particular governmental service.”

Morphing Taxes into Fees - the Mullarkey/Ritter shell game Governor Ritter, the Colorado Legislature, and the Mullarkey Majority find the requirement to first ask before raising taxes (as required by TABOR) to be rather tiring - and restricting their power to accomplish their goals with your money. What to do, what to do? Simple - creatively define their way out of the restrictions; impose fees, instead of raising taxes - no need to ask the voters first; then just transfer the collected revenue (the ol’ shell game) into the general fund, so as to avoid those pesky restrictions on spending the money only on the “particular governmental service” for which the fee was collected. But these semantic shenanigans can’t be legal, right? That’s what the plaintiffs in the Barber v. Ritter case thought - and they had good legal precedent (Bloom v. City of Fort Collins) on their side, too. However, they failed to reckon with the logic-bending and creative writing skills of the Mullarkey Court. Starting with Bloom’s premise that a fee “might be subject to invalidation as a tax” when the “principal purpose” is to raise general revenues, the Mullarkey Majority went on to declare that to find “principal purpose” and legislative intent, “we look to the language of the enabling statute for its expression.”

If the language discloses that the primary purpose for the charge is to finance a particular service utilized by those who must pay the charge, then the charge is a “fee.” On the other hand, if the language states that a primary purpose for the charge is to raise revenues for general governmental spending, then it is a tax. Moreover, the fact that a fee incidentally or indirectly raises revenue does not alter its essential character as a fee, transforming it into a tax. (Barber, p. 26)

Ergo, as long as legislators remember to say that a “fee” is for a particular purpose when drafting legislation, it makes no difference if in practice the “fee” is collected and spent for purposes entirely unrelated to the enabling statute. Legislators can now avoid the dreaded “ask first” TABOR restrictions on taxes by simply calling it a fee and remembering to specify a particular purpose - say, “restore crumbling bridges” - one can always shift the collected revenues to one’s pet project later. So what’s the bottom line? Well, the good news is that thanks to the Mullarkey Majority on the Colorado Supreme Court, you probably won’t see the Colorado Legislature increase taxes much next year - as long as they haven’t completely killed TABOR, they would have to ask your permission first (well, in theory, anyway). The bad news is that thanks to the Mullarkey Court, they won’t have to raise taxes - they’ll just increase or add new “fees” instead. Now doesn’t that make you feel better? Of course, if you’d rather not suffer an increase in either fees or taxes - at least not without being asked specifically first, as is your right under the Colorado Constitution - you have one last chance to DO something about it. Ditch the Mullarkey Majority - vote “NO” on unjust justices before they can tax you again in 2010! Let’s Clear The Bench, Colorado!

Penny Wise and Pound Foolish – Ritter’s Car Tax, Late Fees spur tax protest, refusals to pay

The Peripatetic Pundit — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 00:56:43 +0000

In what might be the understatement of the week (if not the entire month), even the frequently big-government-friendly Denver Post editorial board recognized that the introduction of vastly increased vehicle registration taxes – er, ”important new fees… was marred by negative public reaction.”

Seldom has a “state tax policy change (er, fee increase) … resulting in a net tax revenue increase to any district” elicited such a sharp and widespread response. Apparently, it’s one thing to illegally and unconstitutionally increase property taxes on homes, but raising taxes – as much as 600% – on people’s vehicles REALLY hits ‘em where they live.

Colorado citizens are hopping mad – and in many cases, just plain refusing to pay, particularly for second vehicles, motorcycles, and trailers that see only occasional use, or have sat in storage for some time. The provision stirring the greatest protest and anger – the up to $100 “late” fee – even comes in for fire in yesterday’s aforementioned Denver Post editorial (“Roll back state’s vehicle late fees“).

“The penalties for late payment, which are separate from the higher registration fees, stirred up a lot of anger among Coloradans earlier this month. That anger is understandable…”

Even Bill Ritter is feeling the pressure, responding to voter anger by throwing out a sop attempting to defuse the issue (Ritter willing to tweak auto-registration fee) – but, as the article notes, “The offer is to adjust late penalties only for nonmotorized vehicles” – i.e. trailers (why even register those, anyway?).

Judging by various news reports, and even more so by the comments to the editorial, Ritter’s proposal is unlikely to deflect voter anger. A substantial number of Colorado citizens are engaging in tax protest by refusing to pay the late fees, declining to register their vehicles and either leaving them off the roads, or running the risk of getting ticketed. Ritter’s unjust law is creating a whole new class of scofflaws from otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Ironically, the FASTER tax (er, fees) may end up being counterproductive in terms of the primary stated goals: increasing revenues for Colorado’s roads and bridges (a laudable intent). As more and more people protest the unjust taxes (er, fees – sorry!) by refusing to register their vehicles (out of principle, or out of inability to pay the inflated rates), collected revenues may actually decline. Anecdotally, I know several people that went to register motorcycles or second vehicles, were willing to pay registration fees (even at several hundred dollars apiece) but balked at the “late” fees for their seldom-used vehicles. That’s several hundreds of dollars – just from personal knowledge – NOT collected, because the governor (and primary legislative sponsor Joe Rice) wanted to nickle and dime Colorado citizens – the very definition of “penny wise, pound foolish” and typical of “gouge the rich” (heck, gouge the taxpayer, period) tax schemes.

Contact Bill Ritter and Joe Rice and let them know how you feel about their car tax (fee! fee! so sorry) scheme – and meanwhile, exercise your right of protest and civil disobedience by refusing to pay up until the “late” fee provision is repealed (er, “rolled back”).