Support Your Local PBS Station on a License Plate?

[recto101]

KQED does one where the old cars are junked for so the proceeds would be used for the operating costs and programming costs on Channel 9

 

[fybush]

Sorry - forgot my <sarcasm> tags. Just taking a swipe at a money-hungry NYS legislature in line with Mark Giardina's post.

Shame the facts don't come anywhere close to supporting your alleged sarcasm, tag or not.

The supposedly "money-hungry NYS legislature" has never imposed a VLT (Vehicle License Tax) like the one you pay in Arizona. To register a new $25,000 car in Arizona costs approximately $430 for the first year, not counting specialty plates. To register a new $25,000 car in New York costs approximately $60 for the first two years, plus a county tax that ranges from $5-$20 a year.

(Sources: http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/faqs/scripts/FAQsResponse.asp?Category=29&Keyword= for Arizona and http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/regfee.htm for New York)

Which state is "money-hungry," again?

 

[BRNout]

Back OT.....

I actually think that this is a wonderful idea. Nobody makes you buy a license plate to support your local PBS station, but if it's available many people will. The individual PBS stations won't make a fortune from it, but the revenue will help. And, those viewers who really enjoy the programming (and want others to know of their support) will happily spend the nominal fee.

It's win-win. And, I am not aware of any states where the state would say 'no' because they won't be getting a cut of the proceeds. They get enough to cover the price of manufacturing the plate and - of course - they get their annual fees and property taxes (if applicable). No problem there. The trick is convincing the DMV that there's enough support to make it worth doing.

 

[dhett]

Shame the facts don't come anywhere close to supporting your alleged sarcasm, tag or not.

The supposedly "money-hungry NYS legislature" has never imposed a VLT (Vehicle License Tax) like the one you pay in Arizona. To register a new $25,000 car in Arizona costs approximately $430 for the first year, not counting specialty plates. To register a new $25,000 car in New York costs approximately $60 for the first two years, plus a county tax that ranges from $5-$20 a year.

(Sources: http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/faqs/scripts/FAQsResponse.asp?Category=29&Keyword= for Arizona and http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/regfee.htm for New York)

Which state is "money-hungry," again?

That would be New York.

You're correct about our vehicle license tax, but you omit many, many other facts.

I paid $225 VLT on my 2006 Chevy Impala this year, but only paid $8 on my 1992 Ford Mustang. You see, each year, the VLT is 15% less than it was the previous year. You didn't mention that. Nor did you mention that since the VLT is a property tax, it's deductible off my federal income tax up to my marginal tax rate. Tags cost $8.25/year, plus a $1.50 air quality tax, plus $27.75 for an emissions test every other year, but only after the car is 5 years old. Still, even with my VLT, my vehicles cost me about $100 less in taxes this year than it would have in New York. If you're really interested, I'll tell you how, but it involves gasoline tax, a tax you omitted. We pay $3.15/gallon for our winter blend gasoline, which costs more in Phoenix than the summer blend. The cheapest price I saw in Rochester was $3.40. Last July, we paid 50 cents less.

Speaking of property taxes, I pay about $1200/year on my $130K house. What do you pay? When I moved from New York to Arizona 18 years ago, I cut my personal state income tax in half. Arizona's has decreased since.

Finally, according to the Tax Foundation, the organization that calculates Tax Freedom Day, New York has the third highest tax burden out of the 50 states. Arizona is 39th. We finished paying for our taxes more than 3 weeks before New Yorkers did. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/

Those are the facts.

 

[benwolf]

This is the kind of argument that can go in circles. Generally, low tax states don't offer the services or public infrastructure like parks that higher tax states do. Some people are ok with that. But the average wage in New York is higher than Arizona, and housing prices are low in Rochester, negating any tax advantages for the average person.

 

[BRNout]

This is the kind of argument that can go in circles. Generally, low tax states don't offer the services or public infrastructure like parks that higher tax states do. Some people are ok with that. But the average wage in New York is higher than Arizona, and housing prices are low in Rochester, negating any tax advantages for the average person.

That is not true. There is little correlation between tax rates and services any more. Many of the high tax states are in such fiscal trouble that they've cut back on services left and right. Yet the fiscally healthiest states are (ironically) low-tax states. And they still have some money to spend on services. If you're talking about state park systems, New Hampshire and Oklahoma have nice park systems just as New York and California do. The latter 2 states had more resources earlier in life and were able to establish these systems. And, the park systems in the latter two states are struggling right now. Illinois is a high tax state and its state park system is not as good as low-tax Indiana's is. And Indiana isn't headed for bankruptcy. I could go on all day about this......

Also, your argument about per capita income is a misunderstanding. The income levels in New York and Arizona have nothing to do with the tax rate. Arizona has always been a lower cost place: housing is (much) cheaper as is labor. In the end, the average middle-class person can afford more of a house for far less money in Phoenix than in New York City. Economically, they are almost like 2 different countries. Also, there are vast differences in income within each state. Westchester and Suffolk Counties in New York bear no resemblance to most of upstate. I'd bet that you weren't thinking of Utica, Schenectady or Jamestown when you were citing how prosperous New York is. That prosperity mainly originates from Manhattan. Rochester is upstate's most prosperous area and even it is struggling. Kodak has seen better days, for example. High taxes haven't helped.

Fact is, most of the economic growth right now is in lower tax states.

Didn't want to veer so far OT, but I had to say something because this post includes so many false assumptions.

 

[JeeperOne]

Unless it's part of a statewide PBS network, something like this won't work in Indiana, because there are 8 PBS stations in Indiana, & none of them are part of a statewide network. Also with Indiana, plates are no longer available at the license bureau (they're now mailed, like the registration, stickers, & even the drivers license ).

It also wouldn't work if there are two COMPETITING PBS affiliates like we have here in Denver

Cheers & 73

 

[Bob1370]

"Lawmakers (in New York) are still trying to shove down our throats retro 1970 license blue and gold plates in order to make money because of the huge deficit NYS faces. Plus there is controversy over a license plate that indicates whether someone is pro-life. That has the pro-choice crowd upset as hell."

Political plates aren't going to fly. But something that's non-profit and nonpolitical, like public broadcasting (the most scrupulously non-partisan media in the country) ought to be able to get some traction with legislators for a specialty plate. If they're willing to put out specialty plates plugging commercial enterprises like the Yankees, Bills, Sabres and Mets, why not a noncommercial educational enterprise, regionally tailored to each market area the same way a lot of the other specialty plates (like Finger Lakes or Adirondack tourism) now are? Probably wouldn't be a huge bonanza but it could raise a little extra revenue for both pubcasters and the state--and provide a little extra promotional boost for the stations as well, sort of like bumper stickers.

 

[benwolf]

This is the kind of argument that can go in circles. Generally, low tax states don't offer the services or public infrastructure like parks that higher tax states do. Some people are ok with that. But the average wage in New York is higher than Arizona, and housing prices are low in Rochester, negating any tax advantages for the average person.

That is not true. There is little correlation between tax rates and services any more. Many of the high tax states are in such fiscal trouble that they've cut back on services left and right. Yet the fiscally healthiest states are (ironically) low-tax states. And they still have some money to spend on services. If you're talking about state park systems, New Hampshire and Oklahoma have nice park systems just as New York and California do. The latter 2 states had more resources earlier in life and were able to establish these systems. And, the park systems in the latter two states are struggling right now. Illinois is a high tax state and its state park system is not as good as low-tax Indiana's is. And Indiana isn't headed for bankruptcy. I could go on all day about this......

Also, your argument about per capita income is a misunderstanding. The income levels in New York and Arizona have nothing to do with the tax rate. Arizona has always been a lower cost place: housing is (much) cheaper as is labor. In the end, the average middle-class person can afford more of a house for far less money in Phoenix than in New York City. Economically, they are almost like 2 different countries. Also, there are vast differences in income within each state. Westchester and Suffolk Counties in New York bear no resemblance to most of upstate. I'd bet that you weren't thinking of Utica, Schenectady or Jamestown when you were citing how prosperous New York is. That prosperity mainly originates from Manhattan. Rochester is upstate's most prosperous area and even it is struggling. Kodak has seen better days, for example. High taxes haven't helped.

Fact is, most of the economic growth right now is in lower tax states.

Didn't want to veer so far OT, but I had to say something because this post includes so many false assumptions.

Hmm, I don't see where I called New York prosperous BRN. But it is a fact (you can check the census) that New York has a higher average yearly income than Arizona, and the discussion was about the 2 states, not separate municipalities, or Illinois.
And while Koday is struggling, Rochester has a very educated workforce, and that's what high-paying companies look for first, not taxes. Also, Rochester and Syracuse both are cited as best value for home price in several national surveys...not bad at all.

 

[dhett]

why not a noncommercial educational enterprise, regionally tailored to each market area the same way a lot of the other specialty plates (like Finger Lakes or Adirondack tourism) now are? Probably wouldn't be a huge bonanza but it could raise a little extra revenue for both pubcasters and the state--and provide a little extra promotional boost for the stations as well, sort of like bumper stickers.

That was the first thing I thought of when someone brought up New York. A multiple-market state could have a plate for each market's member, much the way NY has a tourism plate for each region.

It also wouldn't work if there are two COMPETITING PBS affiliates like we have here in Denver

I don't see why it wouldn't work with two competing PBS stations. In Arizona, anyone can order the "Friend of 8" plate, regardless of where in the state they live. So if I were to tag two cars in Colorado, what would stop me from supporting KRMA with one, and KBDI with the other?