According the LA Office of Motor Vehicles this “sleeper tax” was planted in 1992. That year a law was enacted as LA R.S. 32:409.1.A(6)(iii). That was during the last Edwin Edwards administration.
The law allows (doesn’t mandate) the LA Office of Motor Vehicles to impose an additional tax of $15.00 on each application for or renewal of a personal driver’s license.
For 18 years, the tax lay dormant.
Ironically, during the “no tax increase” regime of “The Roads Scholar” the “sleeper tax” has suddenly been activated.
As of today, Monday, March 8, 2010, all applicants will have the tax on their license increased by $15.00.
While flying around the state in a taxpayer-funded helicopter telling his audiences that he would not support any additional taxes on the people in order to make up the budget shortfalls; he does just that.
Why can’t he just cut spending and be done with it. He looks for every piece of revenue he can find as if his priority is maintaining the size of government.
According the LA Office of Motor Vehicles this “sleeper tax” was planted in 1992. That year a law was enacted as LA R.S. 32:409.1.A(6)(iii). That was during the last Edwin Edwards administration.
The law allows (doesn’t mandate) the LA Office of Motor Vehicles to impose an additional tax of $15.00 on each application for or renewal of a personal driver’s license.
For 18 years, the tax lay dormant.
Ironically, during the “no tax increase” regime of “The Roads Scholar” the “sleeper tax” has suddenly been activated.
As of today, Monday, March 8, 2010, all applicants will have the tax on their license increased by $15.00.
While flying around the state in a taxpayer-funded helicopter telling his audiences that he would not support any additional taxes on the people in order to make up the budget shortfalls; he does just that.
I just think that CB could have made his point while accurately describing the law. CB is a lawyer with legislative experience, he knows exactly the difference between a tax and a fee.
He also could have provided an accurate citation, instead of R.S. 32:409.1.A(6)(iii) it is R.S. 32:409.1(A)(6)(c)(iii), which provides as follows:
(iii) Has been convicted of any of the offenses contained in Section 205(A)(3) of the National Drivers Register Act of 1982. The department may perform a similar record check for all applicants of a Class “D” chauffeur’s license or a Class “E” personal vehicle driver’s license and may charge such applicant a record check fee equal to the application for a commercial driver’s license. The department shall give full weight and consideration to such information in deciding whether to issue a driver’s license to such applicant. The department shall not issue a driver’s license to an applicant who is disqualified from operating a motor vehicle, whose driver’s license has been suspended, revoked, or canceled, or who has otherwise lost the privilege to drive in another state or jurisdiction, except for the limited exception provided in R.S. 32:404. However, inadvertent issuance of a driver’s license to such an applicant shall not be considered a breach of duty on the part of the department to the public or the individual.
He could make up for this by recommending the elimination of inspection stickers for vehicles. It’s nothing more than a tax on motorists and may help him with the minority community who drive older cars that have trouble passing inspection. Studies have shown that the stickers are nothing more than a tax and do nothing for safety.
A tax, a fee. There’s no difference, you’re paying the government more to drive your car. How about this, we pay the extra $15, but now we only have to get the inspection fee every two years… That’s right, double the time the sticker is good for.
I just think that CB could have made his point while accurately describing the law. CB is a lawyer with legislative experience, he knows exactly the difference between a tax and a fee.
He also could have provided an accurate citation, instead of R.S. 32:409.1.A(6)(iii) it is R.S. 32:409.1(A)(6)(c)(iii), which provides as follows:
(iii) Has been convicted of any of the offenses contained in Section 205(A)(3) of the National Drivers Register Act of 1982. The department may perform a similar record check for all applicants of a Class “D” chauffeur’s license or a Class “E” personal vehicle driver’s license and may charge such applicant a record check fee equal to the application for a commercial driver’s license. The department shall give full weight and consideration to such information in deciding whether to issue a driver’s license to such applicant. The department shall not issue a driver’s license to an applicant who is disqualified from operating a motor vehicle, whose driver’s license has been suspended, revoked, or canceled, or who has otherwise lost the privilege to drive in another state or jurisdiction, except for the limited exception provided in R.S. 32:404. However, inadvertent issuance of a driver’s license to such an applicant shall not be considered a breach of duty on the part of the department to the public or the individual.
Troll, please don’t confuse this small bunch of Jindal haters, they have already made up the small minds fill with crap. And the truth doesn’t matter to them.
.Ray (ryan) perhaps you and Troll can get together and describe the net effect on taxpayers of this fee and how that effect is different from a tax?
Now I would like to think the state has been making these record checks all along. We have provided adequate revenue I presume to amass the information in DMV computers. Now suddenly in addition to the cost of a driver’s license we will now be charged for something the state has been compensated for already.
Troll makes only one point of error in Forgotston’s column and that being Forgotston did not include the “c” in referencing his citation. Other than that Troll’s post is pointless. He wants to wade into some academic definition of a fee versus a tax as if all lawyers should concern themselves with such intricacies and that somehow Forgotston is in error for calling BS on Jindal for resurrecting this burden, tax or fee, on the driving public.
fred, I’ve cited the statute where it clearly states fee and not tax.
I do hope you strive for more accuracy in other areas. : -)
Doctor examining fred’s x-rays: oh no big deal, that’s close enough.
Accountant preparing fred’s taxes: we’ll just use round figures to make it easy for the IRS to understand.
fred, I’ve cited the statute where it clearly states fee and not tax.
I do hope you strive for more accuracy in other areas. : -)
Doctor examining fred’s x-rays: oh no big deal, that’s close enough.
Accountant preparing fred’s taxes: we’ll just use round figures to make it easy for the IRS to understand.
As I said troll, taxes or fees, you’re giving more to the government to drive your car.. If you care to make a technical legal distinction to bolster your argument of the day, go ahead.. The end result to the driving public, no difference..
So you keep splitting those hairs, and making your “point du jour”..
I remember a nice web page that goes into the distictions between a tax and a fee, I thought it was somewhere on http://www.legis.state.la.us/ but now I can’t find it.
BigJim or anyone else, do you know where that might be?
fred - 09 March 2010 11:19 AM
As I said troll, taxes or fees, you’re giving more to the government to drive your car.. If you care to make a technical legal distinction to bolster your argument of the day, go ahead.. The end result to the driving public, no difference..
fred, I understand your point, the end result will be less money in our pockets. And if you wrote CB’s exact words, I would not have made my comments.
But CB knows better. He intentionally used the wrong word.
