RSS 2.0 FeedCar Registration Woes
by Brad WarbianyWith the move to California, the time came that I had to register my car as well as my wife’s car. I’m a procrastinator by nature, and don’t really give a damn what California thinks, so I was far beyond the “20-day” limit between the time that the car enters California and the date it must be registered. But some interesting things happened, and I think they go a long way to the State of California’s understanding of their role in society.
The first was my truck. I had hoped to get the smog check completed and then get the registration done within 20 days of that date (conveniently putting the “first day the vehicle entered California” as the date of the smog check). However, various things got in the way, and I couldn’t get to it in 20 days. Because the registration occurred before that time, I knew the State was aware that the car had been there more than 20 days. So I did the stupid thing, and told the truth*. As such, I got slapped with penalties equal to one year’s registration fees (on top of the fees already paid). Unfortunately, they used the date of registration as the date of reporting the first date the vehicle entered the state, so I paid two years registration and will only receive about 6 months of time before my registration expires.
So that sucked. Next, of course, my wife’s car was due. I learned my lesson, and went for registration within 14 days of getting the smog check done. So I put the date of entry as the date the smog check was done. Of course, I wasn’t charged penalties on this, but it still wasn’t cheap**. But again, the registration is only valid until 1 year from that date the vehicle was reported as entering California.
Think about that for a second. To the State of California, it does not matter whether a vehicle is legally registered in another state. It does not matter if you go weeks or months without any necessity of having the bureaucrats in Sacramento know about the existence of your car. Once your car is in their state, it becomes their property, and you must pay tribute to keep it.
Ask yourself: is there any benefit to the registration of your car that could not be achieved privately? After all, the primary goal of car registration, as far as I can tell, is to ensure that if your car is stolen or damaged, that it is properly recovered/compensated. The agency with the most incentive to ensure that is done is not the State of California, with their compulsory fees and their “we’ll find it if we find it” attitude towards stolen cars. The agency with incentive is the insurance company who is on the financial hook for your car. If anyone has an incentive to license and track your vehicle, it is them.
What does the State do? They demand your fees as a tribute to an army of useless bureaucrats, an army which exists purely for its own continued existence. If you don’t pay the piper, they’ll impound your car. Is there any other way to state this than that they believe they own your car, and all you do is pay for the privilege to rent it from them, covering all maintenance costs by yourself?
* PS – I am a big fan of being honest. At one point I turned down a free TV because defrauding Best Buy goes against my personal code of conduct. However, my personal code of conduct applies to voluntary transactions. When coerced by the government into acting within their guidelines, I have no compunction about doing all in my power to resist such guidelines.
** PS #2 – The State of California, like many others, charges higher registration fees on more valuable vehicles. In no way I can see does it cost them more money or more work to register a more valuable vehicle. It is simply another way to soak the rich, and it belies any argument for registration that may exist. It shows that car registration is a tax, not a user fee, and a progressive tax at that.
Brad, the purpose of registration is not so “if your car is stolen or damaged, that it is properly recovered/compensated.” The actual purpose is to license the vehicle to operate on government roadways. If you never drove a vehicle on anything but private property you would not need to register it. Of course, with nearly every road that you would ever want to use being government owned, that wouldn’t do you much good.
The additional purpose is, as you noted, the collection of property taxes on your car.
On top of that, of course, the customer service given while you pay for the privilege of operating your property on government roads is simply atrocious. That is due to the monopoly position of the government. They own all the roads and you must go hat in hand to them to get permission to use the roads that they built with your tax money.
Comment by Eric — November 13, 2007 @ 8:36 pmAlong with Eric, I will agree that licensing is not really for “if your car is stolen or damaged.” The real reason for licensing is to illustrate how driving and owning a car is a privilage from the state, mere citizen. Unless you have been really good, done your chores and paid your fees, daddy state won’t let you use your vehicle!
Comment by trumpetbob15 — November 13, 2007 @ 9:03 pmI see both your points… I guess the way that I was looking at it was related to benefits I receive from registration. I’m sure there are several benefits the state receives from registration that are not benefits or even desirable to me, which is why they make it compulsory instead of voluntary.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — November 14, 2007 @ 5:10 amThe best was when I registered my vehicle in Kentucky. The car was gifted to me by my parents when I lived in Alabama, which charged me appropriate taxes.
Lo, I get to Kentucky, and they decide that to register my car I must pay them 6% sales tax on the vehicle.
Sales tax. On a transaction that did not occur within the commonwealth, between two people, neither of whom were citizens of the commonwealth at the time of the transaction.
Under what reasonable standard can they claim a right to tax that?
If I had far more time and energy, I would have sued on Constitutional grounds (arguing that Kentucky was attempting to regulate interstate commerce, a power reserved expressly to the federal government). But IANAL, so there’s no telling if it would have worked.
Comment by CommiePuddin — November 14, 2007 @ 5:12 amBrad,
I don’t think there really are any benefits to you for registering. You mentioned “if your car is stolen or damaged,” but LoJack would be more effective and could run on your vehicles ID number probably more effectively than a license plate, if that is needed. In Michigan, license plate and driver’s license fees are just another money making scheme for the state and if you decide not to pay, you just open your wallet up in another way when the cops decide to “imagine” you weren’t wearing your seat belt and pull you over.
Comment by trumpetbob15 — November 14, 2007 @ 6:44 amCP,
I was a bit worried about the sales tax. I purchased my truck in CA before moving to GA, so I had paid CA tax on that. But my wife’s car (a lot more valuable than mine) was bought in GA. I was worried they may do something crazy like charge the difference in GA and CA tax, roughly 4%. I wouldn’t put it past CA to do such a thing.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — November 14, 2007 @ 6:52 am