The Buckingham Herald Tribblog

In a little blurb under the Political Notes section of Wednesday's Sun Gazette, Scott McCaffrey posted an intriguing idea: the car tax is anti-environmental. No doubt, he was trying to reach the left-leaning populace here in Arlington (Scott's politics lean decidedly to the right) in order to try to bring people into a froth over the car tax again, and he’s hoping to get a few Greens on his side. But I don’t believe his argument shows a true fear for our fragile environment.
He said, basically, that the car tax--a flat fee charged by the county based on the vehicle's value--is encouraging people to drive old beaters that pollute more than newer cars. You don't want to pay the tax, so you'll drive a 12-year-old rust bucket, apparently, air quality be damned.

As an aside, he asks why do we pay for the stickers in the first place? The tax is regressive, he says, since it charges the same for the rich and poor alike. I suppose you could argue that the car tax is regressive; however, it’s also self-regulated in one basic way—if you don’t want to pay higher taxes, buy a cheaper car. He even says in that small blurb that the tax goes down for people with cheaper cars—poorer people by cheaper cars and the tax rate on them is lower, apparently. Hmmmm. That’s exactly not regressive.

Call a spade a spade, Scott. You don’t like the car tax, and that’s fine, but just go ahead and say it. Myself, I think they just need a way to pay for it quarterly. It doesn’t hurt as much when it’s four small payments.