Morning Metro: Tax-Saturday, Bye-Bye Ad Velorem Car Tax, and 1940 Census Data

Map courtesy of U.S. Census Bureau

60 thoughts on “Morning Metro: Tax-Saturday, Bye-Bye Ad Velorem Car Tax, and 1940 Census Data”

      1. clearly i didn’t read the fine print…so yes the tax remains in place for cars we are presently driving..and a one time title fee will go into effect for new cars. so boo 🙁 …still doesn’t work for me.

      1. Just a quick skim of the statute, but it appears that you can sell the car to an immediately family member and opt in to the new tax structure. But, the tax is based on the fair market value of your car, so you can’t set the value at five bucks.. Plus, there is a penatly of up to $2,500 for falsifyng the value on the bill of sale. However, depending on the FMV of your car, and the amount of time you plan to own it, it seems worthwhile to figure out which is more advantageous.

        1. “in an amount equal to one-quarter of 1 percent of the fair market value of the motor vehicle and a local title ad valorem tax fee in an amount equal to one-quarter of 1 percent of the fair market value of the motor vehicle.”

  1. So unless you buy a new car, you are still stuck paying it. Not much of an incentive to hold on to a car that works fine.

    1. Here’s what I read:

      “The new tax structure applies to cars bought new or used, from dealers or individuals.”

  2. So that tax we pay annually with registration and then deduct from our taxes isn’t disappearing? Of course, for one of our vehicles, it’s declined to about $20 so no big deal. But the other one still costs about $187 in ad valorem and I wouldn’t mind losing it.

      1. Maybe I’m misreading. The article says the 2009 version of this bill had a $1500 cap. I don’t know if the current bill has a cap (I’d be extremely surprised if it doesn’t, though), but if it does, that amounts to yet another handout to the rich.

        1. I guess I’m reading it a different way, and I don’t think the current bill has the cap…that said, I wouldn’t mind if it did. We sure wouldn’t want the “rich” getting away with something as they try to inject $85,000 worth of spending into the economy instead of $20,000.

        2. Not trying to digress, but this is NOT a handout to the “rich”. It is THEIR money – not the government’s and certainly not yours. The government does not let the “rich” KEEP money; it is theirs as they earned it, and every dollar collected in taxes or taxes otherwise disguised as fees is TAKEN. Handouts are received ONLY by those who don’t contribute to the system.

          I know you will never understand these concepts, but it still needs to be said.

          1. Nonsense. As long as their are income taxes, 100% of your earnings are not in any way “your money.”

            1. Like I said, you wouldn’t understand. I am not arguing the obligation to pay taxes. I am merely pointing out that your characterization of a reduction in taxes as a handout is incorrect. Taking less does not equal handout. It means that the barely more than half of us that pay taxes just pay a little less and that 50 plus percent gets to enjoy a few more fruits of their labor.

              However, it may mean that the almost 50% of those who don’t pay taxes get less of a handout.

                1. It wasn’t an attempt at an insult. My point was simply that if you would refer to a tax reduction as a “handout” to begin with, there is little point in trying to convince you otherwise (or in asking you to look up the meaning of the word).

              1. That sounds like an insult to me, DawgFan. Didn’t we discuss this already?

                Disparaging others wasn’t required for you to make your point as far as I can tell.

            1. No, I am saying that a reduction in taxes is not property characterized as a handout. A reduction in taxes means that the governement is seizing less of your money.

              1. Handout might not be the best word, but it is a government sanctioned incentive that is only available to those on the high end of the economic scale. I can’t support that.

                1. What incentive? Are there really that many people who can afford a $40,000 car, but can’t afford it without a cap as the price would skyrocket all the way to $41,000? Maybe it is merely a recognition of the fact that at some point, people have contributed enough, and if we can’t afford all of the “services” provided by these taxes, we need to either look elsewhere or reduce the services.

                  Here is the real kicker for me with the whole tax, and I haven’t seen any discussions on it. Most consumers will end up paying interest on these taxes as it will undoubtedly get bundled into the amount financed. So, unless it is a sizable deduction over the amount cumulatively paid under the current system (it may be, I just don’t know), it will result in a net incresae of the costs of car ownership.

          2. Handouts are received ONLY by those who don’t contribute to the system.

            That is simply an untrue statement. The Truthometer would read false.

          3. Oh DawgFan, you say “we” won’t understand. I say you don’t understand, but I doubt you’ll understand that. Let me point out two articles you might want to read.




            In the first, you will see that many ppl who are “against” the “safety net” actually benefit from it. Perhaps you fall into that category.

            In the second, you’ll see that the rich got that way in part b/c of a system that props them up, that they helped create. Think about society as a whole and not just about individuals or yourself, if you can.

  3. Yes, I agree Jeff. If that cap is indeed set at $1500 then it appears rich GOP’rs just gave themselves a nice little tax break.

    1. The way I read it, there is no cap. The $1500 cap is something that was previously voted down.

  4. The article implies the $1500 tax cap carried over from 2009 but it is unclear. I hope that’s not the case.

  5. So how are private sale taxes to be collected? Who pays it to who?
    Can we drive across the sate line and trans fer the car and money there?
    How is it going to be enforced?
    i foresee some sales for $1 quickly followed by “Hey look is that $2999 just lying on the ground. I better pick it up.”

    1. That’s a really good point. Legislators seem to think that they will make up the lost revenue by being able to collect on casual sales. But, like you say, who is going to enforce that it gets collected? When was the last time you filed a use tax return when you purchased something on the internet and didn’t pay sales tax? Right, I didn’t think so.

    2. Probably self-reporting like now. I sold a car last year as-is and just signed the title over, the buyer brought cash. What he reported he paid for it to the DMV, I really don’t know, or care.

    3. Yes, nothing like taxing the same thing over and over and over again. And how does it work with a trade in since technically you’re selling the dealer your car? Does the dealer pay a tax on the car he buys from you, you pay a tax on the new/used car you buy from them, and then it gets taxed again when the dealer sells it again?

      What’s my responsibility as a private seller and how soon will this translate to my yard sale being taxed?

      1. At a glance the title fee appears to discount trade-in value (to dealers, who don’t pay title fees on inventory), so while some unfortunate folk will now pay on private sales, we catch a break on luxury upgrades and avoid high ad valorem as well.

  6. Re: Melton’s break-ins. I thought crime wasn’t supposed to happen in this neighborhood until after Walmart got here? Totally sucks to be broken into twice in a two week period. Some resourceful entrepreneur needs to design an alarm system with a trip wire that electrocutes/tasers thieves who break and enter.

    1. A very clear surveillance video of both perps and their car is on the Medlock Park Facebook page. They came prepared with masks and gloves but their faces are visible at some points during the 6! minutes they cased the back door. Calm, cool, and experienced.

  7. My heart aches for the folks over at the Dunwoody Community Garden. I truly hope they catch whomever did such a mean, wasteful, hurtful act! If I found out my kid was involved in such a thing, s/he wouldn’t be able to sit down for a week (which is just as well, since I’d have her/him on bended knees over there, replanting & repairing the damage)!

    1. I would be happy to help put a whuppin’ on the cushions of whoever did this and then keep them working in the gardens for many, many, many, many hours.

    2. Reason #3,428 it’s good that I don’t have kids. If I did, and I found out they did this (and I have no doubt it would be *my* kids), I’d be going to jail right along with them and they’d be begging to not be put in the same cell as me.

    3. Revenue-Negative Household (a.k.a., My unruly brood is here to clog your sidewalks and erode your tax base.) says:

      If the DPD catches the vandals, perhaps a fitting punishment would be to work some community service hours at the food bank where the crops were going to feed some needy families.

      1. John Heneghan’s Dunwoody Blog reports that both Home Depot and Costco stepped up to provide volunteers and materials to replace the damage and the lost produce.
        Two companies doing good and earning some respect from the neighborhood.

  8. It was pointed out on another blog that while the ad valorem tax is deductible if you itemize on your federal return, the title tax is a fee and cannot be deducted.

    1. And supposedly it will also replace the sales tax charged on cars purchased from dealer, which until this year, could be added to the normal sales tax itemized deduction if you took sales tax in lieu of state income tax as a deduction. That didn’t apply to some people and besides, unless Congress renews it, the sales tax deduction expired last year.

  9. I’m soooo late getting back into this…. sorry, busy couple of days at work.

    Does Dawgfan live in Decatur? Does he realize we have really high taxes here?

    Joe – no GOPers are not the only ones buying expensive cars, but the article states it was pushed by the Republicans.

    Anyway, no cap… I’m good with it. Well, actually, I can complain about taxes as well as the next guy, but if there’s going to be a tax, I’d like to see it applied fairly to all.

Comments are closed.