You must log in or register to comment.

DunkinRadio t1_j9l9zdb wrote

It's not based on current value - it's based on its original price when new and how old it is.


Cheap_Coffee t1_j9laocr wrote


>Vehicle value
>Your vehicle's value for excise purposes isn't the actual purchase price or "book value" of the vehicle. Instead, it's a percentage of the manufacturer's list price in the year of manufacture.
>The manufacturer’s list price for any vehicle is the price the manufacturer recommends as the selling price of that vehicle (for vehicles of the same make, type, model, and year of manufacture) when new.
>Excise tax on motor vehicles; assessment and levy; exemptions; abatement for theft of


UniWheel t1_j9lujn7 wrote

As others have explained it's based on the original price degraded by age.

But the age table stops at 10% for five years and older.

Both of your vehicles are are over 5 years old, so you're really just seeing the difference in their original list prices

Perhaps that things level off after 5 years seems unfair. On the other hand, we could ask what the value of the vehicle should have to do with the tax amount at all. It might make more sense to base the taxes on the impact of the vehicle, at which point older is perhaps actually have more impact than newer.

It may be simplest to look at the value is being used as a proxy for ability to pay and the reduction is capped so that everyone ends up paying something.

Like most tax policies, it's imperfect in many ways - but good luck getting agreement to move to a different imperfection.


wsdog t1_j9mf98b wrote

This tax funds schools and other town services, so it's a proxy to an income tax. Want a luxury car - pay more. It doesn't deal with "impact". Impact is taxed by the gasoline tax.


sporky211 t1_j9pgnp2 wrote

This may be changing soon as the Attorney general has certified three versions of the proposed ballot question to get rid of the gas tax in 2024. If anybody is interested in signing a petition for the group i will post the link below.


wsdog t1_j9phv49 wrote

I drive an EV, so I don't care really


throwsplasticattrees t1_j9pqu44 wrote

Any information of what the plan is to replace those funds? Gas tax is unsustainable, a vehicle miles traveled tax will be a more effective means to fund road maintenance. But if the plan is to simply eliminate the gas tax with no replacement or dedicated road funding, it's a foolish endeavor.

We don't want our roads subject to annual appropriations. We want the funding proportional to the amount the roads are used since that's what drives maintenance costs.


throwsplasticattrees t1_j9pqe1t wrote

My understanding of the excuse tax is that it funds road maintenance and repair through Chapter 90 and does not support municipal general funds. It's not a proxy for income tax, it's a supplement to gas tax.


Cost_Additional t1_j9rf39b wrote

Welcome to the wonderful world of the state capping your depreciating asset to milk more money from you.


Hoosac_Love t1_ja7nicu wrote

Another thing is that if you have a loan on the car the excise is based on what you actually own not on what the value of the car is.I payed 13K for a car but on a loan so my excise is based on $1899.Last years excise was based on $1895 so the value went up in a year based on payments made.

If you have a new car on a loan the excise could be lower than a paid off used car.I'm hoping when my car is paid off in 2026 that the value will be about the same but I doubt the value will go down though because I will own all of it.


Linux-Is-Best t1_j9latpv wrote


I recall at one time, cars that were more echo-friendly also received a discount. I am not sure if that still applies or not. But it could be why your newer and valued higher car, has a lower tax.


wsdog t1_j9mfc45 wrote

Echo-friendly car.


Linux-Is-Best t1_j9mg4pt wrote

> Echo-friendly car.


You can tell I use Linux. I, of course, meant eco-friendly. Echo is a command to recall whatever message you type.


BovaDesnuts t1_j9mpt1g wrote

Only one of those cars has an engine immobilizer.


MikeD123999 t1_j9muddx wrote

I always thought excise tax should be lower on new cars and should rise based on the age of the car. Seems like an older car would cause more wear on the roads than that of a new car


chevyadsict83 t1_j9p4wbx wrote

Please explain this one, i can't wrap my head around it.


MikeD123999 t1_j9r8ai3 wrote

New cars are more efficient. As cars age they wear and become less efficient. Some cars as they get older leak fluids like oil and radiator fluid etc that contaminate the ground and although some people probably maintain their vehicles, i would suspect most people wouldn’t notice. Its also probably a good idea to steer people to newer cars for economic reasons too. So basically, older cars are more damaging to the road and environment which is why they should pay higher excise tax too

And lets get rid of manual transmission too


BlimeySlimeySnake t1_j9y5d6p wrote

"I've always felt we should tax poor people more for not having money"


MikeD123999 t1_j9y8txh wrote

Hey man, not cool. We shouldn’t label people like that. This is merica, anyone can have a nice smartphone and nice car