View Full Version : New license plates on the way



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

bchris02
05-17-2016, 03:55 PM
http://newsok.com/article/5498581

It looks like everyone is going to have to replace their license plate next year. I wonder if the design is going to change or if they will just take the current design and make it more reflective?

Paseofreak
05-17-2016, 04:39 PM
This crap is ridiculous. Making up taxes pure bulls**t!

kevinpate
05-17-2016, 05:11 PM
It's only a tax to the Legislature if the majority thinks it will impact election coffers.
1.50 on ciggies is a tax.
4.00 on a new shiny license plate (after covering costs) is a fee, not a tax.

Makes perfect sense ... to some.

stile99
05-17-2016, 06:03 PM
http://newsok.com/article/5498581

It looks like everyone is going to have to replace their license plate next year.

House Bill 3208, which passed 52-45, must still be approved by the Senate and governor before it could become law.

Considering how narrowly it passed, I don't consider it a fait accompli at this point.

That said, it's 39 Republicans vs 9 Democrats, and we know the governor will sign whatever her masters tell her to sign, so...

Bill Robertson
05-17-2016, 07:34 PM
And if this does pass I'll be paying $12 for plates that will be in my trunks. That blows!

MagzOK
05-17-2016, 08:01 PM
Lose the guardian with the bow and arrow. I'd like to go back to the old school sun and Oklahoma is OK logo. Or I'd love an all white with black letters and numerals -- old school. But how about lose the little registration decals on the back of the plates and give us one to put on the inside of the windshield down low on the driver side, just like Texas. It'd minimize theft of those stickers.

Plutonic Panda
05-17-2016, 08:14 PM
I agree about the all white plates. That would be cool. I like the Texas and California plates.

Bullbear
05-18-2016, 08:03 AM
Lose the guardian with the bow and arrow. I'd like to go back to the old school sun and Oklahoma is OK logo. Or I'd love an all white with black letters and numerals -- old school. But how about lose the little registration decals on the back of the plates and give us one to put on the inside of the windshield down low on the driver side, just like Texas. It'd minimize theft of those stickers.

Is sticker theft really still a thing? I mean with technology now the PD can check to see if you have valid tags without a sticker. I got pulled over for speeding and had not put the new sticker on yet and the police officer said it wasn't that big of a deal that he can see my tags are up to date. seems we could do away with the sticker entirely almost.

jerrywall
05-18-2016, 08:13 AM
So we've got one thread talking about our poor schools, with one of the solutions being new fees to help cover the shortfall, and then we have the reactions in this thread. So a case of folks are ok with new taxes and fees, as long as they're on someone else? And we wonder why no progress gets made.

stile99
05-18-2016, 08:54 AM
So a case of folks are ok with new taxes and fees, as long as they're on someone else?

I'll stand up and proudly shout yup. If the energy industry gets to pay less than 1% tax, and I'm paying more, than I am TOTALLY FINE with 'new' taxes and fees being charged to them. Or for that matter, they don't need to be new, just pay the same taxes everyone else pays. We didn't get into this huge hole because *I* didn't pay my taxes.

jerrywall
05-18-2016, 09:15 AM
I'll stand up and proudly shout yup. If the energy industry gets to pay less than 1% tax, and I'm paying more, than I am TOTALLY FINE with 'new' taxes and fees being charged to them. Or for that matter, they don't need to be new, just pay the same taxes everyone else pays. We didn't get into this huge hole because *I* didn't pay my taxes.

So since they DON'T pay less than 1% tax, are you now supporting this new fee?

stile99
05-18-2016, 10:15 AM
So since they DON'T pay less than 1% tax, are you now supporting this new fee?

That's not what the article Pete posted said, so no.

jerrywall
05-18-2016, 10:21 AM
That's not what the article Pete posted said, so no.

It said at one point the tax on new wells was as low as 1%. It also mentioned that was raised to 2%. And it's only for the first few years. Energy companies are not paying under 1% on their revenues, and since they have old and new wells, aren't even paying close to one percent.

Jersey Boss
05-18-2016, 10:32 AM
It said at one point the tax on new wells was as low as 1%. It also mentioned that was raised to 2%. And it's only for the first few years. Energy companies are not paying under 1% on their revenues, and since they have old and new wells, aren't even paying close to one percent.

Yeah but the program that pays the oil companies for operating wells when the price of crude is low could very well make the effective rate less than 2%.

jerrywall
05-18-2016, 10:34 AM
Yeah but the program that pays the oil companies for operating wells when the price of crude is low could very well make the effective rate less than 2%.

That would have to assume oil companies were only operating new horizontal wells, and shutting them down after a few years.

Jersey Boss
05-18-2016, 10:41 AM
That would have to assume oil companies were only operating new horizontal wells, and shutting them down after a few years.

This is true. It has been said that the majority of those horizontal wells produce the bulk of resources in the first few years. So to expand on that, I would say that one would have to compute all the credits and incentives that the industry gets to get that effective rate.

Jersey Boss
05-18-2016, 10:44 AM
To get back on the plate thing though I have no problem in finding those extra dollars by either taking my lunch to work a couple of days or cutting some coupons from the Sunday paper.

jerrywall
05-18-2016, 10:45 AM
This is true. It has been said that the majority of those horizontal wells produce the bulk of resources in the first few years. So to expand on that, I would say that one would have to compute all the credits and incentives that the industry gets to get that effective rate.

Additionally, to imply the energy companies pay less than one percent ignores property taxes, payroll taxes and more. Plus their expanded impact of their employees also paying property, sales, and income taxes. It's not a zero sum game.

That being said - these companies aren't going to NOT harvest money making oil without incentives. I feel like tax incentives DO bring film companies and such to Oklahoma that wouldn't come otherwise. When it comes to oil? They're gonna drill baby drill, regardless.

stile99
05-18-2016, 10:54 AM
You are correct, it is probably more than 1%. I pulled a number out of the air without doing any math, and I apologize for that.

I will be more than happy to become the most ardent supporter of this new tax, even moreso than McCall himself, and all I ask is one thing. Just one small thing.

Numbers are hard to come by it seems, and any numbers I use someone else can come back and say that was yesterday, here's today's, but all the numbers I can find say the tax breaks are worth well north of $500 million (how much is the budget deficit again?). This new tax is supposed to raise $18.5 million, with the state not even getting that full amount. But like I said, I will support it.

All I ask is the energy industry match that amount.

That's my entire point. I understand, and agree with, your frustration that there appears to be a double standard. People want schools funded, but they object to this new tax. It seems a bit disingenuous. But let's be honest with each other. This tax is like asking us to pee in Optima Lake and expect the problem to be solved. It's going to do literally nothing. It is perfectly natural for people to be upset when they watch someone set $500,000,000 on fire and then cry that they're broke. They're going to then be even more upset when that person says "Now I'm broke, so I'm going to mug you".

jerrywall
05-18-2016, 11:00 AM
The thing is, all tax incentives are supposed to be analyzed, and must show a net benefit, or else they are discontinued. If that's not happening like it should then it's a whole other problem. But to say that 500 million in tax credits costs us 500 million is extreme oversimplification and ignores secondary revenues.

MagzOK
05-18-2016, 11:51 AM
Is sticker theft really still a thing? I mean with technology now the PD can check to see if you have valid tags without a sticker. I got pulled over for speeding and had not put the new sticker on yet and the police officer said it wasn't that big of a deal that he can see my tags are up to date. seems we could do away with the sticker entirely almost.

Yeah man, I would be fine with that! Just lose the stickers all together if they really aren't needed.

jerrywall
05-18-2016, 12:15 PM
To get back on the plate thing though I have no problem in finding those extra dollars by either taking my lunch to work a couple of days or cutting some coupons from the Sunday paper.

Seriously. I've got 4 vehicles. You're talking a one time expense of $20, paid out at $5 a time as I renew tags next year. I have a hard time getting that upset over this. And if it does reduce the number of uninsured drivers on the road, then that much better.

stile99
05-18-2016, 01:15 PM
And if it does reduce the number of uninsured drivers on the road, then that much better.

The last time plates were refreshed in Oklahoma was 2009. At that time, the percentage of uninsured motorists in Oklahoma was 24%.

http://www.autoinsurance.org/how-many-drivers-dont-have-auto-insurance/

Oklahoma already addressed the problem of uninsured motorists three years ago.

http://www.news9.com/story/22146196/new-oklahoma-law-expected-to-cut-down-number-of-uninsured-drivers

I really wish I could believe even one uninsured motorist would be removed from the road by this, but history suggests if they're breaking the law today, they're going to break the law tomorrow as well.

It's not a problem of 'finding the money', it's a problem of 'second verse, same as the first'. Let me be very very clear: this will do nothing to address the problem. Nothing. I don't think I am getting this across correctly, so I'll just stop rather than risk annoying people further, as that is absolutely not my intent.

jerrywall
05-18-2016, 01:32 PM
The last time plates were refreshed in Oklahoma was 2009. At that time, the percentage of uninsured motorists in Oklahoma was 24%.

http://www.autoinsurance.org/how-many-drivers-dont-have-auto-insurance/

Oklahoma already addressed the problem of uninsured motorists three years ago.

http://www.news9.com/story/22146196/new-oklahoma-law-expected-to-cut-down-number-of-uninsured-drivers

I really wish I could believe even one uninsured motorist would be removed from the road by this, but history suggests if they're breaking the law today, they're going to break the law tomorrow as well.

The problem with the past efforts is enforceability. Now they have cameras that autoscan in the patrol cars, and identify drivers without insurance. The problem is, from what I understand, that as the plates age their readability for the scanners goes down.

Unless they're lying about this (of course, always a possibility) this is a solution addressing a problem, not just a manufactured fee (although they could charge less to cover the costs of the new tags).

Stew
05-18-2016, 03:09 PM
So if we all replace are tags as to usher in some automation for the cops as to reduce manual enforcement effort can I expect a reduction in full time law enforcement positions. That's something I could certainly get behind.

Scott5114
05-18-2016, 08:29 PM
I think the opposition to this on this forum is not because it's a fee/tax (there is probably some opposition to that in Oklahoma, but it's $4 so most people don't really care), it's that it's questionable whether or not it's necessary. The oldest license plate in use is only 7 years old. Engineer-grade reflective sheeting, which our license plates use, does not degrade that quickly; road signs use the same stuff and they're usually replaced on 10–20 year cycles (though they are now required to upgrade to more expensive but more reflective prismatic sheeting when replaced). There is the issue of people with damaged plates, like people who have bashed them up with trailer hitches and such, but that could be addressed by laws requiring them to be replaced when damaged.

More to the point, this comes not too long after a legislator proposed a bill to require license plates in front and back of the car. This is a requirement that is very heavily pushed by 3M, which maintains a website advocating for the practice. 3M is heavily involved in the manufacture of license plates, producing reflective sheeting and typesetting systems for them. On the consumer side, they also make front license plate brackets and double sided tape to adhere license plates to bumpers. To me, both of these bills being pushed so close to one another makes me wonder if 3M sent a lobbyist down to Oklahoma City.

onthestrip
05-19-2016, 03:08 PM
I think the opposition to this on this forum is not because it's a fee/tax (there is probably some opposition to that in Oklahoma, but it's $4 so most people don't really care), it's that it's questionable whether or not it's necessary. The oldest license plate in use is only 7 years old. Engineer-grade reflective sheeting, which our license plates use, does not degrade that quickly; road signs use the same stuff and they're usually replaced on 10–20 year cycles (though they are now required to upgrade to more expensive but more reflective prismatic sheeting when replaced). There is the issue of people with damaged plates, like people who have bashed them up with trailer hitches and such, but that could be addressed by laws requiring them to be replaced when damaged.

More to the point, this comes not too long after a legislator proposed a bill to require license plates in front and back of the car. This is a requirement that is very heavily pushed by 3M, which maintains a website advocating for the practice. 3M is heavily involved in the manufacture of license plates, producing reflective sheeting and typesetting systems for them. On the consumer side, they also make front license plate brackets and double sided tape to adhere license plates to bumpers. To me, both of these bills being pushed so close to one another makes me wonder if 3M sent a lobbyist down to Oklahoma City.

Bingo! Its just a way to raise some money for the state without needing 75% of Reps and Sens to vote on it. Its completely unnecessary and Im not buying the public safety arguments. Because if I got a new plate this year, why would I need another one already? Its just a way to help shore up this giant shortfall without calling it a tax increase.

Scott5114
05-19-2016, 06:42 PM
I'm not even sure if it would get Oklahoma any revenue. $4 sounds about right for the cost of a license plate. I think I remember reading that the average road sign is about $20 to make or so. Scale that down to the size of a plate, add administrative labor costs, and $4 is ballpark what it would cost. So really the only one that would benefit financially would be 3M.

ctchandler
05-19-2016, 09:31 PM
I'm not even sure if it would get Oklahoma any revenue. $4 sounds about right for the cost of a license plate. I think I remember reading that the average road sign is about $20 to make or so. Scale that down to the size of a plate, add administrative labor costs, and $4 is ballpark what it would cost. So really the only one that would benefit financially would be 3M.

Scott,
Actually, there is quite a bit of "revenue", I believe the paper said the tag costs $1.00 and the rest would go into the general revenue pot. I might be wrong on the amount, but I do know that the majority of the cost goes to the general fund. I will search the DOK archives and if I find the article, I will post the information.
C. T.

ctchandler
05-19-2016, 09:36 PM
Bingo! Its just a way to raise some money for the state without needing 75% of Reps and Sens to vote on it. Its completely unnecessary and Im not buying the public safety arguments. Because if I got a new plate this year, why would I need another one already? Its just a way to help shore up this giant shortfall without calling it a tax increase.

I have two "FBC" vanity tags and my regular tag has never seen a drop of rain, a snow flake or experienced any weather including the heat of the sun because it is in the pocket on the back of my passenger seat and I'm going to have to replace it. I don't have any suggestions, but maybe they could look at our tags to decide if replacement was necessary. Of course, since this is a revenue issue, they don't care if I have a perfectly spotless tag, they just want the money. And I wonder if I am going to have to pay for three tags for my one car.
C. T.

ctchandler
05-19-2016, 09:46 PM
Well, 20 percent of the fee will be for the tag and 80 percent will go into the state public safety fund.
C. T.

Oklahoma motorists would be required to purchase new metal license plates next fiscal year at a cost of $5 each under a bill approved Monday by the state House of Representatives.

House Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Oklahoma City, ripped Republicans for carrying the bill, calling it a “backdoor” tax increase.

“If you think it’s anything other than a tax, you’re fooling yourselves” Inman said.

Rep. Charles McCall, R-Atoka, defended the bill, calling it a “public safety measure ”

McCall said the reflective material used on license plates wears off over time, making them more difficult for law enforcement officers to read.

McCall said it is also difficult for law enforcement officers to see the small stickers placed on license tags annually when registrations are renewed, which makes it harder for them to identify unregistered vehicles and uninsured motorists.

House Bill 3208, which passed 52-45, must still be approved by the Senate and governor before it could become law.

The state expects to raise about $18.5 million through the sale of new tags, lawmakers said. The bill calls for 20 percent of the money to go into an Oklahoma Tax Commission fund to pay for the new tags, while the remaining 80 percent would go into a State Public Safety Fund to be appropriated by the Legislature.

“That is a tax ” said state Rep. David Perryman, D-Chickasha. “For this body to be disingenuous — for this body to be dishonest — and call this a fee for the issuance of new tags is something I can’t hold my head up when I go home and say that. This is a tax ”

McCall disagreed, calling it a fee.

Data from 2012 showed that 25.9 percent of Oklahoma motorists were uninsured, he said.

Changing the design on license plates makes it easier to detect if a vehicle is unregistered, he said.

The state Corrections Department would manufacture the new tags, but the design has not yet been determined, he said.

Rover
05-20-2016, 07:25 AM
This is typical hypocracy from the tea partiers. Just call it what it is....a one time tax so they can maintain the lower income tax rate and breaks for their buddies in the oil business. They think the public is stupid and can't tell the difference in a fee or a tax, regardless of what it is called. This is typical. The tea party uses ignorant state representatives to do their bidding.

jerrywall
05-20-2016, 07:35 AM
I mean, everyone says they're willing to pay more for education. Did they just mean other people?

A stupid law was passed when I was a kid, making new taxes or tax increases very hard. And the opposition party had been clear they'll oppose increases to score points. So if it takes defining them as fees to close the revenue gap some, so be it.

David
05-20-2016, 08:10 AM
Based on the numbers I just looked up, don't the republicans hold a 83% majority in one house and a 70% in the other? Why does it matter if the opposition party opposes anything? They're numerically irrelevant.

stile99
05-20-2016, 08:11 AM
I mean, everyone says they're willing to pay more for education.

One wonders how the support/don't support ratio would differ if the money were going to education as opposed to directly to the general fund. One is not being a smartass, one legitimately wonders if this had been painted differently what the result would have been.

jerrywall
05-20-2016, 08:37 AM
Based on the numbers I just looked up, don't the republicans hold a 83% majority in one house and a 70% in the other? Why does it matter if the opposition party opposes anything? They're numerically irrelevant.

Because it requires a 75% vote in both for any increases, and that assumes you can get 100% of a given party to vote a certain way.

jerrywall
05-20-2016, 08:38 AM
One wonders how the support/don't support ratio would differ if the money were going to education as opposed to directly to the general fund. One is not being a smartass, one legitimately wonders if this had been painted differently what the result would have been.

I don't like the idea of directing any revenues to a specific cause, personally.

David
05-20-2016, 08:59 AM
Because it requires a 75% vote in both for any increases, and that assumes you can get 100% of a given party to vote a certain way.

Oh, it's 75%? For some reason I was thinking 2/3s.

Good lord.

jerrywall
05-20-2016, 09:02 AM
Oh, it's 75%? For some reason I was thinking 2/3s.

Good lord.

Yeah, good ol state question 640 from 1992, requires 3/4s of both houses or a vote of the people to increase a tax. It was a terrible SQ and those who were old enough to vote for it and did should be ashamed. I'm not a fan of raising taxes, but hamstringing the state this way was a terrible idea.

ctchandler
05-20-2016, 09:11 AM
David,
Like California, we voted to require all tax increases be approved by the voters unless (I don't know about California on this part) a "Super" majority (75%) of the state house and senate pass a tax increase. It really ties our lawmakers hands. In theory, it sounds good, but in reality, it was a poor choice.
C. T.

ctchandler
05-20-2016, 09:14 AM
Duplicate post (almost). Jerrywall beat me to it.
C. T.

David
05-20-2016, 09:55 AM
Oh I knew about that SQ, I just thought it was 2/3s and not 3/4s.

d-usa
06-01-2016, 02:30 PM
As far as I can tell this passed, but was it signed?

BDP
06-01-2016, 02:56 PM
That being said - these companies aren't going to NOT harvest money making oil without incentives. I feel like tax incentives DO bring film companies and such to Oklahoma that wouldn't come otherwise. When it comes to oil? They're gonna drill baby drill, regardless.

Yeah, we're giving incentives and tax breaks for something that has to be done here if they want the product. Really, we should tax oil and gas more and use it to pay for incentives for other industries that don't have to be here at all. Then, maybe, eventually we'd be so diversified that every oil bust wouldn't break the whole state and shut down schools. We've been doing it backwards which is why we are where we are.

And I can't really get up in arms about the plates either, if it is indeed needed. I do think it's stupid that they are over whether it's a tax or fee. It's still much cheaper than most states. Either way, I don't think it's going to affect the education budget. They were cutting that even when we had money.

ctchandler
06-01-2016, 07:22 PM
And I can't really get up in arms about the plates either, if it is indeed needed. I do think it's stupid that they are over whether it's a tax or fee.

It cannot be a tax without a super majority vote of our house and senate, a fee is like an executive order, but in this case passed by the legislature. I'm not going to whine too much, but my tag that has never had a drop of rain or a snowflake on it is going to have to be replaced at my cost and I am a retiree on a fixed income. Yes, I can afford it, but why should I? Replacing my "FBC" tags (Fight Breast Cancer) is probably the right thing to do, but why replace my regular tag that has never been mounted on a car?
Whining over,
C. T.
C. T.

QUAPAW5
06-02-2016, 07:41 AM
new design ... (each Side) $$ 234oka $$ Refective Black
(Bottom) OKLAHOMA Green color
(Top) Land of fees Brown color

Jersey Boss
08-22-2016, 12:56 PM
Looks like the new plate design will be revealed today. TLO managed to snag a peek.
http://www.thelostogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/oklahoam-license-plate-575x282.jpg
(From today's Lost Ogle)

Pete
08-22-2016, 01:05 PM
Meh.

Hard to make out even that it's a bird and few people would understand the flycatcher.

catch22
08-22-2016, 01:06 PM
Well that looks pretty bad...

AP
08-22-2016, 01:10 PM
I kinda like it....

I'll see myself out

Jersey Boss
08-22-2016, 01:11 PM
I think it is a marketing ploy to encourage purchasing a vanity/custom plate.

Zuplar
08-22-2016, 01:13 PM
It could have been a good design with poor execution IMO.

Dustin
08-22-2016, 01:17 PM
Here is a better photo.

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/14100300_1232286550149577_5144085775197004404_n.jp g?oh=87294224cb1d274eb37206d0b9cf9ef4&oe=584A554A

I don't hate it... At least it will match my truck!

TU 'cane
08-22-2016, 01:18 PM
I'm really not sure what to think yet. On one hand, I kinda like it... It's different and bold. On the other hand, from afar it may suffer from the same issue as the previous one: the design/picture will look like a blob.

Zuplar
08-22-2016, 01:23 PM
I'm really not sure what to think yet. On one hand, I kinda like it... It's different and bold. On the other hand, from afar it may suffer from the same issue as the previous one: the design/picture will look like a blob.

That's my fear, other than that it isn't bad.

TU 'cane
08-22-2016, 01:25 PM
It's really not bad at all. I was expecting the worst so this is a pleasant surprise. It's already growing on me.

sooner88
08-22-2016, 01:46 PM
Anything is better than the current plate, but it'll still be hard to pass on the Thunder plate.

Paule4ou
08-22-2016, 01:46 PM
Thought for a second that Twitter was moving to Oklahoma.
12908

Urbanized
08-22-2016, 01:55 PM
Welp. 46th Star for me!

David
08-22-2016, 01:56 PM
I like it.