One of the main "progressive" arguments against the $60 vehicle license fee on the ballot in November, espoused by some low-income housing advocates like Seattle Displacement Coalition founder John Fox, is that a flat fee on car tabs, like the flat sales tax, is regressive---that is, it disproportionately impacts poor folks.

Sightline's Eric de Place takes a closer look at the numbers and concludes that, for the one in six Seattle residents who don't own a car---a group that is dominated by renters and the poor---the fee isn't regressive at all. Poor people, in fact, are the group most likely to use the buses and sidewalks that the $60 car tab fee will help pay for. So why do some lefties criticize the fee as "regressive"?



De Place's theory:

The problem, I suspect, is that people mean somewhat different things by “regressive.” We normally think of flat fees as regressive, but there are limits to that way of thinking. A flat fee on caviar, for example, would hardly fit the definition. Cars aren’t exactly a luxury good for many people, yet there’s every indication that low income households in Seattle and King County are less likely to own vehicles or to rely on them to get to work. Low income residents are far more likely than the non-poor to rely on transportation alternatives for their commutes.

By my way of thinking, determining whether something like a vehicle license fee is “regressive” depends a great deal on how the revenue gets spent. If it’s plowed into car infrastructure, I’m tempted to say it’s a bad deal for low income folks. But if the funds supplement bus service, walking, and other options, I’m more likely to believe that the net effect is economically progressive.