A 73 percent tax increase on car rentals in Wisconsin? That can’t be right

But it is right, according to the car rental industry, which is doing everything in its power to prevent the passage of a new law in Wisconsin that would raise car rental fees from $2 to $18 per rental to fund mass transit projects, and giving the Badger State the highest car rental taxes in the nation.

The new surcharges, which are proposed as part of Wisconsin’s budget bill, have already passed the Assembly and are being considered by the Senate today. So why haven’t you heard anything about this 73 percent increase in your car rental bill? A look at the bill (PDF) — hope your computer has lots of memory — shows how this issue has gotten buried in the 2009 budget debate.

But car rental companies are making a last-ditch effort to derail the tax. Here’s what it sent to Wisconsin legislators earlier this week:

I am writing today as your constituent and as an employee of Enterprise Rent-A-Car to ask that you oppose the KRM rail authority fee, which will increase the rental vehicle tax in Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee counties to 73.6% tax on a $30 rental.

Our customers already pay 20% in taxes, most of whom are Wisconsin residents accustomed to paying a standard 5.6% sales tax for other goods and services. Adding an additional $16 per transaction ($18 total) is even more unfair; and if enacted, these counties will have the highest rental car tax in the country – by a long shot.

Higher taxes means fewer car rentals, and this in turn will limit employment opportunities for my fellow employees and me. Every day, Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee residents and businesses use rental cars for a variety of reasons:

* Some need a specialty vehicle for a household project, like a pick-up truck or a van.
* Many employers prefer to rent a car for employees traveling on in-state business in lieu of reimbursing for mileage on a personal vehicle. Many employees prefer this too, as they don’t rack up miles on their own car.
* Also, many of our customers simply don’t own cars, either because they can’t afford it, or simply choose not to for other reasons. These residents rely on affordable rental cars for transportation when public transit is not an option.
* Some need to rent a larger vehicle for a vacation or out-of-town trip
* Many parents rent cargo vans to move their children to college
* Some families rent an additional vehicle to accommodate family visiting from out of town
* Some rent a luxury car for a special occasion like a wedding

I can think of no reason why Wisconsin residents using a rental car for these purposes should bear the burden of a 73% tax to pay for a commuter rail line.

At a time when the auto industry is clearly struggling, I ask you to oppose this $18 fee and any new rental car tax, and support a funding mechanism that spreads the burden across a larger group of beneficiaries.

A 73 percent tax increase seems a little steep to me. And for what? A train that tourists are unlikely to use, like South Florida’s Tri-Rail? Well, we don’t know that — yet.

It is more than just a little ironic  that the now-bankrupt car industry allegedly systematically dismantled mass transit in the 20th century. Today, cars are funding the return of trains.

But I believe there’s a right way and a wrong way to do this. And a fly-by-night approach to raising taxes on drivers, many of whom can’t vote and may not benefit from the mass transit projects, is the wrong way. This issue deserves its own debate, far removed from the the chaos of Wisconsin’s budget bill.

  • GreenfieldWI

    This sounds right, unfortunately. WI is running a big deficit (not quite as impressive of one as California, but still very steep). The governor had campaigned on not raises taxes, but apparently “user fees” are fair game. Whether or not these are to be considered “tax increases” apparently depends on one’s political affiliation!

  • deborah

    Glad it’s not my state! Or FL, where we seem to rent cars…….

  • Carver

    This is hard. One one hand I hate these taxes which are borne primarily by out of state people. However, if I were a politician, I’m not sure I would be able to resist the temptation.

    i wonder if the price of rental cars really affects has a huge i impact on whether business people travel to a given state.

  • Brian

    This is insane! Rental cars and light rail are both options in getting from point A to B, and as such are competitors of some sort. This proposal taxes one competing segment within the transportation sector to pay for another. Imagine how silly it would sound to levy a tax on UPS with the proceeds going to the US Post Office. That’s essentially what is happening here!

  • http://cars.about.com Aaron Gold

    Just a note on the bit about GM and the demise of mass transit, as noted in the Wisconson car tax story… (Warning: Severe geek alert!)

    The idea that GM bought up trolley lines and converted them to buses is an urban legend that has been repeatedly debunked. Fact is, most cities were eager to convert to rubber-tired buses — fuel was cheap, trolleys were seen as outdated and noisy, and all it took was a car to break down on the tracks to bring the entire system to a halt. Streetcar ridership was declining before most transit lines converted to buses. Converting to electric buses (trolley buses) would have been expensive as the wiring is different. As for GM, they actually went to great lengths *not* to sell buses as they were concerned about anti-trust legislation breaking up the car business. They went so far as to help their chief competitor (Flxible) to re-engineer their bus (already using GM’s engines and drivetrains) to be nearly identical to GM’s own, ensuring that sales would be spread around. GM did well simply because they built a better product, but the anti-trust issue was a big enough concern that they got out of the business in the 80s.

    As for the New Haven RR — the huge cost of electrification in the late 20s was one of the factors that ran them into bankruptcy in the mid-30s. All railroads were in trouble by the mid-50s, and a bigger problem for NH was the Connecticut Turnpike, which ran alongside their commuter line to NYC (which, by the way, remains electrified to this day).

    NH ran diesels from several vendors (GM, Alco, GE, Baldwin), but the last one they bought from General Motors– the FL9 in 1956-60 — had the ability to run on electric power alone, and did so for the run into New York City…. sort of like a plug-in hybrid. The FL9s survived New Haven’s demise and some of them are still running today.

    Geek mode off !

  • http://www.best-car-rental-tips.com Paula

    The fees are getting ridiculous. I’m glad though, that you pointed out how against this the car rental industry, itself is. I think it’s crazy for residents of another city or state to have to pay for amenities in another!

  • Jasper

    This is total hypocrisy. Raising $16 per day on rentals will not pay for any decent transit. This is just an attempt to pass of bad fiscal policy on visitors. Taxation without representation anybody?

  • Steven

    As one who travels across the USA and has to rent a car most of the time when I get to my destination, I am increasingly frustrated by the whole bevy of “fees, surcharges, and taxes” that get piled on top of my rental. It is not unusual now for my total bill (after everything is added on) to be 50% or more higher than the original car rental itself. And it is not unusual anymore to find I will pay more for my rental car than the airline fare to get to/from there!

    Business travelers are “easy marks” for politicians who think that since we don’t vote or pay other taxes in their state, it’s OK to do this. But I am working in my travel plans hard to avoid those places where I’m being gouged, even if it means flying into another airport and staying in another nearby state. I also pay attention to hotel taxes and local “surcharges,” and these do influence my plans as well.

    One of the worst charges is the growing trend to the “off-site consolidated car rental facilities.” These tend to be inconveniently located, sometime miles from the actual airport terminals. The generic bus/shuttle arrangements are either crowded (since everyone renting is going to the same place) and/or are located at pick-up spots which are more than inconvenient. Then I get to pay a “surcharge” on my rental to pay for this supposed “improvement” ON TOP OF the fee my rental company charges for their part of the facility!

    One thing I am doing more and more is taking a cab or shuttle to my hotel from the airport, then renting a car on site from the hotel or a “local” town location. This often is significantly cheaper since there are none of the airport related fees added on, and I often have the convenience of more personal service.

  • Kimberly

    This will divert airline traffic to communities outside of Milwaukee to avoid such a tax. I am a frequent traveler to Wisconsin having left my home state for employment but still return to see friends and family. I will fly in to Chicago or Madison rather than Milwaukee and pay that ridiculous fee. I won’t have it. Your budget problems are not mine.

  • KathyJ

    @Kimberly Hello? Madison is in Wisconsin, too. And Chicago’s taxes and fees aren’t exactly cheap, either.

  • Bob Barton

    Mr. Elliot,

    This letter is in response to the Press Release issued on November 5, 2009 by the Coalition Against Discriminatory Car Rental Taxes, entitled, “Growing Coalition Continues to Speak Out on Behalf of Florida Car Rental Customers.”

    The aspect of doubling car rental excise taxes in Florida to help fund the rail system is not only alarming, but if enacted, will deter tourism, one of the largest industries and employers of the state. What the Florida Legislature is suggesting is that non-resident consumers should bear the financial burden of a budgetary shortfall, which is simply not acceptable. The fact is the local government should be looking for ways to enact a tax policy that will spread the burden to all who benefit from the rail system.

    Moreover, these car rental excise taxes are unfair and create a huge financial burden on a large volume of local residents, particularly young adults who cannot afford to operate their own vehicles, as well as local businesses. The local resident whose primary vehicle is being serviced will also be subject to such taxation.

    As we have stated before, the underlying problem is NOT what the fees are relative to the rental car facility, but the constant compounding by state and local officials of taxation that has nothing to do with car rental or our customers. These non-constituent imposed taxes are local government’s way of collecting taxes from the non-voting public, and sadly, the tourist pays the bills and has no voice.

    We have witnessed many examples in the past two years in this difficult economy where government obligations are not being adequately funded due to reduced revenue streams. A funding of this rail system will very likely fall into this same situation. Then the government will tax others – not to fund the rail system, but to meet the government obligation.

    If the answer is taxation, tax the rider, the person utilizing the service. The reason this is not being considered is it has already been said projected usage will drop if the fare is too high. In other words, the rail system is not sustainable on its own without a permanent subsidy.

    Florida has a serious budget crisis taking place. The last thing the state needs is another project that has the very real potential of becoming another obligation.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Robert M. Barton, President
    American Car Rental Association

  • http://www.cargoinsurance.com cargoinsurance

    Interesting post,,,,thanks for sharing your views

  • http://www.carrentalsusa.com harris david

    When states suggest tax increase, we are frequently asked to compute what their new tax load would be behind the tax hike. We generally oppose these requests because it is almost impractical to predict how the state’s tax load ranking will change because other states are making changes at the same time.

    In this Wisconsin’s case, it will be a great burden for all those who plan for a holiday trip.

  • http://www.movingtruckrental.com/ movingtruckrental

     thanks for sharing. i think this is just right. but this is so much high tax. 

  • http://www.bentleychauffeur.biz/ bentley hire london

    Nice Post.Thanks for share this information.I think to raising taxes on drivers is the wrong way.