The proposed fee system offers several advantages. It is simpler and easier to administer. A taxpayer can easily predict what he will have to pay in fees when he considers a purchase. And since the fees are fixed, the tax bite does not automatically increase with inflation as the purchase price of vehicles rises.

Under the proposed fee system, if two people own snowmobiles from the 2000 model year, they would pay the same annual fee of $35, regardless of the two machines' comparative book value. However, the system would remain moderately progressive, because people who own newer, and hence more valuable, machines would pay more tax. Snowmobiles from the model years 2001-2003 would have annual fees of $45, for example. The fees for '92-'94 would be only $20.

But, as in any tax-reform plan, there would be winners and losers. Most of the proposed annual fees for many classes of vehicles are lower than the current taxes, but there are exceptions. Owners of newer, mid-sized boats would pay more, for example, but the separate tax on outboard motors would be eliminated for all boat owners.

Since the new fees would be paid by the buyer at the time of purchase - machines in dealer inventory after Jan. 1 currently are tax-exempt - the new owner would end up paying a fee for one tax year which he does not pay now. That change helps to explain why most of the fees themselves would be lower than the current taxes for many classes of machines, yet the total revenue from the new system would be the same as the old system.

Keeping the total amount of tax collected statewide the same under the new system as the old is one of the goals of the reform. But the Legislature should take care to make sure that if revenues from the proposed reform fall short, the difference cannot be made up by increasing taxes on real property. Boats, ATVs and jet skis are toys, not necessities, and taxes on them should not be shifted to homeowners, especially people on fixed incomes.

In tax policy, simpler sometimes is better, but not always. Since this reform would be simpler, while remaining progressive, it may be worth a shot.