Department of Revenue speaks on Missouri temp tag issues
Lawmakers have approved a new system designed to crack down on abuse. The state's director of revenue wants to get out of the temp tag business entirely.
Missouri making changes to temporary tag, vehicle registrations next month
Many Missouri drivers aren't renewing their car tags when they expire, including a large number of those using temporary paper tags. That leaves the Missouri Department of Revenue with millions of dollars that go uncollected.
'Temp tags should only be good for 30 days,' said Trish Vincent, who directs the State Department of Revenue.
Vincent knows many drivers are keeping their temp tags for much longer. In recent months, FOX4 spotted drivers with temp tags expired by more than a year.
Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe has approved a Senate bill, allowing DMVs to issue a 30-day license tag only for trade-in cars still under a loan. New technology the state plans to introduce will require drivers to pay their sales tax at the dealership before they're given a temp tag.
Graham Hoffman memorial ride raises $65,000 for scholarship fund
'We are hopefully going to get out of the temp tag business in late 26 or early 27. Taxes will be paid on time, so that helps build roads out there in the state of Missouri,' Vincent said on Wednesday.
Also, under the new system, car dealers will be permitted to issue temporary tags that expire after 60 days only under special circumstances.
Law enforcement is doing the best it can to enforce these laws, according to Vincent, who adds that in the near future, Missouri license plates will go from using six digits to seven, meaning if a temp tag is seen with only six, patrol officers will know it's no good anymore.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
VDIAGTOOL Celebrates 8th Anniversary with Launch of the VD80BT Lite: Pro-Level Diagnostics at an Affordable Price
SANTA ANA, Calif., Aug. 11, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In celebration of its 8th anniversary, VDIAGTOOL is proud to announce the launch of the new VD80BT Series, It marking a major milestone in the company's ongoing mission to make professional-grade automotive diagnostics more accessible to vehicles continue to grow more complex, so does the need for smarter, more capable diagnostic tools. The VD80BT Lite was developed with a clear goal in mind: to bring high-end diagnostic functionality within reach of individual repairers and entry-level technicians working on a budget. 'We've spent the past seven years building tools that strike the right balance between capability, usability, and cost,' said Jim Jin, Brand Founder at VDIAGTOOL. 'The VD80BT Lite is the most affordable way for users to experience the kind of diagnostics typically reserved for top-tier shop tools.' The VDIAGTOOL features include: Dual WiFi Smart Connect with high-speed and stable connection. Bi-directional control anywhere around the car — no cords, no limits. Full OBD2 diagnostics easy to use with real-time data and freeze frame. 8 inch HD 1280 * 800 Touch Screen — perfect view, indoors or out. ECU coding and module adaptation. 28+Vehicle reset/relearn functions to include ABS bleeding, SAS Resert, EPB,TPMS reset and more. The VD80BT was also launched simultaneously, It equipped with Topology Mapping to visually illustrate the communication architecture of the vehicle's electronic systems. It also supports over 38+ advanced bi-directional (active) tests, enabling comprehensive diagnostics and enhanced system control. It both with at least 2 Years software updates, a promise VDIAGTOOL has upheld for years to reduce ongoing ownership costs. Designed with Budget in Mind—But No Compromises This launch reaffirms VDIAGTOOL's long-term commitment to providing high-value solutions without sacrificing performance. In a landscape where diagnostic equipment can easily exceed $1,000, the VD80BT Lite stands out by offering a premium diagnostic experience at a fraction of the typical cost. 'We believe advanced tools shouldn't be limited to large workshops,' added James Jin, Product Management at VDIAGTOOL. 'Whether you're working from a personal garage or just getting started in the field, you deserve technology that keeps up with modern vehicles.' About VDIAGTOOL Founded in 2017, VDIAGTOOL has become a trusted name among repair professionals and car enthusiasts. Now celebrating its 7th year, the brand continues to push the boundaries of what affordable diagnostics can deliver—making advanced features accessible, understandable, and truly usable. For more details about the VD80BT Lite or other products, visit or email us at support@ For purchase in global please visit or find us in Amazon. Disclaimer: This content is provided by the VDIAGTOOL Technology Co, Ltd. The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the content provider. The information shared in this press release is not a solicitation for investment, nor is it intended as investment, financial, or trading advice. It is strongly recommended that you conduct thorough research and consult with a professional financial advisor before making any investment or trading decisions. Please conduct your own research and invest at your own risk. A photo accompanying this announcement is available at in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tata Motors sees 62% profit drop in Q1 amid JLR struggles and US tariffs
Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) parent Tata Motors has disclosed a significant drop in its quarterly net profit, primarily due to lower demand and the imposition of US trade tariffs. The automotive company recorded a net profit of Rs40.03bn ($456m) for the first quarter (Q1) of the FY2026, which is a 62% decrease from the Rs105.87bn ($1.2bn) reported in the corresponding quarter of the previous year. The company's consolidated revenue from operations also saw a dip, falling to Rs1.03tn in Q1 FY26, a 2.9% decline from Rs 1.06tn in the same quarter of the previous year. In response to these challenges, Tata Motors is concentrating on reinforcing the core aspects of its business and lessening the impact of tariffs by capitalising on brand strength and improving margins through targeted measures. Tata Motors Group chief financial officer PB Balaji said: 'As tariff clarity emerges and festive demand picks up, we are aiming to accelerate performance and rebuild momentum across the portfolio. 'Against the backdrop of the upcoming demerger in October 2025, our focus remains firmly on delivering a strong second half performance.' JLR reported a revenue of £6.6bn ($8.84bn) for Q1 FY26, a reduction of 9.2% year-on-year. The decline was attributed to new US trade tariffs and the planned phase-out of legacy Jaguar ICE models ahead of a relaunch for Jaguar as an all-electric brand in 2026. JLR's profit before tax plummeted by 49.4% to £351m, adversely affected by the US tariffs and foreign exchange headwinds. The company is focusing on strengthening business fundamentals to mitigate the impact of tariffs and improve contribution margins. JLR reported a 10.7% year-on-year decline in wholesale volumes for Q1 of FY26. The announcement of these financial results comes shortly after JLR's CEO, Adrian Mardell, left the company. Mardell said: 'Looking ahead, we remain focused on delivering our transformational Reimagine Strategy, including investing £3.8 billion this financial year to support the development of our next-generation vehicles, including our stunning new electric Range Rover and Jaguar models.' The commercial vehicle (CV) segment's revenue decreased by 4.7% to Rs170.09bn, while earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation (EBITDA) margins improved to 12.2%. In the CVsegment, wholesale volumes decreased by 6%, with domestic volumes down by 9% year-on-year. However, exports saw a significant increase of 68%. The passenger vehicle (PV) segment experienced an 8.2% revenue drop to Rs108.77bn, with EBITDA falling to 4%. The PV segment's wholesale volumes fell by 10.1% to approximately 124,800 units, with electric vehicle penetration holding steady at 13%. "Tata Motors sees 62% profit drop in Q1 amid JLR struggles and US tariffs" was originally created and published by Just Auto, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Forbes
5 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Behavioral Economics Battle Lurking In EPA's Endangerment Finding Repeal
The EPA's 2009 Endangerment Finding was the agency's formal determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Ever since, it has served as the legal foundation for EPA climate regulations. Without this finding, EPA lacks Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Trump administration's EPA has now proposed to repeal the Endangerment Finding, along with the agency's greenhouse gas standards for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles that depend on it. In the agency's announcement, EPA justifies the repeal by citing the severe economic burdens of its existing rules, including over $1 trillion in compliance costs. As the agency moves to dismantle the Endangerment Finding, another battleground has opened up that has received less attention. That fight is about whether regulators should trust consumers' preferences or instead attempt to 'correct' them. The outcome of this debate could swing the measured benefits of climate rules by trillions of dollars. The Role of Regulatory Impact Analysis Because repealing the Endangerment Finding would also remove the legal basis for existing greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks, EPA is required under longstanding executive orders to analyze the economic effects of that policy change. This requires the agency to tally the costs avoided and the benefits forgone from the action. To comply with these requirements, agencies prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) whenever a rule or policy change is expected to have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more. RIA is a framework for identifying the expected consequences of a regulation, quantifying them where possible, and monetizing them when the data and methods allow. In the case of the Endangerment Finding repeal, that means examining how vehicle technology, fuel use, air pollution, and consumer welfare would differ with and without the greenhouse gas standards, and then converting any differences into dollar terms. In its draft RIA for the repeal action, EPA's core engineering-model estimate finds the repeal would yield net costs of roughly $260 billion (at a 3% discount rate, over the years 2027 to 2055). This traditional government approach counts fuel savings as a benefit to consumers, making the repeal appear costly since those savings would be lost. However, Appendix B of the RIA includes an alternative 'revealed preference' analysis that estimates net benefits of the repeal ranging from $3.05 trillion to $8.18 trillion. This set of estimates assumes that if consumers aren't voluntarily choosing more fuel-efficient vehicles, then forcing them to do so through regulations actually harms them. Any estimated savings, in that case, were pure fiction. By extension, so were many of the benefits of regulation. The Assumption of Revealed Preference Cost-benefit analysis aims to tally up the monetized social gains and losses from a policy. An economist adds up the 'private benefits' to particular individuals to arrive at a cumulative "social benefit" estimate for society as a whole. 'Revealed preference' is a concept central to this endeavor. By examining what people buy and how much they are willing to pay for different items and features, economists can estimate dollar values for different types of benefits and costs. This approach assumes that the observed willingness to pay of an individual reflects the value of a benefit to that person. This method has a major advantage in that it respects people's choices and doesn't involve analysts judging whether people's choices are good or bad; they merely accept that the choice made was what the individual preferred. The downside of this approach is that people don't always make decisions that accord with their own interests, or that of society. Fuel Savings Violate Revealed Preference For years, agencies writing fuel economy and energy efficiency rules have counted fuel and energy savings as a benefit of those rulemakings. When a consumer buys a more fuel-efficient car or appliance, they save money on gas or their utility bill. The government counts that as a significant benefit of a regulatory action phasing out less-efficient devices. This approach is valid if consumers genuinely underappreciate those savings when they buy a car or appliance. But if they already weigh fuel economy and energy efficiency against other attributes of a product before making a purchase, the savings are not a windfall benefit of the rulemaking. They're the flip side of losing other features the consumers value more. Appendix B of EPA's regulatory analysis relies on exactly that logic. If a consumer picks a gas-powered truck knowing it'll burn more fuel, they've made a trade they prefer. Forcing them into an EV to 'save' fuel costs is a net loss to them. Yet for many years, the government has treated this as a benefit. Behavioral Economics and the "Energy Efficiency Gap" Economists use the term 'energy efficiency gap' to describe the puzzling difference between the level of energy efficiency that appears cost-effective in theory and the lower level people actually choose in real life. For example, engineering calculations might show that spending $1,000 on better insulation, more efficient appliances, or a higher-MPG vehicle would pay for itself in a few years through lower utility or fuel bills. Yet, many consumers routinely forgo those investments. What explains the gap? One interpretation is that buyers are making biased, short-sighted decisions. This is the classic territory of "behavioral economics," a field focused on how real-world decisions often deviate from the assumptions of rational, optimizing behavior found in economists' models. Cognitive biases like hyperbolic discounting (placing too much weight on present rewards relative to future ones) or inattention (failing to notice or process fuel cost information) could lead people to under-invest in efficiency and leave money on the table. This perspective justifies counting the full value of 'missed' fuel savings as a regulatory benefit to the consumer, because the regulation is correcting their mistake. But there's another possibility, which is that the gap isn't a sign of bias at all, but instead a reflection of genuine trade-offs. A consumer might choose the lower-MPG car because they care more about acceleration, cargo space, style, or any number of attributes that are not captured in the fuel-savings calculations. An analyst who misinterprets the gap as a bias, when in fact the choice was based on a rational calculation, could force consumers into a less-preferred option and make them worse off. What's at Stake Separating bias from legitimate preferences is exceedingly difficult, and some would argue impossible. From the outside, the decision looks the same whether it's the product of error or preference. If we can't reliably distinguish between bias and preference, then the case for 'correcting' consumer choices becomes more about paternalism than empiricism. The stakes in this debate go beyond the Endangerment Finding. In many energy-efficiency rulemakings, 80 to 90 percent of the total monetized benefits come from the government's calculations of consumers' avoided energy costs. Environmental benefits to Americans are often in the low single-digit percentages. This means the overwhelming majority of the official benefit calculation hinges on the assumption that regulators can improve consumer welfare by steering people toward more efficient—and more expensive—products, even when buyers themselves would freely choose otherwise if left to decide on their own. This leaves economists in a quandary. Do they assume that observed market behavior is the best available measure of welfare, even if it sometimes reflects mistakes? Or do they override those choices based on models of what they think people should want if they made careful choices using all the available information? Or do they seek a middle ground, acknowledging that their models are often accurate but may also ignore important context-specific trade-offs? The answer to these questions determines whether a regulation's calculated benefits can be trusted. Private vs. Social Benefits Another complication relates to the difference between private and social benefits. Even when consumers make perfectly rational choices, what is in the interests of an individual doesn't always benefit society as a whole. When one person's gain imposes external costs on others, this can reduce, or even reverse, the net benefit for society. One obvious group affected by our purchasing decisions is future generations. It is easy to imagine future people might prefer that today's consumers forgo some luxuries in favor of greater savings and investment, which would improve living standards in the long run. But those intergenerational considerations are typically not reflected in market prices or, similarly, in economists' measures of revealed preference. In the context of energy and fuel economy, a dollar saved at the pump can be invested elsewhere in the economy, compounding to boost growth and future welfare. The enjoyment from a car feature like more horsepower or a panoramic sunroof can't be reinvested in the same way. So while a consumer may be better off paying more for those amenities, future generations probably will not be. From society's perspective, fuel and energy savings likely do represent social benefits for this reason, even when they don't compensate for their drawbacks from an individual's standpoint. A Rulemaking Worth Watching EPA's Endangerment Finding RIA pushes this debate forward by putting the revealed preference framework front-and-center, challenging the government's conventional inclusion of full lifetime fuel savings as a benefit. Whether that approach gains traction will matter well beyond this rulemaking. It's a core issue for how government evaluates climate and energy efficiency regulations generally. And it's another reason to watch closely how this already-high-stakes rulemaking unfolds.
