U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: How will you vote on Prop 6?
Yes 50 61.73%
No 31 38.27%
Voters: 81. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-26-2018, 12:32 PM
 
3,445 posts, read 2,492,846 times
Reputation: 2470

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer View Post
These Republicans don't care that California's crummy, pothole-heavy roads will cost drivers more in the long run in time lost and damage to vehicles/tires, and they really don't care about gas taxes.
over here in OC, we have excellent roads. they are laying asphalt again in a, in my opinion, still in an excellent condition county road..and this is parallel to a top notch toll road

where exactly are these potholed roads? in SF? in LA? if its a local road, then raise the tax in your area
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-26-2018, 12:36 PM
 
3,445 posts, read 2,492,846 times
Reputation: 2470
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
Yeah - that caught my eye as well.



Technically, that's an "exempt" position - exempt from the requirement to pay OT. There isn't a preclusion from paying OT -- and I presume during contract negotiations the union secured OT for management/supervisory positions even though you and I look at it and shake our heads.
if these politicians were not funded by these unions, they could just show them how soldiers/officers/generals get paid. no OT. and yet they are still required to spend more time due to exigency
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2018, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
5,630 posts, read 2,592,938 times
Reputation: 9035
Up here in Silicon Valley, we had PG&E working on laying new pipe in our road.



They trenched a hole, worked on something. Couple of weeks later they were still screwing around with it.



Then we got a notice from the city letting us know they were going to surface the road. I thought...great, we'll get our front back again. They surfaced the road and it was really nice.


For a couple of days...then PG&E crew came back out and dug up their trench again to keep working. Not sure what they did, but they kept at it for months.



100% wasted money.



Still, I don't want an anecdote to cloud things....but when I hear $130B in deferred maintenance for roads said as if that were fact...I suddenly realize there will never be enough. Any amount thrown will be spent...and the more there is, the more that will be wasted.



By comparison, the 2 year entire budget of Texas is $217B.

Too red...ok, I took it for its size.



How about New York?
https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/archi...artmentof.html
These guys have integrated regional rail, subway, ferry, roads, tolls, bridges...and a very high COL.



Why can't we get in the same budgetary stratosphere?


Changing to vote Yes on 6.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2018, 05:41 PM
 
Location: SoCal
20,162 posts, read 9,736,820 times
Reputation: 16895
It will be a YES vote for me. I remember complained about gas at $1.50 in 2003. Why has gas been so high.
Plus any ad I see with California Teachers union or Nursing union backing, that’s my cue for a vote for the opposite.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2018, 03:00 AM
 
113 posts, read 118,202 times
Reputation: 137
Like all political discussions, these topics end up in a mud slinging contest. I’m not going to try to refute anything anyone has already said, but just want to highlight some quick important facts:

1. Prop 69 was approved back in May that says transportation funds have to be used for transportation projects. The gas tax isn’t going to pay for pensions or general funds because it literally can’t. That’s not how government funding works. It can only go to pay for transportation projects to repair roads, widen highways, or provide valuable new connective infrastructure like sidewalks, bike lanes, or transit stops.

2. The gas tax is not going to fund high speed rail. I know everyone likes to say this, but it’s not remotely true. The gas tax has already ear marked and appropriated funds to various types of transportation work and high speed rail is not on the list.

3. The gas tax has not been raised in 20 years while inflation and average mpg of newer cars has depleted the existing fund. Americans grow up in a car centric country and expect nice paved road to be some divine right. I’m sorry, but it costs money to maintain, repair, and create new roads.

4. This isn’t a fact, but just something I want you to think about: does anyone honestly believe that if this gas tax is repealed, the price of a gallon of gas will magically drop $.12? Think about it.

Vote NO on prop 6.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2018, 07:41 AM
 
5,354 posts, read 8,916,441 times
Reputation: 7680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaphawoman View Post
Uh, that’s already built in by the person driving more miles needing to buy more gallons. The person who drives the EXACT SAME amount this year as last year is paying more. Increasing the price punishes everyone, but particularly poor, working, and middle classes.
You make so much sense. I would like to add that the more you make the less you will feel the impact. Take those CHP officers who make over 250K a year, for example. The tax increases won't impact them as much as the typical workers who make 40K a year. By the way, does everyone know that most of your vehicle registration fee goes to the CHP pension fund?

If you connect the dots, it will become very clear that public employee unions are against Prop 6 to protect the cash cow that gives them their fat salary, benefit, and pension. The are protecting yet another wealth transfer policy that takes from everyone else and gives to them.


https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12/...-chp-pensions/

Quote:
Californians in April will start paying more to register their cars — not to help maintain roads, but to keep the pension checks rolling for the motorcycle cops who policed them.
Quote:
The patrol takes up about 78 cents out of every dollar in registration fees drivers pay.
Quote:
The situation facing the Highway Patrol underscores the consequences to taxpayers whose state and local governments have about $2 trillion less than they need to cover promised retirement benefits.
Quote:
Moorlach thinks it’s inevitable that fees will rise, although the drivers may not understand why. “Everyone will think, we’re fixing roads, but that money is going to be diverted into pension plans,” he said.
Vote YES on Prop 6. Protect your wallet. Does it make sense for you to pay public employees who make much more than you to retire in luxury?

Last edited by davidt1; 10-27-2018 at 08:15 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2018, 08:21 AM
 
1,204 posts, read 592,811 times
Reputation: 1391
Quote:
Originally Posted by JVinci View Post

3. The gas tax has not been raised in 20 years while inflation and average mpg of newer cars has depleted the existing fund. Americans grow up in a car centric country and expect nice paved road to be some divine right. I’m sorry, but it costs money to maintain, repair, and create new roads.
I'm tired of your #3 which is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the state of California has had one of the highest gas tax over the last 20 years. Currently it's #2 (behind Pennsylvania) at 55.22 cent per gallon.

Prop 6, which would repeal the 12-cent gas tax increase approved last year, along with a 20-cent increase in diesel taxes and additional vehicle registration fees that are expected to raise $5.4 billion annually for transportation projects. So it's more than just the 12 cent increase. And as David stated, a nice portion goes to the CHP, which has nothing to do with repairing roads (maybe it's time to start reining in these pensions?...A great place to start the cutbacks).

Vote YES on Prop 6

Last edited by JJonesIII; 10-27-2018 at 08:29 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2018, 09:43 AM
 
4,417 posts, read 1,639,310 times
Reputation: 3995
Trying to justify this gas tax as "it's just 12 cents" is just as sleazy as a car salesman trying to sell you an expensive car based on car payments.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2018, 10:39 AM
 
113 posts, read 118,202 times
Reputation: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJonesIII View Post
I'm tired of your #3 which is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the state of California has had one of the highest gas tax over the last 20 years. Currently it's #2 (behind Pennsylvania) at 55.22 cent per gallon.

Prop 6, which would repeal the 12-cent gas tax increase approved last year, along with a 20-cent increase in diesel taxes and additional vehicle registration fees that are expected to raise $5.4 billion annually for transportation projects. So it's more than just the 12 cent increase. And as David stated, a nice portion goes to the CHP, which has nothing to do with repairing roads (maybe it's time to start reining in these pensions?...A great place to start the cutbacks).

Vote YES on Prop 6
You’re right, there are higher registration fees associated with SB1. I’m not denying that. However, many people somehow think federal funds are so fungible that you can take them from one pot and place them into another. Well, you can’t. You can’t just take money allocated for X and slide it over to pay for Y. So throwing out other state gas taxes isn’t an apples to apples comparison because you assume money is just out there to move to pay for roads. It’s not.

I sometimes read about people saying, “just raise local taxes, why can’t cities pay for their own roads!?” And sure, in a perfect world that seems straight forwards. But local funds don’t pay for our highway system. And California isn’t just large populace cities like LA or San Francisco. There are many cities and counties where it would take DECADES to tax enough from their population to pay for some of these projects.

Lastly, you said “a nice portion” goes to CHP. I’m sorry, but that’s far from the truth. If I use your 5.4 billion annual number, only $25 million/year (0.4% of SB1 money) goes into a Freeway Service Patrol fund that is available for reimbursement by law enforcement agencies. That’s for the entire state. I don’t think I’ve ever said 0.4% is a nice portion of anything.

Registration fees raised for SB1 (see VIN 2017-25 for sliding scale), can only be used for SB1 projects. Any talk of raising fees for the CHP pensions is a SEPARATE fee increase. Again, tax collected funds are not fungible and SB1 funds collected can only be used for transportation projects and services.

If you want a prop that performs and audit on the CHP, Caltrans, or whoever else to trim the fat, that’s totally fine and I would respect that. However, this is money that is literally going straight to our infrastructure and roadways. Prop 6 is not the prop to stick it to the tax man. It’s our chance to build better cities and highways.

Vote No on 6.

Last edited by JVinci; 10-27-2018 at 10:59 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2018, 11:48 AM
 
1,204 posts, read 592,811 times
Reputation: 1391
Quote:
Originally Posted by JVinci View Post
You’re right, there are higher registration fees associated with SB1. I’m not denying that. However, many people somehow think federal funds are so fungible that you can take them from one pot and place them into another. Well, you can’t. You can’t just take money allocated for X and slide it over to pay for Y. So throwing out other state gas taxes isn’t an apples to apples comparison because you assume money is just out there to move to pay for roads. It’s not.

I sometimes read about people saying, “just raise local taxes, why can’t cities pay for their own roads!?” And sure, in a perfect world that seems straight forwards. But local funds don’t pay for our highway system. And California isn’t just large populace cities like LA or San Francisco. There are many cities and counties where it would take DECADES to tax enough from their population to pay for some of these projects.

Lastly, you said “a nice portion” goes to CHP. I’m sorry, but that’s far from the truth. If I use your 5.4 billion annual number, only $25 million/year (0.4% of SB1 money) goes into a Freeway Service Patrol fund that is available for reimbursement by law enforcement agencies. That’s for the entire state. I don’t think I’ve ever said 0.4% is a nice portion of anything.

Registration fees raised for SB1 (see VIN 2017-25 for sliding scale), can only be used for SB1 projects. Any talk of raising fees for the CHP pensions is a SEPARATE fee increase. Again, tax collected funds are not fungible and SB1 funds collected can only be used for transportation projects and services.

If you want a prop that performs and audit on the CHP, Caltrans, or whoever else to trim the fat, that’s totally fine and I would respect that. However, this is money that is literally going straight to our infrastructure and roadways. Prop 6 is not the prop to stick it to the tax man. It’s our chance to build better cities and highways.

Vote No on 6.
Actually taking money allocated for X and using it for something else has definitely been done. In fact, there had to be a vote on it to stop the corrupt politicians from pulling that tactic (I believe it was for money funded for mental health but was redirected to some other special interest project). If it's only .4% on the CHP funding, then I'm happy to stand corrected on that. But I also don't want to pretend like things like that should be brushed by the waist side as the state is spending $50+ billion a year on pensions. Not to mention in 8 years under Brown, state spending has gone up some 53%. All the while bragging about a $9 billion surplus. And the state budget has hit $200 billion! At some point, you do have to draw a line in the sand. How anyone can not look at this and not admit that it's absurd is beyond me. I can't tell you how many times I've heard your comment..."Prop (fill in the blank) is not the prop to stick it to the tax man. So which prop is? The majority of things on the ballot are "borrow, borrow, borrow". And yes, I understand they are bond measures but ultimately that is just money borrowed that taxpayers are paying back with interest. I can't imagine telling my kids to go out and get a bunch of credit cards and just charge up for something, don't worry about it, and you can just pay it back later. There are too many things in this state that apparently everyone can not do without (the classic want vs needs scenario). Roads and infrastructure should have top priority. So it's time to get rid of some of these lower priority items. This isn't Christmas and the taxpayers aren't Santa Claus.

Last edited by JJonesIII; 10-27-2018 at 12:06 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:50 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top