CA Gasoline Tax Rising July 1 - Highest Gas Taxes In Nation (Sacramento: how much, neighborhoods)

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

Examples?

It takes gas to move product. It will now be more expensive to move product, therefor the price of the product will go up.

[JGC97]

The USDA predicts prices to rise with the normal inflationary factors. A rise in food prices was due more to the drought suffered by the Midwest than gasoline prices. It's here if you want to read it:

USDA ERS - Food Price Outlook: Summary Findings

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

It takes gas to move product. It will now be more expensive to move product, therefor the price of the product will go up.

But the overwhelming majority percentage of product is moved by diesel, not regular unleaded.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

But the overwhelming majority percentage of product is moved by diesel, not regular unleaded.

This is from the last sentence of the article

The sales tax on a gallon of diesel will increase by 1.94 percent

[Fontucky]

Please reread Fargobound's post that generated my question. He wasn't referring to that minuscule drop in the bucket increase, and neither were you, I suspect.

[USDefault]

All of these questions are stupid. Just plain stupid. If your input costs go up (raw materials, energy, transportation), end product prices rise. This is basic supply-demand, cause-effect principles in action. If you are so damn interested in the relationship between energy prices and COGS, then go pull some white papers, read some economic treatises, or even pull the legislative analyses concerning the energy tax bills, which are chock full of research. Do your own work.

All of this is besides the point. The fact remains, this is legalized theft. Use less gasoline, yet pay more in gas tax. And pay forever, given the way California has structured this tax. If gasoline use drops even more, get ready, because here comes higher and higher taxes.

I say again, for the third time, this bastardizes the supply-demand curve. People are using less of a product, yet the thieves in California are forcing a price increase vis-a-vis higher taxes. This means the wallet theft "revenue stream" is devoid of market forces or any economic principle.

Thus this tax (read: thievery) will continue to steal ever more dollars from families and workers, even when their gasoline use decreases. It's wrong, and it's disgusting.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by USDefault

All of these questions are stupid. Just plain stupid. If your input costs go up (raw materials, energy, transportation), end product prices rise. This is basic supply-demand, cause-effect principles in action. If you are so damn interested in the relationship between energy prices and COGS, then go pull some white papers, read some economic treatises, or even pull the legislative analyses concerning the energy tax bills, which are chock full of research. Do your own work.

All of this is besides the point. The fact remains, this is legalized theft. Use less gasoline, yet pay more in gas tax. And pay forever, given the way California has structured this tax. If gasoline use drops even more, get ready, because here comes higher and higher taxes.

I say again, for the third time, this bastardizes the supply-demand curve. People are using less of a product, yet the thieves in California are forcing a price increase vis-a-vis higher taxes. This means the wallet theft "revenue stream" is devoid of market forces or any economic principle.

Thus this tax (read: thievery) will continue to steal ever more dollars from families and workers, even when their gasoline use decreases. It's wrong, and it's disgusting.

Agree. Taxes go up, demand goes down, revenue drops, to increase revenue taxes go up again, demand further falls, revenue further drops, to increase revenue taxes to up again...

[zdg]

Please provide examples of a major country (one with at least as many people as California; that gives you 33 countries to work with) that has increased quality of life for its citizens by lowering expenses and revenues (as opposed to increasing expenses and revenues).

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by USDefault

All of these questions are stupid. Just plain stupid. If your input costs go up (raw materials, energy, transportation), end product prices rise. This is basic supply-demand, cause-effect principles in action. If you are so damn interested in the relationship between energy prices and COGS, then go pull some white papers, read some economic treatises, or even pull the legislative analyses concerning the energy tax bills, which are chock full of research. Do your own work.

All of this is besides the point. The fact remains, this is legalized theft. Use less gasoline, yet pay more in gas tax. And pay forever, given the way California has structured this tax. If gasoline use drops even more, get ready, because here comes higher and higher taxes.

I say again, for the third time, this bastardizes the supply-demand curve. People are using less of a product, yet the thieves in California are forcing a price increase vis-a-vis higher taxes. This means the wallet theft "revenue stream" is devoid of market forces or any economic principle.

Thus this tax (read: thievery) will continue to steal ever more dollars from families and workers, even when their gasoline use decreases. It's wrong, and it's disgusting.

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Agree. Taxes go up, demand goes down, revenue drops, to increase revenue taxes go up again, demand further falls, revenue further drops, to increase revenue taxes to up again...

You both fail (entirely) to grasp zdg's critical point: less use of fuel and roads doesn't change the requirement for maintaining the infrastructure. Would you like to live without the highways and roads, their maintenance, etc?

Originally Posted by zdg

Please provide proof that the decrease in gasoline has lead to lower expenses in the state's transportation department. I'm not saying it isn't the case, I'd like to see proof.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

You both fail (entirely) to grasp zdg's critical point: less use of fuel and roads doesn't change the requirement for maintaining the infrastructure. Would you like to live without the highways and roads, their maintenance, etc?

Actually less use of roads does require less in the cost of maintence. Though roads do degrade by time as well as use.

They could lower the tax rate on fuel, increase production thus lower the price of gas, then I would drive my gto (15mpg) much more often, thus paying more taxes, instead of currently driving my tdi passat (40mpg). Problem solved.

What should be taxed at a higher rate is electricity for electric cars, since they are not paying their fair share for the roads since they do not buy any gas. The same could also be said for CNG vehicles and bicycles since neither pay the gas tax and use the same roads. But that doesn't fit the agenda.

I'm fine with encouraging automakers to increase mpg in new vehicles, but don't punish me for it.