CA Gasoline Tax Rising July 1 - Highest Gas Taxes In Nation (Los Angeles: to buy, construction)

[kanhawk]

The gas tax is a regressive tax. The more you raise it, the more it hurts lower income people. The wealthy don't feel this at all. The person who has to drive to work making $10/hr sure feels the highest gas tax in the country more painfully. Public transit riders feel it too because California has the highest diesel taxes in the country too.
http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-g...el-Tax-Map.pdf
Way to stick it to the poor and working class.
And last time I drove hwy 99 it sure didn't seem like the gas tax revenue was getting to it but it sure gave my shocks a workout.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by kanhawk

The gas tax is a regressive tax. The more you raise it, the more it hurts lower income people. The wealthy don't feel this at all. The person who has to drive to work making $10/hr sure feels the highest gas tax in the country more painfully. Public transit riders feel it too because California has the highest diesel taxes in the country too.
http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-g...el-Tax-Map.pdf
Way to stick it to the poor and working class.
And last time I drove hwy 99 it sure didn't seem like the gas tax revenue was getting to it but it sure gave my shocks a workout.

That's what happens when you don't raise the fuel tax for what, 30 years?

Also, gotta love the irony of using the petrolium industry's PR machine in class warfare. Not saying the data's wrong, but consider the source. Also, transit agencies don't ultimately pay for federal fuel taxes. They file a refund quarterly and get all the fuel taxes back from the federal government. Most states also don't charge or refund transit agencies' fuel taxes, although that's on their end. California doesn't.

It's a step in the right direction, but everyone knows revenue-neutral isn't sufficient. We have years of backlogged maintenance to get to. A 2-3 cent increase for the next 20 years is what should happen... but we're still operating under this "it's a regressive tax and we need the rich to subsidize the cost of driving for everyone else" mentality. It's nuts. There's no reason the government should be encouraging people to drive anymore than they already do. Ideally, sales and income taxes would drop slightly to off-set for the fact that they are no longer being porkmarked for roads. Ditto for transit. Removing the porkmarks for transit would reduce the sales tax by .5-1%, combined with another reduction for the general fund revenue that's used to pay for road maintenance since gas taxes are insufficient. On the federal level, they don't even need to raise the gas tax. Just stop plundering the Highway Trust Fund to pay for non-highway expenses. Again, you could see a slight reduction in income tax from the revenue that's no longer required to go into the Highway Trust because gas taxes are porkmarked for non-highway uses. More likely, you could just use that to be fiscally responsible and close the gap in the deficit.

[kanhawk]

It's real easy to find other sources if you don't like that one

State motor fuel taxes, gasoline taxes and diesel taxes

Fuel taxes in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are minor differences, but they all say the same thing. California is number one in high gas/fuel taxes. Meanwhile the good liberals in Hollywood go scrambling to Canada or North Carolina or wherever to film because they don't want to pay the cost of making movies in California and want to blame it on the technical crews making $50k per year instead of the stars making $20 million per film, further eroding the tax base.
So the lower half of the economic spectrum gets dumped on with even higher gas taxes.

[Crossfire600]

Originally Posted by zdg

You're comparing an additional $2.19 a month in gas tax to legalized theft?

Did you ever hear the analogy about putting a frog in warm water and slowly turning up the heat?

[zdg]

Originally Posted by Crossfire600

Did you ever hear the analogy about putting a frog in warm water and slowly turning up the heat?

Yes, and as cute as it is to dumb this down for the Fear and Faith people, this analogy is irrelevant since the boiling point of the water (or the frog) is not ALSO increasing over time with the amount of heat being applied.

This can't possibly be news to everyone here that the price of things generally goes up over time, is it?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by zdg

Yes, and as cute as it is to dumb this down for the Fear and Faith people this analogy is irrelevant since the boiling point of the water (or the frog) is not ALSO increasing over time with the amount of heat being applied.

This can't possibly be news to everyone here that the price of things generally goes up over time, is it?

Please 'splain who the "Fear and Faith people" are. I can only suppose they're those who: 1) don't agree with you; 2) fall victim to the belief that if the elitists want whatever it is, then obviously no one should be allowed to not have it; 3) have a moral code they live by and are concerned about the direction the state/country is heading, unlike the moneyed elitists; and, 4) are relatively voiceless in the face of those with more means.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Please 'splain who the "Fear and Faith people" are. I can only suppose they're those who: 1) don't agree with you; 2) fall victim to the belief that if the elitists want whatever it is, then obviously no one should be allowed to not have it; 3) have a moral code they live by and are concerned about the direction the state/country is heading, unlike the moneyed elitists; and, 4) are relatively voiceless in the face of those with more means.

Aah, he may just be a simple minded person with no ideas of his own about how the costs are higher in CA than other States when it comes to Gas. In effect the boiling point for the water hasn't changed, it has just gotten closer to it in CA than other States. Poor froggy.

[USDefault]

Originally Posted by zdg

This can't possibly be news to everyone here that the price of things generally goes up over time, is it?

Wrong.

In terms of time and labor, the "price" of a great many things have come down. On the continuum, today it is much cheaper to feed oneself and your family than it has been at any other time in history. Fossil fuels + fertilizer + industrialization = incredibly cheap food.

Same is true for some forms of energy, especially electricity, though oil has risen given rising global populations.

Electronics and computing: a major driver of global economies, the "price" has dropped mightily in the last 30 years. Just one example: the Apollo 11 guidance computer, which landed men on the moon and back, cost $24 billion and weighed 70 lbs. An iPhone, which fits in the palm of your hand, is orders of magnitude cheaper, lighter, and more powerful than all the Apollo mission computers combined. Same is true of many many products like refrigerators, microwaves, lighting, and we could go on and on.

Finally, this point still has nothing at all to do with this stupid tax. This poster continues to post irrelevant drivel, even though we have now shown driving is going down, yet gas taxes are going up, a complete break from basic economic forces, and a break from rational thought. Five pages in, still no cogent defense of this stupidity. Heck, not even a valid argument defending it.

[Curmudgeon]

Wha9t I find absurd is that this tax, and especially the reasoning (and I'm being kind there) behind it is the absolute antithesis of the expressed quest to lower gasoline usage through the development of better and more efficient engines, the promotion of fossil fuel alternatives, increased use of mass transportation, walking and bicycle riding, expanded use of telecommuting as well as variable work schedules to cut down on traffic tie-ups reducing idling times and permitting increased mileage due to optimal speeds, etc.

What they're saying in effect is, "Do what we've been asking you to do for decades and your reward will be price-point status quo through increased taxes to punish you for your compliance." Talk about a disincentive and "no win" feeling!

Something I've been saying for years after spending 20 of them working with the Legislature is that California politicians (almost all politicians everywhere of every stripe for that matter) have yet to see a penny of the people's money they didn't want and couldn't spend.

[DynamoLA]

Originally Posted by USDefault

Wrong.

In terms of time and labor, the "price" of a great many things have come down. On the continuum, today it is much cheaper to feed oneself and your family than it has been at any other time in history. Fossil fuels + fertilizer + industrialization = incredibly cheap food.

Same is true for some forms of energy, especially electricity, though oil has risen given rising global populations.

Electronics and computing: a major driver of global economies, the "price" has dropped mightily in the last 30 years. Just one example: the Apollo 11 guidance computer, which landed men on the moon and back, cost $24 billion and weighed 70 lbs. An iPhone, which fits in the palm of your hand, is orders of magnitude cheaper, lighter, and more powerful than all the Apollo mission computers combined. Same is true of many many products like refrigerators, microwaves, lighting, and we could go on and on.

Finally, this point still has nothing at all to do with this stupid tax. This poster continues to post irrelevant drivel, even though we have now shown driving is going down, yet gas taxes are going up, a complete break from basic economic forces, and a break from rational thought. Five pages in, still no cogent defense of this stupidity. Heck, not even a valid argument defending it.

Older roads need more (and more expensive) maintenance. Your whole "people are driving less so that means less maintenance" theory does not take into account the fact that the infrastructure is aging. Does that answer the question?

And if fewer people are driving, and driving fewer miles, how does it explain traffic that seemingly continues to get WORSE?

Study: Yes, L.A. has the worst traffic in the country -- again - Los Angeles Times

"To top it all off, traffic isn't likely to improve, the study says. In the first part of 2013, congestion increased 6% over the previous year. Nationally, traffic also increased after a two-year decline."