Get Ready For A NEW Annual Vehicle Fee, Higher Gas Taxes, Higher Diesel Taxes, EV Fees -- Fee-Palooza (layoffs, income)

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by BizrulesSD

I'll preface this with i think CA is terrible when it comes to taxes and overall policy. I've contemplated moving several times but can't pull the trigger for family reasons.

In regards to the tax:
Do people realize that the effective gas tax has gone down as cars have become more fuel efficient? Even worse with electric vehicles where they pay no gas tax which is intended to pay for the roads that they drive on. Again, I am very much against taxes but a gas tax to pay for roads is not the worst one.

Yes but that is 100% on the government for mandating CAFE standards...

It is like the water company raising rates because customers are FORCED by law to conserve with the ultimate threat of discontinuation of service.

I wish someone would be able to explain how the "Value" vehicle tax is calculated...

At one time I kept 23 cars licensed and insured... 21 are collector cars seldom or never driven...

As the cost of DMV fees increased I paid for NON-OP fees... the State now gets much less from me than it did when the fees were lower.

As for electrics... we all pay utility taxes if power comes from the grid... so the electricity is not fee... here again the State provided incentives for electrics and now says they are not paying for roads.

The only thing I take from this is no matter what the population does they always loose...

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by expatCA

This is true. However CA has been taking the tax money for such, that goes in the General fund and spending it on other things. If they stopped that, no increase would be needed. World's 6th largest economy, most populous State and they can't handle their money right.

Was there ever a dedicated account for pension funds? If not, there should have been imo.

[CAHntr]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Was there ever a dedicated account for pension funds? If not, there should have been imo.

That would be very easy to create in name but the pols of all parties don't like losing control of their slush funds. Ask a teacher how well CA lottery funds are helping schools and you get the idea--not so well.

It's that control part of the pension plan that screws things up. You probably already know this but others may not.

Employees in CalPERS pay either 7% or 9% of their basic salary as their share of the pension cost. The state, county or city (employer) pays the rest of the cost, depending upon how well CalPERS is doing with their investments. That employer share has ranged from 0% in good investment years to almost 40% in bad investment years. In good years, the employers don't pay anything while employees pay their regular share. Unwisely, employers typically don't save a rainy day fund or at least not enough of one.

Statutorily, CalPERS is allowed to raise their rates (think employers' share) whenever they need to do so due to bad investments. With that little gem, CA state, the counties and cities are permanently on the hook for future for retirees when they shouldn't have to be. And they wouldn't have to be if the legislature stopped trying to keep a variable slush fund with that variable rate for pension payments.

A much better way would have been to legislate that CalPERS forecasts for 50-100 years into the future and determines a set rate to charge employers. Maybe bump up the employee rate also (I believe CHP is or was paying 10%). Allow the rates to be legislatively changed every 5 or 10 years if the legislature and the governor deem it necessary but none of this bailout stuff or "rate vacations" (think 0% for employers) when the market is going strong. The true cost is what is charged and if that's too expensive, then hire less employees, just like any private business.

It pensions were done this way instead, they wouldn't be some ticking potential financial time bomb nor would they even merit much of a conversation.

Now as to forcing the legislature to stick to a budget and spend tax monies on the items they were raised (read taxed) for, that is a different animal that will never be tamed as long as people think of politics like sports teams. People don't really care (or even think about) what their team spends on players as long as their team wins. It's not really their money so they don't consider it. In government, it is our money and many people don't think about or get concerned at how the legislature spends it. f more people were concerned, I think a lot of wasteful politicians would be out of a job.

[Ultrarunner]

^^^ My friends are retired Law Enforcement under CalPers and the city picked up both sides of the contribution... is this not the case for other government employees?

[NextStage]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

^^^ My friends are retired Law Enforcement under CalPers and the city picked up both sides of the contribution... is this not the case for other government employees?

No. There are a few different CALPERS catagories and classifications within catagories. I believe the contribution rates can differ. So can the retirement pay calculation.

This is a good link that helps explain a bit. It is NOT a simple process.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/empl...ement-benefits

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

^^^ My friends are retired Law Enforcement under CalPers and the city picked up both sides of the contribution... is this not the case for other government employees?

No. There are different government employee pension plans in the state. I am retired under the County Employees' Retirement Law of 1937. It's not nearly as lucrative as CalPERS. Before the recession, a retiree could receive a stipend (based on their years of service) in which they could receive anywhere between $100 and $300 a month to cover health insurance costs. That stipend was taken away when the economy tanked. We never got it back. Poo

[jnojr]

Originally Posted by BizrulesSD

Do people realize that the effective gas tax has gone down as cars have become more fuel efficient? Even worse with electric vehicles where they pay no gas tax which is intended to pay for the roads that they drive on. Again, I am very much against taxes but a gas tax to pay for roads is not the worst one.

Gas taxes do not go to roads. If they did, we'd have the best roads in the nation. Gas taxes go to the general fund to be spent on unions, pensions, pork, special interests, illegal aliens, etc. Why do you suppose every election has several bond measures bleating for money for roads, water, schools, police, firefighters, etc? Why aren't those things funded first? Answer: Because then there would be no way to raise money for unions, pensions, pork, special interests, illegal aliens, etc.

No on all tax increases, bonds, and spending measures.

[V8 Vega]

Do you realise this is 52 billion of your money going down the bottomless black hole of government? They ramroded this through in one week, they have till Thursday.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

^^^ My friends are retired Law Enforcement under CalPers and the city picked up both sides of the contribution... is this not the case for other government employees?

No, it has never been common for California public sector employees and it is no longer the case for public safety. All agencies are requiring that the employee make substantial contributions toward their retirement and PEPRA legislated changes to retirement formulas for employees hired after 2013

[Ultrarunner]

Most of my friends are retired from Oakland PD...

Some still have the very old system where their current retirement is tied to their rank at retirement... not uncommon for someone with longevity to have a retirement 2 to 3 times their pay the year they retired...

When the switch came to CalPers the city picked up both sides... but these guys all retired 2012 or before.