Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-12-2008, 08:20 PM
f_m
 
2,289 posts, read 8,357,378 times
Reputation: 878

Advertisements

What I read was that CA uses about 20 billion gallons a year. What I would think might be doable is to have a tax on premium gas and a much lower tax on regular and diesel. Also, the tax could be varied based on the price of fuel. So if the typical price is over $2 (or some number) then the tax would decrease or go away. At the moment, with the very low prices, it's conceivable that a tax that doesn't cause the price to be much over $2 would perhaps not have too negative a response.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-12-2008, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Fresno
110 posts, read 294,575 times
Reputation: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by f_m View Post
What I read was that CA uses about 20 billion gallons a year. What I would think might be doable is to have a tax on premium gas and a much lower tax on regular and diesel. Also, the tax could be varied based on the price of fuel. So if the typical price is over $2 (or some number) then the tax would decrease or go away. At the moment, with the very low prices, it's conceivable that a tax that doesn't cause the price to be much over $2 would perhaps not have too negative a response.
I think your numbers are a bit off. The entire U.S. consumes around 21 million gallons a day. EIA - Petroleum Basic Data

Taxing premium wouldn't really do much, since it's a relatively small proportion of the market. The idea is to drive down total consumption. I think somewhere between $2.50 and $3.00 would be the point where people take notice, but not freak out.

Taxing diesel is tricky, because it's used primarily in the commercial fleet, and it's already priced significantly higher than petrol. I think a high tax on diesel would inflate the cost of goods and services. It's also not a discretionary expenditure. Those rigs aren't on the road for a Sunday drive.

I think higher fuel costs would really spark innovation in transportation here in California. Who knows, maybe it could supplant Michigan. We've already got Tesla here producing electric cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2008, 10:19 PM
 
11,715 posts, read 40,385,082 times
Reputation: 7585
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghall00 View Post
I think your numbers are a bit off. The entire U.S. consumes around 21 million gallons a day. EIA - Petroleum Basic Data

Taxing premium wouldn't really do much, since it's a relatively small proportion of the market. The idea is to drive down total consumption. I think somewhere between $2.50 and $3.00 would be the point where people take notice, but not freak out.

Taxing diesel is tricky, because it's used primarily in the commercial fleet, and it's already priced significantly higher than petrol. I think a high tax on diesel would inflate the cost of goods and services. It's also not a discretionary expenditure. Those rigs aren't on the road for a Sunday drive.

I think higher fuel costs would really spark innovation in transportation here in California. Who knows, maybe it could supplant Michigan. We've already got Tesla here producing electric cars.
And if you raise the price on diesel enough, truckers will do everything possible to fill up out of state rather than buying any fuel here so the actual tax revenue could go down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2008, 11:29 PM
 
Location: Escondido, CA
1,504 posts, read 6,140,921 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghall00 View Post
I think your numbers are a bit off. The entire U.S. consumes around 21 million gallons a day. EIA - Petroleum Basic Data
21 million barrels a day. 1 barrel ~ 30 gallons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2008, 03:32 PM
f_m
 
2,289 posts, read 8,357,378 times
Reputation: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghall00 View Post
I think your numbers are a bit off. The entire U.S. consumes around 21 million gallons a day. EIA - Petroleum Basic Data
That page say "U.S. Motor Gasoline Consumption 9,286,000 barrels/day (390 million gallons/day)," which ends up to be over 142 billion gallons a year for the US, so 20 billion for CA seems a safe figure.
[LEFT]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghall00 View Post
[/LEFT]
Taxing premium wouldn't really do much, since it's a relatively small proportion of the market. The idea is to drive down total consumption. I think somewhere between $2.50 and $3.00 would be the point where people take notice, but not freak out.
Taxing premium would make people think about buying more fuel efficient vehicles, which are generally either regular unleaded or diesel. The issue with taxing regular is not to impose too much of a burden on low income consumers. Right now it isn't such a bad time, given people were dealing with $3-4 previous, even with a tax, it would be around $2-3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jghall00 View Post
Taxing diesel is tricky, because it's used primarily in the commercial fleet, and it's already priced significantly higher than petrol. I think a high tax on diesel would inflate the cost of goods and services. It's also not a discretionary expenditure. Those rigs aren't on the road for a Sunday drive.
That's why I'd avoid a noticeable tax, if any, on diesel. It would also help get more people to consider the higher MPG vehicles that diesel can provide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jghall00 View Post
I think higher fuel costs would really spark innovation in transportation here in California. Who knows, maybe it could supplant Michigan. We've already got Tesla here producing electric cars.
Well, it would help push things in a certain direction, the public may or may not want to go that way, but in the long run it is probably preferable to move to higher MPG/lower consumption and more revenue for transportation infrastructure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2008, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Fresno
110 posts, read 294,575 times
Reputation: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by f_m View Post
That page say "U.S. Motor Gasoline Consumption 9,286,000 barrels/day (390 million gallons/day)," which ends up to be over 142 billion gallons a year for the US, so 20 billion for CA seems a safe figure.
[LEFT]


Taxing premium would make people think about buying more fuel efficient vehicles, which are generally either regular unleaded or diesel. The issue with taxing regular is not to impose too much of a burden on low income consumers. Right now it isn't such a bad time, given people were dealing with $3-4 previous, even with a tax, it would be around $2-3.



That's why I'd avoid a noticeable tax, if any, on diesel. It would also help get more people to consider the higher MPG vehicles that diesel can provide.



Well, it would help push things in a certain direction, the public may or may not want to go that way, but in the long run it is probably preferable to move to higher MPG/lower consumption and more revenue for transportation infrastructure.
Thanks for correcting me on the consumption. I did misread it as barrels instead of gallons.

Taxing premium would push people towards mid grade and unleaded. Vehicles that only burn premium tend to be luxury and sports cars, whose owners have more cash for gas anyway. I proposed offsetting the extra gas tax with a sales tax cut because the gas tax increase would disproportionately impact lower income people. The sales tax cut would be designed to reduce the burden on them, but still push them towards greater fuel efficiency.

Diesel provides up to 30% increase in fuel efficiency and newer urea injection systems can clean it up pretty good. But, in the short term the main goal is to drive consumers towards greater fuel efficiency. Businesses already try to be fuel efficient because it makes them more competitive. Of course, there's always room for improvement.

In general, people like to complain but won't take steps to change willingly. I think we should tax ourselves before the next energy crisis hits. At least that way the money will stay here and help grow the state economy, instead of building hotels and artificial islands in places like Dubai.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2008, 12:41 AM
 
Location: Montana
58 posts, read 95,473 times
Reputation: 97
How about the state just living within their means? Monies spent on perks alone for our officials has got to be significant. Lets drop some of these absurd social programs, get control of illegals. I am tired of the state attitude, when they need money, no need to adjust spending, just take more from the working stiff. I am second generation raised in California, as is my wife. At this point we can't wait to retire and take up residency in another state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2008, 01:11 PM
f_m
 
2,289 posts, read 8,357,378 times
Reputation: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghall00 View Post
Thanks for correcting me on the consumption. I did misread it as barrels instead of gallons.

Taxing premium would push people towards mid grade and unleaded. Vehicles that only burn premium tend to be luxury and sports cars, whose owners have more cash for gas anyway. I proposed offsetting the extra gas tax with a sales tax cut because the gas tax increase would disproportionately impact lower income people. The sales tax cut would be designed to reduce the burden on them, but still push them towards greater fuel efficiency.
When I said premium, actually I meant all grades above regular unleaded. There should also be a push to greater fuel efficiency, though that's a different topic. The fact the luxury owners have the money means they could afford the tax. I don't see how reducing sales tax really helps lower income people, in that food is not taxed in the first place (in CA at least, and some other states). So the major items lower income people should be buying is food. Most other items are luxury items. Especially items where the amount of sales tax would cause the price to be noticeably higher (fancy TV's, etc...). These kind of items can be bought used avoiding tax.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jghall00 View Post
Diesel provides up to 30% increase in fuel efficiency and newer urea injection systems can clean it up pretty good. But, in the short term the main goal is to drive consumers towards greater fuel efficiency. Businesses already try to be fuel efficient because it makes them more competitive. Of course, there's always room for improvement.

In general, people like to complain but won't take steps to change willingly. I think we should tax ourselves before the next energy crisis hits. At least that way the money will stay here and help grow the state economy, instead of building hotels and artificial islands in places like Dubai.
You mean when people burn more gas than they really need to, but that's part of the society where we can freely choose (whether it's for the better or not).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2008, 04:37 PM
 
566 posts, read 1,936,198 times
Reputation: 335
You guys drive me nuts. We have far too much tax policy already that is aimed at forcing people's behaviors. How about we just leave people alone to make their own choices? Want to fix California's budget deficit? Shrink government. Make it live on less just like we must do.

So far as the CO2 monkey business is concerned anyone who falls for that fraud that should donate their own money to Al's favorite charity (himself) and leave the rest of us alone. Do you know that the most effective way to reduce C02 is to reduce vehicle weight? And that is just what the car manufacturers have been doing. Only one problem - it kills people. For each 100 pounds reduction in vehicle weight the chance of being killed in an accident goes up 5%. Take out 500 pounds and your chances of dying in an accident go up 25%. Estimates are that we are killing 2000 people per year with small cars. But at least it's for a good cause. So those whose heads are filled with C02 can feel good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2008, 07:04 PM
f_m
 
2,289 posts, read 8,357,378 times
Reputation: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobmw View Post
You guys drive me nuts. We have far too much tax policy already that is aimed at forcing people's behaviors. How about we just leave people alone to make their own choices? Want to fix California's budget deficit? Shrink government. Make it live on less just like we must do.

So far as the CO2 monkey business is concerned anyone who falls for that fraud that should donate their own money to Al's favorite charity (himself) and leave the rest of us alone. Do you know that the most effective way to reduce C02 is to reduce vehicle weight? And that is just what the car manufacturers have been doing. Only one problem - it kills people. For each 100 pounds reduction in vehicle weight the chance of being killed in an accident goes up 5%. Take out 500 pounds and your chances of dying in an accident go up 25%. Estimates are that we are killing 2000 people per year with small cars. But at least it's for a good cause. So those whose heads are filled with C02 can feel good.
Well, it's about pollution, not really CO2, given that LA still always looks somewhat brown. The problem, as mentioned, is that property taxes are artificially low, so the state has lower revenue than other states relative to the services required (as pointed out in another thread, someone could be paying less than $1000 property tax for 3 or 4 kids in school, makes it hard to pay for education expenses). However, I agree that less spending is necessary.
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
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:04 PM.

© 2005-2024, 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