California Proposes Tax On Driving

[afty]

These laws have been proposed in other states.  The concern is that as cars become more fuel efficient, the revenue from gas taxes will decrease.  And plug-in hybrids and full electric cars won't contribute at all.  What I don't get is why they need to track us via GPS.  Why can't they just do an odometer check?

[MX793]

These laws have been proposed in other states.  The concern is that as cars become more fuel efficient, the revenue from gas taxes will decrease.  And plug-in hybrids and full electric cars won't contribute at all.  What I don't get is why they need to track us via GPS.  Why can't they just do an odometer check?

Odometer check definitely wouldn't work.  How would they know how many miles you drove in your home state?  Someone who lives on the border of 2 states might spend half their time driving outside of their home state.  Should they be paying mileage taxes to a state they aren't even driving in?

[dazzleman]

They're pretty fucked up there, that's for sure.

x1000

[dazzleman]

I just don't understand the way California thinks.

California has 1/3 of the welfare recipients in the country.  All those dead-weight welfare queens are a major expense.  They're like a junkee who keeps looking for the next fix, rather than dealing with his drug addiction.

[dazzleman]

This would never pass, but if it does, it would be enough to get me to move out. An unrelated discussion on city-data made me realize that trying to make a decent living here is becoming more futile as the days go by. Apparently, the biggest thing CA has going for it is that delusional midwesterners still come here to chase pipe dreams.

As for this GPS track-and-tax scheme, yeah, it's only in the concept stage, but it's disturbing enough that some politician is seriously thinking about it. Bad enough that they're wanting to waste our money doing a 20-year study on this shit.

California really is nuts.  It's so bad that it makes Connecticut government look good.  And that's not easy.

[TurboDan]

California has 1/3 of the welfare recipients in the country.  All those dead-weight welfare queens are a major expense.  They're like a junkee who keeps looking for the next fix, rather than dealing with his drug addiction.

Yet their average property tax rates are lower than New Jersey. Even California wasn't stupid enough to choose people to serve on the state Supreme Court to blow 60% of the entire state budget on 31 failing school districts out of 590 total.

[Northlands]

Not the first time something like this has been suggested.  IMO, raising the state fuel taxes are a far more practical means of raising more funds for highway maintenance.  That also, by default, tends to increase the taxes on those who drive more (drive more miles, use more fuel, pay more taxes).  It also means that those in heavy vehicles which cause the most wear and tear on the roadways (and also conveniently generally get the worst fuel economy) will pay more to cover the added w&t they do to the roads per mile.  And hey, that way there's no invasion of privacy, no extra equipment to be placed in peoples' cars, no simple ways to cheat the system (short of blatant theft)....

You nailed it.


Not that I like these taxes ( we have them here. ). It just makes way more sense than tracking mileage. I thought this was the whole point of forcing automakers into having a better overall fleet MPG average.

[Northlands]

These laws have been proposed in other states.  The concern is that as cars become more fuel efficient, the revenue from gas taxes will decrease.  And plug-in hybrids and full electric cars won't contribute at all.  What I don't get is why they need to track us via GPS.  Why can't they just do an odometer check?

This is the whole beautiful irony of it all. Everyone wanted cars to be more fuel efficient, and now they are. So now the amount of money being taken in has dropped. Gov't told us that we benefit from cars with good mileage in the sense that we won't pay as much in tax as the higher mileage vehicles do.

So now people have bought in, and they just realized this now? 

[dazzleman]

Yet their average property tax rates are lower than New Jersey. Even California wasn't stupid enough to choose people to serve on the state Supreme Court to blow 60% of the entire state budget on 31 failing school districts out of 590 total.

Yes, the fallacy of the idea that more money can solve every education problem.  New Jersey just should have ignored the Supreme Court ruling, as New York did with a similar ruling, and as Connecticut did with the Sheff vs. O'Neill decision on segregation.

I'm sure Kalifornia more than makes up for lower property taxes in other ways.  I think their state income tax rate tops out at something like 11%, which is astronomical.  And Moonbeam wants to push it higher.

[dazzleman]

Not the first time something like this has been suggested.  IMO, raising the state fuel taxes are a far more practical means of raising more funds for highway maintenance.  That also, by default, tends to increase the taxes on those who drive more (drive more miles, use more fuel, pay more taxes).  It also means that those in heavy vehicles which cause the most wear and tear on the roadways (and also conveniently generally get the worst fuel economy) will pay more to cover the added w&t they do to the roads per mile.  And hey, that way there's no invasion of privacy, no extra equipment to be placed in peoples' cars, no simple ways to cheat the system (short of blatant theft)....

Don't you see -- they intend to have fuel taxes (and probably increase them) IN ADDITION to this new tax.  That's the way out of control government works.  It's so much more important to satisfy the unions and welfare cows than look after the taxpayers.

[TurboDan]

New Jersey just should have ignored the Supreme Court ruling, as New York did with a

The problem is that the narrow Democrat majority in the legislature wants it, since the money goes to all of the areas they represent. For a few years, the Republicans held the governor's office and both houses of the legislature, but the liberal NJ Repubs didn't do anything. Actually, they made it worse. 

[cawimmer430]

And you love taxes, if you didn't you wouldn't suggest utilizing them to get people to do what you want them to (i.e. not drive big cars)

The high automotive taxes on engine cc and fuel are there to DISCOURAGE people from driving fuel-inefficient cars. There's nothing there to hold someone back from doing so if they can afford it. Do you really think someone who buys a Dodge Ram 5.7 HEMI V8 Pickup or Lamborghini Gallardo in Europe gives a damn about paying a few thousand Euros extra a year? Hardly.

[TurboDan]

The high automotive taxes on engine cc and fuel are there to DISCOURAGE people from driving fuel-inefficient cars. There's nothing there to hold someone back from doing so if they can afford it. Do you really think someone who buys a Dodge Ram 5.7 HEMI V8 Pickup or Lamborghini Gallardo in Europe gives a damn about paying a few thousand Euros extra a year? Hardly.

So only the rich should be able to buy the vehicles they really want. Got it. And Europe is supposed to be "progressive?" LOL.

[cawimmer430]

So only the rich should be able to buy the vehicles they really want. Got it. And Europe is supposed to be "progressive?" LOL.

What is so "progressive" about a 350-hp V8 gasoline pickup or SUV that gets piss poor fuel economy when a diesel motor would be better suited to it in the first place?

The fact that there are so few economical engine choices for exactly those types of cars is "progressive"?


In Europe people are free to buy what they want. You want a 9 mpg Bentley? Eat your heart out. Want to impress the ladies with a Hummer H2? Go ahead. People are free to buy what they want as long as they can afford it. The automotive taxes aren't that bad in the big picture. Fuel is expensive and a thirsty car means high fuel costs. Some people can't afford that, some can.

We all have dream cars but in the real world dreams don't often come true.

[MrH]

You can buy any car you want...as long as you can afford it...which is largely driven by the taxes your government imposes.

Your market is artificially manipulated so much by your government, that "what you can afford" is now "what the federal government decides you should buy".

[2o6]

What is so "progressive" about a 350-hp V8 gasoline pickup or SUV that gets piss poor fuel economy when a diesel motor would be better suited to it in the first place?

The fact that there are so few economical engine choices for exactly those types of cars is "progressive"?


In Europe people are free to buy what they want. You want a 9 mpg Bentley? Eat your heart out. Want to impress the ladies with a Hummer H2? Go ahead. People are free to buy what they want as long as they can afford it. The automotive taxes aren't that bad in the big picture. Fuel is expensive and a thirsty car means high fuel costs. Some people can't afford that, some can.

We all have dream cars but in the real world dreams don't often come true.

Wimmer, some of the engine choices you guys get are purely for tax reasons. In real life, a 1.2L Fiesta will get WORSE economy than a 1.4 or 1.6L model.....

[SVT666]

What is so "progressive" about a 350-hp V8 gasoline pickup or SUV that gets piss poor fuel economy when a diesel motor would be better suited to it in the first place?

The fact that there are so few economical engine choices for exactly those types of cars is "progressive"?


In Europe people are free to buy what they want. You want a 9 mpg Bentley? Eat your heart out. Want to impress the ladies with a Hummer H2? Go ahead. People are free to buy what they want as long as they can afford it. The automotive taxes aren't that bad in the big picture. Fuel is expensive and a thirsty car means high fuel costs. Some people can't afford that, some can.

We all have dream cars but in the real world dreams don't often come true.

You don't understand free choice and that's okay.

[cawimmer430]

You guys are telling me that in America some guy on wellfare can drive his dream car because gas is cheap and there are no automotive taxes? Come on...

The government discourages wasteful usage of fossil fuels through taxation. The idea is that if you can afford to drive a gas-guzzling car then you certainly can afford to pay the "penalties" for polluting etc. Many people here are conscious about the environment and will also willingly drive something efficient because it consumes less fuel and because it's all they need: a car to get from A to B in a cheap and efficient manor.

Once again, there are tons of people here with money and they buy what they want. Just like in the US. The average European has their dream car just like the average American - and in both cases they most likely can't afford it. The price of gas or automotive taxation has little to do with it in the big picture. The car is simply out of their league in terms of price.

[Vinsanity]

You guys are telling me that in America some guy on wellfare can drive his dream car because gas is cheap and there are no automotive taxes? Come on...

No, but there are already plenty of people on welfare driving your dream cars.
(and by cars, I mean old Detroit junkers)

[cawimmer430]

No, but there are already plenty of people on welfare driving your dream cars.
(and by cars, I mean old Detroit junkers)

Lucky bastards. There is nothing cooler than cruising the streets of Detroit in a Dodge St. Regis or 1980s Chevrolet Caprice Classic. It's like watching an '80s cop movie. Nice. 

[TurboDan]

You guys are telling me that in America some guy on wellfare can drive his dream car because gas is cheap and there are no automotive taxes? Come on...

Well, no, because someone on welfare probably couldn't afford the price of the car to begin with.

The government discourages wasteful usage of fossil fuels through taxation.

Why does the government get to decide what's "wasteful?" And even if I do "waste" something, who are they to tell me I shouldn't?

The idea is that if you can afford to drive a gas-guzzling car then you certainly can afford to pay the "penalties" for polluting etc.

Your average SUV is not "polluting" anything. If the German government cared about pollution, they'd be cracking down on imports from China that are built in huge factories that pollute exponentially more than some guy driving a Ford Explorer. But they don't care about pollution. "Pollution" is the excuse that they've used in order to enrich themselves, their cronies and invest in their pet social projects. It's a shame so many people fall for this not-so-clever joke.

Many people here are conscious about the environment and will also willingly drive something efficient because it consumes less fuel and because it's all they need: a car to get from A to B in a cheap and efficient manor.

That's fine. But is that what government should be doing? Relegating people to something because "it's all they need?" Who are you? Karl Marx?

Once again, there are tons of people here with money and they buy what they want. Just like in the US. The average European has their dream car just like the average American - and in both cases they most likely can't afford it. The price of gas or automotive taxation has little to do with it in the big picture. The car is simply out of their league in terms of price.

No, the car is not out of their league. The taxes are out of their league. Big difference. Price is set by the marketplace. Taxes are used by the government to socially engineer the masses to do what a few elite politicians think they "should" do. And last I heard, all of these sky-high European tax schemes weren't exactly creating much in the way of economic stability. Does anyone in Europe ask WHERE all of this absurd tax revenue is going?

[cawimmer430]

Why does the government get to decide what's "wasteful?" And even if I do "waste" something, who are they to tell me I shouldn't?

The European governments are all about the environment and energy efficiency and effectiveness. Hence the high fuel prices to discourage the sales of inefficient cars en masse and to encourage the purchasing of efficient cars. Those that don't want to are FREE to buy the gas-guzzler they want. They just have to pay more for gas in the long term. It's that simple.

Most people I know also want an efficient car not because it's cheaper to run but also because it's easier to live with and more comfortable to drive (less stops for gas on long trips for example). Most people also buy a car they see fit for their daily needs. Someone who lives and works in the city and needs a car will most likely buy something small like a Volkswagen Polo with a small engine and not a Porsche Cayenne Turbo just because he can afford it. People are SENSIBLE here with their car purchases out of conviction and also because fuel is expensive.

No, the car is not out of their league. The taxes are out of their league. Big difference. Price is set by the marketplace. Taxes are used by the government to socially engineer the masses to do what a few elite politicians think they "should" do. 

And people on average make more money here than the average American does in America. Life in Europe is expensive, but people are paid accordingly well so that they can live a decent life.

The taxes we pay go to improving many things in the country which we civilians see. Well-paid police forces, good roads, excellent health care etc. We put up with taxes because of that and also because the living standards here are much better than elsewhere in the world. Elsewhere you pay either high taxes and life in a crime-infested country or you pay close to no taxes and live in a crime-infested country. Reminds me of my time in the Philippines. Low tax rate, crazy crime rates, corrupt politicians and cops, lots of pollution, shitty quality roads. You name it. If you want to live there because, hey, taxes are cheap, be my guest.

Sure, when we have to financially bailout fuck-ups like Spain, Greece or Ireland that annoys us, but it would also improve the overall stability of the Eurozone (and ultimately our own country) so we put up with it.

Your average SUV is not "polluting" anything. If the German government cared about pollution, they'd be cracking down on imports from China that are built in huge factories that pollute exponentially more than some guy driving a Ford Explorer. But they don't care about pollution. "Pollution" is the excuse that they've used in order to enrich themselves, their cronies and invest in their pet social projects. It's a shame so many people fall for this not-so-clever joke.

And last I heard, all of these sky-high European tax schemes weren't exactly creating much in the way of economic stability.

Does anyone in Europe ask WHERE all of this absurd tax revenue is going?

Watch this beginning at 1:00...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpAxVgC5mI8

[AltinD]

And last I heard, all of these sky-high European tax schemes weren't exactly creating much in the way of economic stability. Does anyone in Europe ask WHERE all of this absurd tax revenue is going?

Germany is quite stable ... to say the least. Those failed states are exactly the same ones that also failed to collect those taxes.

FOr example in Greece, there were more Porsches registered, then people declaring at least 50,000 EUR income per year. SImilarily in Italy: There were people with Ferraris that declared as low as 30,000 EUR incomes per year. Spain is also a country with huge informal economy.

[SVT666]

People are SENSIBLE here with their car purchases out of conviction and also because fuel is expensive.

Sanctimonious bullshit.  If fuel and taxes were at North American levels, you would all be driving the same cars we are.

[Raza]

Sanctimonious bullshit.  If fuel and taxes were at North American levels, you would all be driving the same cars we are.

Maybe not as big.  Their roads aren't as wide as ours, remember. 

[Eye of the Tiger]

Maybe not as big.  Their roads aren't as wide as ours, remember. 

Double decker SUV's.

[Raza]

Double decker SUV's.

New market segment!  Welcome to the double decker coupe SUV, the BMW X6^2.

[CALL_911]

New market segment!  Welcome to the double decker coupe SUV, the BMW X6^2.

I call it the BMW X36.

[280Z Turbo]

European cars were small in the 50's and 60's too. And gas was really cheap back then.

[SVT666]

Maybe not as big.  Their roads aren't as wide as ours, remember. 

And yet, those with money still drive big cars.