To accomplish that, Democrats would impose a new 39-cent fee per gallon of gasoline, adjusted every three years for inflation.

Basically they change the "tax" on gas to a "fee", which they believe counts as a tax cut for constitutional purposes, then raise the general sales tax by a comparable amount.

A 3 percent withholding tax collected by businesses from money paid to independent contractors.

In retrospect, I'm surprised we haven't seen more of this. Massachusetts (or maybe the feds) started requiring more paperwork for payments to contractors 5? years ago so the state could seize money if they wanted some. Now California will just assume if you're getting paid as a contractor you're cheating.

I guess it's easier than just printing the money you need to pay for things like the republicans.

Call it whatever you want. You still don't have to pay it directly if you don't buy gasoline.

Maybe they can borrow the money from China, that seems to work just fine.

A "Boo" to the Golden State Dems.
Constituents aren't ATM's!
The money will level.
But deals with the devil,
The free market ALWAYS condemns.

absoluteparanoia: I guess it's easier than just printing the money you need to pay for things like the republicans.

1) That is a wholly bipartisan scam.

2) States, of which California is one, don't, and constitutionally can't, print money.

7of7: Call it whatever you want. You still don't have to pay it directly if you don't buy gasoline.

And you don't have to pay sales taxes if you never buy anything.

7of7: Call it whatever you want. You still don't have to pay it directly if you don't buy gasoline.

This.

Churchill2004: 7of7: Call it whatever you want. You still don't have to pay it directly if you don't buy gasoline.

And you don't have to pay sales taxes if you never buy anything.

And you don't have to breathe if your dead.

nacker: 7of7: Call it whatever you want. You still don't have to pay it directly if you don't buy gasoline.

This.

Oh be serious. In California (the Bay Area especially, San Diego famously), you more often than not don't have a choice of where you live. Unless you're very well to do, chances are that you have a commute in your day, very likely a longish one. And if you happen to not be on one of the major routes, that means you take a bus to go to a train. So a 10 mile commute will wind up being like 3 hours as you wait for various public transport options to get in sync.

Not everyone can bike it, you know. Not everyone can take the train. Not everyone can decide not to use their car. Not everyone can buy a hybrid. Sure carpools, rideshare, etc work. But saying "If you don't want to pay, don't drive" is nonsensically juvenile and disregards reality for a lot of people.

wee: Not everyone can bike it, you know. Not everyone can take the train. Not everyone can decide not to use their car. Not everyone can buy a hybrid. Sure carpools, rideshare, etc work. But saying "If you don't want to pay, don't drive" is nonsensically juvenile and disregards reality for a lot of people.

Reality for a lot of people is whatever makes their life easier. While there are obviously some who need to drive to work, most could find other ways, they just don't want to.

Sleeping Monkey: Reality for a lot of people is whatever makes their life easier.

No, that's reality for everyone.

Sleeping Monkey: While there are obviously some who need to drive to work, most could find other ways, they just don't want to

Since you seem so eager, how about you take the job of determining which is which?

Well, they don't have many options because the Repubs there refuse to let anything pass and refuse to negotiate. I remember when the Repubs jumped on people who did that, and now they don't seem to do anything but that.

Sleeping Monkey: Reality for a lot of people is whatever makes their life easier. While there are obviously some who need to drive to work, most could find other ways, they just don't want to.

Sure, people could walk across the Dumbarton Bridge to and from work. I'm sure it's perfectly safe. Or they could go around and walk down the 237. Only take them 7-8 hours to get from Oakland to San Mateo.

And those suckers (cops, teachers, firemen, et al.) who are stupid enough to have a job in San Diego but can't afford to live anywhere but Escondido. They can walk as well. What's a paltry 10 hours out of their day walking to and from work? I mean, they don't have to pay that fee-tax if they don't want to, right?

I've lived in both of the above places and have either been in those exact situations or known many people who were. It sucks. It was worse when my company got bought 3 months after I finally bought a house. I hated driving to Riverside from northern San Diego 3 times a week. But I could just quit or something, right? Ride a skateboard up I-5? Hitchhike every morning? Something like that? You know, if I really wanted to?

So again: Be serious. In California there are a lot of people who have to drive, with no other reasonable option.

MaxxLarge: A "Boo" to the Golden State Dems.
Constituents aren't ATM's!
The money will level.
But deals with the devil,
The free market ALWAYS condemns.

This is the same tactic that Republicans in Wisconsin have been doing for the past 10 years or so. Leave the taxes alone, but raise fees. shiat still costs more, but then they can say they've "held the line on taxes" during the next election.

Welcome to Florida

wee: Oh be serious. In California (the Bay Area especially, San Diego famously), you more often than not don't have a choice of where you live.

Umm...you have the choice to not live in the Bay Area or San Diego. I could get a job there, but I'd rather stay here where I can ride the subway and breath (albeit slightly) cleaner air.

pnjunction: wee: Oh be serious. In California (the Bay Area especially, San Diego famously), you more often than not don't have a choice of where you live.

Umm...you have the choice to not live in the Bay Area or San Diego. I could get a job there, but I'd rather stay here where I can ride the subway and breath (albeit slightly) cleaner air.

Churchill2004: Umm...you have the choice to not live in the Bay Area or San Diego. I could get a job there, but I'd rather stay here where I can ride the subway and breath (albeit slightly) cleaner air.

Hey if not wanting to pay through the ass for gas and the privilege of sitting in traffic breathing crappy air makes me smug, so be it.

I'm not claiming to be better than anyone, it's just better for me.

pnjunction: Churchill2004: Umm...you have the choice to not live in the Bay Area or San Diego. I could get a job there, but I'd rather stay here where I can ride the subway and breath (albeit slightly) cleaner air.

Hey if not wanting to pay through the ass for gas and the privilege of sitting in traffic breathing crappy air makes me smug, so be it.

I'm not claiming to be better than anyone, it's just better for me.

Don't be obtuse. Your comment wasn't about your personal preferences, it was about the idea that increased gas taxes are somehow acceptable because "people don't have to drive". Or at least that's what any reasonable person would have assumed in the context of the conversation.

Patriotic show-offs.

Churchill2004: Don't be obtuse. Your comment wasn't about your personal preferences, it was about the idea that increased gas taxes are somehow acceptable because "people don't have to drive". Or at least that's what any reasonable person would have assumed in the context of the conversation.

That's part of it, the opposite side of the argument is that people have "no choice". There are plenty of choices. Why aren't increased gas taxes acceptable? Roads are clogged and expensive, people are having more respiratory problems than ever, and people still have this mindset about having no choice but to fall into the commuter lifestyle. It's a choice like any other that people should pay the full price for, rather than externalizing it (ie. ignoring pollution, paying for roads with other taxes).

pnjunction: It's a choice like any other that people should pay the full price for, rather than externalizing it (ie. ignoring pollution, paying for roads with other taxes).

This is a great theoretical argument for such taxes, but falls fat on its face when it's pointed out that such taxes have never been based on any actual assessment of the externalities supposedly being internalized.

The fact is that these taxes will not come close to matching the huge cost that it would take for most people to avoid them, and thus have the simple de facto effect of an unavoidable tax increase. Pointing out that they could not drive is like claiming that people shouldn't complain about ethanol subsidies since they can emigrate to New Zealand.

Churchill2004: Pointing out that they could not drive is like claiming that people shouldn't complain about ethanol subsidies since they can emigrate to New Zealand.

Hardly. Tons of people live in the US without paying a bunch of gas taxes. Some even go the extra length of buying relatively local produce and such.

I'm against things like ethanol subsidies, nobody gets a choice about paying for that. If anything, gas taxes should pay for those too.

pnjunction: I'm against things like ethanol subsidies, nobody gets a choice about paying for that.

Well except for your stupid move to New Zealand comparison. Moving to a different country is hardly comparable to moving to a different city or making do with a smaller dwelling to be close to work.

pnjunction: making do with a smaller dwelling to be close to work.

You are still failing to understand. Some people do not have a choice but to drive their car in California. FFS, every pizza guy in the state is going to be paying through the nose for this nonsense fee. I was a pizza guy once. They don't make a hell of a lot of money. Thirteen cents a gallon is going to hurt them.

Anyway, I'm done wasting my virtual breath. Roads are evil, cars are evil, people choose to do evil things that hurt Mother Earth. Or something. We should all live in The Netherlands and ride bikes in happy bliss. Got it.

wee: You are still failing to understand. Some people do not have a choice but to drive their car in California. FFS, every pizza guy in the state is going to be paying through the nose for this nonsense fee. I was a pizza guy once. They don't make a hell of a lot of money. Thirteen cents a gallon is going to hurt them.

Anyway, I'm done wasting my virtual breath. Roads are evil, cars are evil, people choose to do evil things that hurt Mother Earth. Or something. We should all live in The Netherlands and ride bikes in happy bliss. Got it.

The "no choice" argument is so lame. For example, people choose to have pizza delivered, the cost can be passed on to them. Everybody else has no choice but to breath all the exhaust fumes and help pay for the roads.

Cars and roads aren't evil, just polluting and expensive. But hey, we've grown dependent on them so they must be the only way to get things done. This type of thinking will get you left behind in the world. When the economy recovers and oil prices really hit the roof, you can whine about it or get with the program.

i hate to break in to the middle of the whole gas tax debate, but the part that really gets me ready to have a stroke is the .75% sales tax increase and the 2.5% across the board personal income tax rate hike.

socalnewwaver: the part that really gets me ready to have a stroke is the .75% sales tax increase and the 2.5% across the board personal income tax rate hike.

Yikes that would bother me much more as well. That will cost most people one or two thousand dollars at least. You'd have to burn tons of gas (close to 150 gallons of gas a week for $1000/year) for the gas fees to add up to anywhere near that much.

It has to come from somewhere asshats. As long as it doesnt come from education cuts and closing even MORE firehouses and sherrifs offices (already happened here in Sack) I'm for it. Maybe next election we can get some decent people in office ... Hmm?

socalnewwaver: i hate to break in to the middle of the whole gas tax debate, but the part that really gets me ready to have a stroke is the .75% sales tax increase and the 2.5% across the board personal income tax rate hike.

As asinine as the (notably regressive) gas tax hike is, those are just down right infuriating. The only thing I can see possibly positive about it as an observer from afar is that it might provoke a backlash in the form of an amendment to California's so-called "constitution". Hell, if y'all can change it to dictate marriage policy or chicken cage sizes, setting some hard limits on tax rates and/or restrictions on tax hikes almost seems like something that's reasonable to amend the constitution for.

Looking at TFA, it appears California already has a constitutional provision requiring a legislative supermajority for tax hikes, and the Democrats are threatening to simply ignore it using stupid semantic games. So on top of the asinine tax hikes, they plan to enact them in a blatantly unconstitutional manner. Any chance of a state court slapping that nonsense down if the Dems do try to pass it on a simple majority?

Ah yes we did get

The CHANGE You can believe in

More Tax's please, no change in your pockets please

That's not really out of the ordinary.

I guess you could try it like the asstards in Virginia and make speeding tickets $2,000. That worked out well.

Ok, so when gas goes up $2/gallon due to futures trading it's the free market and good for the economy but when it drops $2/gallon and the state institutes a $0.39/gallon tax it's the evils of taxation and is going to harm the working man.

Do I have that right?

winterwhile: The CHANGE You can believe in

You know, Obama doesn't have any say in California state taxes...

/oh why am I even bothering
//ignore++

equilibrium: Ok, so when gas goes up $2/gallon due to futures trading it's the free market and good for the economy but when it drops $2/gallon and the state institutes a $0.39/gallon tax it's the evils of taxation and is going to harm the working man.

Do I have that right?

Well duh. Taxes are socialest!

If only there were some way that the PUBLIC could TRANSPORT itself to and from work. Some sort of PUBLIC TRANSPORT, if you will.

I really enjoyed taking the bus when I had that option. But, I took another job and according to Google's public transport directions it would take 7 hours to make the connections needed to get to work. If there was more demand, there would be more service.

This has been happening in every state for a long, LONG time, now. It's what happens when the public won't accept a cut in state services but also won't support progressive taxation measures.

We get back-door flat taxes. And we choke on them.

Churchill2004: This is a great theoretical argument for such taxes, but falls fat on its face when it's pointed out that such taxes have never been based on any actual assessment of the externalities supposedly being internalized.

The fact is that these taxes will not come close to matching the huge cost that it would take for most people to avoid them, and thus have the simple de facto effect of an unavoidable tax increase. Pointing out that they could not drive is like claiming that people shouldn't complain about ethanol subsidies since they can emigrate to New Zealand.

What has really surprised me over the last few weeks is that some people think that taxes somehow magically do no harm. People are not just in denial, many are hostile to the idea.

On the face of it, when a dollar is taxed from someone, a dollar's worth of harm has been done to them, that is a fact. They can always take measures to avoid tax (as if there is a way of avoiding taxes), but like you say that is generally at a large cost, so even then they pay.

It is quite simple. It is beyond dispute. Taxes harm people.

Using tax code to influence behavior is absolutely wrong. If the founding fathers had put a tax code in the constitution, they would have paid specific attention to preventing that.

Whenever legislators can't get around the whole "freedom to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else" thing when making laws, they just implement a tax.

7of7: Call it whatever you want. You still don't have to pay it directly if you don't buy gasoline.

Right -- buy a Prius, or take a bus.

Mr Logo: On the face of it, when a dollar is taxed from someone, a dollar's worth of harm has been done to them, that is a fact. They can always take measures to avoid tax (as if there is a way of avoiding taxes), but like you say that is generally at a large cost, so even then they pay.

You assume that the taxpayer does not receive a one dollar benefit from the work done with that tax dollar. Of course it's going to look bad if you only look at one side of the equation.

It is quite simple. It is beyond dispute. Taxes harm people.

Mr Logo: On the face of it, when a dollar is taxed from someone, a dollar's worth of harm has been done to them, that is a fact.

Freaking McDonald's did $5 worth of harm to me when I went there for lunch yesterday!

I should sue!

Mr Logo: It is quite simple. It is beyond dispute. Taxes harm people.

It is not at all beyond dispute. Why do people of European Indian and East Asian origin have last names? Because they have been paying taxes for the last 600-700 years, and you need last names to have a tax role.

Why is the no consistent system of giving people last names in Africa, the middle East, and Southeast Asia? Because traditionally those societies do not have taxes.

/Actually India is sort of mixed.

oldcub: Using tax code to influence behavior is absolutely wrong.

Taxes fund our military. Our military influences the behavior of our enemies. Therefore, our enemies are influenced indirectly by our tax code.

Most of the taxes that ostensibly influence behavior are put in place of offset the societal cost of those behaviors and lighten the tax burden on taxpayers who do not engage in behaviors that impose additional costs on the public.

Having the minority be able to torpedo the state budget is idiotic.

The reason why the majority is placed in power is to have them make the budget decisions NOT the minority party!

California needs to change the law so that the majority decides the budget not the minority.

Don't these fees hurt the poor more than the rich.

equilibrium: You assume that the taxpayer does not receive a one dollar benefit from the work done with that tax dollar. Of course it's going to look bad if you only look at one side of the equation.

I never mentioned what taxes are used for, because that is not relevant. I was talking about how people think the act of taxation itself does no harm. Perhaps I should have qualified what I said.

Of course, the benefit of the government spending tax dollars does somewhat mitigate the costs of taxation.

GameSprocket: Freaking McDonald's did $5 worth of harm to me when I went there for lunch yesterday!

Of the thousands of places you could have spent that $5, you chose to go to McDonalds, and buy their products. You entered into a mutually agreeable contract with them (I assume they were not holding a gun to your head, nor you to theirs). Then under what grounds can you sue them?

There is a big difference in choosing to buy a Big Mac, and choosing to pay taxes.

ilambiquated: It is not at all beyond dispute. Why do people of European Indian and East Asian origin have last names? Because they have been paying taxes for the last 600-700 years, and you need last names to have a tax role.

Why is the no consistent system of giving people last names in Africa, the middle East, and Southeast Asia? Because traditionally those societies do not have taxes.

/Actually India is sort of mixed.

Unfortunately, I don't see how the historical relationship between tax collection and last names has anything to do with whether taxes are harmful or not.

Corvus: The reason why the majority is placed in power is to have them make the budget decisions NOT the minority party!

California needs to change the law so that the majority decides the budget not the minority.

I think the initial idea was that the people of California didn't want minority parties locked out of taxation and budget decisions.

The problem is that the California Republicans have blocked any attempt to balance the California state budget or even reduce the deficit. The mindless stance against increasing taxation to cover mandated spending is going to result in the bankruptcy of the state that is the sixth largest economy in the world.