Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   A member of the California Board of Equalization is seeking an author to his bill that would limit sales tax on gasoline to the first $4 per gallon   (scvnews.com) divider line 55
    More: Hero, Board of Equalization, California Board of Equalization, George Runner, California, sales taxes, JC Cloney, gasoline taxes, excise taxes  
•       •       •

803 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2012 at 9:38 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-20 03:59:38 AM  
Im all for lower taxes that make sense, but this one fails. This would result in minimal savings to citizens and massive savings to business, but would strip our state of transportation funds at a time when we cannot afford it.

The premise is also disingenuous, as most of the state does not have pretax gas over 4$. The gas station I manage during my night job has a final sale price as of this post of 4.339 for 87 grade. Pretax, the cost is 3.481. In order for anyone to save money on gas, the list price would have to be over 5$.

I am all for responsible taxes and budgets that make it easier for people to live in this lousy excuse for a state, but I can't support this proposal.
 
2012-03-20 04:23:41 AM  
This is stupid. The state is *also* paying for gas to run people around to do the things they need to do, many of which we need them to do. And while I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea that maybe we should cut out some of the administration-level salaries in education, at the moment capping current revenues isn't going to do that. It's just going to invite further cuts.
 
2012-03-20 04:40:07 AM  
Maybe if we gave up CARB and solely used the federal emissions standards, we'd get cheaper gas. From Wiki (new window):

Most California motorists are required to use a special motor gasoline blend called California Clean Burning Gasoline (CA CBG).[citation needed] By 2004, California completed a transition from methyl tertiary butyl-ether (MTBE) to ethanol as a gasoline oxygenate additive, making California the largest ethanol fuel market in the United States.[citation needed] There are four ethanol production plants in central and southern California, but most of California's ethanol supply is transported from other states or abroad.

/honestly, the US should be paying the real cost of gasoline so we get off the damn stuff.
 
2012-03-20 04:56:44 AM  

themindiswatching: Maybe if we gave up CARB and solely used the federal emissions standards, we'd get cheaper gas. From Wiki (new window):

Most California motorists are required to use a special motor gasoline blend called California Clean Burning Gasoline (CA CBG).[citation needed] By 2004, California completed a transition from methyl tertiary butyl-ether (MTBE) to ethanol as a gasoline oxygenate additive, making California the largest ethanol fuel market in the United States.[citation needed] There are four ethanol production plants in central and southern California, but most of California's ethanol supply is transported from other states or abroad.

/honestly, the US should be paying the real cost of gasoline so we get off the damn stuff.


California has driven cleaner-burning cars for a while now, simply by being the largest car market in the US with the strictest air quality standards - it simply became easier for car manufacturers to build cars to California emission standards for everybody than to keep making two different models. Maybe we can use this clout to keep pushing car manufacturers.
 
2012-03-20 04:58:46 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-03-20 09:41:27 AM  
I don't think they have thought their cunning plan all of the way through to year 2032.
 
2012-03-20 09:43:22 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Im all for lower taxes that make sense, but this one fails. This would result in minimal savings to citizens and massive savings to business, but would strip our state of transportation funds at a time when we cannot afford it.


Hey you know what would work well for California?

Statewide property assessment and requirement that everyone pay the 2012 property tax rate on their property.

/you're welcome.
/yes this would mean millions would have to leave their paid-off million-dollar home that they're paying 500$/yr tax on.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-03-20 09:43:26 AM  
If gas taxes are supposed to pay for roads it doesn't make sense to make the tax a percentage of fuel price. The tax should be a fixed per-gallon amount that rises over time with the reasonable rate of inflation of road construction and/or maintenance costs.

Does California dedicate gas tax revenue to roads? Here it has to be spent on something transportation-related, but does not have to put pavement under tires.
 
2012-03-20 09:46:05 AM  
€1,49/L here.

You do the math. And I actually drive more living in Europe than I did in the US with similarly efficient cars.

You'll live.
 
2012-03-20 09:46:47 AM  
Yes. Because all of California's efforts to limit taxes have worked out so well for them to this point.
 
2012-03-20 09:50:01 AM  
FTA:"sees the state of California receiving an inappropriate windfall"

I think if the state would actually use these 'windfalls' to fix problems or at least spend it on upkeep, it wouldn't be so frustrating. The most compelling reason to move out of California, in my case, wasn't the taxes and fees they hit you with at every turn, it was the fact none of it seemed to make a dent in any of the problems facing the state.
 
2012-03-20 09:53:19 AM  

rubi_con_man: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Im all for lower taxes that make sense, but this one fails. This would result in minimal savings to citizens and massive savings to business, but would strip our state of transportation funds at a time when we cannot afford it.

Hey you know what would work well for California?

Statewide property assessment and requirement that everyone pay the 2012 property tax rate on their property.

/you're welcome.
/yes this would mean millions would have to leave their paid-off million-dollar home that they're paying 500$/yr tax on.


I say keep Prop 13 in place for residential property and eliminate it for commercial and Industrial. The main problem is not mcmansions, but 99-year ownership leases on commercial property.
 
2012-03-20 09:57:11 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: rubi_con_man: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Im all for lower taxes that make sense, but this one fails. This would result in minimal savings to citizens and massive savings to business, but would strip our state of transportation funds at a time when we cannot afford it.

Hey you know what would work well for California?

Statewide property assessment and requirement that everyone pay the 2012 property tax rate on their property.

/you're welcome.
/yes this would mean millions would have to leave their paid-off million-dollar home that they're paying 500$/yr tax on.

I say keep Prop 13 in place for residential property and eliminate it for commercial and Industrial. The main problem is not mcmansions, but 99-year ownership leases on commercial property.


Which many businesses will evacuate when the lease is over and pull out of California. The loss of residents and businesses in California in recent years isn't due to the weather or lack of awesome geography. The state is ran poorly.
 
2012-03-20 10:04:03 AM  
California reducing taxes?

Could it be that even with both hollywood and silicon valley, they still couldn't pay the exhorbiant price of $ocialism?
 
2012-03-20 10:04:30 AM  

ZAZ: If gas taxes are supposed to pay for roads it doesn't make sense to make the tax a percentage of fuel price. The tax should be a fixed per-gallon amount that rises over time with the reasonable rate of inflation of road construction and/or maintenance costs.

Does California dedicate gas tax revenue to roads? Here it has to be spent on something transportation-related, but does not have to put pavement under tires.


As road building cost is directly linked to inflation and the cost of tar and petrol the cost of roads does rise with the cost of gasoline pretty closely.
 
2012-03-20 10:04:54 AM  
As a resident of NY I find state level mismanagement somewhat interesting. It seems California's operating procedure to fail spectacularly and make their state an unlivable shiathole is that of a chicken with it's head cut off. Where in NY it is almost all methodical corruption that makes the state an unlivable shiathole. Two routes to the same end.
 
2012-03-20 10:07:12 AM  

Lupine Chemist: €1,49/L here.

You do the math. And I actually drive more living in Europe than I did in the US with similarly efficient cars.

You'll live.


How do you drive that much in Europe? Driving from London to Rome is shorter than Seattle to LA.
 
2012-03-20 10:07:45 AM  

Headso: As a resident of NY I find state level mismanagement somewhat interesting. It seems California's operating procedure to fail spectacularly and make their state an unlivable shiathole is that of a chicken with it's head cut off. Where in NY it is almost all methodical corruption that makes the state an unlivable shiathole. Two routes to the same end.


I think that if New York had a ballot initiative process similar to California's, we'd see very similar problems.
 
2012-03-20 10:09:45 AM  
The Idiot tag applies far more than the Hero tag:

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

/civil engineer
 
2012-03-20 10:10:53 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: but would strip our state of transportation funds at a time when we cannot afford it.


how? you yourself say that it would have no effect, since gas is less than 4 dollars pre-tax.
 
2012-03-20 10:11:52 AM  
I'd like to see gas taxes increased 25 cents per year for the foreseeable future with the money going to pay off the debts for the Oil Wars, and also a requirement that every gas pump in the nation carry a portrait of a dead or wounded soldier from those wars.
 
2012-03-20 10:18:44 AM  

Carth: Lupine Chemist: €1,49/L here.

You do the math. And I actually drive more living in Europe than I did in the US with similarly efficient cars.

You'll live.

How do you drive that much in Europe? Driving from London to Rome is shorter than Seattle to LA.


How many people drive from Seattle to LA a lot. I do drive around 50 km a day commuting.
 
2012-03-20 10:19:30 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: This would result in minimal savings to citizens and massive savings to business, but would strip our state of transportation funds at a time when we cannot afford it.


Businesses need the money to employ citizens. A savings for them is a savings for everyone, in theory. More importantly tho, the state needs an incentive to get to the bottom of these spikes in gas prices. Either that or they need to promote new (and taxable) fuel sources.
Government doesn't really feel our pain when it comes to fuel because its all cake for the bureaucrats.
If they face budget cuts and job losses too, they'll have more incentive to do something about it.
 
2012-03-20 10:23:20 AM  

Lupine Chemist: Carth: Lupine Chemist: €1,49/L here.

You do the math. And I actually drive more living in Europe than I did in the US with similarly efficient cars.

You'll live.

How do you drive that much in Europe? Driving from London to Rome is shorter than Seattle to LA.

How many people drive from Seattle to LA a lot. I do drive around 50 km a day commuting.


I drive an equivalent distance at least once a month but luckily can walk to work. If you had less than a 30 mile commute when living in the US you were one of the lucky ones. I know a few dozen people who commute from West Virgina to DC every day (100km each way) and NH to Boston (90km).
 
2012-03-20 10:23:21 AM  
fta: George Runner sees the state of California receiving an inappropriate windfall from gas taxes and wants to cap it - tight.

Good God, did a Republican just use the words " inappropriate" & "windfall" together in the same sentence?

Oh, inappropriate because it's going to help the CA government?

Okay, now that makes more sense.

Pretty sure this guy legitimately just wants to help out the "over-taxed" Californians and isn't doing this because the GOP are trying to get people to blame Obama for high gas prices and keep the price in people's minds.

*blink*

Ah, c'mon guys I'm super serial over here.

/Why does nobody ever believe me?
//Imma terrible liar.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-03-20 10:24:14 AM  
MindStalker

I have the data to check that but I don't have time (at work) to plot the graphs. Do you have a chart showing comparisons of historical gas price and road construction cost?
 
2012-03-20 10:28:23 AM  

way south: Businesses need the money to employ citizens. A savings for them is a savings for everyone, in theory.


I don't think that works even in theory, in theory you charge what the market will bear for your product and you hire based on demand for your product. You don't lower your prices because you got a tax break you send those increased profits to the shareholder and drive up your stock price.
 
2012-03-20 10:29:35 AM  
I thought gas taxes were a fixed amount per gallon, not a percentage on the dollar. Am I wrong here?
 
2012-03-20 10:31:45 AM  

Minarets: I don't think they have thought their cunning plan all of the way through to year 2032.


Yes, can you please explain inflation to the class.

Yet more short-sighted BS from the people we pick to represent us. It's everywhere, not just a single state.
 
2012-03-20 10:41:30 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Yes. Because all of California's efforts to limit taxes have worked out so well for them to this point.


Revenue's down 15% this quarter, largely because successful people are tired of being bled dry by taxes and cost of living, and leaving the state. California is farked now, whether they raise or lower taxes.
 
2012-03-20 10:42:50 AM  

Headso: As a resident of NY I find state level mismanagement somewhat interesting. It seems California's operating procedure to fail spectacularly and make their state an unlivable shiathole is that of a chicken with it's head cut off. Where in NY it is almost all methodical corruption that makes the state an unlivable shiathole. Two routes to the same end.


Jeebus some people just like to biatch. I grew up in the Bay Area and I've spent the last 5 years of my life in NYC. Both are pretty farking awesome, even if NYC isn't my cup of tea.

You think CA is an unlivable shiathole? Why? Is it the natural beauty that spans the entire state (Tahoe, Yosemite, Death Valley, the entire farking coastline)? Is it the existence of culturally important cities like L.A. and San Francisco (not to mention Napa, Monterey, San Diego, et al.)?

And what makes NY an unlivable shiathole? Have you been to other states?

/and yeah, I know, NYC isn't NY, but the rest of the state ain't bad neither.
 
kab
2012-03-20 10:43:17 AM  
California Board of Equalization?

Guess he's trying to make it so the price of gas....

*sunglasses*

hertz less.
 
2012-03-20 10:44:34 AM  
Oil is a dwindling resource, even if we opened up the reserves. There is no reason the prices of gas should be lowered just because we don't like paying more money for a product that is slowly diminishing. This is simply the result of supply and demand. Prices will go down when there's less demand, not when there's more.
 
2012-03-20 10:47:20 AM  

Headso: You don't lower your prices because you got a tax break you send those increased profits to the shareholder and drive up your stock price.


I suppose it would depend on the business.
If you are in competition with a half dozen other companies that are all trying to undercut you, passing the profits along to the CEO will scuttle your operation. Even in a giant corporation, seeing a windfall savings in fuel costs is incentive to become just that more efficient.

At any rate, its money the state doesn't deserve to have for sitting on its laurels during a fuel crisis.
 
2012-03-20 10:54:18 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Im all for lower taxes that make sense, but this one fails. This would result in minimal savings to citizens and massive savings to business, but would strip our state of transportation funds at a time when we cannot afford it.

The premise is also disingenuous, as most of the state does not have pretax gas over 4$. The gas station I manage during my night job has a final sale price as of this post of 4.339 for 87 grade. Pretax, the cost is 3.481. In order for anyone to save money on gas, the list price would have to be over 5$.

I am all for responsible taxes and budgets that make it easier for people to live in this lousy excuse for a state, but I can't support this proposal.


California has a HUGE chunk of taxes added to gas

http://www.californiagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx

In July, California changed the way it charges gasoline taxes. As part of the effort to close the state budget deficit, the legislature doubled the motor vehicle fuel tax from 17.3 cents a gallon to 35.3 cents but also lowered the sales and use tax on motor vehicle fuel from 8.25% to 2.25%.
http://economy.ocregister.com/2010/08/11/california-no-2-in-u-s-in-ga s -tax/38479/

I don't know about you, but 35 cents isn't "minimal". it's the type of money that people start blaming the President for when prices rise that much.
 
2012-03-20 10:55:03 AM  

kab: California Board of Equalization?

Guess he's trying to make it so the price of gas....

*sunglasses*

hertz less.


i44.tinypic.com
"Don't do something you won't live to regret. " (new window)
 
2012-03-20 10:55:18 AM  
Well, considering the state tax rate is double the federal tax rate, some type of relief would be welcome, if ill advised.
 
2012-03-20 10:56:27 AM  
What is the source of the magic $4 number? There would be zero effect right now and a revenue loss in some future that we don't yet understand. It's just stupid through and through.
 
2012-03-20 10:57:18 AM  
Low taxes on gas are why we are so vulnerable to price swings, and why we don't demand better mass transit infrastructure.

Link (new window)
 
2012-03-20 11:01:24 AM  

SuburbanCowboy: Low taxes on gas are why we are so vulnerable to price swings, and why we don't demand better mass transit infrastructure.

Link (new window)


I love sin-taxers
 
2012-03-20 11:03:45 AM  

Mikey1969: California has a HUGE chunk of taxes added to gas

http://www.californiagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx

In July, California changed the way it charges gasoline taxes. As part of the effort to close the state budget deficit, the legislature doubled the motor vehicle fuel tax from 17.3 cents a gallon to 35.3 cents but also lowered the sales and use tax on motor vehicle fuel from 8.25% to 2.25%.
http://economy.ocregister.com/2010/08/11/california-no-2-in-u-s-in-ga s -tax/38479/

I don't know about you, but 35 cents isn't "minimal". it's the type of money that people start blaming the President for when prices rise that much.


Do break that down for me. Apparently, at some small cost increase people start blaming the president but as we're discussing a state tax, well it may be that people blame the president but it's an entirely irrational reaction. Mind you, I'm used to reactions to taxes being irrational but having you explain the link would be entertaining.
 
2012-03-20 11:14:19 AM  
The Fed Excise tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. The State Excise tax is 35.7 cents per gallon. The sales tax rate is 2.25% of the selling price (sales tax on gas in CA is calculated on the price of the gas plus fed and state taxes). The proposal is to limit just the sales tax rate to the first $4.00.

Right now gas is about $4.29 per gallon or a pretax amount of about $4.00. I use about 20 gallons a week or about 80 gallons per month. A 50 cent increase in gas price would save me about 90 cents per month ($0.50x80x0.0225). A $1.00 increase in gas price would save me about $1.80 per month.

To me, this is a cheap way to score political points. It makes this guy look good to say that he reduced taxes and saved folks money at the pump. But this guy is only saving people a buck a month.
 
2012-03-20 11:16:48 AM  

turbidum: And what makes NY an unlivable shiathole? Have you been to other states?

/and yeah, I know, NYC isn't NY, but the rest of the state ain't bad neither.


I'd would have loved to move back to upstate New York, for the cortland apples and wings if nothing else.
 
2012-03-20 11:19:04 AM  

SuburbanCowboy: Low taxes on gas are why we are so vulnerable to price swings, and why we don't demand better mass transit infrastructure.

Link (new window)


No, that would be because we force parents to fork over money to public schools instead of letting them use the private sector to educate their kids. Therefore, they move to neighborhoods deliberately designed to exclude others so that all of the tax money goes to their kids education as much as possible, hence our intentionally pedestrian hostile suburbs.

/but remember, school choice is racist
//except if you're Swedish or Danish
 
2012-03-20 11:21:43 AM  

turbidum: Headso: As a resident of NY I find state level mismanagement somewhat interesting. It seems California's operating procedure to fail spectacularly and make their state an unlivable shiathole is that of a chicken with it's head cut off. Where in NY it is almost all methodical corruption that makes the state an unlivable shiathole. Two routes to the same end.

Jeebus some people just like to biatch. I grew up in the Bay Area and I've spent the last 5 years of my life in NYC. Both are pretty farking awesome, even if NYC isn't my cup of tea.

You think CA is an unlivable shiathole? Why? Is it the natural beauty that spans the entire state (Tahoe, Yosemite, Death Valley, the entire farking coastline)? Is it the existence of culturally important cities like L.A. and San Francisco (not to mention Napa, Monterey, San Diego, et al.)?

And what makes NY an unlivable shiathole? Have you been to other states?

/and yeah, I know, NYC isn't NY, but the rest of the state ain't bad neither.


The actions of the corrupt or retarded state governments is what I am referring to, not the culture or scenery. In NY for instance the taxes I pay are ridiculously high for a state with shiatty schools and services. I also own property in MA where the lower taxes I pay go to fund some of the best schools in the country strong consumer protections and now everyone even has health insurance. I plan to eventually get rid of the property I own in NY and this place will never see another tax dollar from me unless I am visting.
 
2012-03-20 11:26:45 AM  
http://www.californiagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx (new window)

California gasoline 35.3 diesel 18 Other taxes 15.2

"Other Taxes" columns include a 2.25% state sales tax for gasoline and at least a 1.25% local sales tax for various counties in the state for diesel. The tax rate applied is a weighted average based upon county populations. A 2 cpg state UST fee is also included

[themoreyouknow.jpg]
 
2012-03-20 11:37:08 AM  

beta_plus: No, that would be because we force parents to fork over money to public schools instead of letting them use the private sector to educate their kids


America is car centric because of public schools?
 
2012-03-20 11:39:07 AM  
Hm. How about doing it the other way around. Double taxes after the first $4.00

Yes, everyone complains about high gas prices. It is a SYMPTOM of the problem, not the actual problem. (See my blog post "Gingrich is a communist" http://conservativelyliberal.blogspot.com/2012/03/newt-gingrich-is-com munist-or-bold.html - for more info.)

Cutting taxes on it is like going to a doctor to tell him "It hurts when I do this." and he says "Then don't do that."
 
2012-03-20 11:43:05 AM  

beta_plus: Therefore, they move to neighborhoods deliberately designed to exclude others so that all of the tax money goes to their kids education as much as possible, hence our intentionally pedestrian hostile suburbs.


Except that doesn't apply to California, where the poor performing big city districts take in many thousands more per pupil from the state than the suburban districts because of a state court ruling. And this will skew even more in favor of the large urban districts as the state is pushing through a change to the way funding is calculated as part of the budget. My school district just sent me this today:

The budget contains a proposal with little detail for a
new "Weighted Student Formula" that combines revenue limit and most state categorical
programs that would replace the current funding system. The new system would be
phased in over a six year period beginning in 2012-13. It is said that the funds would be
distributed based upon a single weighted allocation formula that takes into account a
school's number of eligible pupils with more funding going to districts with large English
Language learners and low-income students. If no additional funding is brought to the table,
which there is currently none to bring, this formula would be guaranteed to financially
cripple a [middle-class suburban] district like ours over the long run while benefiting districts like Los Angeles,
Long Beach, Santa Ana, etc. These districts also receive federal funds for these same
populations.


For the record, with the current rules not the new ones, Los Angeles USD, which has a dropout rate of 25% and a graduation rate of 56%(40% hispanic rate, where the bulk of ESL comes from), has a 45% higher spending per pupil rate(and the corresponding funding from the state, not including infrastructure, which is separate in CA) than the school district my son goes to(which has a 96% graduation rate[98% hispanic graduation rate] and 3% dropout rate). Obviously, throwing money at the problem isn't going to fix the problem. There is already plenty of money being thrown at it already.
 
2012-03-20 11:46:22 AM  

Headso: The actions of the corrupt or retarded state governments is what I am referring to, not the culture or scenery. In NY for instance the taxes I pay are ridiculously high for a state with shiatty schools and services. I also own property in MA where the lower taxes I pay go to fund some of the best schools in the country strong consumer protections and now everyone even has health insurance. I plan to eventually get rid of the property I own in NY and this place will never see another tax dollar from me unless I am visting.


Fair enough. Speaking as a young, landless, gay man, I think it's pretty apparent we have different priorities. And I agree about the corruption and the degree to which New Yorkers seem accustomed to it. A friend of mine grew up around here (Long Island), and I remember how he vigorously he defended Charlie Rangel when he was brought up on ethics violations.

And hell, at least you aren't trying to convince me (like a friend once attempted in college) that New Jersey is not only better than California, it is the best state in the U.S.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report