California looking to start taxing drivers by the mile....

[BotanyBoy]

http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/pilot-program-to-explore-charging-drivers-per-mile/37786088


Because liburhulz fuckin' HATE poor people.

Meanwhile at CalTrans we got 15 supervisors for every 1 guy holding a STOP/SLOW sign.....and the roads are still shit.

LOL

 

[about_average]

Conceivably poorer people could come out ahead if you assume that they can't afford to buy newer fuel efficient vehicles.

But, and it's a big one, it all depends on how it's implemented.

I wouldn't want to have to have a tracking device in my car, which is one proposal I've seen when people talk about taxing by the mile.
My initial thoughts are that I'd want it as a mileage figure you enter each year at registration time with spot checks and massive fines if you're caught falsifying the figures.

I've always believed that 100% of fuel tax should go to roads and 100% of road costs should come from fuel tax.

 

[MaryanneB]

What's orange and sleeps 2?
A Cal-Trans truck.

 

[RUlookingup]

http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/pilot-program-to-explore-charging-drivers-per-mile/37786088


Because liburhulz fuckin' HATE poor people.

Meanwhile at CalTrans we got 15 supervisors for every 1 guy holding a STOP/SLOW sign.....and the roads are still shit.

LOL

The nanny state knows what's best for you. Just obey like a good sycophant.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes the nanny state does know what's best now quit bitching.

Here's the snag on it. The gas tax was not designed to discourage driving, it was designed to pay for roads. Nevermind that it may not be the best way it was certainly one that seemed fair. Now it simply doesn't make enough which leaves us with finding a new revenue stream or increasing the gas tax. Which is a short term solution since while it may take another thirty years it doesn't seem impossible that we'll live to see a day when people joke about having to put gas in their cars. And the roads will still need to get built and repaired.

As for 100% of the gas tax going to roads it's nice sounding but difficult in practice.

 

[about_average]

As for 100% of the gas tax going to roads it's nice sounding but difficult in practice.

Probably impossible.
It would take politicians with guts and an informed citizenry.

And to be clear, I meant 100% of the road tax portion, not sales tax. And by "fuel tax" I meant that or whatever they replace it with.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Probably impossible.
It would take politicians with guts and an informed citizenry.

And to be clear, I meant 100% of the road tax portion, not sales tax. And by "fuel tax" I meant that or whatever they replace it with.

It would really take more than that. The problem here is that money is fungible which is just a funny way of saying money=money.

In this case lets say for the sake of argument the gas tax is 110% of what is needed in 2017 and the State Forestry Department is sitting at 90% of what is needed (and for the sake of argument both require the same amount of money.) Are you really going to give back money you need because it's essentially in the wrong pocket?

I see this argument a lot on Planned Parenthood when people talk about how they don't use federal funds for abortions. And well no they don't. It takes 100 dollars to pay the rent and do the abortion split evenly. You give me fifty bucks and say "don't spend it on abortions!" and I spend it on rent. Then use my 50 bucks for teh abortion. It really doesn't matter how I get to 100 after that it's just a case of meteing out how I get all the things I want.

As I said short term you increase the gas tax. Long term a new solution is obviously necessary and I don't know what I would do aside from toll roads or as they want to do a mileage tax. Hopefully rated heavily on commerce.

 

[Iceprincess12]

California...Is there anything they won't tax?

Of course there is. They won't tax illegal aliens...that would be racist!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Conceivably poorer people could come out ahead if you assume that they can't afford to buy newer fuel efficient vehicles.

LMFAO back in the real world 15/hr is going to get fucked harder by this than ANYONE.

California...Is there anything they won't tax?

No....

 

[RUlookingup]

Yes the nanny state does know what's best now quit bitching.

Here's the snag on it. The gas tax was not designed to discourage driving, it was designed to pay for roads. Nevermind that it may not be the best way it was certainly one that seemed fair. Now it simply doesn't make enough which leaves us with finding a new revenue stream or increasing the gas tax. Which is a short term solution since while it may take another thirty years it doesn't seem impossible that we'll live to see a day when people joke about having to put gas in their cars. And the roads will still need to get built and repaired.

As for 100% of the gas tax going to roads it's nice sounding but difficult in practice.

Nanny I will be referred to as Professor please

 

[Sean Renaud]

Professor Please. That's acceptable.

 

[about_average]

It would really take more than that. The problem here is that money is fungible which is just a funny way of saying money=money.

In this case lets say for the sake of argument the gas tax is 110% of what is needed in 2017 and the State Forestry Department is sitting at 90% of what is needed (and for the sake of argument both require the same amount of money.) Are you really going to give back money you need because it's essentially in the wrong pocket?

A good budget for planned repairs and maintenance would let them get pretty close. They have been building and maintaining roads long enough that they can have a pretty good estimate of what's needed financially. I don't have a problem lending surplus to other departments, that's what they do now. But the problem right now is that it rarely if ever gets paid back.
Or the hwy dept could hold the surplus in escrow and reduce the tax.

LMFAO back in the real world 15/hr is going to get fucked harder by this than ANYONE.

Assuming it's implemented well, how would it be harder on the pool than tax per gallon is today?
New cars cost more than clunkers. Paying by the gallon is harder on people driving clunkers. People making $15/hr won't buy a Prius.

 

[Sean Renaud]

How would you go about paying it back? Let's return to my scenario. 110 for roads, 90 for forests.

Should the next year the forestry department raise 110% of it's needed funds in order pay back the roads?

And we are constantly building new roads anyway. New housing developments, new freeway exits all of that good crap but I agree they should be able to budget it fairly closely.

My concern here is that first it's difficult to box people in and second if you manage to do it what do you do when the box works?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Assuming it's implemented well, how would it be harder on the pool than tax per gallon is today?

It isn't.

New cars cost more than clunkers. Paying by the gallon is harder on people driving clunkers. People making $15/hr won't buy a Prius.

Still driving miles and getting fucked unless shift to public trans. Any time you tax food/fuel(or mileage to and from 15/hr) or housing outright, then proportionally you are fucking poor people the hardest.

You can dress it up as a milage tax but 15/hr still costs mileage, in the end is still effectively a fuel tax and poor folks still gets fucked the hardest.

CA needs to lean on 8.9 million a year a little more than 12% imo...not lean on 15/hr or even 50k/yr for a mileage tax.

My concern here is that first it's difficult to box people in and second if you manage to do it what do you do when the box works?

You run your poverty rates up....and make the rich folks richer, duh.

 

[about_average]

How would you go about paying it back? Let's return to my scenario. 110 for roads, 90 for forests.

Should the next year the forestry department raise 110% of it's needed funds in order pay back the roads?

And we are constantly building new roads anyway. New housing developments, new freeway exits all of that good crap but I agree they should be able to budget it fairly closely.

My concern here is that first it's difficult to box people in and second if you manage to do it what do you do when the box works?

As far as I know, the Highway Dept. is one of the few that has their own revenue generating systems that was intended to cover the cost of building/maintaining. Mainly my point is that it should be made equitable based on amount of use, or just done away with and 100% come from the general revenue.

The latter would make public transportation even less appealing however because the costs of roads would be hidden from the users even more than it is today.

Botany, ok, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you meant a mileage tax would be harder on the poor than is the fuel tax we have today. Yes, usage fees are always proportionally harder on the poor.

 

[Sean Renaud]

And your not incorrect, it does have it's own funding mechanisims but once the money gets to the government it goes in the pot and as we seem to agree it would be absurd for them to have money they need and not spend it because it was essentially in the wrong pocket.

Ideally a hidden fee is one you never notice. But that's a bit beside the point public transportation in the US in general and Cali (at least my neck) in particular sucks. It's unappealing on it's own.

 

[dan_c00000]

I like that botany says this because the instant bridge collapses he's going to be pissed at the government for "not doing anything". First, I find it funny you didn't piss your pants when Oregon did this.

You do know, bot, that London has a congestion pricing model and it's worked out pretty well in terms of raising money, reducing traffic, and reducing pollution?

Of course you don't know that. Because, as if I need to point this out any more, you know shit about shit.

 

[Hypoxia]

Gringos bitching about California taxes have never been to Canada or Europe.

Gringos bitching about police states have never been to Mexico.

Gringos bitch when FauxNewz demands it.

Yikes.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I like that botany says this because the instant bridge collapses he's going to be pissed at the government for "not doing anything".

Wrong as usual when you start making shit up, it's already happened and I did no such thing. Sorry cupcake.

First, I find it funny you didn't piss your pants when Oregon did this.

Why would I? I don't live in Oregon they can do whatever they want and I won't give 1 pump of rat shit.

You do know, bot, that London has a congestion pricing model and it's worked out pretty well in terms of raising money, reducing traffic, and reducing pollution?

Once again I couldn't give 2 pumps of rat shit what they are doing, gas/mileage taxes proportionally fuck the poor harder than anyone. It's a regressive tax and nothing you say will change that fact.

Of course you don't know that. Because, as if I need to point this out any more, you know shit about shit.

Says the raging liburhul that's suddenly supporting regressive taxation....lol

Before long you'll be backing a Republican flat tax.

 

[AlexVega]

ouch that sucks. Between Jerry Brown and the government workers, well greed is everywhere. The poor tax payers are getting fucked and no one using Vaseline

 

[Sean Renaud]

-snip-
Says the raging liburhul that's suddenly supporting regressive taxation....lol

Before long you'll be backing a Republican flat tax.

Two things come to mind. First the original tax, a gas tax was also regressive. Occasionally poor people have to bite the bullet. It sucks but there it is.

More importantly do you have a different solution? Because at the end of the day shit needs doing.

ouch that sucks. Between Jerry Brown and the government workers, well greed is everywhere. The poor tax payers are getting fucked and no one using Vaseline

Oh hi Jen!

 

[about_average]

And your not incorrect, it does have it's own funding mechanisims but once the money gets to the government it goes in the pot and as we seem to agree it would be absurd for them to have money they need and not spend it because it was essentially in the wrong pocket.

I don't think it's absurd, I just understand the argument.
Especially since money is collected specifically for roads, it should remain with the roads.

Taking if out of the road funds is like taking money you have set aside for a new roof because you'd rather buy a new car. As long as you pay it back before the roofers show up it's fine, but you're going to appear kinda dumb to your friends when they're over to see your new car and the rain comes pouring in on them from the hole in your roof because you didn't have the money to fix it.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I don't think it's absurd, I just understand the argument.
Especially since money is collected specifically for roads, it should remain with the roads.

Taking if out of the road funds is like taking money you have set aside for a new roof because you'd rather buy a new car. As long as you pay it back before the roofers show up it's fine, but you're going to appear kinda dumb to your friends when they're over to see your new car and the rain comes pouring in on them from the hole in your roof because you didn't have the money to fix it.

Agreed. You're also going to look dumb if you don't have a car to get to work in because you kept it for the roofer.

Note: I do not disagree with you on principle but rather on mechanics. I would love for a plan like yours to be viable. I simple don't believe that it is.

 

[AlexVega]

Conceivably poorer people could come out ahead if you assume that they can't afford to buy newer fuel efficient vehicles.

But, and it's a big one, it all depends on how it's implemented.

I wouldn't want to have to have a tracking device in my car, which is one proposal I've seen when people talk about taxing by the mile.
My initial thoughts are that I'd want it as a mileage figure you enter each year at registration time with spot checks and massive fines if you're caught falsifying the figures.

I've always believed that 100% of fuel tax should go to roads and 100% of road costs should come from fuel tax.

Why do you chose to be poor?

 

[dan_c00000]

Says the raging liburhul that's suddenly supporting regressive taxation....lol

Uh huh. That's why real "regressive places" like Stockholm, Milan, and Gothenburg have them. Right bot? But I'm sure you knew that already.

Also, since when did you get so concerned about screwing the poor? I'd love to see all the times you supported things like: universal health care, free higher education, or removing the carried interest tax loophole.

Face bot you're a fucking shitty, self-righteous, extremely wrong coward who makes shit up on the internet.

And, as always,

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/50076463.jpg