Gee, and up to this point, I was such a fan of the DMV.
…not.
I don’t see it that way. People choose to drive. I simply chose not to, and I use public transportation instead. So, no one needs to be able to drive.
But let’s get serious for a moment. The purpose of the gas tax was
- to raise revenue, for which we supposedly get some benefit
- to “punish” those who drive some arbitrarily defined “gas guzzler”.
- to encourage people to not burn gas idling at the store or taking “spurious” trips – not that it is government’s business (but that is another argument).
These things are supposedly being done with the present gas taxes. People who drive more will buy more gas. So, they are paying more sales tax on that gas.
People who drive guzzlers are buying more gas per mile, so even without any “guzzler penalty” they are paying up.
The cost of installing “spying equipment” on cars would be expensive and inefficient –someone, some agency would have to track every vehicle in the state. Someone would have to pay for that equipment, computers, etc.
The state would have to spend a lot of money in order to collect money they are already getting by a different method.
The tax would “punish” people whose jobs demand a lot of driving – sales people, itinerant inspectors, truck drivers, etc.
Finally, the state supposedly wanted to get everyone to drive more efficient vehicles. If they are losing money (I doubt that) because people are getting more efficient cars, then the program was a success. To complain that revenues are dropping now, and using that to justify a new higher tax would be inexcusable. It would be one more “proof” that our state and local officials only want to gouge us at every opportunity.
Finally, this whole thing was proposed by a person in the DMV who has no authority to institute this tax on his own.
It is a bad idea.
If the tax comes out as a proposition, vote it down, no matter if it’s “for the children” or for “security” or any other cheap slogan they slap on it. If it is enacted by state politicians, make a note of it and then UNelect those individuals next time there is an election.
No, that’s not true. I literally could not do my job without having a car. Public transportation with the ability to take me where I need to go, when I need to go there, simply does not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1
I don’t see it that way. People choose to drive. I simply chose not to, and I use public transportation instead. So, no one needs to be able to drive.
No, that’s not true. I literally could not do my job without having a car. Public transportation with the ability to take me where I need to go, when I need to go there, simply does not exist.
I agree blowero. I was laid off 12 years ago. When I found a job, the only place I could afford to live was 25 miles away from said job. I drive over the continental divide twice every day. No, there is no bus service. 
A home ‘in town’ would easily cost 3 times as much as the place I live now. A place I love to live. A place that I have a lot of heart and soul in after 12 years of fixing up and now an addition.
Some folks seem to think that anyone could use public trasport. That’s just not true. Is it a choice? Not really. Not for me anyway.
Read my last post, where I finally decided to get serious. I am against this tax, and one of the reasons I used was exactly what you both are saying - many people are required to drive, either because of their job, or where they live.
Does California have a road-use tax? I pay one each year when I got to the town hall to renew my registration. It’s calculated by the weight of the car and costs people with light compact cars thirty-something dollars (I think I pay around $37 dollars) and people with heavy SUVs up to a few hundred dollars. Knowing the weights of different vehicles to caculate the costs is a much saner idea, IMO.