Which is why the time to do it is when gas prices are way down. In the long run it helps even them. More fuel efficient cars, even if they can’t afford it, reduces gas usage throughout the state and thus is a moderator on prices. I’ve posted links to tables showing that California gas consumption has held fairly constant for a number of years, on an absolute not per capita basis.
I’ve seen other data showing that the average driver pays in the $300 range a year in extra maintenance due to bad roads. That is a regressive tax also.
The mileage charge reduces the impact on those who have to use gas also.
But $1 is way too high. Something quite a bit less can help infrastructure a lot.
So, what are you doing with all the money that got put in your pocket due to the gas price collapse?
The Golden Gate bridge no longer has human toll takers. When I go over one of the other bridges I never see a person - I go right through the toll gate with my FastTrak. Plus they have carpool lanes which you can use for a fee - again no people involved. So that problem is going away.
To quote Scott McNealy, you have no privacy. Get over it. if you don’t go over a bridge your friendly cop is collecting your license plate number as he goes past.
How about you leave things alone, the price of gas is still too excessive and should be 50 cents a gallon, but at least we are getting downward momentum.
Its not your money, stop trying to pick people’s pockets
Declan
Stimulating the economy.
Personally I’d prefer a carbon tax, as it is better targeted at the damage inflicted by carbon emissions, damages that the public evades.
It is regressive, but perhaps not as much as you think. Car size tends to increase with income, so there’s an offset.
Porterba, 1991: [INDENT]…low-expenditure households devote a smaller share of their budget to gasoline than do their counterparts in the middle of the expenditure distribution. Although households in the top5% of the total spending distribution spend less on gasoline than those who are less well off ,the share of expenditure devoted to gasoline is much more stable across the population than the ratio of gasoline outlays to current income. The gasoline tax thus appears far less regressive than conventional analyses suggest.[/INDENT] To review, Porterba looks at expenditures rather than income and finds the ratio of gas spending to consumption expenditure to be flat in the middle and lower at the two tails. But still regressive overall - just less so.
Incidentally, the payroll tax places a lower burden on the highest brackets, so there’s an offset there. Though it would be crazy not to set aside some of the revenue for infrastructure.
An idea has been suggested here, that if you are for reducing global warming, or if you are an environmentalist, that naturally you should be for increasing the gas tax. But just because you’re for one thing does not mean that you have to also be for anything that supports the first. For instance, I’m all for ending famine, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to eat your children in order to do so.
I’d like to see this addressed. I am a realtor, and there is no way to trim my “commute”.
That’s what the folks said who got screwed by Obamacare, but that didn’t seem to bother you. Are you saying that if it’s good for the country, as a whole, you won’t support it unless it’s also good for, personally?
As for the OP, I’m with those who say raise taxes slowly, if you must. Abrupt changes tend to have larger unintended consequences.
Whom, exactly? 2,300lbs is very very light for a car and short of having a massive leak in the fuel line I don’t know how you’d use a gallon every 8 miles.
The leak is into 8 litres of displacement.
Used to be 6 mpg, with a lot more stop and start driving. Fewer stop lights here.
That’s from 1991. I wonder if it still true today. Your average Tesla owner is not low income. In my part of California, at least, there is status in high mileage cars.
Aww, those poor widdle bloodsuckers. Anything that screws retirees is OK in my book. Preferred, in fact.
Good God, I’m sick of this argument.
Hey, everybody, it looks like we can’t have roads and bridges that won’t kill you. I’m sorry, it’s just the way it is. The poor can’t afford to repair them. Look, we’re just going to have to let all the bridges fall down. It’s either that or make the poor pay for something, so I really don’t know what you expect me to do, here.
I have been in favor of much higher gas taxes for a while so I’m largely for this. I’m not sure how regressive this would be–it’s generally not poor people who own the large gas guzzlers. Plus it’s a tax that can be avoided (or at least lowered) by changing habits which can’t be said about income taxes.
Yes you do. Just increase prices, or reduce profits. You cannot relocate overseas, therefore you should be treated exactly like any other business - it is a simple matter of raising your taxes and transferring the money to the lower or working classes. They spend it and create jobs. You don’t create any jobs, since the success of your business is based on the infrastructure - in this case, roads. You ought to have your taxes raised, since you didn’t build your business.
You are just like all the others - complaining about paying your fair share.
tsk tsk
Regards,
Shodan
Sure. In theory, tolls could be placed strategically for logical and fair reasons.
Back here in the real world, though, this doesn’t actually happen.
In MA, the tolls on the turnpike were supposed to be taken down after the turnpike was paid for. Instead, Democratic politicians used the tolls to hit the western MA drivers who are mostly not their voters to pay for the Big Dig, which they would never use.
Didn’t read the article or any of the posts in the thread, huh?
I don’t think there’s any way to address this problem.
Small business owners and truckers or delivery drivers would be hurt by this proposal no matter how you slice it. A small payroll tax break for them wouldn’t make up for the hit to gas prices they would have to pay.
This isn’t a tax increase for most people, though. Most people will get back the money in their payroll tax. Some will pay more, some less. The only people having an abrupt change of any significance would be people who drive much more than average.
I’m with you on making changes slowly in principal, though. But I’d argue that the benefits of this change outweigh the negatives. It’s sort of the same thing as simplification of the tax code. That might mean negative consequences if it’s abrupt. But it would be worth it because it’s so desperately needed.
It would be a mistake to raise gas taxes to anything like UK levels. The US is much larger geographically. Drivers are required to drive further distances. The UK is a tiny little island. The amount of gas needed for your average UK road trip is a lot lot less. Similar gas tax rates in the US and UK would hurt US drivers substantially more. Generally im against taxes that penalise people for “bad behaviour”. However, if ever a larger tax was justified it is for UK drivers. Your average road, car and parking lot does relatively more damage to little ole UK than it does to the US. The UK is one large parking lot.