So. California folks -- Petition to Abolish Car Tax!!

[quade 4]

Well, here's really what most people's points are, I think, I'm projecting a bit but I think you'll get the idea.

"I'm willing to have a balanced budget and have the great state of California pay all it's bills as long as my personal taxes don't have to go up."

So, if you increase the taxes on cars, the automakers put up a fuss, because it's going to impact them a bit, and whip up support from folks that drive cars. Pretty easy to do in drive time when you have a captive audience sitting in traffic ready to road rage anyway.

Increase property taxes and the real estate market starts fuming.

Increase sales tax and retail sales people whine and moan.

Yet, at the end of the day, -somebody- has to pay the taxes because you -can't- cut spending on money that has -already- been spent. That's what a deficit is -- money has already been spent.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

>I think the point Sparky was making was that the tax doubled...and
> it is doubtful that his use of his Harley doubled, and it is equally
> doubtful the value of his Harley doubled.

Right, it is a change in the tax structure. A lot of people think that if they pass a law to reduce vehicle taxes that their overall taxes go down - after all, less tax is less tax, right? In fact, the tax that everyone pays is determined (at least in states) by how much the government spends. We WILL pay for that one way or the other. The question is not - how do we avoid paying for what the state spends? We can't do that, any more than we can lobby our mortgage company to reduce the amount we owe them. The question is - how do we best distribute the taxes?

In my book, charging the users of roads (via registration and gas taxes) for those roads is fairer than charging everyone for the use of the roads.

This not a tax, it is a fee. It does not go to repair roads, it goes to the general fund. It is called a Reg. Fee. If it was a tax they could not raise it without a vote of the people. This fee is not for using the roads, it just one more way to get money from people.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[billvon 2,995]

>This fee is not for using the roads, it just one more way to get
>money from people.

I agree. "Getting money from people" is what taxation is all about. If the government spends a million dollars, whether to fix a road you use, to buy power for you, to run your elections, to educate your kids, or to make sure your food doesn't make you sick, that million dollars comes from you, one way or another. So the question is - how do we do that?

You can tax people's incomes. Everyone hates that.

You can tax people's businesses. Businesses hate that. When they leave the state as a result of overtaxation, the people who used to work there hate that.

You can tax people's cars. Drivers hate that.

You can tax what people buy. Stores hate that. (Out of state businesses love that though.)

You can tax people's property. Property owners hate that.

You can't make taxes go away. You start by making sure the government is efficient, but "cutting out the fat" has been a catchword for 200 years now, and once you cut it out once you can't go back and cut out the same fat again - and every politician claims they did that.

Then you decide how to tax people. I think that there are some basics - clean water and safe food, education, crime prevention - that benefit us all and thus get paid for everyone equally. There are some other things - electric power purchases, roads, improvements for businesses - that are better paid for by the people who use them.

So how to pay for the roads and cops on them? I think it should be split between fuel and road-use (i.e. registration) taxes. If that doesn't cover it, increase the taxes on those items until it does. That's fairer than raising everyone else's taxes to pay for the roads.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Boy, am I against that. People who use services should pay for them.[/reply

Hey, I agree with a Billvon statement in politics, what a wonder -

However, it he really means it, it would extend beyond just car tags. I mean defense, parks, roads, fire, water, etc. That sounds like everyone pays the same regardless of income. So I don't believe he means it. This would support a tollway type of system where use matters, not value of car. But that exploits the people who use roads!!!!

Flat rate on income or sales tax still makes sense from the keep it simple stupid perspective. Or, fees for users for 'every' government supported program (ack - administrative nightmare).

Hopefully, Cali can remove Davis and cut spending and get out of this 'quagmire'.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

• Quote

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Increasing tax revenues will fix the state's budget problems. There are a lot more problems overall than that, of course.

Well, that simply isn't the case. From 1998-2002, tax revenues increased by 28 percent Thus, our budget should be the shiny bright model for surplus.

Unfortunately, during that same period, expenditures increased 36 percent. Hence, we're in a shithole.

Note that spending for schools increased 64 percent during that period. School improvement? Nope. Did it get squandered somewhere in the bureacracy? That's my assumption. Pork spending.

Raising revenues does nothing for balancing a budget when the increased revenue is spent, and then some, on pork. My guess is this car tax won't be going to the roads...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

You are correct. People hate taxes, and they are a necessity.

But, did you notice that out of your examples, California does every single one of them? Tax income, business, sales, cars, property - tax it all!

And we've still got a deficit. A huge one.

Why?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,995]

>And we've still got a deficit. A huge one.

>Why?

Same reason most other states do; same reason the US does. Economic downturn. The one additional issue was that we paid a lot of money for power purchases; that makes up a small percentage of our deficit though.

[Michele 1]

Quote

And we've still got a deficit. A huge one.

Why?

Because we don't have responsible folks in the government seat. We have people who think it will be all right to raise taxes to pay for poor spending habits; not correct those spending habits for the future.

In your example, Jerry, above...that lays it out beautifully. When one is operating in a deficit, then one must make serious choices - no steak dinners, just top ramen...while it hurts, while it sucks, it also works...and soon, one is out of the quagmire the spending has created.

"Why"? Because we have a fiscally irresponsible government.

This isn't a flat fee. It's not a usage charge. If it were a usage charge, bus fare would've been raised. Metro fees would've been raised. Nope, instead, they whack people around who have cars, regardless of the car's value, use, or economy of fuel. They sat there, and thought: hrm, what can we do that people will have to comply with or be illegal. Hrm...wow, I know. Everyone relies on cars. People need their cars. Let's triple the registration fees. They'll have to pay them so they won't get tickets,a nd can keep their cars legal. Yeah!!!

Nucking futz, I tell ya.

(And sorry, Quade, I don't listen to drive-time radio, so it isn't that with me...)

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

> If they are fixing problems they are doing at the expense of the tax
>payer who had noting to do with creating the problems.

The economy caused the problems. You WILL pay for every cent the government spends one way or another; the only question is how to do that fairly. Increase income taxes to cover your use of the roads? I think that's a bad idea.

The economy caused it, thats so much crap. The problem was caused by our elected officials.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[billvon 2,995]

>The problem was caused by our elected officials.

So I will ask you again - if deficits are caused by elected officials, did Bush cause the 500 billion deficit? Did the governors of the other 49 states cause their deficits? Or is there a bit of a problem with your theory?

[billvon 2,995]

>hrm, what can we do that people will have to comply with or be
> illegal.

So if you refuse to pay income taxes they'll let you get away with it? ALL taxes are mandatory. That's why they are taxes. Where did you get the idea that only a registration fee is mandatory?

[lawrocket 3]

bill,

If the economic downturn was responsible, there would be less revenues than in 1998. That's not the case.

Are the politicians (yes, all of them) responsible for the deficits. Yep. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, you name it. Congress? Hell, yes. Do I find the California Assembly, Senate and governor to be particularly egregious? Yes, I do.

Nobody other than a government can operate that way. Government operates on the "spend like there'll be a lot of money tomorrow" principle. That's why the budgets are screwy. They budget based on what they want, and not what they have.

You'd figure that ex-State Controller Gray Davis would understand that.

McClintock does.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,995]

>Nobody other than a government can operate that way. Government
> operates on the "spend like there'll be a lot of money tomorrow"
> principle. That's why the budgets are screwy. They budget based on
> what they want, and not what they have.

I think that's true. One of the things that really gets me going are the initiatives that say "This new (highway, service, legislation) will not raise your taxes one cent! They will be paid for by bond sales." The assumption there, of course, is that we'll have lots of money to pay back the bonds (with interest, of course) in the future.

That's one reason I get worried when I hear people say "Hell no, you better reduce my taxes and then give me that new highway!" I fear that people like that sometimes fall for the "This new highway won't increase your taxes one cent" baloney. You will pay for it eventually; putting stuff like that off to the future is one way we get into these messes to begin with.

At the same time, the economy has a lot to do with how much a government pulls in. Corporate taxes are a big part of most state's budgets, and when Boeing makes half as much money because no one's buying airplanes, Washington State loses a lot of income. Since corporations don't vote (or at least, don't control their employee's votes) taxing corporations is often politically a better idea than taxing people, often these represent a large portion of a state's income - so a downturn in the economy tends to affect incomes in the long run.

[lawrocket 3]

I agree 100 percent. That's why I have never once voted for a bond measure. It'll have to be paid eventually, and with interest. That's why our bond rating is at BBB (which I think is only a couple above a junk bond).

People want everything for nothing. Can't get it. The new highway costs. The maintenance costs. Taxes are needed to pay for it.

And as far as taxing corporations, if that is a source of income the states KNOW that they are highly susceptible. Yet they still use it as their expectancy. It'd kinda be like financing my lifestyle with profits from junk bonds. I better live below my means most of the time.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

>The problem was caused by our elected officials.

So I will ask you again - if deficits are caused by elected officials, did Bush cause the 500 billion deficit? Did the governors of the other 49 states cause their deficits? Or is there a bit of a problem with your theory?

Yes, Bush and other Governors along with the leg. bodies did and do cause deficits. There is not a thing wrong with my theory, it is not a theory but a fact. You either did not read or are ignoring what some people are posting. In CA revenues for the state went up but our elected officials continued to spend at even a faster rate. Saying the economy caused it is like saying I got in the wreck because I didn't see the stop sign. When the economy is weak common sense says you should reduce spending not increase it. If you and others are not willing to hold them accountable do you think they will stop this kind of fiscal management on their own?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[billvon 2,995]

>In CA revenues for the state went up but our elected officials
> continued to spend at even a faster rate.

Do you have a source for this? I'd be interested to see revenues from 1996-2002.

>Saying the economy caused it is like saying I got in the wreck
> because I didn't see the stop sign.

No, it's like saying that the storm caused the wreck because you couldn't stop in time on the wet roads. You have to slow down in bad weather, just as you have to spend less when the economy tanks. A state budget has a lot more inertia than a car, unfortunately.

Should we have reduced spending immediately when the economy began to decline? Yep. In some areas this simply wasn't practical, unfortunately. It would have been political suicide to allow blackouts in 25% of California because no one could pay for power, for example.

>When the economy is weak common sense says you should reduce
> spending not increase it.

Yes. You have to do both, actually, since there are some things you simply cannot cut (police, emergency services, bond service etc.) The budget has to balance, and both sides have to give.

>If you and others are not willing to hold
> them accountable do you think they will stop this kind of fiscal
> management on their own?

I'm perfectly willing to hold them accountable for their spending habits. I'm not going to hold them accountable for what the national economy does.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Sen. McClintock has enabled this latest petition, which, if certified will
> become a ballot measure to amend the State Constitution which will
> abolish the car tax ($0, Zero, nada, nothing, zip).

Boy, am I against that. People who use services should pay for them. People who use cars should pay the taxes to provide the money spent for roads, highway patrol, traffic controls etc. People who pollute should pay for the cleanup. People who use rescue services should pay for them (after the fact, of course.) Taxing everyone to pay for the drivers, polluters, and people who need rescuing is a bit too socialist for my taste.

Unless, of course, you believe that the state government prints money, and if you abolish one tax the money will not need to come from another tax.

First, those that buy a luxury, or low-MPG cars pay a luxury tax, or gas-guzzler tax.

Second, the registration fee isn't really a tax, it is a fee. It was tripled illegally in the first place. The registration fee goes into a general fund, with no specific earmark, which means it is squandered by the legislature to pay for money losing programs like the workmans comp.

Third, the sales tax should be the only "measurement" for a purchase of an item. Nearly every other state in the Union has a fix annual or semi-annual registration for automobiles -- States with far higher per-capita spending than California, with less deficit, less abuse, and better benefit. If an affluent individual buys a Hummer H2 (Lux edition) MSRP at $51,980. 7.25% sales tax, add $3768.55, add a gas-guzzler tax of (est) $1000.00. That equals 8.5% bottom line taxes agains the final purchase price (not including other factors). 8.5%, per vehicle, when purchased, properly managed should be more than enough for the general fund.

Fourth, the majority of infrastructure (highways) are funded by the federal government.

So, the sales tax, plus my state income tax, plus my federal income tax, plus the other BS fees attached to "doing business" in the state is more than my fair share Bill. It's more than your fair share too.

---

I signed petition this afternoon a little bit before 4:00 this afternoon. There were hundreds of people streaming around. About 700,000 certified signatures are required over the next 100 days, that means they need about 1,000,000 signatures are needed for a comfortable margin.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Yep. At least they're fixing the problems.

Like allowing illegals to get licenses? That program will cost $60M, but will bring in revenues of about $27M. That's not fixing things. The legislators have to stop all new spending, and cut programs by a minimum of 2% per year with the exception of critical services. That falls into two categories: law enforcement (including fire) and education. The rest is fluff, and needs to be audited before any more funds go into it.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

The economy caused the problems. You WILL pay for every cent the government spends one way or another; the only question is how to do that fairly. Increase income taxes to cover your use of the roads? I think that's a bad idea.

Tax revenues, despite the economy are up 25% over just the past two years. State spending is up over 40%. It was mismanaged projections of revenue, thinking that millionaires would stay even if their taxes went up...they were wrong.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[dbattman 0]

Quote

Aside from all the other tax issues here, I believe this is a pretty "fair" way of doing things as well since the people that are willing to pay more for a more expensive car and therefore presumably more able to pay a higher fee, have a higher registration fee.

Sorry Quade, but I can't agree with that. Read all that again- particularly the part about people presumably able to pay a higher fee. If you want to make it fair, have everyone pay the same rate for a car or pay by miles driven every year. The other way is the 'you have more so we'll just take more' thing.

[billvon 2,995]

>First, those that buy a luxury, or low-MPG cars pay a luxury tax, or
>gas-guzzler tax.

True for cars, not true for SUV's - and that's a federal law, not a state law.

>Second, the registration fee isn't really a tax, it is a fee.

Not too interested if it's a tax, a fee, a levy or a revenue-generating payment. It's money that's paid to operate the government of California.

>Third, the sales tax should be the only "measurement" for a
>purchase of an item.

Why? When you buy a watermelon you don't incur DMV, highway patrol, road construction or road repair costs. Why should the overall cost of buying and eating a watermelon go to support the overall cost of buying and operating a car?

>Fourth, the majority of infrastructure (highways) are funded by the
>federal government.

I agree that you don't need to generate _more_ income than the highway/roads/parking/DMV etc system takes out of the state budget. But it should surely pay for at least the DMV.

>So, the sales tax, plus my state income tax, plus my federal income
> tax, plus the other BS fees attached to "doing business" in the state
> is more than my fair share Bill. It's more than your fair share too.

"Californians are overburdened by unfair taxes"
"I'm paying more than my fair share"
"Why let fat-cat politicians gouge working families in California?"
"I plan to trim the fat and streamline government"

Those are all great sound bites, but that's like saying "I plan to double my money by a factor of 2." It's easy to say, hard to do. What's the next paragraph? How do you do that?

I think that people should pay for basic services (local police, home building inspectors, sewers, education etc) with taxes. Beyond that, taxes (or fees, or levies, or whatever) should be based on what people use. For the highway system, a combination of gas tax and registration tax (or a fee) works. Hence I would not vote for a proposal to eliminate car fees and increase income taxes - unless I had some evidence that all the costs incurred from having a highway system was already covered by, say, gas taxes alone (once you take out all the other costs of gas from that tax, like environmental remediation.)

[billvon 2,995]

>Tax revenues, despite the economy are up 25% over just the past
> two years. State spending is up over 40%. It was mismanaged
> projections of revenue, thinking that millionaires would stay even if
> their taxes went up...they were wrong.

Do you have a source for this, specifically government revenues over the past ten years?

[dbattman 0]

Quote

I think that people should pay for basic services (local police, home building inspectors, sewers, education etc) with taxes. Beyond that, taxes (or fees, or levies, or whatever) should be based on what people use. For the highway system, a combination of gas tax and registration tax (or a fee) works. Hence I would not vote for a proposal to eliminate car fees and increase income taxes - unless I had some evidence that all the costs incurred from having a highway system was already covered by, say, gas taxes alone (once you take out all the other costs of gas from that tax, like environmental remediation.)

Yes! There it is in a nutshell! Everyone covers the basics and if you WANT more, you PAY for more. This goes from taxing based on what you HAVE to taxing based on what you WANT. In other words, no free rides and no penalties for being a mover, a shaker, and a super producer/performer.

Ever hear of the 'national retail sales tax' replacing most federal taxes? I'd be interested to hear what billvon thinks of that.

www.fairtax.org

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Do you have a source for this, specifically government revenues over the past ten years?

I'm collating the reports from the State Controller's office and the Governor's budget summaries. I may need to correct my statement about revenues, but I am still correct about expenditure. Attachments pending. Stay tuned.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,995]

>Like allowing illegals to get licenses? That program will cost $60M,
> but will bring in revenues of about $27M.

That would be a dumb program even if it _did_ bring in more money.

>The legislators have to stop all new spending . . .

Outside of emergencies like forest fires and floods and the like. Agreed.

> and cut programs by a
> minimum of 2% per year with the exception of critical services. That
> falls into two categories: law enforcement (including fire) and
> education.

I'd agree, as long as law enforcement covers emergency care, rescue etc. As I've said before, to close the budget gap you have to increase revenue and cut expenditures. I don't think either one alone will do it; even your proposal above would take a while to have a positive effect.