After a recent vote by the state Board of Equalization, the total tax that Californians will pay on gasoline will become 70.6 cents. This will make California the state with the highest gas tax in the nation. This tax was “necessitated” from a $157 million shortfall in gas tax-revenue in 2012. While raising the gas tax by 3.5 cents in July may seem vital to California as a cash-strapped state, objective observers notice how the loss in revenue is self-inflicted and will only get worse. The $157 million gas-tax revenue loss is due to a few different factors that are all connected to the state’s liberal initiatives.
California has long been the leader in green energy initiatives, and it is finally reaping the benefits from its liberal leanings. The high mpg standard that president Obama and the EPA is simply a more intense, nationwide version of California’s AB 1493. The mpg standard for new vehicles in 2025 is 54.5, and in 2012 Californians bought 24.7 percent of all hybrids sold in the US, and 32 percent of all electric cars sold (while buying 11.1 percent of all cars sold). So Californians are embracing greener car technology, like their liberal electives have desired for years. However, a concept apparently unaware to California politicians is the idea of lower tax revenue if less gas is consumed. Californians are using less gas than ever, partly due to the bad economy, but more than anything due to Californians buying cars that have a higher mpg rate. While I don’t care what people buy to drive (if they want to buy a more expensive car that has a higher mpg rate, they can go right ahead), but I do have a problem with a government that punishes its citizens for going green like they said they should. The average price for gasoline is around $4.22, already extremely high, especially when you consider the median is about $3.55. Proponents says that the high taxes are necessary for maintaining California’s dwindling infrastructure, however California spends millions from its gas tax revenue on maintaining its growing deficit. So to think that this time around, these new tax increased will be used only on better roads is naive. Greener cars cost more than non-green cars, but advocates say that the amount of gasoline saved will offset the higher cost of the vehicle (though this point is highly debated). With California raising the taxes on gas, the amount of money saved by buying a more expensive green car shrinks. So theoretically, the more people drive green cars (to save money on gas), the more California will raise the taxes on gas, eliminating the money saved by those who bought green cars.
Another cause of California raising its tax on gasoline is the higher level of people using public transportation. With more people using public transportation (a program loved by liberals everywhere as another way to take care of people), less people are paying for gas, and lower gas tax revenue results. The best part of this is that public transportation is funded almost 50 percent from gas taxation. So as people use public transportation more, California will receive less revenue from gas taxation, and will have to raise the tax rate of gasoline, and fewer people will drive and the cycle will never end. Currently California spends over $3 billion on public transportation every year, and that number will only continue to rise. A way to come up with some of the $3 billion would be to make public transportation at least somewhat self sufficient. But that would require people paying for services they use, and Democratic voters won’t like that (the election of Jerry Brown and Barack Obama proved this).
Politicians often lament how they have little to no control over gasoline prices, which to a certain extent, they don’t. However, it is hard to listen to liberals whine about how they don’t have power over oil prices, when they constantly raise taxes on them. By raising taxes on gasoline by 3.5 cents, they increase the price of gasoline by 3.5 cents, directly affecting the price of gas. This new squeezing of Californians for more money will not solve California’s massive budgetary woes, and it will not solve their infrastructure problem (as the new funds will undoubtedly be siphoned off by other entitlement programs).
March 13th, 2013 at 7:08 pm
“With California raising the taxes on gas, the amount of money saved by buying a more expensive green car shrinks.”
So if gas is $4.00 a gallon and a hybrid uses less fuel, they save $4.00 for each gallon they don’t purchase due to a higher MPG. So if gas goes up to $4.50 they save “less” money?
Can you explain that to me.
March 13th, 2013 at 7:12 pm
The rest of the world is embracing public transportation, but not us. Just another example of how we continually “outsmart” the rest of the world.
Must be that American “exceptionalism”.
Is it that same exceptionalism that has us paying more for healthcare than any other country in the world, but getting a lower level of medical treatment?
The confidence of our past is now nothing but arrogance.
Perhaps we could actually learn something from what works in other countries.
March 13th, 2013 at 10:13 pm
Buzz, it’s basic math. If you save a gallon, but they increase the cost of the rest of the gasoline you buy, that increase offsets the money you saved when didn’t have to buy the gallon.
In other words, let’s say you used to spend $30 a week when driving a regular car. You switch to a hybrid and now spend $20. But then the government increases the cost of gas because you are consuming less, making it cost $24. That’s $4 less that you saved.
If you bought the pricier hybrid counting on saving $10 a week to offset the cost, well, the government just threw a monkey wrench on that plan.
March 13th, 2013 at 11:46 pm
It’s liberal math don’t you know. The more Obama raises taxes on the poor, the better off white tree huggers will be. Never been a more regressive tax than the gas tax. Liberals love it!
March 14th, 2013 at 5:30 am
The bottom line here is the unquenchable thirst government has for more revenue. Just as with cigarettes, you tax it to a point where it is used less, then the government has to raise taxes even higher to make up for the reduced revenue. It is a never ending spiral which leads to disaster.
March 14th, 2013 at 7:08 am
And now we know why buzz thinks like he duzz.
March 14th, 2013 at 8:24 am
Just think buzz, if gas ever goes to $100 a gallon you’ll save a fortune!!
March 14th, 2013 at 9:10 am
Not me, I drive a gaz guzzler.
March 14th, 2013 at 10:03 am
So buzz drivez a guzz but wantz uz to take the buz! Typ lib.
March 14th, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Last time I shopped cars I was set on a BMW M3 series car, sort of a street legal racing car. You start it and the thing sounds like a jet engine. Awesome! Then I learned they get 6 miles to the gallon if you are lucky and I just couldn’t do it in good conscience. With heavy heart I went with the BMW 330 convertible which the kids like and mom can actually drive.
March 14th, 2013 at 4:32 pm
“So buzz drivez a guzz but wantz uz to take the buz! Typ lib.”
I think people should be able to drive whatever they can afford.
If they choose to drive a six mile per gallon Porsche, so be it.
I also think that mass transit is not only a good idea, but a convenience that would be a welcome option. Somehow mass transit is a “liberal” idea?
While other countries are quickly expanding mass transit, simply because it is “smart”, many in the United States see it as a loss of individualism?
I often have to travel to Chicago and there is a train available that I would take if it wasn’t so antiquated and slow.
Rather than drive, I would rather kick back, read the paper while drinking scotch. The train from Detroit to Chicago, however, is no faster than driving a car and is also expensive.
For no apparent reason many of you must think I am an environmentalist.
Must be the same reasoning that has led to me being branded as a “socialist” on this site when I have never written anything that is even remotely socialist. In fact, if anything, I should be accused of being an obvious profiteer that is a staunch believer in capitalism.
Why do I believe in capitalism? Primarily because it allows one to make as much money as they like, but also because business is simply fun. I am not, however, very offended as it appears that anyone that disagrees with the hard right opinions on this site is commonly referred to as a “socialist” or “Marxist”.
I also believe in a national health system and an adequate safety net, not because it is the right thing to do, but because it is pragmatic.
The ramifications of a large underclass and/or a large segment of people being uninsured is more expensive than providing some degree of financial assistance and government health care.
March 14th, 2013 at 4:42 pm
My bicycle is worth more than my car.
Its one of those “value” vs “cost” things.
March 14th, 2013 at 4:48 pm
Buzz, On one side you say you “think people should be able to drive whatever they can afford”, and on the other side you are ok with higher taxes, which will make it harder for most to afford it.
March 14th, 2013 at 5:05 pm
“Buzz, On one side you say you “think people should be able to drive whatever they can afford”, and on the other side you are ok with higher taxes, which will make it harder for most to afford it.”
Most of the tax increases, however, are for people making more than $450,000, so they can, indeed, “afford it”.
But I understand why the middle class is in favor of lower taxes for the rich. They simply assume that if the pockets of the rich are bulging with money that some of it just might fall out and land in the hands of the “regular” people.
Trickle down economics? Really?
It is similar to many people I know who rail against anything resembling a national health care plan when I am well aware that many of them no longer have health insurance.
March 14th, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Nah Buzz, “the middle class” [note: language of far lefties] want lower taxes for their employers because they know it helps them keep their jobs, get raises, and have more coworkers to date. Working people are generally intelligent about economics.
March 14th, 2013 at 5:32 pm
Anyone see the comments made by Rand Paul today at CPAC?
“The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered. I don’t think we need to name any names here, do we?”
On second thought, maybe they should have invited Chris Christie, even if he did fail a portion of the GOP “purity” test (the part where you don’t shake hands, speak to, or even acknowledge the person holding the office of President if he is not “one of us”). Not even when faced with a natural disaster? Apparently not. That would resemble governing and this is bloodsport.
Oh well, it is probably a blessing in disguise as his presence at CPAC would probably hurt, rather than help, his chances of winning a general election.
I love the selection of speakers at CPAC.
Christie? No, but Palin? Sure, that will elevate the rhetoric.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell? Nope, but Donald “the Birther” Trump? Sure, let’s class up the joint.
Who else is speaking? Wayne LaPierre of course and just in case the message isn’t heard he is followed by David Keene, president of the National Rifle Association.
Boy, if they didn’t like what Rand Paul said, imagine the kind of reception Bobby Jindal will get. Maybe it will go better if he doesn’t call them all “stupid”.
March 14th, 2013 at 5:40 pm
“Most of the tax increases, however, are for people making more than $450,000, so they can, indeed, “afford it”.”
Good grief.
So, is there someone at the gas station checking your W-2 before they give you your price per gallon ?
March 14th, 2013 at 6:09 pm
Merely pointing out that “Think people should be able to drive whatever they can afford” and not extending the “temporary” Bush tax cuts to those making over $450,000 are, in reality, unrelated.
I find that most of my friends that are fortunate enough to drive extremely expensive cars really aren’t concerned with MPG. Heck, most of them are blissfully unaware of the price of a gallon of gas.
I find it odd that so many people are so concerned with the state of the “rich”.
Their share of the nation’s wealth has steadily increased for the past two decades.
Even the supposedly “informed” are mistaken.
“Some believe we’re still doing fine. In his address to the Heritage Foundation, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) declared, “Class is not a fixed designation in this country. We are an upwardly mobile society with a lot of movement between income groups.” Ryan contrasted social mobility in the United States with that in Europe, where “top-heavy welfare states have replaced the traditional aristocracies, and masses of the long-term unemployed are locked into the new lower class.”
The facts, however, paint a different story:
The most comprehensive comparative study, done last year by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, found that “upward mobility from the bottom” — was significantly lower in the United States than in most major European countries, including Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark. Another study, by the Institute for the Study of Labor in Germany in 2006, uses other metrics and concludes that “the U.S. appears to be exceptional in having less rather than more upward mobility.”
March 14th, 2013 at 6:27 pm
So what ?
All you’re saying is that those better off are supposed to pay for what no one else can afford.
You’re conflicting yourself again when you say you support these means of taxation yet love capitalism.
March 14th, 2013 at 6:43 pm
In the years I make more money, I pay a higher rate of tax.
Paying taxes is not inconsistent with capitalism.
I certainly have been paying significantly less than I did under Reagan.
At what point did the Republican Party reduce its platform to lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes?
It was certainly post Reagan.
The Republican answer to a budget deficit? Take in “less” money.
Perhaps it would be a good time to invest in America’s future. Young people, infrastructure, emerging industries and technologies.
Instead it appears the right wants to limit access to loans and grants for college, eliminate specific science initiatives because of “morality” (we used to be at the forefront of stem cell research, now we trail South Korea, SOUTH KOREA!) and adopt an austerity program.
Just like any business, when the market is slow you invest and gain market share. The business of America is business and the world economy is slow. Therefore it is time to invest.
March 14th, 2013 at 7:04 pm
How does that help those middle incomers in Ca. having to buy gas ?
Also, you need a dictionary.
Taxation is not consistent with capitalism.
The greater the tax in a capitalist society the less capitalism there is.
If anything, taxation creates the most inconsistency in a capitalist system.
You’re an opportunist, not a capitalist
March 14th, 2013 at 7:19 pm
“Taxation is not consistent with capitalism.”
Well, then I guess there shouldn’t be any taxes.
Wow, I guess I can only be happy that the number of people that hold opinions consistent with many of the people on this site is shrinking at a rapid rate.
I am also happy that the right’s inability to ever waiver is a main component of their inevitable demise.
Heck, it is already obvious in the several factions of the GOP, which doesn’t even really exist as a cohesive party anymore.
Yeah, the GOP was initially happy and energized by the Tea Party movement (and the money they brought), but I wonder how they feel about it now?
Kinda like marrying a stripper.
March 14th, 2013 at 7:24 pm
Higher MPG, fewer workers and more people working at home will reduce revenues derived from gas taxes in every state, but road maintenence should also demand fewer dollars (at least in the states that didn’t build their roads 60 years ago).
March 14th, 2013 at 7:48 pm
“Well, then I guess there shouldn’t be any taxes.”
Not what I said.
Since there obviously needs to be some government structure that undoubtedly cocts money there is indeed a need for taxes.
Once you start imposing selective tax rates on selected levels of success you are ikn fact inhibiting capitalism.
Pure capitalism does not involve different “styles” or “varieties” of capitalism, be it lunatic-fringe style, or moderate style: this is an absurd and demonstrably false notion. Capitalism, by its very definition, means free trade. That is all. That’s what capitalism is. It means that government stays out of commerce and industry, just as government stays out of religion, and for the exact same reasons. There is no middle ground to that: it’s either capitalistic, or its opposite: interventionist.
March 14th, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Oh, you mean laissez faire, unregulated, pure capitalism.
They have it. It is called South America, where there are two classes, very rich and very poor.
Pure capitalism is nothing but a poker game.
Eventually, one guy, the winner, has all the chips.
Of course, we did have a semblance of that system in the the 19th and early 20th century.
The President at that time, however, worked at the behest of the Morgans and Vanderbilts and there was no income tax.