California gas tax going up 3.5c/gallon July 1st

[apvbguy]

A lot of people claim to love their country but hate gov-ern-ment, taxes, regulation, and roughly half the people in the country, which seems to be a little crazy and contradictory to me.

-Yet another Kalifornian

the concept of government was around long before the founding fathers laid the groundwork for this nation. there are many things that government does well as there are many things that government does not do well. the enormous size of the government we endure now is what many take issue with.

 

[smkettner]

And just an fyi to derkraut and others: I believe a good 2/3 of our petroleum comes from North America itself, and less than 1/3 from OPEC countries. (Less than 'popular belief', but still not low enough!)

While generally true, what most people don't understand is that even if we produced 100% of oil consumed domestically it would not free us from world oil market pricing. Regardless of who is buying oil from the Middle East, for example, if another oil shock occurs because of some supply disruption—Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz, say—we would feel it in USA oil pricing as well. Oil is a "fungible" commodity, in econ-speak, and will flow to whoever pays the most. While producing all of our own oil would be nice from a balance of payments perspective, it won't free us from the world oil market pricing.

"Drill, baby, drill" isn't the panacea that some seem to think, when it comes to freeing us from the influence of OPEC and world oil markets in general. Using less oil, and using it more efficiently, so that it represents a smaller portion of GDP is a better strategy. By driving electric cars, for example...

On topic: kudos to the California Legislature. I wish we could do the same here but it would require a ballot initiative.

Congress could easily order a halt to any exports in time of crisis.

And I agree it is about time the road tax on fuel was increased. Now if the feds would follow with a dime and then actually spend the money on the roads.

 

[DaveEV]

one huge reason the fuel taxes are not covering the costs of maintenance is the many diversions from the highway funds for NON highway projects.

How can you claim that fuel taxes are being diverted from road maintenance if the revenues raised by fuel taxes aren't enough to cover the cost of maintenance? That makes no sense. Only about half the money currently used for road maintenance is covered by fuel taxes. UPDATED: Drivers Cover Just 51 Percent of U.S. Road Spending. In California, a small amount of fuel tax can be used for other public transit. Roadshow: California's gas tax and what we do with it

bicycle lanes, mass transit subsidies and other schemes should not be funded by raids on the highway trust funds.

Why not? Investments in alternative modes of transportation as you've described reduce wear on the roads and reduce pollution, both of which are beneficial to the general public.

The price of gasoline remains well below what it should be, considering the environmental/health consequences of its use and the fact that it's not a renewable resource.

what should the price be?

Obviously, the price should be high enough to offset the cost of pollution caused by burning said fuels. That's what a market that took into account all factors would do. That would include health care costs incurred because of said pollution.

are you willing to forgo the conveniences that you enjoy because "low" fuel costs?

Kind of a weird question considering how many people on this forum go out of their way to minimize their impact of burning gasoline by avoiding it.

What should the price be? I don't really know. Maybe double what it is today, adjusting for inflation.

Good guess, abasile (see my earlier reference stating that only about half of all road maintenance is currently covered by fuel taxes).

maybe you are not aware of how energy prices are part of just about everything in the economy, doubling the price of energy is not the answer to cure the woes you think society has.

Considering that the budget shortfall in road maintenance has to come from somewhere, it's pretty clear that fuel taxes should be raised while other taxes that are currently being used for road maintenance should be lowered. Through market forces, this would reduce fuel consumption and the use of roads, which would hopefully balance out. Eliminating the distortion that a too-low fuel tax has on the market would be a benefit.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

3.5 cents/gallon more wont be news next week. $0.35/gal more would be forgotten pretty fast

After Katrina, when prices doubled overnight, there were the usual rash of how to conserve fuel stories. Now, prices are higher than that and driving behavior hasn't really changed. Like any other species, we become conditioned.

Reducing govt spending, while raising adequate revenue, seems common sense, but will be a source of conflict anyway. Nature of the beast.

Notice how EV driving matches well with all those fuel conservation stories? Maybe we should limit ICE cars to 3 gal gas tanks.

Here, road repairs also come out of a town's excise tax, based on vehicle value. Valued at $35k, we just paid more in excise than ever, but still worth it.

 

[fooljoe]

Sorry if it comes across as everyone ganging up on you, as I welcome the discussion with alternative (at least alternative to this crowd) points of view. Hopefully you're willing to keep an open mind and not just shut yourself off from the barrage. But anyway, here's a few more things:

maybe you are not aware of how energy prices are part of just about everything in the economy, doubling the price of energy is not the answer to cure the woes you think society has. maybe YOU are not personally worried about the costs of living skyrocketing but I bet many people are not willing to endure the pains your ideas would inflict on them

We (as in society) already pay the true cost of energy. And whatever that cost is, it's much greater than the going rate for a gallon of gas. The true cost includes all the health care costs as a result of kids getting asthma from living near freeways, and the cost of damages from global-warming-fueled storms, and the cost of wars waged (often against enemies fueled by petro-dollars) to ensure its supply, capped liability for oil spills, and so on. The question is whether we shift more of these "external" costs onto the price paid at the pump, or if we continue to pull the wool over our eyes and keep the price low to appease Joe 6-pack.

do any of you realize who makes the most money on the sale of a gallon of gas?

Obviously you mean the government. I'm not sure of the accuracy of that intimation, but who do you think should profit (if there is a profit to be made - certainly debatable as in the long term its extraction could lead to more harm than good) from this limited resource that's sucked out of the ground beneath our feet? And even if you're correct that taxes add up to higher gross revenues for government than oil companies, consider again that government bears the brunt of the associated costs, while the money largely flows to oil companies in one direction. Revenue does not imply profit.

 

[DaveEV]

do any of you realize who makes the most money on the sale of a gallon of gas?

Obviously you mean the government. I'm not sure of the accuracy of that intimation, but who do you think should profit (if there is a profit to be made - certainly debatable as in the long term its extraction could lead to more harm than good) from this limited resource that's sucked out of the ground beneath our feet? And even if you're correct that taxes add up to higher gross revenues for government than oil companies, consider again that government bears the brunt of the associated costs, while the money largely flows to oil companies in one direction. Revenue does not imply profit.

Good point - considering that there is currently a federal deficit, it is probably more accurate to say that the government is actually losing money on each gallon of gas that is sold (not to mention other points previously mentioned such as taxes not being high enough to pay for road maintenance, health costs, military costs, etc). In fact, the government is probably losing the most money out of all parties on each gallon of gas!

 

[apvbguy]

Good point - considering that there is currently a federal deficit, it is probably more accurate to say that the government is actually losing money on each gallon of gas that is sold (not to mention other points previously mentioned such as taxes not being high enough to pay for road maintenance, health costs, military costs, etc). In fact, the government is probably losing the most money out of all parties on each gallon of gas!

this has got to be one of the most absurd non sequiturs of all time

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

WA is proposing a 10.5 cent increase which is still too little... way too little

 

[mbender]

Good point - considering that there is currently a federal deficit, it is probably more accurate to say that the government is actually losing money on each gallon of gas that is sold [...] In fact, the government is probably losing the most money out of all parties on each gallon of gas!

this has got to be one of the most absurd non sequiturs of all time

I and I dare say most thinking people follow and agree with it just fine. Any number of respectable analyses suggest that the true cost of petroleum is at least twice what we pay (or no longer pay!) at the pump. Certainly the government, the country, is not making a profit, and we'd be in much better shape financially if we were making as much per gallon as we currently lose.

 

[mbender]

And regarding this,

the enormous size of the government we endure now is what many take issue with.

I actually agree. Let's start by cutting the monstrous military and "intelligence community" in half or more (budget and personnel). That alone would free up a LOT of funds and people to work productively in the revered private sector.

 

[apvbguy]

And regarding this,

the enormous size of the government we endure now is what many take issue with.

I actually agree. Let's start by cutting the monstrous military and "intelligence community" in half or more (budget and personnel). That alone would free up a LOT of funds and people to work productively in the revered private sector.

that's a fine idea, then we can refocus on the many other issues that afflict our nation. one redirection of assets might be bringing the troops home from distant lands and place them on the border to ensure the security of the nation.

 

[apvbguy]

I and I dare say most thinking people follow and agree with it just fine.

dare I say engaging in groupthink isn't always wise?

 

[Weckel]

The price of gasoline remains well below what it should be, considering the environmental/health consequences of its use and the fact that it's not a renewable resource. Right now, in this heat wave, my family is breathing significant ozone pollution largely because of the millions of polluting vehicles in the valleys below us. Down in those valleys, the overall air quality is of course even worse. That's not to say significant progress hasn't been made in addressing California's air quality issues, but we still have a long way to go.

what should the price be?
are you willing to forgo the conveniences that you enjoy because "low" fuel costs?

The price should be $8 gallon like in Europe, and we buy still autos and more eficience autos. But the most people don't drive a SUV, why they should drive it?.

 

[mbender]

that's a fine idea, then we can refocus on the many other issues that afflict our nation. one redirection of assets might be bringing the troops home from distant lands and place them on the border to ensure the security of the nation.

"Redirection" of troops won't save a cent unless you are proposing to simultaneously cut their pay and numbers. I'm talking about cutting hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people from the military-industrial complex, to use Ike's phrase. Border security is a whole other issue, for another time.

I've made my points on this issue, but lastly want to agree with "DNA" on this one -- 3.5¢ is a joke and even 35 would be forgotten about quickly.

 

[apvbguy]

The price should be $8 gallon like in Europe, and we buy still autos and more eficience autos. But the most people don't drive a SUV, why they should drive it?.

why only $8? why not $20? how about this, since we are evolving from fuel oils that power our cars we change the method of collecting road use taxes to a true user based system? we could easily use currently technology to charge a per mile road use tax, maybe $10 mile would please you or make it $50 a mile and we could easily fund all the pie in the sky social programs

 

[planet4ever]

why only $8? why not $20? how about this, since we are evolving from fuel oils that power our cars we change the method of collecting road use taxes to a true user based system? we could easily use currently technology to charge a per mile road use tax, maybe $10 mile would please you or make it $50 a mile and we could easily fund all the pie in the sky social programs

We've discussed road use taxes a number of times on this board, and I think a majority of those who have spoken up on the topic have been in favor, despite the clear fact that it would affect EVs disproportionally. I am one who thinks that road costs should be paid by a road use tax, probably based on weight and miles driven. I'd make it simple - a required annual inspection for all vehicles, and a report from that inspection of make, model, and verified true mileage to the taxing authority.

But that obviously was not your point. I read you as saying that if we favor a punitive gas tax (which doesn't affect us) then we should also favor a punitive road use tax (which does). Historically taxes and tariffs have often been levied to punish what the society determines to be bad behavior. Our constitution states explicitly that "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States". Note in particular that the power is not limited to paying debts. The framers knew full well that such laws were often intended to provide "behavior modification", and covered that by "common defence and general Welfare". I have no objection to Congress exercising that authority. If they were to determine that heavy use of public roads was not in the public good (and there are valid arguments for such a position), then they would be justified in levying punitive road use taxes. At the moment, however, Weckel is contending, while not stating it explicitly, that heavy use of petroleum for transportation is not in the public good. His $8 gas price would not be intended to raise additional money, but rather to reduce gasoline consumption.

Ray

 

[apvbguy]

I am one who thinks that road costs should be paid by a road use tax, probably based on weight and miles driven. I'd make it simple - a required annual inspection for all vehicles, and a report from that inspection of make, model, and verified true mileage to the taxing authority.

such a low tech method of data collection? you'd need to hire an army of inspectors and the fraud would be rampant. think RFID as a data collector

If they were to determine that heavy use of public roads was not in the public good (and there are valid arguments for such a position), then they would be justified in levying punitive road use taxes. At the moment, however, Weckel is contending, while not stating it explicitly, that heavy use of petroleum for transportation is not in the public good. His $8 gas price would not be intended to raise additional money, but rather to reduce gasoline consumption.

Ray

Until a viable alternative is found for petroleum fuels the statement that burning those fuels is not in the public interest is incredibly absurd. of course his calling for an $8 gas tax was punitive, I was playing along, such a high rate of taxation would not be a benefit to anyone except the utopian urban planners who dream of all of use living in 200 sq ft highrise cubes serviced by mass transit. would it be efficient? maybe, is it a future I'd want to see implemented? no.

 

[Weckel]

The price should be $8 gallon like in Europe, and we buy still autos and more eficience autos. But the most people don't drive a SUV, why they should drive it?.

why only $8? why not $20? how about this, since we are evolving from fuel oils that power our cars we change the method of collecting road use taxes to a true user based system? we could easily use currently technology to charge a per mile road use tax, maybe $10 mile would please you or make it $50 a mile and we could easily fund all the pie in the sky social programs

why only $8? why not $20? how about this, since we are evolving from fuel oils that power our cars we change the method of collecting road use taxes to a true user based system? we could easily use currently technology to charge a per mile road use tax, maybe $10 mile would please you or make it $50 a mile and we could easily fund all the pie in the sky social programs

.... At the moment, however, Weckel is contending, while not stating it explicitly, that heavy use of petroleum for transportation is not in the public good. His $8 gas price would not be intended to raise additional money, but rather to reduce gasoline consumption.

Ray

Yes, this 8$ gallon would not be for pay roads, are to reduce gasoline consumption because smog are very toxic for health and a lot of our gasoline money go to countries enemies. We sould reduce or prohibit gasoline in city but this is very extremist then a expensiv price is best solution.

I pay in my country $8 gallon, and my salary it's lowest in U.S. When somethig is very cheap is wasted, like in Venezuela where gasoline are cheaper that water. And gasoline's price in USA is VERY VERY low.

 

[TomT]

I assume you are also willing to pay the significant increase in price for virtually everything else due to the increased transportation and other secondary costs...

The price should be $8 gallon like in Europe, and we buy still autos and more eficience autos. But the most people don't drive a SUV, why they should drive it?.

 

[RonDawg]

I am one who thinks that road costs should be paid by a road use tax, probably based on weight and miles driven. I'd make it simple - a required annual inspection for all vehicles, and a report from that inspection of make, model, and verified true mileage to the taxing authority.

such a low tech method of data collection? you'd need to hire an army of inspectors and the fraud would be rampant. think RFID as a data collector

Many states already have that "army of inspectors." It's the inspection of some sort (smog, safety, etc.) required in many states before you can renew the registration. The mileage is usually recorded when this inspection is done.

As far as digital tracking devices, it would be easier and cheaper, but people on both sides of the political spectrum have grave privacy concerns about the government being able to track what they are doing. There's already concerns about how many police departments have automated license plate readers, and there's no expectation of privacy about that.