California Mileage Tax Would Charge Drivers Based on Distance Driven

This tax has nothing to do with anything but greed. I don't want to hear 'fuel efficient" , "Paying for roads" all smoke and mirrors. Just another money grab. If it passes, just means massive outflow of people leaving the state.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Greetings InverseLookingGlass.

I am perfectly able to understand that road surface conditions are a crucial component of road safety. I am learning to drive at the moment, and some of the roads in my area are attrocious. I can easily understand that a lack of caution could lead to calamity, when combined with such surface conditions. However, I think that it might be wise to look to the management of the systems by which the roads are supposed to be maintained, the reasons why more of the California states budget is not being applied to the problem.

I know in my town the reason the council have no money to set people to work on our roads on a more frequent basis, is because they have been cut in on various backhanders to allow massive, and unhelpful infrastructural projects including a new, and totally inappropriate museum building (despite the fact that our old one is a listed building, and provides a wonderful setting for learning and contemplation, and the fact that the new building is sure to flood because of schoolboy errors made in the planning process, which I was present in the council chamber to see for myself, when it was voted through). Essentially, they have agreed to mishandle public funds, in order to allow this sort of fancy new development, rather than spending money on the simple business of keeping our town running.

California is bigger than my town, probably bigger than my country for all I know (I am not up to date on current land surface area and population statistics, but it is a safe enough bet ), and that means that if there is a swindle at the root of why the roads are not top notch, it is a bigger swindle, because these things increase in size exponentially with the size of the area in which they are enacted.

What I am saying, is that bearing in mind the size of California, and the amount of tax that must already flow into the coffers of the state of California, it is unbelievable that they could possibly require more than they have in order to enact these works, unless of course, someone is stealing or misappropriating funds from its account! Follow the money! It is also worth mentioning, that there is likely to already be a channel by which money is supposed to flow from taxation to the road network, so this would in effect be a secondary tax, alongside the pre-existing tax channel along which cash should be flowing to the works deemed necessary.

Ok, I'm glad I left California when I did.

First of all, who actually believes that they'll do away with the 52.9¢ per gallon tax when they implement the per mile tax?

Second, if the do remove the per gallon tax, this is still a massive tax increase. For my vehicle, it would amount to an 89% increase in taxation. My vehicle gets an average of 20 miles per gallon. Tax under per gallon rules would be 52.9¢. Tax under per mile rule would be 20 miles x 5¢ = $1.00. An increase of 47.1¢ per gallon. So filling up my 15 gallon tank would now cost me $15 just in state tax.

That would mean an additional $2 for every drive to the nearest town and back for me, or $4 to go to the nearest big city for an appointment. A visit to a relative across state and back, and extra $20. I'm glad to live in Michigan rather than California, at least for now.

How are they proposing to track the mileage? Is it going to be a dongle under the dash, possibly with wi-fi like the smart meters? Or are they going to have a DMV clerk physically make note your odometer mileage every time you register your car? Also, what about mileage driven for business, will people be able to deduct it somewhere? The legislators are going to have to address this in some way because this kind of measure is essentially a partial tax on being employed. This kind of tax would also nullify any future minimum wage increase measures. Seems to me its going to cost them a fortune to enforce with all the old cars still on the road that might not be compatible with the tracking tech they are hoping to use.

You guys don't know how good you have it!

Here in the UK, we currently pay £1.39 (roughly) for a litre of diesel or £1.29 for a litre of petrol. If my maths is right, that is £5.26 a gallon. In US money, this is $8.94 for a gallon of fuel...

Of the £1.39, 57.95p goes on duty and 22.98p goes on VAT (sales tax), which equates too 58% of the price of fuel on taxes.

It does have to be said that current Government has frozen fuel duty rises for the past few years as the previous Government had them going up on an "escalator" regardless of what happened economically.

On top of that, there have been discussions about charging per mile as well even though we pay a road tax, which is based upon the CO2 emissions - so for my Audi A6 (1.9L Turbo diesel) I have to pay £172 a year.

I live in Arizona, right next door to California. Our combined fuel taxes ( Federal, State, Local ) are about half of what they are in California, yet our roads are fairly well maintained. I would think that the obvious difference would be the costs for labor, as equipment and materials maintain a fairly consistent price across the board. I know that here in Arizona a bulk of the transportation infrastructure maintenance is subcontracted out to the lowest bidder. I am not knowledgeable about who does the work in California, but perhaps they should amend how they do this. I would also like to point out that California has an extensive toll road network.

a reply to: stumason

Hi Stu,
it might be worth noting at this point that the US and UK liquid gallons are different?

An imperial (UK) gallon of liquid is defined as 4.54609 litres,
The U.S. liquid gallon is defined as 231 cubic inches, which is (approx) only 3.785 litres.
So, One imperial (UK) gallon is equivalent to about 1.2 U.S. liquid gallons.

(Yep - We in the UK still get ripped off though!!)

Cheers,
G

a reply to: Gordi The Drummer

Aye, I worked it out on US Gallons

Don't worry, not as dumb as I look!

Greedy savages...

If there's no economic incentive to escape the price control on gasoline all you've done effectively wiped out a chunk of the push towards economical/clean energy.

This bill tells you whose "Free speech" is funding California's politicians. This is a direct attack on the state of California, the progressive mindset there is a threat to the kings of big oil.

The state gasoline tax of 52.9 cents per gallon could be replaced with a "miles driven fee" of $0.05 cents or so per mile driven, under state legislation proposed by a Bay Area lawmaker. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

52 cents eh ?

The state makes 52 cents per gallon sold.

That is more cash than the gas station that sells it makes off it.

That's thinking with your noggin California !

I dont get the usual foam the mouth responses, i remember when i was younger where i live people where talking for or againts adding a toll both for people coming in town to work, when people where saying why should i pay a fee to use the bridges and roads to come to work everyday.

I dont know maybe cause if you use the infrastructure more than others maybe you need to pay your part, i know its not american but heck why not.

In another thread bike trails were brought up for some reason and well it is one of the places where the revenue from automobile user fees paid in fuel taxes are used instead of being used to fix or replace existing highway infrastructure. Others used the point that "user" fees are desirable in justifying California's proposal - well OK lets apply that directly to the other posts $15,000,000 upfront dollar cost of bike trails using traditional tolls as an example to pay for and maintain the project.

On a 10 year basis construction and cost to maintain might approach $30,000,000. Lets say there are 1000 hardcore bicycle commuters and the rest are intermittent recreational riders - ok.

Due weather and seasons the 1000 people ride 125 working days in a given year. So that's 250 one way toll trips per individual per year. In 10 years that's 250,000 trips.

$30,000,000 divided by 250,000 trips = $120 per trip or $240 a day of taxpayer subsidy so they can enjoy a free commute on a dedicated trail. If this is the case how about we taxpayers just give you $125 a day to just stay home, by god it'd be cheaper!

Someone please point out how that's really cost effective or just how that kind of money spent this way is in anyway superior to spending the money where it was supposed to go in the first place?

Detractors can put my number to 10,000 riders a day but still its $12 a day - I for one have never ever seen any use of bike trails that even approaches the 1000 a day number so my guess is the subsidy for those folks is even a greater travesty to the taxpayer who wonders just why their government asks for more and more money to fix that which should already have been fixed long ago if the money was appropriately used.

Detractors could say I should use a 30 year bond, well that just exponentially increases maintenance and repair costs.

I am in no way "anti-bicycle" but if you want dedicated roadways then pay for them yourselves through tolls. You need it too for the other 125 days not soaking the taxpayers.

a reply to: Mountainmeg

well even if they get rid of the state tax is there not a federal gas tax as well that would have to be paid as well?

en.wikipedia.org... so you would not pay state gas tax but federal gas tax and mileage tax

a reply to: smithjustinb

In America, California lives in you, and they will too just as soon as they realize they can't afford to live there. And they'll bring all their fruity-nuttiness with them, too. Then there will be more Californias in America while California becomes the first state-wide Detroit. If you think it's not so, just look at Colorado.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
I dont get the usual foam the mouth responses, i remember when i was younger where i live people where talking for or againts adding a toll both for people coming in town to work, when people where saying why should i pay a fee to use the bridges and roads to come to work everyday.

I dont know maybe cause if you use the infrastructure more than others maybe you need to pay your part, i know its not american but heck why not.

Why should I be quadruple tapped?

Tax on my gas. Tax on my road. Tax on every mile I drive. Paid using income that has already been taxed at its source when I made it by all the entities doing to gas, road and mileage taxing.

At some point, enough is enough and they need to keep their sticky fingers out of my pocket. Every loss of income is a loss of my liberty through another confiscation of property.

originally posted by: boohoo
How are they proposing to track the mileage? Is it going to be a dongle under the dash, possibly with wi-fi like the smart meters? Or are they going to have a DMV clerk physically make note your odometer mileage every time you register your car? Also, what about mileage driven for business, will people be able to deduct it somewhere? The legislators are going to have to address this in some way because this kind of measure is essentially a partial tax on being employed. This kind of tax would also nullify any future minimum wage increase measures. Seems to me its going to cost them a fortune to enforce with all the old cars still on the road that might not be compatible with the tracking tech they are hoping to use.

Proposals I've heard bandied about would make it the driver's responsibility to get and install the compliant tracking device which I call BS.

I travel anywhere from 500 to a 1,000 miles a week to the jobsites to work.

I spend a hell of alot of money in gas.

I am paying my part to maintain the roads.

You can take your nickel per mile and shove it up your arse.

I do not live in Cali, I live in Illinois, Cali's little corrupt brother.

Construction workers get the shaft again. We build the frigging set up for everyone.

If this crap comes here, I will consider being a lazy bum mooching off the system.

I'm sick of the bullsh@t.

The working class gets screwed to death.

This seems odd I know, but let's assume that all of the money that is used to fix roads comes from investments the Corporation known as The State of California makes. I know this goes against everything everyone was taught in school, but for the sake of argument let us say the CAFR, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report states that all road money comes from other places besides gas, registration, license, car-sales taxes etc.

Why put the mile-tax forth if the money is not needed for roads?

I say this because the notion of earmarked money is a lie, all money goes to one place, but the EXCUSE generated for creating a tax is used to get people to agree to some socially acceptable theme. We "reduce" the tax paid by "green" cars in order save the environment buy to make up the lost revenue we must tax something else so we tax for healthcare and education. The CAFR suggests the state is FLUSH with money, even after the money that went to ENRON. In fact, the State is gdmn rich. The "budget" which is TOTALLY arbitrary says the State is on it's last legs but the budget is simply self imposed and not related to anything real at all. It is the latter that is used to justify taxing, adding more control measures, to everyone.

This is about CONTROL and nothing else. The idea that taxing fixes all belies the point that is right in front of us. They can't seem to get a enough money to fix all the problems they say they need to fix. For 100 years the entire country has been into total free-fall crises and a crises that ONLY taxing can solve and yet...

Since this is self evident, and it has always been the case, it would seem that there is NO REAL INTENTION to fix any problem at all but an intention to keep coming up with more and more wax to tax = execute control through financial means.

I would suggest to those who have these conversations to start seeing each economic tax as a measure of control and NOT way to fix the potholes or educate the kids. I would suggest that you ask those around you why they believe the way to control "Them" is by taxing? I often ask, "where did you get the idea that the way to control all of your behavior is through taxing you on the things you do?" You'd be surprised at how people are unable to see that TAXES ARE FOR THEM PERSONALLY, and DONE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTROLLING THEIR ACTIONS.

In the past a slaves behavior was controlled with beatings and rewards - beatings happening more often then rewards obviously. The slave knew what was what. The modern day slave is not beaten, he is taxed, and he is mind controlled by the media to demand the tax - the beating, in order to makes sure his own actions are controlled. The slave begs for taxes so the slave won't do those bad things anymore. The slave is demanding for mile-tax so he will no longer drive so much, when his driving is reduced, the slave will demand to be taxed on his food because his reduced driving his causing him economic pain.