Californians give big thumbs down to new gas tax, poll finds

[alp227]

Source: Mercury News

SACRAMENTO — Californians may hate swerving to avoid potholes, but a new law that will charge drivers an extra $10 a month to pave over the state’s problem roads is provoking its own kind of road rage.

People up and down the Golden State — and all but the most liberal of Democrats — are against the gas tax that the Legislature narrowly passed in April, according to a new poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies.

“When you’re digging into somebody’s wallet, it’s when they sit up, pay attention and start to object,” said Mark DiCamillo, who directs the Berkeley IGS Poll.

Fifty-eight percent of registered voters oppose the tax, while 35 percent favor it and seven percent have no opinion, the poll found.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/08/californians-give-big-thumbs-down-to-new-gas-tax-poll-finds/

[SoCalNative]

1. Californians need to suck it up

We are some of the biggest consumers of gasoline in the country and something has to be done to pay to fix our roadways.

[Hortensis]

38. Good point and agree. I'd support it. But

memories of how high gas prices cut into their income are probably still painful, and worrisome. Many saw debt climb and opportunities close off during that period. There also has to be awareness that the resultant alterations in lifestyle may have not been too painful but that many of the ones they may be forced to someday would be.

I carpooled for a few weeks once, and loss of the stops I'd once made on the way home created a pile of delayed tasks that ate up a surprising part of my weekends (and required driving to perform) and caused me to miss joining friends at a concert that I still regret. Couldn't even pick up my kids from activities without getting out my car and going back, and of course their days had to be rescheduled to fit mine. Heavy costs, though it'd probably work better now with the kids gone and Amazon running some of the errands. Just the lovely freedom to know I could go where and when I wanted was the most emotional cost though.

In any case, occurs that this would also be a regressive tax, hitting hardest those who can afford it least. Since the ultra-wealthy have relieved 80% of us of so much of the wealth we'd be paying high taxes on, I think we should sock them with even higher taxes on their entire income. We did just that before and built all kinds of wonderful infrastructure and middle class prosperity with that.

[yurbud]

2. How about tax profits of oil companies for it? Or tax drillers?

Why go after consumers?

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Companies would just raise prices to pay for the tax

It all gets pushed onto the source of value - consumers. There is no free lunch.

[Bradical79]

11. True

But who would get the brunt of the anger? The companies or the government? And roads need fixed regardless. A back end tax might work better.

[bucolic_frolic]

12. Just like pricing anything

Perceived value, in this case perceived attribution.

Who's to blame?

Democrats should mine this concept assiduously.

[Rollo]

4. California gas taxes will not go toward fixing roads in the rest of the nation....

IMHO there should be a much increased weight surcharge for registering large heavy SUV's. And the day is coming when gas taxes are supplemented if not replaced by taxes based on actual miles driven, because high efficiency heavy hybrid vehicles cause as much wear and tear on roads as gas guzzlers of similar heft. The problem is how to determine how many miles a vehicle is driven each year. Older vehicles don't have the capability of registering and transmitting that data, but I understand many newer vehicles do.

It's an imperfect world, espeically when it comes to potholes.

[moonscape]

33. Could insurance companies provide that? There could be a mileage check-in

at DMVs or Smog Stations for annual registration.

I agree that miles driven - and vehicle weight - are the fairest.

[Greensix1]

5. Cheap

Most voters are CHEAP. They want good roads but don't want to pay for them. At some point, you have to admit that You are going to have to contribute to fixing the problem. Highway 99 which goes up the middle of the San Joaquin Valley should be six lanes the whole way from Bakersfield to Sacramento. Only portions of it are. Interstate 5 should be six lanes from one end to the other, and it's not. There needs to be Another new bridge going into SF from the East Bay to handle the terrible traffic problems. The Bay Bridge and San Mateo are too crowded during peak rush hours. 580 needs to be eight lanes from Castro Valley to I-5. The Fastrak lanes need to be eliminated as they are only for the drivers rich enough to pay, while everyone's taxes paid to put in the lanes. High speed trains need to be used to haul trucks from southern CA to northern CA to get them off the highways, where they are beating the pavement to death and slowing down car traffic. The state of CA Could do a lot with the extra money that is needed to fix its traffic problems and voters need to understand They are going to have to pay for it if they want their lives to improve. Ten dollars a month is a pittance to pay to improve and/or fix the mess it has now.

[silverweb]

8. Agreed!

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]So often, people's attitude is "I want it, but let someone else pay for it." We all want and we *need* to get the roads fixed. They're in terrible shape in many places, unsafe and often damaging to vehicles. A gas tax is very fair because those who drive the most (and/or have gas guzzlers) will pay the most. Basing the registration increase on the value of the car is very fair, too; those who can afford the nicest cars can also afford the greater registration increase.

The people bitching about the increases are the same people who also bitch the most about road conditions. They're also the same people who agree we need more halfway houses, psychiatric facilities, low-income housing, etc, but fight tooth and nail to make sure they're not anywhere even near *their* neighborhoods. I've seen it firsthand where I live and it's ugly.

My advice to the complainers: If you want nice things (like smooth, well-maintained roads) and you use them, quit your bitching and pay your f*%!g fair share for them!

[Dream Girl]

13. Agree. $10 is less than lunch at most places.

People need to get a clue and stop being so frigging cheap, think about all that wear and tear on cars and tires from driving on these crappy roads.

[beaglelover]

6. People are griping over $10 a MONTH!!!!

[c588415]

22. Im griping, that $10 is going to cut into my beer fund.

I support our Gov, but god damn !

[beaglelover]

36. LOL!!

[ansible]

30. Do you realize that California has some of the highest rates of poverty in the entire country?

It may mean nothing to you, but a lot of us living here barely make ends meet.

[David__77]

7. If I were polled, I'd say "don't know."

And that would be true - I don't consider that I have enough information to assess if I agree with the specific tax. I certainly don't oppose it. I certainly recognize that funds must be obtained with which infrastructure can be built and maintained.

[yallerdawg]

9. California voters was where I became skeptical of direct democracy and I&R. Prop 8.

Excerpt from link:

The results underscore just what Gerston calls “the famous disconnect of American politics: People want things done, but so often the people who want them done don’t want to pay for it.”


Even in our founding, the rally cry was, "No taxation without representation."

Some things good for the common collective are not so good for each individual's self-interest.

We're better off not relying on individuals to make the choice - or we'll be driving on dirt roads.

[christx30]

15. Maybe because California already has high taxes

and they are wondering where the money they already pay is going? I would probably vote 'no' as well. Is the money that Californians paying in taxes going toward what it's supposed to be for? Are state gas taxes going to road maintenance? Was it diverted to other causes? Accountability. If you want more money, show us that the money you're already getting is being used correctly, but it simply isn't enough.

[yallerdawg]

16. The old "taxed enough already" argument.

A default position for Americans across the country.

"Dirt roads."

[christx30]

17. If I'm charged $100 per month for something

that's supposed to go to X, and you spend $50 on Y, then tell me that you need more money for X, I'm going to give you a firm, but polite "No". Especially if I don't think Y is a good use of money.
The average person don't have unlimited funds they can throw away. Most people have a budget every month. This much for rent, this much for the electric, this much for food. Any new charges for one thing (gas tax) has to come out of somewhere else. That's missing out on going to a movie. Or getting some groceries. Or not being able to make a full credit card payment. If I don't think Y is worth those things, I'm going to tell you no.

[cisco man]

37. well then...

Arn't the budget numbers public? Can you not actually go online & find out what the state spends our money on? I imagine that you are like many in that you just assume that we pay high taxes & don't see anything for it. Maybe you (& me for that matter) should try to find out?

I just moved to the "Northstate" from the Bay Area a few years ago. I am astonished at the angry "white" sentiment up here (stupid republicanism). Once again, people assuming they are paying taxes & that THEY aren't seeing anything in response. What these folks up here just never seem to get is that there are simply WAY fewer "bodies" up here & the places with higher density populations will get priority. Is it fair? Yeah, it IS!!! One thing I have learned about since moving up here...the nasty republican reps up here are almost always big farm/land owners who have been getting SUBSIDIES from the government for EVER!!! (LaMalfa). They are the BIGGEST FUCKING hypocrites! Course, that's SOP for republicans.

BTW, I live on a dirt road. I knew it when I bought up here & I also figured it would be a LONG time before we ever see paving (not to mention decent internet). Is it frustrating? Yeah, but I am an adult & I do understand how things work.

[christx30]

39. At one point, about 10% of gas tax money was going

into the general fund instead of the highway fund. In my opinion, that's a misappropriation of funds. Gas taxes are supposed to pay for road maintenance. So if the state isn't using that money correctly, I'm not going to vote them to get more, if I can help it.

[still_one]

10. I am not sure how they determine the 10 dollar/month, but that would amount to 2.50 overtime we fill

our tanks with gas

However, there are a heck of a lot of vehicles in California that get over 30 miles/gallon so I suspect that 10/month figure might be a little higher than it actually would average out to be

[airplaneman]

18. Its a $0.12 per gallon increase. For my Prius its $6 per month and I commute 100 miles/day n/t.

[That Guy 888]

14. Maybe they see it as too regressive? n/t

[nini]

24. That's how I feel

yea sure.. a lot of us can absorb that cost and not hurt too much. The folks on limited incomes and barely making ends meet will notice that tax big time.

There's got to be a better way.

[obamachangetheworld]

19. This is the sort of thing

Where if you are asked, how you like an extra $10 tax every month, you immediately picture big brother reaching into your pocket and pulling money out. But then if you are driving along a road at 50 miles per hour and hit a 5 inch deep pothole you curse the state for not stepping up and fixing it already. It is something that needs to get done, but that doesn't mean I'm not gonna groan when gas prices rise and I connect it to the new tax.

[taught_me_patience]

20. I vote hell frigging no

Not when Sacramento keeps raiding the transportation funds to the general fund, as they've done in the past.

[ripcord]

23. Agree 100%

If the money from the gas tax were only used for it's intended purpose and they ran out I would support more taxes. I am also disappointed that our lawmakers did this right after the election in which the voters approved a tax increase. It is strange that they also increased vehicle license fees, they last time that happened we were stuck with Arnold as a result.

[Raine]

25. I totally agree

and we also have a huge sales tax ... it's just more for them to steal!

[nini]

21. This hurts the little guy

Let's go after the huge corporations enjoying prop 13 benefits first

[dalton99a]

26. +1

[salster]

27. As they should be!

For everyone saying Californians should pay, we already pay do. We have some of the nations highest gas prices, and that includes the added taxes as well. This is one of the most ill-conceived tax increases yet. It's one thing to have an increase in your payroll deductions or in your property tax but a tax that you will directly see come out of your pocket every time you go to fill your car's gas tank, is just asking for trouble. I am not suggesting that I am ok with a tax as long as I don't see it or get reminded of it almost daily, after all it is a whole $0.12 for every gallon. Why not 5 cents/gallon? Most citizens/drivers will not see the overall benefit.

[Sunlei]

28. MJ capital of the world is the key to attracting tourism billions. Tax luxury not necessities.

[Xolodno]

29. They need the revenue....but this really wasn't the way to do it.

It's a lazy way out of a complex system.

Revenues will continue to drop while efficiency in MPG increases, its a self defeating system. Eventually hybrids and electric will reign supreme, then what?

It needs to be a combination of several:

1. Based on Miles driven.
2. Weight of the vehicle.
3. For those Semi's that are registered out of state, pick up in California and deliver out of state. Tax based on the miles driven in the state.
4. At some point, a utility tax on electricity.

[customerserviceguy]

32. You had me until #4

So, the people who are trying to keep cool, yet take public transportation should pay for road repairs? Why not meter the charging systems for electric cars?

[Xolodno]

34. Yeah...I knew that would be unpopular...but economists, don't tell you what's popular. If they did

..then we would be called politicians.

Public Transportation pays for public transportation, period. Via costs, efficiencies, tax, etc. So they won't be hit.

But yes, there will be a threshold that will require charging systems for electric cars to be taxed.... its inevitable. Going to an extreme example, if 90% of the cars on the road are electric...how in the hell are the last 10% going to pay for the roads? But tax at charging stations won't be enough. The miles driven, will ultimately be the deciding factor...

...and be the eventual death of the car culture. Why pay X times much when public transportation will get me there for a fraction? At that point, costs of maintaining roads will go down...and who knows, may even see road reduction. And I say that because we have been conditioned to driving form destination to destination and the romance of a road trip. Not saying this a bad thing, but.... technology and time moves on. People who want the "road trip experience" will just rent a car eventually....much like I do.

[customerserviceguy]

41. Miles driven is the fairest way

Although I would factor vehicle weight (before passengers) in there. If five people want to get in one vehicle to go from point A to point B, they're doing us all a favor, especially if it's a commute.

[customerserviceguy]

31. I'm sorry, but why are there potholes in CA?

Sure, the northern part of the state where they get snow, yeah, I understand.

Here we have tons of them, the climate and the means of removing snow cause that. And, I'm sure that a lot of gas tax dollars get diverted from actually fixing roads.

Moving to South Carolina next month, where the roads are just fine, and the gas tax is low.

[MindPilot]

35. Because...

The wet / dry cycle of our climate causes the soil to behave in much the same way as the the freeze / thaw cycle in your part of the world.

I think there should be a lot more time, money and energy devoted to developing better more resilient road surfaces that don't need to be fixed as much. We are not doing ourselves any favors by continuing to maintain a 100-year old technology without advancing it.

nd I am also against the tax for many f the reasons cited unthread.

[customerserviceguy]

40. Thank you

Good explanations, I appreciate them.

[JI7]

42. California roads are fucked up