California’s gas tax is going up again.

[RitcheyRch]

The tax is set to increase by 3.2 cents, to 50.5 cents per gallon, and state officials estimate it will bring in an additional $440 million to state coffers in the coming fiscal year. The hike is triggered by the increase in the consumer price index and is built into SB 1, the legislation that boosted the tax by 12 cents per gallon in 2017 and 5.6 cents last year.

California's gas tax is going up again. Amid coronavirus, some say now is not the time

For the third time in four years, California’s gas tax is set to increase on July 1. But some lawmakers are calling for a freeze on the higher levy, citing the financial burden already faced by many residents because of the COVID-19 spawned recession.

www.latimes.com

 

[The Phantom]

The tax is set to increase by 3.2 cents, to 50.5 cents per gallon, and state officials estimate it will bring in an additional $440 million to state coffers in the coming fiscal year. The hike is triggered by the increase in the consumer price index and is built into SB 1, the legislation that boosted the tax by 12 cents per gallon in 2017 and 5.6 cents last year.

California's gas tax is going up again. Amid coronavirus, some say now is not the time

For the third time in four years, California’s gas tax is set to increase on July 1. But some lawmakers are calling for a freeze on the higher levy, citing the financial burden already faced by many residents because of the COVID-19 spawned recession.

www.latimes.com

State sales tax increase in Los Angeles county beginning of this month I believe.

 

[Danger Dave]

That stellar weather isn't free.

 

[CobraDave]

And yet I paid similar prices in AZ over the weekend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RodnJen]

State sales tax increase in Los Angeles county beginning of this month I believe.

That makes no sense.

 

[Universal Elements]

That makes no sense.

Seems crystal clear

California City & County Sales & Use Tax Rates

www.cdtfa.ca.gov

 

[Gelcoater]

That makes no sense.

It should,
You voted for it.

 

[RodnJen]

It should,
You voted for it.

You bet your ass. If it is a state tax it goes up statewide. If it is an LA County tax...

Even non-mask wearers can understand that.

 

[RCDave]

Liberals will never understand taxation/ theft. They are so easily programmed to think its natural to be shafted and at the same time to have their nose jammed into anothers backpassge

 

[WhatExit?]

"PAYED" is not a word. Just sayin'

 

[Fun Times]

"PAYED" is not a word. Just sayin'

Usually as long as you give advance notice regarding "boating content", RDP becomes a boating website forum again so it would seem the word Payed could fit within the narrative here! (AKA Additional Taxes).

When to Use Payed

Payed is the past tense and past participle of the verb pay but is used in a very limited sense. Payed has a common and historical use as a nautical term having to do with ropes and ship hulls.
To pay out a rope or cable is to let out by slacking.

• The captain payed out additional rope for the sails.
• The construction works payed out the cable as he strung the line.
• Laying down telephone lines, he payed out the cable as he went.

Payed can also refer to the sealing of a deck or hull of a wooden ship with pitch or tar to prevent leakage.

• Have you payed the deck?
• This ship looks fine but has yet to be payed.

These are the only uses in which you should be finding yourself using payed, when dealing with cable, rope, or chain being let out by slacking or the sealing of a wooden ship.

Payed or Paid: What’s the Difference? - Writing Explained

Learn the definition of paid and payed with example sentences and quizzes at Writing Explained.

writingexplained.org

 

[rrrr]

In the land of supposed social justice and fair play for those who reside in the poverty levels, the gas tax is regressive theft from those who can least afford to pay it.

The millions of Californians that work in low paying service sector jobs cannot afford housing in the urban areas in which they work, because rent controls, requirements for new home construction like solar panels and sprinkler systems, the removal of rental stock by landlords who cannot meet onerous permit, accessibility, and property taxes, and other schemes to maximize tax revenues have made it impossible for them to live near their work.

Instead, the disadvantaged must drive, sometimes over a hundred miles, to their jobs in downtown hotels and restaurants. These people bear the brunt of gas tax increases, because they represent a significantly greater percentage of the money they take home from their urban jobs. Since the gas tax increases are a greater portion of take home pay compared to those earning more money, the poor suffer directly from this money grab by well paid politicians.

Another unfair burden on the poor are the outrageous registration and license fees collected by the state. People driving cars worth just a couple thousand dollars must pay annual fees of several hundred dollars.

The state talks a good game about helping the less fortunate, and then turns around and takes a greater portion of their meager earnings. These liberals don't see any issue with this, while I, the heartless white conservative, recognize it as a cynical vehicle to move the poor closer to financial collapse.

 

[RodnJen]

In the land of supposed social justice and fair play for those who reside in the poverty levels, the gas tax is regressive theft from those who can least afford to pay it.

The millions of Californians that work in low paying service sector jobs cannot afford housing in the urban areas in which they work, because rent controls, requirements for new home construction like solar panels and sprinkler systems, the removal of rental stock by landlords who cannot meet onerous permit, accessibility, and property taxes, and other schemes to maximize tax revenues have made it impossible for them to live near their work.

Instead, the disadvantaged must drive, sometimes over a hundred miles, to their jobs in downtown hotels and restaurants. These people bear the brunt of gas tax increases, because they represent a significantly greater percentage of the money they take home from their urban jobs. Since the gas tax increases are a greater portion of take home pay compared to those earning more money, the poor suffer directly from this money grab by well paid politicians.

Another unfair burden on the poor are the outrageous registration and license fees collected by the state. People driving cars worth just a couple thousand dollars must pay annual fees of several hundred dollars.

The state talks a good game about helping the less fortunate, and then turns around and takes a greater portion of their meager earnings. These liberals don't see any issue with this, while I, the heartless white conservative, recognize it as a cynical vehicle to move the poor closer to financial collapse.

True, at least the regressive part. What is your alternative funding/tax source or method?

 

[Uncle Dave]

True, at least the regressive part. What is your alternative funding/tax source or method?

Cant speak for RRR but the gov could start by not bleeding off the highway money they get today from all sources that gets dumped into the general fund that is then spent on special interests.



UD

 

[RodnJen]

Cant speak for RRR but the gov could start by not bleeding off the highway money they get today from all sources that gets dumped into the general fund that is then spent on special interests.



UD

The "government" is a pretty general reference. You know better than most that accounting can be a funny thing, kind of like statistics. Local taxes used for transportation are much easier to track than State or Federal funds. But even at that, a post in another thread shows how easily contracts between agencies can be used to absorb overhead and "share" costs.

I agree it is a good start but infrastructure and maintenance don't get done without a funding source.

 

[94Nautique]

True, at least the regressive part. What is your alternative funding/tax source or method?

dont spend. there, that was easy.

 

[Uncle Dave]

The "government" is a pretty general reference. You know better than most that accounting can be a funny thing, kind of like statistics. Local taxes used for transportation are much easier to track than State or Federal funds. But even at that, a post in another thread shows how easily contracts between agencies can be used to absorb overhead and "share" costs.

I agree it is a good start but infrastructure and maintenance don't get done without a funding source.

There are multiple funding sources feeding in today. State gas tax, registration, fed support the list of funding sources is rather large.

If you look at the pie chart at least 2% of the TOTAL income is dedicated to the " general fund" which means whatever the gov wants to spend it on. (waste)

Then it gets bled off to the police, various agencies like CARB that keep growing but returning no value to us.

Too much of our " highway" money is spent elsewhere.

UD

 

[JUSTWANNARACE]

How about stop giving free money to illegal citizens.. that would be a start! How about creating jobs for people on welfare that are able to work instead of sending the work over seas.. free up some of that "free" $.. how about, quit funding these "free" Methadone clinics, hell needles alone would probably save millions a year.. how about quit funding all the ridiculously expensive homeless housing and put them in a work program? Ect, ect, ect, ect...

 

[was thatguy]

True, at least the regressive part. What is your alternative funding/tax source or method?

Cut off illegals, stop buying hotels for junkies, might save a buck or two.

 

[regor]

True, at least the regressive part. What is your alternative funding/tax source or method?

Now that the wall is be built and illegal immigration has been decimated (#successfulandeffective thank you very much) your hero's could stop spending billions on illegals.


Honk Honk

 

[was thatguy]

Now that the wall is be built and illegal immigration has been decimated (#successfulandeffective thank you very much) your hero's could stop spending billions on illegals.


Honk Honk

 

[The Phantom]

View attachment 888877

That’s how Trump is getting Mexico to pay for the wall.

 

[Doc]

True, at least the regressive part. What is your alternative funding/tax source or method?

How about we look at the real problem the source of spending? Time and time again you and your party refuse to admit that that is the real issue. You keep talking about "tax reform" but never address the real issue at hand. It would be nice if you looked at all angles here instead of just having the attitude that we need to throw more money at the problem. It's been pretty evident and proven time and time again the state has a major uncontrolled spending problem and feels it's just needs to tax everyone to high heaven to fix it. It has also been proven time and time again that increased taxes doesn't fix the problem so at that point Rod when do you say tax reform really isn't working like it should?

 

[RodnJen]

How about we look at the real problem the source of spending? Time and time again you and your party refuse to admit that that is the real issue. You keep talking about "tax reform" but never address the real issue at hand. It would be nice if you looked at all angles here instead of just having the attitude that we need to throw more money at the problem. It's been pretty evident and proven time and time again the state has a major uncontrolled spending problem and feels it's just needs to tax everyone to high heaven to fix it. It has also been proven time and time again that increased taxes doesn't fix the problem so at that point Rod when do you say tax reform really isn't working like it should?

No doubt spending is an issue, that’s why people need to vote and stay involved. It’s easy to say cut this or slash that but how often does it really get done. And, when something is cut, is it for the right reasons or the right thing to do?

Campaign finance reform would go a long way in dealing with this. Good luck finding someone to carry that torch.

 

[The Phantom]

Campaign finance reform would go a long way in dealing with this. Good luck finding someone to carry that torch.

I vote for Mr. Squeezer, he knows everything and he’s a real nice guy.

 

[RodnJen]

I vote for Mr. Squeezer, he knows everything and he’s a real nice guy.

Been waiting a long time for an accurate post from you.

 

[regor]

No doubt spending is an issue, that’s why people need to vote and stay involved.

And YOU keep voting for the scum doing the spending for decades, but we just need more people to get involved?

How about you pull your head out of your ass and start voting for something different?

Just a thought.

 

[JBS]

No doubt spending is an issue, that’s why people need to vote and stay involved. It’s easy to say cut this or slash that but how often does it really get done. And, when something is cut, is it for the right reasons or the right thing to do?

Campaign finance reform would go a long way in dealing with this. Good luck finding someone to carry that torch.

And YOU keep voting for the scum doing the spending for decades, but we just need more people to get involved?

How about you pull your head out of your ass and start voting for something different?

Just a thought.

I agree with both of you. Spending is a huge problem on the state and federal level. The only things that ever get cut are to try and hurt the other sides programs.

I voted for Trump as he was not HRC. I did have an expectation that he would at least try and control spending. As we all know the opposite is true.

No backwards Roger I still do not want HRC.

 

[regor]

I agree with both of you. Spending is a huge problem on the state and federal level. The only things that ever get cut are to try and hurt the other sides programs.

I voted for Trump as he was not HRC. I did have an expectation that he would at least try and control spending. As we all know the opposite is true.

No backwards Roger I still do not want HRC.

Valid point JBS, but on the state level we have more options on spending with all the propositions they put in front of us.

 

[The Phantom]

Been waiting a long time for an accurate post from you.

Time for you to step up to the plate.

 

[Doc]

No doubt spending is an issue, that’s why people need to vote and stay involved. It’s easy to say cut this or slash that but how often does it really get done. And, when something is cut, is it for the right reasons or the right thing to do?

Campaign finance reform would go a long way in dealing with this. Good luck finding someone to carry that torch.

Good points but you have stated the problem also. Using CA as the example here since we are talking about gas tax does all these gas taxes over the years gone to where they said they were going? No! The next issue is the only time the left wants to slash is police funding and take those funds and spend elsewhere and most likely ask for more. I am not saying slash this cut that, what I was saying is look into the spending first, does example a: really need 10 million or can they get what they want for 8 million? Problem is state is just writes checks without thinking about it and end of year says oh look we spent to much this year so lets tax more next year kind of attitude.

I'll quote this again, "And, when something is cut, is it for the right reasons or the right thing to do?" Sometimes it maybe if there is a abuse of spending. Let me flip the coin for you and ask this, if something is taxed more is it for the right reasons or the right thing to do?

You are right though, good luck finding someone to carry the torch!

 

[RodnJen]

Good points but you have stated the problem also. Using CA as the example here since we are talking about gas tax does all these gas taxes over the years gone to where they said they were going? No! The next issue is the only time the left wants to slash is police funding and take those funds and spend elsewhere and most likely ask for more. I am not saying slash this cut that, what I was saying is look into the spending first, does example a: really need 10 million or can they get what they want for 8 million? Problem is state is just writes checks without thinking about it and end of year says oh look we spent to much this year so lets tax more next year kind of attitude.

I'll quote this again, "And, when something is cut, is it for the right reasons or the right thing to do?" Sometimes it maybe if there is a abuse of spending. Let me flip the coin for you and ask this, if something is taxed more is it for the right reasons or the right thing to do?

You are right though, good luck finding someone to carry the torch!

Not always. I was not a fan of SB1 because it is based on an outdated method of taxation. Technology and the economy outpace state and federal agencies ability to adjust and capture the current economy. It's been that way the last 75 years. Tax rates could and should be much lower. What agencies need to focus on is what is actually taxed. They need to tax the economy of the 21st century, not not the one that existed during prohibition.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Not always. I was not a fan of SB1 because it is based on an outdated method of taxation. Technology and the economy outpace state and federal agencies ability to adjust and capture the current economy. It's been that way the last 75 years. Tax rates could and should be much lower. What agencies need to focus on is what is actually taxed. They need to tax the economy of the 21st century, not not the one that existed during prohibition.

But you are still for the CA citizens to pay more overall in taxes, yet admit there is a spending problem that must be addressed, and refuse to acknowledge that the spending problems must be addressed first.

At the end of the day a fee, or levy, or tax is a tax, and it has been proven time and time again that CA will loot money allocated for one thing, and spend it on something else.

So how we are taxed largely does not matter. Generally speaking the money goes into the same pocket anyway, because the legislature will divert many funds (not all) how they see fit.

 

[was thatguy]

But you are still for the CA citizens to pay more overall in taxes, yet admit there is a spending problem that must be addressed, and refuse to acknowledge that the spending problems must be addressed first.

At the end of the day a fee, or levy, or tax is a tax, and it has been proven time and time again that CA will loot money allocated for one thing, and spend it on something else.

So how we are taxed largely does not matter. Generally speaking the money goes into the same pocket anyway, because the legislature will divert many funds (not all) how they see fit.

He’s a disciple of the entire industry of taxation.
It’s truly a wonder to read how his mind is completely wrapped around it.

 

[RCDave]

Tax obsessive compusive disorder. These doesn't seem to be any kind of cure.

 

[Uncle Dave]

Here is a snapshot of where gas taxes go and where vehicle registration money goes (these go back to 2018)

 

[Uncle Dave]

Then dont forget about Cap and /Trade Revenue

 

[94Nautique]

No doubt spending is an issue, that’s why people need to vote and stay involved. It’s easy to say cut this or slash that but how often does it really get done. And, when something is cut, is it for the right reasons or the right thing to do?

Campaign finance reform would go a long way in dealing with this. Good luck finding someone to carry that torch.

First and only campaign finance reform needed:

1. Make it ILLEGAL for Govt Employee Unions to donate to ANY political campaign, fund ANY political advertisement, or otherwise engage in any political shit.


Now, back to the spending problem of government...

Sent from my SM-T387V using Tapatalk

 

[RCDave]

First and only campaign finance reform needed:

1. Make it ILLEGAL for Govt Employee Unions to donate to ANY political campaign, fund ANY political advertisement, or otherwise engage in any political shit.


Now, back to the spending problem of government...

Sent from my SM-T387V using Tapatalk

And convert govt union pensions to traditional 401ks.

 

[boatdoc55]

True, at least the regressive part. What is your alternative funding/tax source or method?

Quit funding multi generation welfare, like 5th and 6th generation. If some one takes the food away they must go get it elsewhere, it might as well be a FUCKING job. What do they say about feeding the wild animals, "Don't do it as they become accustomed to it"!!

 

[RodnJen]

And convert govt union pensions to traditional 401ks.

Because that's working out so well for everyone?

 

[regor]

Because that's working out so well for everyone?

Are you implying public sector pension investments are working out well for EVERYONE?

 

[RodnJen]

Are you implying public sector pension investments are working out well for EVERYONE?

No, only those that have them. Please feel free to come up with a plan to address the financial security and health services of our aging population, take your time.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

No, only those that have them. Please feel free to come up with a plan to address the financial security and health services of our aging population, take your time.

Well I can tell you taxing them out of their homes via increasing their property taxes does not address their financial security

They have Medicare/MediCAL for health services.

 

[regor]

No, only those that have them. Please feel free to come up with a plan to address the financial security and health services of our aging population, take your time.

Remove the health insurance companies, reform tort law and stop taxing the fuck out of us.

At that point, if you can't afford to function in the private sector, off to Medicare you go.

 

[was thatguy]

Because that's working out so well for everyone?

No, only those that have them. Please feel free to come up with a plan to address the financial security and health services of our aging population, take your time.

I had such high hopes for you.

 

[RodnJen]

Remove the health insurance companies, reform tort law and stop taxing the fuck out of us.

At that point, if you can't afford to function in the private sector, off to Medicare you go.

Excellent!

 

[regor]

Excellent!

Well, you could join your comrades and create Shithole Utopia Center or SUC for short, in downtown Fullerton for your kumbaya parties.

 

[RodnJen]

All those bastards do is screw up parking at my favorite places.

 

[regor]

All those bastards do is screw up parking at my favorite places.

The junkie bums have cars?