And Who Did You Vote For ?
 

Calif. Lawmakers Reportedly Plan To Triple Car Tax

California lawmakers have agreed to triple vehicle registration fees in an effort to close the state's $28 billion budget gap, the L.A. Times reported late Thursday.

The increased car license fees are expected to bring in more than $6 billion a year for state coffers, but it would cost many motorists hundreds of additional dollars annually.

The Times said many normally anti-tax Republican lawmakers had signed off on the proposal in exchange for a ballot measure to impose limits on future state spending.

Under the plan, the yearly fees would go up from the current .65 percent of the vehicle's value to 2 percent. For example, for a car valued at $25,000, the fee would go to $336.

However, it was not immediately clear if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would support the plan. He ran against the so-called car tax in 2003 and uopn being being elected, he quickly repealed the immensely unpopular tripling of the tax that had occurred at the time.

Its not too bad.

But if we dont stand ground now.. Its going to become a trend.

Taxing people that already do not have money is a bad idea. When people cant pay reg fee's they will fail with car insurance too... That's all we need is a bunch of those people driving around.

WTF?!?! Let me get this straight....So is this for purchase of a new car and a regular annual registration after you bought your car as well? So, on a $50,000 is would be $1,000/year?!?!?

If it is the case than that is just not cool...Every state I live and have friends in; annual car registration fees are often less than $100 and are NOT value based. And the budget deficits are no where near as bad as California's. I think they need to fix some other problems before turning attention to a "low" motorist tax issue...

isn't california trying to raise sales tax also? at least like 1.5% for each city?

[QUOTE=Traxamillion;2421244]isn't california trying to raise sales tax also? at least like 1.5% for each city?[/QUOTE]

Don't forget about property tax! I do not own any, [so I have not been following it], but its a hot topic for my boss who rents out bunch of place.

[QUOTE=Traxamillion;2421244]isn't california trying to raise sales tax also? at least like 1.5% for each city?[/QUOTE]

I heard 10% for the state on the whole.

So that $200 item just cost you $220.

Terminator 2009

Time to Terminate the rest of the state. Since we have already blown up the schools and so on....

Time to send that cop in to save the state.

[QUOTE=R-Dub;2421255]I heard 10% for the state on the whole.

So that $200 item just cost you $220.[/QUOTE]

:faint2: :faint2: :faint2:

[IMG]http://boostedsubie.sport-classic.net/albums/userpics/timeto.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=I<3subie;2421209]Calif. Lawmakers Reportedly Plan To Triple Car Tax

California lawmakers have agreed to triple vehicle registration fees in an effort to close the state's $28 billion budget gap, the L.A. Times reported late Thursday.

The increased car license fees are expected to bring in more than $6 billion a year for state coffers, but it would cost many motorists hundreds of additional dollars annually.

The Times said many normally anti-tax Republican lawmakers had signed off on the proposal in exchange for a ballot measure to impose limits on future state spending.

Under the plan, the yearly fees would go up from the current .65 percent of the vehicle's value to 2 percent. For example, for a car valued at $25,000, the fee would go to $336.

However, it was not immediately clear if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would support the plan. He ran against the so-called car tax in 2003 and uopn being being elected, he quickly repealed the immensely unpopular tripling of the tax that had occurred at the time.[/QUOTE]

well ****

[QUOTE=I<3subie;2421224]But if we dont stand ground now.. Its going to become a trend.

Taxing people that already do not have money is a bad idea. When people cant pay reg fee's they will fail with car insurance too... That's all we need is a bunch of those people driving around.[/QUOTE]

you are 100% correct, **** is gonna get crazy if we gotta bunch of uninsured cruisin around

[QUOTE=Traxamillion;2421244]isn't california trying to raise sales tax also? at least like 1.5% for each city?[/QUOTE]

yes they are.

[QUOTE=R-Dub;2421255]I heard 10% for the state on the whole.

So that $200 item just cost you $220.[/QUOTE]

you will only hit 10% if you are already paying 8.5% sales which a lot of place are but that is not uniform through out the whole state

[QUOTE=Irish_car_B0mb;2421307]you will only hit 10% if you are already paying 8.5% sales which a lot of place are but that is not uniform through out the whole state[/QUOTE]

Aren't we in the Bay Area paying 8.5% already?

alameda county is currently at 8.75%

yes 8.75% already but whats the deal with the property tax thing?

Property tax? What? Que? Huh? Whats going on?

hmmm... and we are going to cover the gap in the budget how?!?

If anyone has any better ideas, you can always run for office in your district :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=rau;2421220]Its not too bad.[/QUOTE]

Let's pretend you lost your job.
Your wife goes to her boss and says, "Since my household just lost 1/2 of it's income you need to give me a raise."

What would be the boss's answer?

[QUOTE=joltdudeuc;2421364]hmmm... and we are going to cover the gap in the budget how?!?

If anyone has any better ideas, you can always run for office in your district :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

[B][SIZE="6"]Spend Less?[/SIZE][/B]

[QUOTE=Paul@dbtuned;2421369][B][SIZE="6"]Spend Less?[/SIZE][/B][/QUOTE]

hah!

[QUOTE=kspek;2421342]yes 8.75% already but whats the deal with the property tax thing?[/QUOTE]

Clarification...According to my boss there is also talk of property tax rates with all of the other tax changes that are in the works. I do not think it is a far fetched assumption. However, he is also way more politically and socially connected, so he might have some insider knowledge. This is just word of mouth info, so please do not hang me for not having explicit details :noidea:

I don't like the size of the jump, but lets face it... we are in the hole big time, and we need money. The state subsidizes education, they want students to pay more of that share and you have protests...

So the state imposes a cap... protests...

So the state figures they'll just have to cut some professors out, and that means less sections and over crowding... protests...

Similar deals with education... cuts, protests. clinic cuts, protests.

Everywhere people are unhappy about paying more, but by not paying, it only gets worse does it not?

We need hardcore reform so that money isn't wasted in pork and things, and better handling of money. But we need MORE money to flow in as well, we can't just cut and reform our way out of this.

[QUOTE=Paul@dbtuned;2421369][B][SIZE="6"]Spend Less?[/SIZE][/B][/QUOTE]
I'm for it, but obviously there are many people who don't like cuts :lol:

But I understand the need to fill the gap.

[QUOTE=joltdudeuc;2421378]I don't like the size of the jump, but lets face it... we are in the hole big time, and we need money. The state subsidizes education, they want students to pay more of that share and you have protests...

So the state imposes a cap... protests...

So the state figures they'll just have to cut some professors out, and that means less sections and over crowding... protests...

Similar deals with education... cuts, protests. clinic cuts, protests.

Everywhere people are unhappy about paying more, but by not paying, it only gets worse does it not?

We need hardcore reform so that money isn't wasted in pork and things, and better handling of money. But we need MORE money to flow in as well, we can't just cut and reform our way out of this.[/QUOTE]

why not?

why do we need to spend so much money on non-needed services or bureaucracy?

cutting the budges is the ONLY way to get our budged under control. You tax more and we will just want to spend more.

[QUOTE=Mr. Xevious;2421381]why not?

why do we need to spend so much money on non-needed services or bureaucracy?

cutting the budges is the ONLY way to get our budged under control. You tax more and we will just want to spend more.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather have cuts than increase in taxes, but at the end of the day the budget needs to balance somehow...

No matter which way you go, you will have people upset. I'm not someone who uses services, so cuts don't really affect me much.

What we REALLY need is a lot of reform...

Douche tax. You have to prove your Hummer/lifted truck actually gets muddy to avoid it :)

i dont get muddy anymore... :)

[img]http://www.cbe.csueastbay.edu/~ldivinag/tdw/dusy/Truck8a_1.jpg[/img]

here's leo d.'s rules for saving money:


1. make me king of kalif.
2. privatize government.
3. see #1


here's my take. the government has no bottom line. it's spend, spend spend.

i was just watching ch7 news last nite and it showed that SF mayor when he got married in wyoming, he has his new $50,000 hybrid SUV, driven by a SF PD cop so it can be used for his private protection.

estimated cost? $15,000. cop drove the SUV alone, while newsome flew on a private jet.

ch7 news asked the SF PD chief why? she said there was credible threat on his life.

now imagine if this idiot gets elected as the governor.

[url]http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/iteam&id=6516943[/url]

i mean there is NO BOTTOM LINE in government. no one is responsible for your money!


if i were king, there would be no gavin newsomes in this state wasting money like this. ok... maybe me. ;)

But who did he get married too? I thought he was for gay marrage

[QUOTE=joltdudeuc;2421384]What we REALLY need is a lot of reform...[/QUOTE]

[img]https://img443.imageshack.us/img443/1531/arnoldmccain334eg.jpg[/img]

$%^&

I didn't vote for either because in the end we're all stuck in a hole blaming one another for everything.


Lame ass two party system pisses me off... It's a shame that the states was too afraid of Ron Paul, he was a politician that I actually had faith in, someone that would create change for the better, he wasn't afraid of anyone or anything, and he def had some great ideas for this nation unlike the two other candidates that "we" elected.

I was so sad when Rob Paul was out of the race... I lost all faith and hope after that moment. It's not even about voting for the candidate that you believe in, its a matter of supporting the side that you have been faithful to since you first got into politics... If people want "CHANGE!" so badly VIA Obama, why were they so god damn afraid of the logical changes that Ron Paul wanted ot implement? He wanted too much change and people were afraid of that, this was before Obama started his whole "Change" campaign,... Then Obama started the whole Change thing and everyone started sucking his d*** because they wanted change.

I wish there was a law that made it so we HAVE to have a MINIMUM of a 5 party system when it comes down to the big election.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

<<<<-------- = :hang:

Who you recently voted for has no bering on this legislation at all. Your newly elected state congress members will not be sworn in until January.

And I voted for Bob Barr.

[QUOTE=jewpac42;2421852]Who you recently voted for has no bering on this legislation at all. Your newly elected state congress members will not be sworn in until January.

And I voted for Bob Barr.[/QUOTE]

True.

This is all bad nonetheless.

I've been saying for over a year that we're going to have to collectively swallow a bitter pill

Sad part is the biggest draw on the budget is the school system, yet it keeps getting cut. What needs to happen is the CA education system needs to be taken apart from the inside out to examine costs. But that's like trying to change the oil while bounding through the twisties. I had this wacky idea of some computer algorithim doing the analysis, not a human or group of people which are subject to influence.

I would much rather we get a *temporary* sales tax increase than to see more cuts to education, health & human services, etc. Its a whole difference view when you work under the ire of The State you guys. Why do you think all summer guys were getting popped for mods...TO GENERATE REVENUE. Would you rather be able to drive around and not need to live in your rear view mirror, or pay a couple bucks extra the next time you go buy groceries?

Lets face it, they relied on the real estate market & its associated revenue stream to keep the state afloat, & failed. Its time to man up soon, if we wait it will be another $10 billion in cuts. This from a guy who voted no on anything that increased property taxes, which when enacted just don't ever get throttled back because the govt (federal or state) isn't in the habit of giving back what its already got.

here's a thought... maybe the state and local governments should look to big business for ways to save money.

"shared services" comes to my mind. shared HR, payroll, accounting, etc. for ALL state agencies. counties should do this too.

here's an example:
sacramento county has 13 different school districts. that's 13 different HR departments, 13 different payroll departments, 13 different accounting departmens, 13 different school boards, 13 different superintendents, etc... if they operated like a large corporation, they would have one of each of those "overhead" departments, but each would still be able to operate semi-autonomously so long as they follow certain guidelines.

[QUOTE=Lboogie;2423400]I would much rather we get a *temporary* sales tax increase than to see more cuts to education, health & human services, etc. Its a whole difference view when you work under the ire of The State you guys. Why do you think all summer guys were getting popped for mods...TO GENERATE REVENUE. Would you rather be able to drive around and not need to live in your rear view mirror, or pay a couple bucks extra the next time you go buy groceries?[/QUOTE]

Most likely there would be nothing temporary about it because the spending would just increase along with the new cash inflow, so you would have a brand new deficit come next year..and they would need to keep the tax to prevent a bigger deficit at that point. State departments purposefully overspend in order to justify the inflation of their "required" budgets for coming years [and keep special interests and their cronies happy]. They get used to having additional money when they need it, it teaches them nothing. Its a stupid concept cause there is no accountability.

Also, I have no problem paying any tax if I know it goes to a good cause and funds the operation of an efficient system...which is so never been the case. The increase in tax is really no different that the Federal bail outs of all the troubled companies. It is merely temporarily treating the symptoms and not the cause of the problem, which is too often terribly inefficient and backwards and wasteful system.

For me it would be no different from the argument of giving Detroit 3 funding infusion; unless state departments present clear logical and concise plans on how they will use the money to restructure the issues that lead to the deficit...they are getting no sympathy or money.

[QUOTE=Lboogie;2423400]But that's like trying to change the oil while bounding through the twisties. I had this wacky idea of some computer algorithim doing the analysis, not a human or group of people which are subject to influence.[/QUOTE]

I gurantee you there are plenty of simple changes that can be made which are "normal" in s typical business environment that can provide a great start to restructuring...without the need to grind everything down to a halt.

Does anyone remember the thread on how Cali state people get an unlimited gas cards and state vehicles paid for the taxpayers, which are supposed to be used only for state business...but are not tracked, regulated, audited etc etc etc? How about cutting that out because from all reasonableness, their use extended far beyond just work related purposes.

Than again, absolute power corrupts absolutely and no politician will vote or support changes that might constrict their power and operating frivolousness in their particular area.