California to ban selling new gas-powered cars by 2035

[redneck]

.



>

.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

A single pool of funds can still maintain accountability for spending. To say that all of fund x must be spent on use x is kinda silly, because needs aren't always consistent and predictable. If there's an over funding in one area for a particular year, those funds should be shifted, refunded, or rainy day funded rather than wasted.

My wife and I have (in essence) a joint account. It's not like we budget for food and if we hit our food budget decide we're not eating for a few days, and likewise if we have excess food budget, don't splurge on fillet mignon.

Either certain services are both essential and best administered by the state and should come from the general fund, or they are inessential or better served by other entities and not funded at all. Everything else is incompetence, ignorance, or corruption.

I agree - most people don't. (and I mixed up you with Oil Pan for some reason)

Oil Pan's comment.

I would gladly pay more taxes if I knew it would result in better services. But that is not the case. The more you pay more that gets wasted on free stuff for people who don't want to work, pointless layers of government bureaucracy and failed social programs. It seems as little money as possible is spent on stuff for the tax payer.

Plenty of people feel that way on both sides of the political divide. Pretty much every one has some items in the budget they think is wastefully and want cut. That makes it hard to get support for broad-based taxes that go into the general fund. They say "I'm not paying a penny more in taxes until we stop wasting money on XYZ". So instead we get a bunch of little taxes and fees that are dictated by law to fund one and only one thing.

Of course that is an elusion. In most states the general fund is still the largest and supports most types of spending. So a state can pass a $0.05 increase in the gas tax with the stipulation that money can only be spent on infrastructure. Now that the "infrastructure only" pot is bigger the state can spend less out of the general fund on infrastructure on move that money to something else.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

In new mexico back around 2006 this was one of the few states to charge nearly $4 a gallon for gasoline.
The governor said the tax increase was necessary to "fix the roads". Well the roads didn't get fixed at all, they got worse. I don't know what they did with the money but it definitely wasn't spent on the roads. The state deficit was also exploded to a billion dollars during that time.
Roads didn't start systematically being fixed until about 2011.
So I say fight all motoring related tax hikes, all the time.

I think the most obvious thing that happened was the "Great Recession". Almost all states had huge budget shortfalls then. As mentioned above it is entirely possible and in fact likely that every penny from your gas tax went to roads and yet spending on roads decreased because the state spend money from the general fund normally spend on roads on other things. Things like education - which doesn't stop in a recession and Medicaid - which has spending increases in a recession as people lose jobs and go on Medicaid.

[oil pan 4]

The roads here didn't get fixed until after the gulf oil spill and asphalt happened to get really cheap, pure coincidence I'm sure.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The roads here didn't get fixed until after the gulf oil spill and asphalt happened to get really cheap, pure coincidence I'm sure.

Makes sense to me. Cheaper raw materials means more miles of road per dollar.

However, looking at New Mexico's Annual Financial Reports listed on the state website I think I found a bigger factor. Total State Revenue

2009: $13.1 Billion
2010: $16.2 Billion
2011: $17.2 Billion

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

It's either the cheaper raw materials rendering it more economically viable to fix roads, or being possible for the bureaucrats to deviate a part of the budget.

[JSH]

The ODOT Road User Fee Task force presented their final draft today. This will be introduced as a bill in the 2021 Oregon legislative season. The highlights:

1. Title fees based on miles per gallon is repealed. (See ORS 803.091) and all vehicles shall pay a title fee of $110. This section shall go into effect January 1, 2022.
   
2. All passenger vehicles, model years beginning in 2027, with a combined rating of at least 30 miles per gallon, shall pay for usage of the road on a per-mile basis. Implementation of this mandatory program will begin July 1, 2026.
   
3. Any vehicle required to pay a road usage charge shall not pay the supplemental registration fee in ORS 803.422.
   
4. A person may opt-out of the mandatory pay-per-mile program by paying an annual fee of $400. These vehicles would not be subject to supplemental registration fees in ORS 803.422. This section shall sunset on January 1, 2030.
   
5. ODOT shall continue operation of current voluntary pay-by-mile program (OReGO). The voluntary program shall sunset in 2029.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

The ODOT Road User Fee Task force presented their final draft today. This will be introduced as a bill in the 2021 Oregon legislative season. The highlights:

1. Title fees based on miles per gallon is repealed. (See ORS 803.091) and all vehicles shall pay a title fee of $110. This section shall go into effect January 1, 2022.
   
2. All passenger vehicles, model years beginning in 2027, with a combined rating of at least 30 miles per gallon, shall pay for usage of the road on a per-mile basis. Implementation of this mandatory program will begin July 1, 2026.
   
3. Any vehicle required to pay a road usage charge shall not pay the supplemental registration fee in ORS 803.422.
   
4. A person may opt-out of the mandatory pay-per-mile program by paying an annual fee of $400. These vehicles would not be subject to supplemental registration fees in ORS 803.422. This section shall sunset on January 1, 2030.

Can you share what the fee per mile might be? What would be the cost of the supplemental registration fee?

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Can you share what the fee per mile might be? What would be the cost of the supplemental registration fee?

The OReGO fee per mile is currently $0.018 per mile and is index to the gas tax. The registration fee is $86 if enrolled in OReGO.

For vehicles not enrolled in OReGO:

Title fees:

$ 98 for vehicle rated 0-19 mpg
$103 for vehicles rated 20 to 39 mpg
$113 for vehicles rated over 40 mpg
$187 for electric vehicles.

Registration fees

$122 for vehicle rated 0-19 mpg
$132 for vehicles rated 20 to 39 mpg
$152 for vehicles rated over 40 mpg
$306 for electric vehicles.

[redpoint5]

Oregon gasoline tax is $0.36/gallon.

20 MPG vehicle = $0.018/mile
30 MPG vehicle = $0.012/mile
40 MPG vehicle = $0.009/mile
50 MPG vehicle = $0.0072/mile

Obviously each halving of MPG doubles the tax per mile, and each doubling of the MPG halves the tax per mile.

The prius cost $0.06/mile in total fuel cost, so a (nearly) $0.02/mile tax would represent 1/3 the cost per mile.

As I keep going on, it still makes more sense to tax at a rate to target particular fuel consumption goals and throw those into the general funds, and then fund infrastructure from general funds (and raise those funds through appropriate income/sales tax). Way less overhead. Registration fees should cover the cost of tracking ownership only.

I'll propose mandatory pedometers for pedestrians and charge them a sidewalk use fee per mile walked. Gonna need mile counters for wheelchair and skateboard users of sidewalks. Wheelchairs, skateboards, and legs will all need to be periodically registered, which is a seperate fee.