AB-28 Firearms and Ammunition: Excise Tax... Signed 9/26/23

[Luciansulla]

Because they did tryfor a higher percentage that in prior years?and had it fail in the last six attempts.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll

Why 11%? Why not 50%? Or 1000%?
Are the dems this retarded? Like if you're gonna pass a bill like that, go all out!!

It's the camel's nose under the tent.

Once it is in place, raising it becomes less of a problem and draws less attention (not to mention scrutiny) when it happens and/or when the revenue generated is simply moved into the General Fund and ends up going for causes totally unrelated to the stated intent.

Why sprint when you can cruise?

[rational_behavior]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

It's the camel's nose under the tent.

Once it is in place, raising it becomes less of a problem and draws less attention (not to mention scrutiny) when it happens and/or when the revenue generated is simply moved into the General Fund and ends up going for causes totally unrelated to the stated intent.

Why sprint when you can cruise?

Exactly. Checkers/Chess. Even if they move the Overton Window an inch, it still counts as a victory for the gun banners. A completely different paradigm for the pro-2A community is called for. I may be a cynic, but this shpiel by Auron MacIntyre aptly captures the problem with the "muh Constitution!" crowd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JCGavCmlT4

[Supersapper]

Originally Posted by ar15barrels

Have you ever had an FFL ask you the dollar value of the PPT sale and then try to charge you sales tax on that value?
This proposed excise tax is the same thing and will work the same way.

"Retail Sale" means from the dealer's inventory.

No, but the state and county basically "says" your house is worth this much and bases the property tax amount on it. With this state being what it is, I'm ruling out nothing, hence the question.

[zukieast]

They Tied it to the PitMan Robertson Tax on manufacturers which is 11%. In the Bill they actually try to justify the tax to bypass Bruin by stating that there is already a well established tax on Firearms and Ammunition.

(k) This act will similarly place a reasonable surtax on firearm and ammunition industry members profiting from the sale of firearms and ammunition in order to generate sustained revenue for programs that are designed to remediate the devastating effects these products cause families and communities across this state.
(l) The National Rifle Association has referred to the Pittman-Robertson federal Firearms and Ammunition Excise tax as a ?legislative model? and ?friend of the hunter,? and NSSF has repeatedly emphasized the importance of this federal firearm industry excise tax as well. A 2019 statement by an NSSF director published on NSSF?s internet website emphasized that ?an often overlooked, and certainly under-communicated benefit, is the impact that excise taxes on firearms and ammunition have on conservation and wildlife populations,? and a similar 2018 statement from NSSF praised Key Pittman and Willis Robertson, the legislators who sponsored the Pittman-Robertson excise tax, as ?heroes of the most successful conservation model in the world.?
(m) This act would similarly provide dedicated revenue to sustain and expand effective gun violence prevention, healing, and recovery programs for families and communities across California, particularly in communities most disproportionately impacted by gun violence.
(n) This act is consistent with our nation?s longstanding historical tradition of regulating commercial firearm and ammunition manufacturers and sellers, including through federal, state, and local taxes on this commercial activity. An 1883 California statute, for instance, directed local governments to provide for payment of all revenue assessed as a tax, or received for licenses, on the storage, manufacture, and sale of gunpowder and related products in order to fund a ?Fireman?s Charitable Fund? to support professionals tasked with remediating the collateral impacts of firearm-related commercial activity on public safety through fire risk.
(o) In the historical record, other states, including Mississippi (1844), North Carolina (1857), Georgia (1866), Alabama (1867), Hawaii (1870), Nebraska (1895), Florida (1898), Wyoming (1899), and Virginia (1926), have similarly enacted longstanding commercial, occupational, or other taxes on those selling, purchasing, or possessing firearms and other dangerous weapons.
(p) The tax specified in this act is a modest and reasonable tax on a profitable industry whose lawful and legitimate business activity imposes substantial harmful externalities on California?s families, communities, and taxpayers. The modest tax proposed in this measure mirrors the Pittman-Robertson federal excise tax on firearm and ammunition industry participants, is similarly dedicated to funding programs to remediate the harmful externalities of firearm industry commerce, and is similarly unlikely to discourage lawful sales and commerce in firearms or ammunition. A gun policy research review by the Rand Corporation noted that the available ?research suggests that moderate tax increases on guns or ammunition would do little to disrupt hunting or recreational gun use.?

[tenemae]

You know what the real firearms tax is? Having to pay advocacy groups to fund the legal challenges in court just to keep the 2A alive.

End qualified immunity now.

[Elgatodeacero]

I think the state of California is going to accidentally kill the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act.

The Pittman Robertson Act has been very positive for hunters, shooters and anyone that goes outdoors to hike or fish, but it seems like it is unconstitutional along with AB28.

Here is an excerpt from a NY District Court opinion from 2012 which has a nice summary of the law of taxing Constitutional rights.

876 F.Supp.2d 246
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
Hui W. KWONG, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Michael BLOOMBERG, et al., Defendants.
No. 11 Civ. 2356(JGK)
March 26, 2012.


The plaintiffs first argue that the $340 fee is impermissible under the standards that govern the imposition of fees on the exercise of constitutionally protected activities—here, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The Supreme Court's fee jurisprudence, which has addressed the imposition of fees on expressive activities protected by the First Amendment, makes clear that, while the Government may not tax the exercise of constitutionally protected activities, it may impose a fee designed to defray the administrative costs of regulating the protected activity. In Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 61 S.Ct. 762, 85 L.Ed. 1049 (1941), the Court found that a state statute requiring marchers to obtain licenses and prepay fees with a permissible range of from a “nominal amount” to $300 a day to parade on public streets was permissible because the fee was “not a revenue tax, but one to meet the expense *254 incident to the administration of the act and to the maintenance of public order in the matter licensed.” Id. at 577, 61 S.Ct. 762 (citation omitted). The Court stated that “[t]here is nothing contrary to the Constitution in the charge of a fee limited to the purpose stated.” Id. In contrast, in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943), the Court invalidated a city ordinance that, as applied, required religious groups to pay a license fee of $1.50 a day before distributing literature. The Court found the ordinance to be “a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights[,]” id. at 113, 63 S.Ct. 870, because the license fee was “not a nominal fee, imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expense of policing the activities in question[,]” id. at 113–14, 63 S.Ct. 870.
Subsequent cases have thus analyzed the permissibility of fees imposed on the exercise of expressive activities by examining whether those fees were designed to defray, and did not exceed, the administrative costs of regulating the protected activity.5 See, e.g., Int'l Women's Day March Planning Comm. v. City of San Antonio, 619 F.3d 346, 369–71 (5th Cir.2010); Sullivan v. City of Augusta, 511 F.3d 16, 37–38 (1st Cir.2007); Nationalist Movement v. City of York, 481 F.3d 178, 183 (3d Cir.2007); Mainstream Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. F.T.C., 358 F.3d 1228, 1247–48 (10th Cir.2004); N.E. Ohio Coal. for Homeless v. City of Cleveland, 105 F.3d 1107, 1109–10 (6th Cir.1997); Nat'l Awareness Found. v. Abrams, 50 F.3d 1159, 1165–66 (2d Cir.1995); Ctr. for Auto Safety, Inc. v. Athey, 37 F.3d 139, 144–46 (4th Cir.1994); South–Suburban Hous. Ctr. v. Greater S. Suburban Bd. of Realtors, 935 F.2d 868, 897–98 (7th Cir.1991).
This standard has also been applied by those few courts that have considered fees imposed on the exercise of Second Amendment rights. See Justice v. Town of Cicero, 827 F.Supp.2d 835, 842 (N.D.Ill.2011) ($25 application fee for registration of firearms was permissible because, “[l]ike the fee in [Cox ], [the] registration fee ... is ‘not a revenue tax, but one to meet the expense incident to the administration of the act and to the maintenance of public order in the matter licensed’ ” (quoting Cox, 312 U.S. at 577, 61 S.Ct. 762)); Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller II”), 698 F.Supp.2d 179, 192 (D.D.C.2010) (upholding firearm registration requirements, including imposition of fees for registration, fingerprinting and ballistic identification totaling $60, concluding that fees were “intended to compensate the District for the costs of fingerprinting registrants, performing ballistic tests, processing applications and maintaining a database of firearms owners”), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C.Cir.2011); see also D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 24, ? 2320.

[Silence Dogood]

FPC encourages calling Newsom’s office at (916)-445-2841 to urge a veto.

https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status...286072251?s=46

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll

Why 11%? Why not 50%? Or 1000%?
Are the dems this retarded? Like if you're gonna pass a bill like that, go all out!!

Read about salami slicing tactics, and many gun prohibitionist political maneuvers make sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

I think the state of California is going to accidentally kill the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act.

I think so too.

[Dvrjon]

According to the California Highway Patrol (CHP), there were 216,366 traffic accidents in the state in 2022, which resulted in 3,854 fatalities and 165,978 injuries.

Source

Any Legislators/governors up for an 11% motor vehicle excise tax on autos to pay for victims of and reduce automobile violence?

No?

Bueler?

Crickets.

[SpudmanWP]

This is just to get it in the door as it matches the Federal tax.
Once people are used to it, it will go up.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by rational_behavior

...I may be a cynic, but this shpiel by Auron MacIntyre aptly captures the problem with the "muh Constitution!" crowd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JCGavCmlT4

Every society needs a 'base' or 'touchstone' to work from. Otherwise, you have anarchy.

It is, essentially, the difference between "Originalism" and "Living Constitutionalism" in that the former want a fairly consistent standard to work from and the latter want to be able to be able to pronounce 'standards of the moment' based on 'feelings of the moment.' The former bears the hallmarks of a touchstone. The latter promotes inconsistency and inconsistency leads to many things, including self-doubt.

In that sense, by trying to claim individual understandings such as "muh Constitution," proponents simply feed people's sense of doubt about whether the Constitution actually works; which, in turn, feeds the narrative the Left wants... The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed...

...The idea of constitutionalism is that there needs to be some higher law that is more difficult to change than the rest of the legal order. Having a constitution is about setting more sacrosanct rules than the ones the legislature can pass day to day. Our Constitution's guarantee of two senators to each state is an example. And ever since the American founders were forced to add a Bill of Rights to get their handiwork passed, national constitutions have been associated with some set of basic freedoms and values that transient majorities might otherwise trample...

It is a breath of fresh air to witness progressives offering bold new proposals to reform courts and shift power to elected officials. But even such proposals raise the question: Why justify our politics by the Constitution or by calls for some renovated constitutional tradition? It has exacted a terrible price in distortion and distraction to transform our national life into a contest over reinterpreting our founding charter consistently with what majorities believe now...

In a second stage, though, Americans could learn simply to do politics through ordinary statute rather than staging constant wars over who controls the heavy weaponry of constitutional law from the past. If legislatures just passed rules and protected values majorities believe in, the distinction between "higher law" and everyday politics effectively disappears...

In so doing, Congress would be pretty openly defying the Constitution to get to a more democratic order - and for that reason would need to insulate the law from judicial review. Fundamental values like racial equality or environmental justice would be protected not by law that stands apart from politics but - as they typically are - by ordinary expressions of popular will. And the basic structure of government, like whether to elect the president by majority vote or to limit judges to fixed terms, would be decided by the present electorate, as opposed to one from some foggy past.

A politics of the American future like this would make clear our ability to engage in the constant reinvention of our society under our own power, without the illusion that the past stands in the way.

In a sense, it's a contradiction to the Supreme Court quote I regularly post from a 1943 decision...

...The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections...

Even Rocky Balboa gets it...

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Source

Any Legislators/governors up for an 11% motor vehicle excise tax on autos to pay for victims of and reduce automobile violence?

No?

Bueler?

Crickets.

Be careful what you wish for. Excise taxes on internal combustion vehicles are probably around the corners.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

Be careful what you wish for. Excise taxes on internal combustion vehicles are probably around the corners.

Electric vehicles kill and maim, too.

The general populace will immediately grind them into the dirt because in CA, cars are GOOD.

[Dan_Eastvale]

11% excise tax on gas engines to make them unaffordable, claiming "climate emergency"

[mossy]

How exactly does the law enforcement exemption work on this bill?

[ar15barrels]

Originally Posted by mossy

How exactly does the law enforcement exemption work on this bill?

FFL's will have to track the specific sales that go to law enforcement and they either do not have to pay tax on those sales or maybe the "firearms excise tax return" will have a specific requirement to track those specific sales and they will be exempted from the gross sales like they do in your sales tax return.

[SpudmanWP]

The PoS system already has systems in place to cover sales of items that are exempt from CA Sales tax. They will just have to add another category to the software so that it can exempt the Excise tax where appropriate.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

The PoS system already has systems in place to cover sales of items that are exempt from CA Sales tax. They will just have to add another category to the software so that it can exempt the Excise tax where appropriate.

California gun dealers are verging on having to return to room-sized computer/storage systems to account for all the taxes, fees, tests, exemptions, video recordings, et al. that the politicians in this State are piling up on them.

What was that about not infringing on the 2nd Amendment?

[DCoakley]

On a side note of vehicle excise tax, San Diego's SANDAG is pushing for a miles driven fee (tax) for every mile driven. Its only time before public roads and miles driven are taxed.

[Supersapper]

Originally Posted by DCoakley

On a side note of vehicle excise tax, San Diego's SANDAG is pushing for a miles driven fee (tax) for every mile driven. Its only time before public roads and miles driven are taxed.

I'd be fascinated to see how they are going to determine just how many miles I drive at any given point. They may be able to install or program something into these modern, newfangled technological terrors they call cars to transmit mileage reports or whatever, but my 30 year old trucks could never have that installed on them because they're completely mechanical.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Supersapper

I'd be fascinated to see how they are going to determine just how many miles I drive at any given point. They may be able to install or program something into these modern, newfangled technological terrors they call cars to transmit mileage reports or whatever, but my 30 year old trucks could never have that installed on them because they're completely mechanical.

Just like the insurance companies do with their mileage based plans... California considers replacing gas tax with mileage tax

...Lawmakers passed a bill last month that would have begun early steps toward a program by allowing collection of motorists' odometer readings on a voluntary basis. Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee vetoed the measure, though, arguing that Washington needs a program in place before starting to collect citizens' personal data...

While I understand it doesn't necessarily work as advertised for the insurance companies, it is a methodology which can be employed at a certain level of effectiveness. Remember, even your 30 year old vehicles have to be smogged and they write down an odometer reading with that; something the insurance companies use or so they have, evidently, claimed.

Also bear in mind that, just as with microstamping, California is enamored with 'legislating innovation.' Couple that with climate change activism and I wouldn't put anything past our State Legislature.

[AlmostHeaven]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but since about 25% of all new cars sold in California are now electric, funding road construction via fuel tax no longer works. A miles-driven tax will be a necessity. Simply adding a flat $200 registration fee to electric vehicles, which states like Texas have chosen to implement, does not properly distinguish between drivers who put very little wear on infrastructure and those who drive very frequently.

[SpudmanWP]

I agree that for BOTH gas and EVs the tax should be calculated based on miles and assessed when you do your annual registration. I say both to make it a uniform process.

The only problem with that is that people who sell their cars right before the registration ends will burden the buyer with a potentially large & unexpected bill.

[The Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Supersapper

I'd be fascinated to see how they are going to determine just how many miles I drive at any given point. They may be able to install or program something into these modern, newfangled technological terrors they call cars to transmit mileage reports or whatever, but my 30 year old trucks could never have that installed on them because they're completely mechanical.

The new electronic license plate is the precursor to this. Your every mile and move will be tracked through a simple item attached via two screws. It's been planned far in advance.

[Supersapper]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

I agree that for BOTH gas and EVs the tax should be calculated based on miles and assessed when you do your annual registration. I say both to make it a uniform process.

The only problem with that is that people who sell their cars right before the registration ends will burden the buyer with a potentially large & unexpected bill.

I suspect that like a parking ticket, the new buyer will start from scratch while the seller will be stuck with it.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP

I agree that for BOTH gas and EVs the tax should be calculated based on miles and assessed when you do your annual registration. I say both to make it a uniform process.

The only problem with that is that people who sell their cars right before the registration ends will burden the buyer with a potentially large & unexpected bill.

Smog, if needed, is biennial, so presents a problem for tracking.

Registration is annual, a tax on annual registration for annual use is easier.

Transfer of registration prior to renewal prorates the seller tax and starts the new owner?s tax clock.

With such a tax, the state can stop inflating penalty costs to cover admin:

If Traffic school is allowed, there is an additional $52.00 added to the total amount due.

Base Fine: Set by legislation and the Judicial Council of California.

Penalty Assessment: Penalty assessments are allocated for such items as court and jail facility construction and other items as noted below.

$10.00 per $10/base fine per PC 1464 goes 70% to State Trial Court Trust Fund; 30% to County General Fund.
$2.00 per $10/base fine per GC 76100 goes to the County Courthouse construction fund.
$2.50 per $10/base fine per GC 76101 goes to the County Jail Construction Fund.
$0.50 per $10/base fine per GC 76102 goes to County Automated Fingerprint Fund.
$2.00 per $10/base fine per GC 76104 goes to Maddy Emergency Medical Fund (State/County split).
$3.00 per $10/base fine per GC 70372.(a) goes to State Court Facilities Construction Fund.
$1.00 per $10/base fine per GC 76104.6 goes to the DNA Identification Fund (County/State split).
$4.00 per $10/base fine per GC 76104.7 goes to the DNA Identification Fund (County/State split). (First $1 per $10 effective on violations on/after 07/12/06; additional $2 per $10 effective on violations on/after 06/10/10; $1 per $10 effective on violations on/after 06/27/12.)
$2.00 per $10/base fine per GC 70372(a) goes to the State Court Facilities Construction Fund - Immediate and Critical Needs Account.
Night Court Assessment Fee pursuant to Vehicle Code 42006; goes to the State Court Facilities Construction Fund - Immediate and Critical Needs Account - $1.00.

DMV History fee pursuant to Vehicle Code 40508.6; goes to the court to offset cost of recording and maintaining defendants prior convictions of the Vehicle Code - $10.00.

Twenty percent Criminal Surcharge pursuant to Penal Code 1465.7; goes to the State General Fund. 20% is calculated on the base fine amount.

Court Security Fee pursuant to Penal Code 1465.8; goes to the State Trial Court Trust Fund - $40.00.

Criminal Conviction Assessment pursuant to Government Code 70373; goes to the State Court Facilities Construction Fund ? Immediate and Critical Needs Account (assessed per conviction). - $30.00 (Misdemeanor); $35.00 (Infraction)

Emergency Air Medical Transportation Act Fee pursuant to Government Code 76000.10; goes to County Emergency Air Medical Transportation Fund - $4.00.

Parking Violations Processed by the court. These violations must be issued on a Notice to Appear and signed by the violator.- $3.00 per parking violation. Pursuant to SB 857 and Government Code 76000.3, effective 12/19/10; it goes to the State Trial Court Trust Fund.

DMV Traffic Violator School Completion Certificate Fee, $3.00 charged per certificate. Pursuant to AB 2499 and Vehicle Code 11208(d), effective 09/01/11, it goes to State Department of Motor Vehicles.

[Supersapper]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Just like the insurance companies do with their mileage based plans... California considers replacing gas tax with mileage tax



While I understand it doesn't necessarily work as advertised for the insurance companies, it is a methodology which can be employed at a certain level of effectiveness. Remember, even your 30 year old vehicles have to be smogged and they write down an odometer reading with that; something the insurance companies use or so they have, evidently, claimed.

Also bear in mind that, just as with microstamping, California is enamored with 'legislating innovation.' Couple that with climate change activism and I wouldn't put anything past our State Legislature.

Last part I don't think anyone can disagree with. As for them using mileage reading from odometers, I can see that becoming a mess. I'm just glad it isn't a crime to have a nonfunctional odometer. At least not yet.

This type of law is going to lead to a whole series of people unemployed or incarcerated. Tampering with odos is already illegal and most people don't mess with it because the risk is not worth the reward. But I can see a whole underground cottage industry springing up from this.

Moreover, what about legit errors? Couple of cycles ago, the city misread my water meter. Manual reading. They tripled my water bill and I called them on it. I was able to call them (random, dumb luck...they never answer. It's a dead end phone tree) and they told me how to read the meter and sure enough...the reading was completely wrong. If this "system" were wrong (how could anything electrical ever be wrong??), how would one dispute it?

Funny thing is...I wouldn't mind paying it if I knew the money was going to fix the horrible street conditions in my area. That would be legit and I know the roads have to be maintained with money. And the people who use them should pay for that priviledge. But it won't. It will go into a general fund for the state to fund woke projects or things like paying teachers to teach "wokeness" in the schools or to give things to people who have not earned the right to have them.

And I'll still have the same bone jarring, suspension wrecking ride I've had for years here.

[Supersapper]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Smog, if needed, is biennial, so presents a problem for tracking.

Registration is annual, a tax on annual registration for annual use is easier.

Transfer of registration prior to renewal prorates the seller tax and starts the new owner?s tax clock.

With such a tax, the state can stop inflating penalty costs to cover admin:

Don't forget that there are PLENTY of cars on the road that are completely smog exempt, so the problem with tracking for them is that they won't be tracked at all.

And I must ask: do you think the state will stop that inflation of traffic fines? You and I both know the answer to that. I'd bet part of my ridiculous teaching salary that they, in fact, go up.

[bool1tholz]

Originally Posted by The Wingnut

The new electronic license plate is the precursor to this. Your every mile and move will be tracked through a simple item attached via two screws. It's been planned far in advance.

They are still trying to figure out the best way to boil the frogs. Electronic license plate was one of the mechanisms considered in 2017, but current thinking as of 2022 is to roll out boiling in 4 phases.

From the California Road Charge
brochure:

• PHASE 1A: Collected from the vehicle and transmitted during fueling events using an OBD Plug-In Device.
• PHASE 1B: Collected from the vehicle and transmitted during fueling events using an OBD Plug-In Device.
• PHASE 2 Usage-Based Insurance: Provided by the participant on a monthly basis by using a smartphone app to take a photo of the odometer.
• PHASE 3 Ridesharing: Collected and reported through the ridesharing service?s smartphone app.
• PHASE 4 Autonomous Vehicles: In-Vehicle Telematics.

[DCoakley]

What kills me regarding the SANDAG miles tax is this only applies to San Diego city/County residents. folks from LA/I.E. & OC etc will not have this privilege of paying. I drive on non-county maintained roads but I bet they tax me for it!

[Supersapper]

Originally Posted by bool1tholz

They are still trying to figure out the best way to boil the frogs. Electronic license plate was one of the mechanisms considered in 2017, but current thinking as of 2022 is to roll out boiling in 4 phases.

From the California Road Charge
brochure:

• PHASE 1A: Collected from the vehicle and transmitted during fueling events using an OBD Plug-In Device.
• PHASE 1B: Collected from the vehicle and transmitted during fueling events using an OBD Plug-In Device.
• PHASE 2 Usage-Based Insurance: Provided by the participant on a monthly basis by using a smartphone app to take a photo of the odometer.
• PHASE 3 Ridesharing: Collected and reported through the ridesharing service?s smartphone app.
• PHASE 4 Autonomous Vehicles: In-Vehicle Telematics.

P1A and 1B -- Vehicles are too old for a plug in device. They use a paperclip to run codes for mine.

Where they will run into huge problems is that if they only use fueling data, cars that get worse mileage will be charged disproportionately more than cars with good mileage. A 1970 Mach 1 Mustang gets crap mileage compared to a brand new Dodge Charger even though the 2023 Dodge Charger (low end weight is about 4000 pounds) weighs almost 800 pounds more than the Mustang (about 3200 pounds) causing more wear and tear on the road.

P2 -- Ha ha...no smartphone. I use a flip phone and have for 25+ years. Might make me use a camera, but then they don't get metadata.
P3 -- I don't ride share either. No smartphone.
P4 -- Autonomous vehicles. Yeah...ummm....no. I will never own one and I'll probably be dead before they get rid of "manually operated vehicles".

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by Supersapper

Where they will run into huge problems is that if they only use fueling data, cars that get worse mileage will be charged disproportionately more than cars with good mileage. A 1970 Mach 1 Mustang gets crap mileage compared to a brand new Dodge Charger even though the 2023 Dodge Charger (low end weight is about 4000 pounds) weighs almost 800 pounds more than the Mustang (about 3200 pounds) causing more wear and tear on the road.

The problem you bring up applies to both fuel taxes and mileage taxes! A lighter vehicle that uses more gallons of gasoline or diesel pays more, even if it induces less wear on the roads. Mileage taxes are necessary for electric vehicles, as they otherwise would contribute nothing at all.

[DCoakley]

Tax EV's! Pay your fair share. Flat or per mile. And stop using the carpool lanes when not car pooling! BTW, SDG&E is raising your electricity as high as .71 Cents per kW.

[Supersapper]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

The problem you bring up applies to both fuel taxes and mileage taxes! A lighter vehicle that uses more gallons of gasoline or diesel pays more, even if it induces less wear on the roads. Mileage taxes are necessary for electric vehicles, as they otherwise would contribute nothing at all.

You make a good point. I was only referring to the fueling up events talked about above in part because a 1970 Mustang has no smog requirement which was one of the things mentioned.

But I think the scenario you mention would be a bit of an oddity. If a lighter car is using that much more fuel, then it is very likely on the road more than the heavier car because a lighter car gets better mileage, assuming most other factors are roughly equal. It would be very rare to have a lighter car burning more fuel doing less damage than a heavier car burning less fuel. The simple act of burning fuel presumes you're on the roadway. But you're not wrong. Consider:

Pitting an EV against an ICE for fuel tax is not fair to the EV because the EV uses no fuel, but a mileage tax will not be fair between ICEs when the weight of two separate ICEs is taken into account.

There is one specific way of making this fair for EVERYONE at the same time, regardless of whether you use fuel or electricity to power the vehicle but I'm not giving any libs who might be reading this any ideas. Until the concept of this tax is codified for transportation funding only and NOT for the general fund, I want nothing to do with it.

[morthrane]

Mileage based taxes would be too vulnerable to all kinds of abuses, by gov and by end user.

If you want to go that route, tax based on weight by axle, to the 4th power: https://www.insidescience.org/news/h...s-do-our-roads

Guarantee those funds only go to infrastruture maintence.

This way, electric or ICE doesn't matter. Mileage doesn't matter except in the full aggregate that averages out, and how much damage the weight of the vehicle will do over time.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by morthrane

Mileage based taxes would be too vulnerable to all kinds of abuses, by gov and by end user.

If you want to go that route, tax based on weight by axle, to the 4th power: https://www.insidescience.org/news/h...s-do-our-roads

Guarantee those funds only go to infrastruture maintence.

This way, electric or ICE doesn't matter. Mileage doesn't matter except in the full aggregate that averages out, and how much damage the weight of the vehicle will do over time.

A person who drives a 3,000 lb car 40,000 miles a year pays less tax than a person who drives a 6,000 lb car 2,000 miles a year under GVRW taxation. No, thanks.

[Supersapper]

Originally Posted by morthrane

Mileage based taxes would be too vulnerable to all kinds of abuses, by gov and by end user.

If you want to go that route, tax based on weight by axle, to the 4th power: https://www.insidescience.org/news/h...s-do-our-roads

Guarantee those funds only go to infrastruture maintence.

This way, electric or ICE doesn't matter. Mileage doesn't matter except in the full aggregate that averages out, and how much damage the weight of the vehicle will do over time.

Correct on all but the formula. While that formula is the going one, the issue made by Almost Heaven is correct. The formula is only comparing one axle weight to another to determine who does more damage. In that, the formula is good and the physics in the article is sound. When you concentrate the entire weight on a smaller and smaller area, the damage per unit of area rises dramatically. That's how it works. The problem is that it indeed would be horribly unfair for one person to be paying 625x the amount another person pays in the scenario of the formula. Since we're on the subject, my idea is something like this:

[%] x Curb weight + [%] x miles

In this it does not matter whether you use gas or electricity. You pay by registered curb weight plus the amount of miles drive.

If you drive it zero miles for the year, then you must prove beyond doubt that the car absolutely did not move nor was parked on any publicly maintained roadway for the entire 365.25 days of the year in order to avoid any payment at all. Make absolutely sure you do not get a ticket, a smog, an accident, a tow, etc and you would have to prove that your odometer is fully functional.

Larger vehicles, say over 5 tons (since a lot of signs prohibit vehicles over 5 tons on certain roads) would pay a higher percent of the curb weight or mileage. And since the road does not care what the vehicle is, if you have, for example, an F350 Super Duty that is one of the models that comes in at over 10,000 pounds, then you count as 5 tons or higher.

To Almost Heaven's point, I would have to say sorry....if your car is heavier, then it doesn't matter how much you drive. Just putting it on the road causes more damage than the other guy, pound for pound. However, my system works out:

1% x 3000 + 1% x 40,000 = $430
1% x 6000 + 1% x 2000 = $80

Presuming a 1% tax on both items. As long as the percentage is the same for both variables, it works out pretty well.

The biggest issue of all is that no matter what they choose, a HUGE segment of the population is absolutely not going to be happy.

[AlmostHeaven]

Indeed, we can all agree that no road use tax scheme would avoid generating a huge amount of controversy. Fuel taxes do not capture electric vehicles. Mileage-based fees would cause large upticks in fraud. Weight-scaled fees would enrage drivers with short commutes.