California Legislature Considering Sales Tax Reduction For Clean Vehicles

It is fine to tax people who want large engines, like Hellcat fanboys, just as it is fine to tax more those with larger houses.

@cmoibenlepro Taxes are supposed to be just enough to run the government. Why is it fine for politicians to reward or punish taxpayers for their choices? I can see a property tax based on value, and in Cali Prop. 13 protects those of modest means, but who cares if I want a bigger engine or more power? I'll pay more at the pump for it anyway, so it's none of the government's business.

@Lorenzo "Taxes are supposed to be just enough to run the government." Except when it's used to extract behavior from it's citizens, like, having kids, building houses, being green or giving money to politicians.

"no rhyme or reason to gas guzzler taxes" It's supposed to punish people who buy 20 MPG cars so that they instead buy 15 MPG "light" trucks to avoid the gas guzzler tax.

Lorenzo: "I can see a property tax based on value, and in Cali Prop. 13 protects those of modest means" Sorry to stir the hornet's nest but California taxes are more messed up than the federal ones... Prop 13 did roll back the tax percentage to 1% of the property "value" for all people. That might be good (or not). The lower taxes paid by all homeowners and businesses probably resulted in California having just about the highest sales tax (9%+ for state+local) and state income tax (9%+ starting at $51k income) and one of the higher corporate income taxes (8.5% ?). Renters theoretically get some benefit from that part of the rollback, since property tax on apartments would be rolled back as well. But that's actually quite minor compared to the _other_ (and much more controversial) part of Prop 13, which limits the "value" assessment increases from year-to-year. These assessments accumulate over time. For example, my ancient neighbors are taxed on an assessed value of about $100k so they pay about $1k/year taxes; the fair market value is about $1.5 million, so without this other Prop 13 perk they would pay $15k/year. Without the "value" limit my neighbors would face a $15k/year tax burden. However, they would face that burden precisely because they made a gigantic windfall in increased property value. $27k (actual purchase price in 1961) is about $200k today using federal CPI, so they really did make a $1.3 million gain. They might have squandered that windfall or spent it on some noble cause, but to call them people of "modest means" is preposterous. There are myriad other distortions as well. Corporations get the benefits and use it to ward off competition. Homeowners hold on to houses even if they don't live in them and have no intention of ever living in them. The rent -vs- own situation is distorted here partially because of Prop 13. I'll leave you with this: When children inherit a house, they _also_ inherit the Prop 13 perks! Talk about a policy for the benefit of the 1%!

Where have you been? The "massive" budget deficit has been vanquished by several hefty "temporary" taxes that are likely to become permanent once spending ratchets up and the revenue drops off in the next downturn. Then there will be another massive budget deficit.