<p>
I usually oppose any type of tax increase because the money is usually just government’s way of making income transfers from those who work to those to don’t. In this case, however, the tax proceeds are used to invest in alternative energy and hopefully end our addiction to oil. If I had a criticism of this proposal, it would be that the tax is not high enough. I hope it passes.</p>
<p>Great tax, also a great way for gas and oil prices to rise, i dont want to be paying the government more than around 45 cents a gallon as we are now</p>
<p>TheDad: what’s your take on this? I had a hard time deciding how to vote on it.</p>
<p>I thought this was one of the most ridiculous props I’ve seen in a while. All of the taxes would be passed on to consumers - make no mistake about this - it’s a business fundamental. They may as well have proposed a $4B tax directly on the taxpayers. Would you have voted for that?</p>
<p>There are a number of people who firmly believe we should just tax our problems away. We’re using too much gas by some people’s opinion so simply raise taxes to a ridiculous level, people (especially the poor) won’t be able to afford gas and will drive less and solve all our problems. What ‘should’ gas cost - $4, $5, $10, $25 per gallon? How much ‘should’ someone pay to get to work, go to the grocery, or to go see their family in the next town? Using this logic why not just outlaw gas altogether? At least then it would affect everyone. </p>
<p>The idea that this would be ‘used to invest in alternative energy’ is flawed as well. It’ll largely be used to fund the employment of a lot more civil service jobs. It’s trying to shunt money from a relatively inexpensive energy source (oil) to expensive energy sources (solar, geothermal, etc.) but really is just creating what amounts to an additional $4B tax subsidy. </p>
<p>I can be counted for one vote against it.</p>
<p>
Do you have a solution to our addiction to oil?</p>
<p>My default position on all California ballot measures is to vote NO! The propositions over the years have handed us some of our worst laws. However, I am willing to be convinced to vote for any given measure, but the arguments have to be clear and convincing and the benefits of the law manifest. Seen any propositions like that lately?</p>
<p>Razorsharp, I am dumbstruck. Are you seriously supporting a proposition that is being publicly touted by Al Gore and Bill Clinton, while being opposed by hundreds of millions of dollars in slick TV ads financed by Chevron Texaco? Please tell me you’re joking. My entire grip on CC reality is slipping away before my eyes.</p>
<p>
It’s a self-correcting problem. Free enterprise and availability will solve it. As oil becomes more and more scarce it’ll be less available. Eventually it just won’t be practical to use gasoline in cars. I’m very confident that people will adjust and use the best alternate energy available for that purpose at that time. The key is that the time isn’t here yet. Gasoline as a fuel for cars is still less expensive and more practical than any alternative including bio-fuel, hydrogen, electric, etc.</p>
<p>Of course, there’s the question of whether or not the externalities of buying foreign fuels outweigh the utility we get. I’m still on the fence on that one.</p>
<p>I’m voting no on the proposition, but I do share the Economist’s overall view of “sooner off oil the better.”</p>
<p>U-u-dad, based on current reports, free enterprise is solving the problem of too much fish to eat. But I guess we’ll adjust, eh? A decent argument could be made that it isn’t practical to use gas in cars now. If the consensus of scientists is correct, the complete price - including global warming effects years from now - isn’t included in the price at the pump, it’s just another cost being passed ablong to the next generation. I’m not sure that whistling and ignoring the problem may not be the most useful reaction. Sometimes it’s necessary to take responsibility for all of the consequeces of our actions.</p>
<p>Patient, I’m reluctantly voting for 87. My default position is akin to Coureur’s.<br>
For me, this is one of those flawed-but-fix-later propositions. Similar take but with even more reluctance on 89; corporate money is the most corrosive and corrupting element in politics. I was initially inclined to be Yes on 88 and 90 but flipped to No on both.</p>
<p>Many props I vote against because they’re badly written micromanaging that represents an abdication of the Legislature’s responsibilities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought I was the only person in California who thought this!</p>
<p>if people in california like expensive oil then they should vote for it. You think gas will stay the same price, it will go up and you liberals wont be able to blame the oil companies this time, but yourselves. Its wrong to think that the government will put this money to good use in alternative fuel sources. A private company would be able to do it much more effieciently, and bc the govt is subsidizing you know its probably a failed attempt. But if you want to invest in alternative sources do it yourself, and dont force others to</p>
<p>
I don’t support ideas because of who else supports or opposes the ideas. Our addiction to oil is making us dependent on countries full of religious bigots and people who treat women like property supposedly in God’s name. One example is Iran. Without the dollars produced by oil, countries like Iran would be overpopulated “bead-trading” third world countries. Instead, it has developed a nuclear weapon and is in a position to cause the next great genocide. The world’s production of oil is not increasing with the worlds unit demand. The effect is an upward trend in oil prices. The only reason ethanol and solar are as expensive as they are (relative to historic oil prices) is because of volume. If we can establish mass production of ethanol, the price will go down to be as low or lower than oil. When given the choice between oil and ethanol at near the same price, I will choose ethanol every time. An even better choice woud be to move to electric cars. We have an almost unlimited supply of coal and can burn it cleanly and supply all of the needs of an electric car society.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hahah, I love it when people preface a statement with either “you liberals” or “you conservatives.” It’s always bound to be followed by a great, well-reasoned argument. </p>
<p>Anyway, this is arguable. Marginal profit has been very high lately (something like, what, 40%?) so it may not be a case where prices increase that much. Furthermore, due to the generally vague nature of the bill, it’s unknown whether or not the taxation would be on a barrel or at the margin, so it’s hard to say exactly where it will hit oil companies, and how hard.</p>
<p>Either way, I’m generally opposed to the bill due to its vague plan for using the money. But to immediately jump on the “liberals” and say that it’ll, without a doubt, raise prices is a bit too hasty.</p>
<p>UCLAri, I think you’ll find that a lot of people agree with Coureur, TheDad, you - and I. But I am voting for 87, for the reasons TheDad gives. I have no doubt that it’s a flawed document, but the alternative is no action at all. Schwartzenegger’s much touted “million solar roofs initiative” to increase the amount of non-polluting photovoltaic electricity got cut into meaningless pieces by special interests before it finally got enacted. (I’ve got a real rant about Prop. 90 but I’ll take that elsewhere.)</p>
<p>Taxing oil wont raise prices? Where in the land of oz?</p>
<p>golani,</p>
<p>Again, it depends on how much the tax hits at the margin. Even tariffs, that most icky sticky of anti-free market tool, don’t always raise prices in certain types of markets. In fact, there are times when regulation or even taxes will cause increased production and, believe it or not, lower prices (of course, it also causes lower profit for the producer, but this is not always a death knell)!</p>
<p>It really depends on the market, where at the margin the tax hits, and a variety of factors. To say otherwise is a bit disingenuous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m going to sound awfully cynical here…but I’d rather that there be no action than crappy action. I fear that the $4b may not be spent at all wisely. </p>
<p>Then again, if it’s even an incremental move toward energy independence, it may be good. I just think that we should expect better written legislation…even in initiative form. Oh how I dream…</p>
<p>If I feel a proposition is not written well, I won’t vote for it even if there could be a partial benefit (but with a good chance of failure or cost). When I read a proposition I want it to be clear to me as to the expected costs and tangible benefits. If the prop is written in unclear language or these two other items aren’t clearly outlined, I vote it down. The prop will then usually be re-written for the next go-round and I might vote for it then. I think it’s a mistake to vote for a nebulous bill that ends up costing the taxpayer money. Laws and bureaucracies have a habit of ‘sticking’.</p>
<p>The cost of gas will go up regardless due to supply and demand but I see no point in passing a bill guaranteed to prematurely raise the cost of gas in California, generally the most costly state for gas, even higher with a bill like this.</p>
<p>Read the bill (forget about watching commercials by Clinton/Gore or the oil companies) and see if it clearly states how there will be $4B worth of benefit in reducing the need for gas in cars and substituting some other energy source. Make sure you’re prepared to live with the fact that the higher cost of gas will affect the poorest among us the most and drive up the cost of anything dependent on gas prices (delivery of goods, police/fire departments, public transport, etc.).</p>
<p>If they want to spend $4B, then build me a road that I wouldn’t mind driving a golf-cart on to work without being mixed in with semis and other vehicles and I’d gladly drive one. Back up the electric vehicle with ready access to a viable large-scale renewable energy source such as nuclear power. Allow me to drive a more portable vehicle for the long-hauls (gas at this point - something else eventually).</p>