|
Xaris posted:I somewhat disagree. I'm against sales-tax and obviously best thing to do is repeal Prop 13. But Bay Bridge toll is going up $6 to $9, should it even have a toll because that's regressive? Infact should all bridges be free just because it's regressive? Should alcohol tax be abolished (perhaps it should) because it's super regressive? Should weed not be taxed when it's finalized sold legally? I'd personally answer yes to all of these (and additionally think we shouldn't tax cigarettes), but in the case of alcohol, weed, and cigarettes I can at least understand wanting to try to control people's behavior via taxes. In the case of gas taxes though, it is often very difficult for the poor (or shrinking middle class) to reduce their driving significantly since public transit is such a mess in CA and they need to get to work and they can't afford to move closer to work. So I don't think this is likely to reduce driving much, and will instead just disproportionately tax the poor and middle classes. If it comes out that this actually does decrease driving significantly, I'll still grumble that it's regressive but won't find it nearly as distasteful as a whole.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
The two dollar cigarette tax hike didn't make me quit smoking. Nicotine is incredibly addictive. Duh. It did make me and a lot of other poor smokers I know tangibly poorer though. Will kids be less likely to take up smoking if a pack of cigs costs $7 instead of $5? Maybe. But $7 is still pretty affordable and the tax doesn't really start punishing you until you're already addicted. I know a bunch of you assholes probably voted to take money out of my pocket because you don't think I should smoke. I know why you did it and I don't think I'm especially oppressed by it, but I just want to say, gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Punitive taxes and fees on the poor's only transportation option does not actually solve any environmental problems, it just deepens the misery of the poor because if they can't afford to do without a car now they sure can't afford it after you hiked their taxes (and gives con men ammo to win their votes by ranting about how environmentalism is hurting their family right now and gives the poor a reason to want to believe climate change is made up) If you give people affordable housing near to their workplace or to a convenient metro link, if you provide robust mass transit that gets people where they want to go in a reasonable amount of time, if you redesign cities and development around alternate modes of transportation rather than building it all around some ideal of universal individual car ownership, most people will choose to skip the hassle and expense of a privately owned vehicle on their own, no anti-poor laws required. We see that everywhere it's tried, compare the rates of car ownership in New York City with Houston. But that would hurt developer profits and upper class property values so nevermind just poo poo on the poor until they wise up and bootstrap themselves into a Tesla. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Free transit i agree with and we absolutely need to building that poo poo out. Also that is also begging the question, is charging $X/hr for street parking super regressive? Do you think street parking should all be free too? I don't agree and subscribe to the ideology of Donald Shoup that street parking is too cheap and available. I don't have a problem with the gas tax (I agree that California needs to reduce its dependency on driving, though I personally find having a car incredibly freeing compared to the piss-poor public transit) but infrastructure should absolutely be publicly funded, free for everyone, and widely available. It's a public good. Duckbox posted:The two dollar cigarette tax hike didn't make me quit smoking. Nicotine is incredibly addictive. Duh. It did make me and a lot of other poor smokers I know tangibly poorer though. Will kids be less likely to take up smoking if a pack of cigs costs $7 instead of $5? Maybe. But $7 is still pretty affordable and the tax doesn't really start punishing you until you're already addicted. You're welcome. Get a patch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Its easy, just go buy a new Tesla.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Duckbox posted:The two dollar cigarette tax hike didn't make me quit smoking. Nicotine is incredibly addictive. Duh. It did make me and a lot of other poor smokers I know tangibly poorer though. Will kids be less likely to take up smoking if a pack of cigs costs $7 instead of $5? Maybe. But $7 is still pretty affordable and the tax doesn't really start punishing you until you're already addicted. The difference with that is that smoking is a choice and a luxury. For many people in California, commuting to work is not a choice - it is the only way to put food on their table and a roof over their head. Without public transit or affordable housing near their job (two things that often don't exist in this state, especially in combination), taxing gas means it is harder to get to work and maybe the kids get sent off to school without breakfast. The well off people already live closer to work and can even work remotely sometimes. The gas tax only cuts into their play time driving budget.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
I mean, I don't think people should smoke, but as stated, smoking is often an addition and additions are health issues, not moral or financial ones. "Just stop" is lovely advice that grossly oversimplifies the issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
California's extreme hostility to smoking cigarettes is one of the best things about it. The only reason gas taxes are bad for the poor in the US is that transit kind of sucks, and part of that is because of bad zoning. Both of those have a common solution: eat the
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
Life sentence for anybody who drops a cigarette butt on the ground and leaves it, imo. No chance of parole if it's still lit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Punitive taxes and fees on the poor's only transportation option does not actually solve any environmental problems, it just deepens the misery of the poor because if they can't afford to do without a car now they sure can't afford it after you hiked their taxes (and gives con men ammo to win their votes by ranting about how environmentalism is hurting their family right now and gives the poor a reason to want to believe climate change is made up) Ok I actually agree with all that. But it's frustrating that all the public works you mention will never happen to the extent it needs to. Way more poor will be displaced by rising sea levels and drought than by the tax hike.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:You're welcome. Get a patch. Oh yeah, something even more expensive than cigarettes.  I hope the gas tax goes higher so you dipshits who keep raising taxes on the poor can suffer too.  EDIT: Former smoker; the higher prices didn't make me quit. I would just eat less (which works since cigarettes stunt your appetite) to save more money for beer and cigarettes. GenderSelectScreen fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
I've always thought that there should be a $1 CRV on cigarette filters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Life sentence for anybody who drops a cigarette butt on the ground and leaves it, imo. No chance of parole if it's still lit. As an environmentalist cancerman, I never flick butts and give my friends poo poo when they do. I'm the worst.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
I've lurked this thread for a long time, but haven't really ever posted. I'm down in Orange County, about a 2 minute drive from the massive homeless encampment along the 57 freeway on the Santa Ana river trail, right next to Angel Stadium and the Honda Center. A local resident has proposed a plan to create a private "facility" in which homeless people would be charged rent to be able to pitch a tent in a gated parking lot. You can read about it here. My favorite part is where she wants to charge homeless people $50/month to rent a locker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Sorry poor people, we don't understand public transportation or what addiction is but we can't tax rich people or commercial property anymore. You're just going to have take this one for the team.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Zuul the Cat posted:I've lurked this thread for a long time, but haven't really ever posted. I'm down in Orange County, about a 2 minute drive from the massive homeless encampment along the 57 freeway on the Santa Ana river trail, right next to Angel Stadium and the Honda Center. Leave Orange County.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Oh yeah, something even more expensive than cigarettes. Out of curiosity, do you think that making nicotine patches cheaper would be a better way to encourage people to stop smoking? I'm not sure how the state could get the companies that make them to stop doing it, and there'd probably be some pushback from the tobacco companies, but your comment made me wonder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Oh yeah, something even more expensive than cigarettes. But I support the gas tax too. Also, a patch will save you money in the long run if you use it to quit. Then again, I suppose dying of malnutrition will also save you money in the long run. Jaxyon posted:Leave Orange County. Nah, the last thing OC needs is fewer people to vote against the insane poo poo like that. Though you'll probably be priced out of there involuntarily anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Nah, the last thing OC needs is fewer people to vote against the insane poo poo like that. Though you'll probably be priced out of there involuntarily anyway. Fair. Burn down the white parts of Orange County?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Fair. Burn down the white parts of Orange County? Anything east/south of the 55 needs to burn. Rest can stay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Anything east/south of the 55 needs to burn. Rest can stay. Again, weird northwest-southeast gradient in wealth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Nah, the last thing OC needs is fewer people to vote against the insane poo poo like that. Though you'll probably be priced out of there involuntarily anyway. Probably this part. Rent alone for our one bedroom is $1435/month. I'm nearing my final semester at CSULB, so hopefully a career shift will allow me to stay and buy a home. I actually really love So Cal in general, and Orange County especially. I'd love to be able to stay and keep voting against dumb poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:Ok I actually agree with all that. But it's frustrating that all the public works you mention will never happen to the extent it needs to. Way more poor will be displaced by rising sea levels and drought than by the tax hike. Sure you're right they will but a gas tax has zero effect on that, it will happen anyway. What are people who can't afford to live near work or near reliable public transportation to work going to do when you say "if you keep driving to work I'm gonna charge you $2 a day" well they are going to keep driving to work because they are unable to do anything else. The people who are able to change their behavior and change the incentives in the system are the industries and the developers, unfortunately I have no idea how to conjure up the political will it would take for politicians to do anything about them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Zuul the Cat posted:I've lurked this thread for a long time, but haven't really ever posted. I'm down in Orange County, about a 2 minute drive from the massive homeless encampment along the 57 freeway on the Santa Ana river trail, right next to Angel Stadium and the Honda Center. loving Orange County. We should be building shelters, but because this is loving Orange County, every attempt at that gets CEQA’d to hell by NIMBYs. Nor can we build any affordable housing it seems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:loving Orange County. To be fair, that describes all of urban and most suburban California.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
kurona_bright posted:Out of curiosity, do you think that making nicotine patches cheaper would be a better way to encourage people to stop smoking? I'm not sure how the state could get the companies that make them to stop doing it, and there'd probably be some pushback from the tobacco companies, but your comment made me wonder. I guess? It wouldn't have helped me; my plan was to always quit cold turkey. My father struggled to years trying nicotine patches/gums to kill his chewing habit so I knew I had to cut myself off completely. I do agree that a drop in prices for harm reducing measures would be a good step for some people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:
Then bring in the superhippies who know how to recreate forests from the bacteria and fungus upward and green that whole place over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
Please don't raze Orange County until my grandma has passed and we can sell her million+ dollar house in Huntington Beach.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
So is there any will in the Democratic party in CA to fix the housing shortage, or do the NIMBY boomer libs control everything? What is the ideological character of the issue, is the left or the center more wanting to deregulate? Seems like the proper left wing policy would be a massive public housing building campaign, is that being discussed at all?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
The Democrats all want to build more housing but not anywhere near them. As long as their entire net worth is tied up in the price of their house, they will never allow anything that might lower the value (affordable housing, social services, or transportation).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
It comes up, but most of the political left in this state, at least among those in power, are neoliberals so nothing much comes of it. Edit: Tuxedo Gin said it better. They like the idea in concept, but the moment it undermines their self-interest they peace the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
So the Democratic establishment is basically 100% NIMBY? Is there meaningful opposition from the left at the state or local level, and if so do they differ in policy prescriptions at all?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Newsom release his plan for the housing shortage a few days ago. He wants to link transportation funds with low income housing. [url] http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...-htmlstory.html[/url]
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So the Democratic establishment is basically 100% NIMBY? Is there meaningful opposition from the left at the state or local level, and if so do they differ in policy prescriptions at all? Until more people doesn’t mean more traffic no one wants high density housing any wear near them. Combine that with the number of times I see a slew of cop cars jammed up in the cheap lovely apartments near where i live and I really cant blame anyone for not wanting that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Linking transportation funds with low income housing won't help the traffic problem, by the way, since it would divert funds otherwise spent on public transport.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So the Democratic establishment is basically 100% NIMBY? Is there meaningful opposition from the left at the state or local level, and if so do they differ in policy prescriptions at all? In SF they keep running hit pieces on how YIMBYs or anyone even moderately pro-growth is the alt-right. So, yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Linking transportation funds with low income housing won't help the traffic problem, by the way, since it would divert funds otherwise spent on public transport. That plan also assumes that NIMBY communities want transportation funds at all when in reality they want neither.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So is there any will in the Democratic party in CA to fix the housing shortage, or do the NIMBY boomer libs control everything? What is the ideological character of the issue, is the left or the center more wanting to deregulate? Seems like the proper left wing policy would be a massive public housing building campaign, is that being discussed at all? IIRC Best Senator Scott Wiener has also said he's planning more housing bills for next session, and he's very pro-housing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Meanwhile, here in SLO we're getting campaign ads for Santa Barbara's mayoral campaign and one of them refers to the "new housing regulations Sacramento is forcing on us." Because of course Santa Barbara is going to be all, "Not in my backyard, which is tiny and zoned R-3, but I refuse to do anything with besides water the poo poo out of an orange tree."
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:In SF they keep running hit pieces on how YIMBYs or anyone even moderately pro-growth is the alt-right. So, yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 15:52
|
|
