🚀 go-pugleaf

On 30 Jan 2003 10:41:07 -0800, Curtis CCR <curtisccr@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Andrew White <nospamers@allowed.net> wrote in message news:<sfbi3vs2k8bc0v9h2s84dg8c05ka67cal6@4ax.com>...
>> curtisccr@sbcglobal.net (Curtis CCR) wrote:
>> 
>> >Excerpted from the Stockton Record January 29, 2003
>> >
>> >Assembly OKs tripling license fee
>> >
>> >SACRAMENTO -- The state Assembly on Tuesday passed a measure designed
>> >not only to nearly triple the annual tax on motor vehicles, but to do
>> >it immediately and to blunt the efforts of tax foes who had threatened
>> >to overturn the increase by placing a referendum before voters...
>> >
>> >...Conservative lawmakers knew they lacked votes to stop the bill, but
>> >they thought they could take it to the voters and have it overturned
>> >at the ballot.
>> >
>> >Those hopes fell apart when Democrats amended Assembly Bill 4X, by
>> >Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson, D-Culver City, making it a "tax levy" --
>> >a specific kind of bill that takes effect as soon as the governor
>> >signs it, and one that is not subject to the referendum process...
>> >
>> >... [The bill] would nearly triple the fee for many vehicle owners. 
>> >
>> >For someone with a car worth $8,500 -- the statewide average -- "this
>> >increase amounts to $9 a month," said Assemblywoman Jenny Oropeza,
>> >D-Long Beach, chairwoman of the budget committee.
>> 
>> The citizens are too dumb when it comes to important fiscal decisions.
>> California roads are in such a horrible shape that you absolutely need
>> additional funds.
>
>This will not likely do anything for the conditions of California
>roads.  The "car tax" (called the vehicle license fee) just about all
>goes to local government.  I supposed it might get spent on streets,
>but local governments can spend it however they want.  And of course
>they have threaten the public with cuts in police a fire services.

It goes to local government because the original laws that reduced it
and did some other things needed to guarantee to local governments that
they wouldn't lose important revenue streams.  The tax reduction also
had a clause that _required_ it to be revoked in the case of insufficient
state tax revenues (like we have now).

jg
-- 
These opinions are my own. 
http://www.garry.to                                       Oracle and unix guy.
mailto:joel-garry@nospam.cox.net                       Remove nospam to reply. 
                                                                       OCP 8i.