Is it fair for the government to ask the people if a global warming tax should be enacted?

Question

A lot of people are freaking out because Los Angeles County might pass a "climate change mitigation and adaptation fee" which would be used to fund public transportation and other projects that ease traffic congestion.

But the people get to vote on whether the fee is adopted.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/should-drivers.html?nup=1&mbid=yhp

So why the heck are people freaking out about a self-imposed tax? Who are you to decide what taxes Los Angeles County voters can or cannot impose on themselves?

Answer 1

People are ridiculous.  From the LA Times: "This seems to be a cashing in on public sympathies on global warming to generate additional funding for programs that already exist," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.

Give me a break.  Cashing in for programs that already exist.  Has he ever used public transit in Southern California?  Doubtful.  Because if he had, he'd realize that "existing" is entirely different from "working."  We all know about LA traffic.  Why is there traffic?  Because so many people drive.  Why do  people drive?  Because the mass transit system doesn't work very well.  $400 million annually would hugely benefit those programs and might actually convert some drivers into bus-takers.  

But that's not even the point of your question.  It amazes me that in a nation built on democratic principles, people freak out about giving others the chance to vote on something.  Ridiculous.  Grumble, grumble.  

People are freaking out because people are dumb.  They only want those who agree with them to have a say in what actually happens.  I hope the legislation gets as far as the ballot.  And I hope Southern Californians actually exercise their democratic rights.  Grumble, grumble.

(that last grumble was just for you, Dana)

Answer 2

This tax proves that global warming is a liberal tax scheme.

Answer 3

I always like how people complain about paying too much in taxes, and then they vote for referendums and bond measures.

Go figure!

As for your question, at least the government is asking first!

Answer 4

In principle a self-imposed tax is entirely fair.

In practice Los Angeles might set a precedent for other cities, for states, and for the country.

Since it's one of the first such taxes in the United States, doing it right is a worthwhile topic of discussion.

Since the $.40/gallon rise in the past 3-4 months has not affected my driving at all (I either go to wrk or I don't), I don't see what a $.09 tax would accomplish (if it's supposedly going to reduce consumption).

On the other hand, having a "no net cost" incentive or penalty associated with my car registration each year would incent me to change vehicles, resulting in a 30-40% reduction in my GHG emissions and total gas consumed.

Furthermore, a tax would hurt the economy, while incentives can have no net cost.  I can't afford a higher cost of goods, and I may change jobs soon and I don't want the economy (job market) to be any worse than it already is.  Lower taxes -> better economy -> better job -> I pay more income taxes to the state.  California will get more revenue from me and much better emission reduction and gas savings with an incentive program instead of a tax.

Answer 5

I don't think they should make people pay more for doing something bad, but pay less for doing something good. I think if you recycle you should pay less. But the government couldn't handle that. We already borrow tons of money that can't be payed back, from China. The government won't give us a break.

Answer 6

Thanks for the chuckle.

Everytime I read about LA and the things that they do I have to laugh.  The complained about industry, and taxed the power companies to the point that they cannot and will not build a plant in California.  Then, when their cost of electricity started to rise they enacted price controls.  Then, when they had rolling blackouts because no one could afford to sell them electricity, they complained some more.

I hope they pass it, because the same people who want this tax will be the first to say that it should be adjusted for a more fair distribution, in other words, "I wanted my neighbor to pay for this, I didn't think that 'I' would have to."

People generally get the Government they most deserve.

Answer 7

All voters should have the right to decide on where there money is being spent! after all IT IS THEIR MONEY!!!

This is what a democracy(republic) is supposed to be all about!

Answer 8

Why not, we have Blue Laws over here in the South, too!  Howdy, neighbor!  Glad to see you boys finally gettin' some religion!  You DO realize those laws will still be on the books long after the glaciers return, right?

Answer 9

"So why the heck are people freaking out about a self-imposed tax? "

Clearly, it must be because they don't believe in Democracy.  They apparently think they should dictate how every city, county, and state in the country handles taxes.

Answer 10

Govenment and taxes are always hot button issues, the reason being is that government is not efficient when it comes to utilizing and managing a budget.  Those who are already feeling overburden by taxes will be the stressed even more and what will be the return on the investment. I would suggest it would be little to nothing.  If global warming is really the problem and I am skeptic, I doubt that taxing the people will have any affect.   The founding fathers wanted us to have less government and give more power to the people, today we already have a self serving government and the idea of putting more food in the trough will lean the hogs is nonsense.

However if the County of LA wants to impose a tax on itself that is up to the people as long as what they are voting for is given equal debate to ensure those voting are fully informed.

Answer 11

This is for traffic congestion/pollution, not climate change directly.

It means building more roads and making a subway or two, THATS IT!