Californians may tax the rich more to subsidise electric cars
economist.com
economist.com
Yes, we need electric cars, but we also need fewer cars, and every NIMBY fighting tooth and nail against allowing people to live close to jobs, amenities, public transport, and bike infra is responsible for accelerating our present crisis.
Not everyone lives in dense cities, nor does everyone want to.
>There's a better way to design cities and towns.
What makes them better? I love Tokyo, for example, but would hate to live there - as it's too crowded for my sanity. But I'm not going to hate on others for wanting that. I'd rather the government focus on fostering choice and options, rather than picking what they deem is "best" for everyone.
>...every NIMBY fighting tooth and nail against allowing people to live close to jobs, amenities, public transport, and bike infra is responsible for accelerating our present crisis.
I think you're misreading the argument from many NIMBY's: they aren't fighting against those things, but rather fighting against growth in population _in general._ YIMBY's take population growth and density in an area as a given assumption, and then solve from there. NIMBY's on the other hand would argue that there's plenty of space to spread out elsewhere.
Often the "new developments" near these towns are out of town a bit, but even two miles isn't an insane walk.
I'll grant that many of them don't have much in the way of sidewalks, but you can often find them.
> Not everyone lives in dense cities, nor does everyone want to.
I may have missed the part there were the original post said otherwise.
We could check the history books on this, but I'm pretty sure before cars everyone did not live in "dense cities". ;-)
Ignoring density that means people would have to walk 2-3 times farther to get to businesses. Except car centric zoning increased the distance between houses and businesses 3-10 times farther.
(Though innovations like bicycles mean you can still get to places pretty fast.)
But per the OP's comment, if you're not in a densely populated city, your distances to other businesses and people is not primarily driven by how long it takes you to get to the end of your lot or how wide the streets are.
Tokyo density isn't necessary. I now live in a East Coast city that's denser than San Francisco and has very very few buildings over 4 stories -- there's a sort of low-scale density that pervades the city's entire surface area, as opposed to the California model, which is SFHs with big yards and massive setbacks over 90% of the urban landscape, 10% massive high-rises.
It should be a personal choice, but until someone using a road needs to pay a toll that's high enough to outbid other uses of that land it's not, it's central planning.
> Not everyone lives in dense cities, nor does everyone want to.
Fortunately, you don't need to in order to not be car-bound. I live in a small college town (10k people), and ride a bike for almost all trips April-November. It's easy, because there's no suburban mess of six+-lane roads or 40+mph traffic to cross. We went to a party at a friend's house on Sunday on the other side of town; my five-year-old daughter road her bike, and I carried our two-year-old on mine. We are hours away from the closest "dense city", and biking is easy and safe.
My parents live in another ~10k person New England town. My 82-year-old mom drives her car once a week to get groceries, and walks for the rest of her trips. This myth that you can only be car-free (or mostly car-free) in big cities has got to die.
Unless your city has separated bike lanes, it's hard to say that this is a safe choice compared to a car.
In the UK the stats are even worse, with something like 16x risk of death and 78x risk of injury. https://kennettpeterson.com/2016/08/26/riding-your-bike-is-7...
That's great for them, but let's price things realistically. As it stands right now, the exurbs are economic dead weight. Their infrastructure isn't supported by their tax base and it never will be.
I think we might find that people not wanting to live in dense cities might feel differently if they are actually required to pay for the infrastructure that the dense cities are currently purchasing for them.
>I think we might find that people not wanting to live in dense cities might feel differently if they are actually required to pay for the infrastructure that the dense cities are currently purchasing for them.
You mean like some monstrosity of a 6-lane intersection that got spec'd out that way in order to quality for some state grant? Pretty much all local development is "how do we qualify for someone else's money" driven.
These municipalities could go it on their own. But if you turn off the money tap you also lose the ability to complain and threaten to take something from them if they don't do what you like and that is a compromise nobody seems willing to make.
Yes, these municipalities could pay drastically higher taxes to keep their infrastructure functioning without subsidies. That doesn't refute my point, which was that they might feel differently about the arrangement if those things were realistically priced in.
Dense urban areas specialize in economic output: that economic output spills over into neighboring areas (urban areas produce more economic output than urban areas consume)
Suburban and exurban areas specialize in providing labor: that labor will spill over into neighboring areas (suburbs have more workers than people working in suburbs)
Rural areas specialize in production and extraction: those goods will spill over into neighboring areas (rural areas produce more raw materials than they consume.)
This means that suburbs will consume more than their "fair share" of economic output, just like urban areas will consume more than their "fair share" of labor and goods.
The suburbs are the way they are (in part) because of the housing preferences of workers, which themselves are influenced by subsidies on sparse suburban living. A denser suburb could serve the exact same purpose in your model while supporting it's own upkeep.
It seems like there are two arguments here: the first is that it's unfair (or maybe unreasonable?) that suburbs are subsidized by urban taxes. This is the point that I would argue makes no sense to me: lots of regions are supported by other regions in one domain or another.
There's another argument which is that denser land-use leads to more efficient land-use in almost every case. This argument makes sense to me, though I'd argue that efficiency isn't the be-all-end-all for why people choose to live where they do (e.g. lots of people even in this thread have expressed that they chose to live in a less dense area because it better suits their desired lifestyle).
denser land-use leads to more efficient land-use in almost every case, but efficiency isn't the be-all-end-all for why people choose to live where they do. People who choose to live less efficiently should bear the burden of that inefficiency, with some exceptions such as mail delivery, education, etc. where equal access is a cultural value we want to uphold.
I guess the fundamental argument is that absent other factors, there is no societal economic benefit to a person living in a single family home on a half acre compared to a townhome so there isn't a reason to subsidize the upkeep of things related to their choice of living situation. Their share of road, water/sewer, electrical maintenance, infrastructure projects that support their commute, etc.
I probably should have noted earlier that I don't have a fundamental issue with taxes being a net negative from the city and a net positive to the suburbs. If that's what it takes to support social services, education, public parks, etc. then that's fine.
I don't mean to single you out, but I find comments like this really perplexing. Do you really believe the GP meant "everyone should live somewhere like Tokyo"?
Most urbanists in the US are talking about fostering choice and options. Right now in the US you have effectively two options - rural or suburban car-centric living where owning a car is the only efficient option - or living in extremely dense environments that still cater to cars but its at least possible to live without one.
You can look at a number of different countries in Europe to see how even small towns can still be built with a natural density curve to allow choice rather than the car-centric sprawl that we have here.
I think this is the model American urbanists need to take. Move to small towns where they can have more influence, and they don't have to try to force their preferences on existing large communities.
Get involved with development of a small town, guide it into these mixed use styles and attract like minded people. It would be significantly less of an uphill battle, and wouldn't anger all of the people who like the ways things already are in their large cities.
Or they can advocate for their ideology until existing large communities share their preferences.
I didn't really talk about climate above but that is a huge influence as well. I think advocates feel that time pressure and don't see any other option but to push for sweeping changes quickly and at a large scale.
More people would like to live in dense cities, that what there currently are apartments available in dense cities. We need to build more dense, to answer to the demand with supply.
Of course not everyone likes dense, walkable areas. But dense areas, by definition, don't need much land area. So the rest of the land area remains available for sparse communities. Everyone should be happy, then.
Free market capitalism does not have to apply to every single policy discussion. If you feel like you're being hated on, that's the price of having an opinion, in this case a bad one that leads to worse infrastructure and more pollution for nearly everyone else.
I think that there is a lot of work that can be done for public transportation (and pedestrians) in the US. At least in dense cities.
This is not a reasonable interpretation of reality.
One, the government effectively limits choice today via single family zoning and car centric city planning. Claiming NIMBYS are for more choice is disingenuous.
Two, there are some valid definitions of better, if not best. Dense, walkable, bike friendly, public transit oriented city planning leads to more active lifestyles, fewer transit deaths, less air pollution, lower carbon footprints, and better city financials.
Spreading out as worse isn't an assumption. It is a multi faceted and we'll documented reality.
I very specifically mentioned towns as well. Somewhere like San Luis Obispo comes to mind. It's about having places where you can walk, bike, or take transit for most of your daily needs. It doesn't need to be a city.
Edit: Therefore I am not against improving things for cars in the meantime. I don't think this is a zero-sum game.
I think a better approach here is to focus on the supply side of things which is completely driven by companies that want people in the office and the offices are in SF or Palo Alto/Mountain View etc. So the answer here is either allow remote work and encourage people to leave California, or break up the head offices and move them across the country into less expensive areas.
Before the tech boom houses would go for $500-600K in San Jose(I should know as I bought a place in 2013 for $550k) so this high housing crisis is totally artificial and recent. It also doesn't help that having a million+ engineers/tech employees making $200k+ a year all crammed into one geographical region which is constrained by water and mountains.
The only time we think of walkability is in big cities but what if suburbs proposed this radical idea of building services that people use closer to where those people actually live. If your day to day is dropping your kids off at school, going to the grocery store and gym, and then work, why in the hell did we decide that your home, work, grocery store and gym should all be in segregated parts of town where the only way to get from one place to another is an expensive hunk of metal.
Because we decided to prioritize things like peace and quiet, distance from people and outdoor spaces for play, cooking and recreation above not leaving a tiny bubble for your whole life.
Living in tiny condos sucks and isn't for everyone, this is the tradeoff we've chosen.
That said, I'd much rather have my kids walk to school in a suburb than a dense urban area.
I like the idea of being able to be alone in nature easily but still living with modern conveniences. American cities (at least LA, SF, and Seattle) all require a car.
The worst depression of my life was living in San Francisco and never being able to be alone in nature. (I was very broke and didn't have a car.)
And anytime we do build a mixed use development, we make sure that it's marked as "trendy" and "hip", as to not give the impression that this should be a normal mode of development. Anytime a development like this goes up, property prices around the development are out of reach to working class families and that even further drives the point home that this is not a normal mode of development, rather a playground for the wealthy (and you're going to need a car to get there if you don't live in the million dollar townhomes around the corner).
When these mixed use developments do go up, American's are amazed by the walkability and livability. News outlets do puff pieces on these new developments and everyone is happy about it, then when it's time to do more development around the city we go back to the old ways of segregating everything to the nth degree.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0intLFzLaudFG-xAvUEO-A
This is true practically everywhere bar a few select cities and megapolises. Doubly so if you have to get on at a stop which is dirty, dark and crowded. General exceptions include lack of parking and knowing you'll drink at the venue.
The Dutch ain't doing it because Utrecht Central looks swell with all the cigarette butts everywhere.
All California municipalities have to have what is called a Housing Element, which is a plan with the state for how they're going to build more housing. Many (rich) towns have fought this on the grounds of it "ruining the character" (which is just NIMBY code for being exclusionary).
But not having one has real consequences as Santa Monica recently found out [1] where ~4,000 new units (20% affordable) got court approval and the city can't say no.
Likewise there are other laws that are abolishing mandatory parking minimums, which goes to your point of California being a car-dependent hellhole (which it is, much like most of the US).
Another example: bypass zoning and planning for building residential property above commercial property if the road it is attached to is a sufficient width. This will allow the building of mixed commercial and residential (which most cities forbid) without lengthy and expensive planning.
But there are a whole host of other bills that have been passed to make building cheaper and easier. Hopefully this will culminate in the Holy Grail of zoning in most municipalities making anything about building anything other than single-family homes illegal (which it is in most of the US).
[1]: https://smdp.com/2022/10/12/new-15-story-project-automatical...
> California [...] is a hellscape of stroads and parking lots as far as the eye can see.
Many people don't see it that way. Millions upon millions, actually.
The fact that California needs to tax the rich to make electric cars work is a sign that said technology is not economical. Doesn't even matter why. I'd own an electric car if I could, but every time I've considered it I've realized that it doesn't make financial sense. One might think that now would be the best time to buy an electric car, but good luck with that when wages are stagnant, YoY inflation is ~8%, and the price of goods is up. I can simply drive less or take my motorcycle. As long as California is totally cool with its gross wealth stratification, people are going to realize that they can live in an affordable area, drive to and from work, enjoy the privacy of their own vehicle, and still come out ahead from where they would be if they lived close to work. I'd be making far less money if I lived in any of the cities my workplaces have had their offices located.
> every NIMBY fighting tooth and nail against allowing people to live close to jobs
I've never heard of anyone not wanting that. There's NIMBY attitude that might get in the way of people living close to their jobs, but your characterization of "every NIMBY" comes off as reductionist and a gross exaggeration. Surely citizens would never vote against their own interests. No, no one ever does that. /s
It was shocking how short-sighted people were about this. So many pro-rail people showed up thinking "we'll turn this into a commuter or tourist thing", with so many people overlooking the fact that a huge amount of capex would have taken to make this safe for trains again (e.g. some of the more decrepit trestles and bridges need to be replaced, fine for bikes, irresponsibly risky for trains).
I love train commuting just as much as anyone, but this train simping was infuriating when we could've had a fantastic easy bike path, like the one that goes along Hwy 90 in Seattle towards the mountains.
It really seems like we deserve the stroady fate we're hurtling towards in California. NIMBYs and ridiculous zoning will rule the day, until everything is just broken :(
[0] https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Cruz_County,_California,_Measu...
Any new mental hospitals? Mmmm, I didn’t think so.
No different than a California gas tax or California Lottery to Education Fund, it goes elsewhere than it was politically intended for … as usual.
Take from that what you will, and not denying the existence of corruption in this one-party state government political machine, but the editorialized title in this hacker news post is really misleading.
Too bad, California mental health (or should I say, millionaires’) money well misspent.
Well, if you're talking to the governor, as it relates to the topic of the article, the article starts with how he's in TV advertisements against this proposition, so not sure what your point is.
This article, https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-10/californ..., provides a much fairer overview in my opinion of "where the money went" than just "where are the new mental hospitals".
(And while I’m dreaming, maybe a consortium of environmentalists should band together to repeal CEQA, which is a reasonable contender for the most environmentally damaging thing CA has done in recent memory.)
Pigovian taxes ("tax bads not goods") are just about nobody's sole basis for taxation, and many oppose them altogether. Can you substantiate your claim, or was the caricature intentional?
https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...
The legislature must pass a balanced budget, but it can carry a deficit over into the following year.
In practice, they use that to deny nearly all discretionary spending, and even spending that other states consider crucial:
https://www.idahoednews.org/news/nea-idaho-ranks-last-in-per...
And then do odd things like raise education funding while cutting corporate taxes:
https://apnews.com/article/education-tax-reform-legislature-...
Which would seem fine and dandy, but if there's an economic downturn and we no longer have a budget surplus, that tax burden will fall on the backs of working people and they'll just cut education/social services/environmental protections again like they always do.
That's often the intended outcome for folks who make proposals like this. They have a vested interest in the government not working and will take whatever steps necessary to "prove" it's true.
Force people to consider the tradeoffs of their proposals.
1. Lyft funded the collection of signatures to get this on the ballot, to the tune of $8.5m.
2. About 10 years ago, CA's top tax rate was ~10.5%. A measure was passed "temporarily" during a recession to increase that rate to ~13.5%. Then another proposition was passed to extend this "temporary measure".
3. CA currently has a $100b surplus.
—-
Ok, time for my personal opinion.
The reasons for these increases are obviously not to dig CA out of a tax revenue deficit. They've accomplished that. There are other factors at play.
Ripping around on a fat tire 2000W Alibaba special is not a lifestyle that the bulk of the people driving this discussion hate only slightly less than the ICE status quo. Easier to say nothing and focus on the issues where there are consensus than address that gorilla.
Somewhere along the adoption curve, electric vehicles will be cheaper than gas, and they are already (in many ways, though not range!) better than gas.
Therefore, even though subsidies were instrumental in getting electric off the ground a decade ago, it makes no sense to further subsidize at this time. If there is an irresistible urge to spend more money, spend it on infrastructure.
There's a debate to be had about how much better EVs are for the environment but I don't think it's reasonable to ignore such things when developing public policy.
For the record I voted against Prop 30.
There are a lot of contributors, so you have to tackle a lot of them. Transport is one of the biggies.
> And at this time we should think if it wouldn't be cheaper and more realistic to invest in mitigation for a slightly warmer climate.
I despair that this idea keeps coming up, even on forums such as this. It's not like this is an original idea. There have been a bunch of studies that blow this concept out of the water. It's far more expensive to deal with the results of climate change than to avert it.
There's also the huge human cost of not dealing with it, and the issue that you don't fix something by kicking the can down the road. The problem is only going to get worse the longer you leave it. It's like dealing with your house being on fire by taking your jacket off.
By the way, in the EU for example, passenger cars account for 60% of CO2 emissions related to transportation.
...which has been turning in record profits: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/08/oil-companie...
In the first quarter of 2022, US oil industry profits TRIPLED: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/these-top-5-oil-com...
The idea that we can just use technology and continue to promote a car based hellscape seems untenable to me
There is a generation that sees it this way, and for the life of me, I can't understand it. Is it just that the internet has enabled a level of local entertainment that wasn't available before and now the absolute personal freedom that cars and roads bring don't seem as appealing as they once did?
What's the strategy for emergency ambulances in a strictly walkable town? What's your evacuation plan during a natural disaster? What accommodations will be made for the elderly? A town without roads can just as easily be a "hellscape."
Maybe there's a more rational "middle of the road" way to look at this problem?
This association between personal car ownership and personal freedom is one of the most absurd things to me. Think of this the next time you're sitting in traffic - is that freedom you are feeling now?
Of course, this situation of waiting for other people in cars to move (by far the most common situation by quantity of time for people who drive in cities) is not found at all in any car ad. Nope, it's all empty city streets and beautiful roads in the forests. It's one thing to be sold something and realize you've been had - quite another to persevere for years afterward that no, the beautiful experience you were sold really exists!
Not all trips taken in a car experience traffic, and not all commutes experience heavy traffic. When people talk about the sense of freedom afforded by owning a car, they are talking about spontaneity and not needing to deal with strangers in a crowded space.
- Last minute or long term road trips.
- Get my 3 kids to 3 different activities in different parts of the city after school.
- Pick up cheap furniture from Craigslist/ FB Marketplace as soon as it's posted.
- Camping
- Coach youth sports and transport all the necessary gear to practices/games/tournaments.
I vote pro public transportation every time and use it for day to day work commuting. But it's really not hard to imagine ways that personal car ownership equals freedom for a lot of people.
My dream world has me in one of the few cars and everyone else off the road. I do realize this is unreasonable, however.
And sure, I've had two kids in the city, but I spent more on rent than an average person makes in a year--and that was in Chicago, an "affordable" big city.
People are becoming aware of the absolutely immense societal cost that comes with "absolute personal freedom" that car-centric culture brings, and how most of the "freedom" it offers is really not that unique. healthy density, good public transit, bicycles, and car rentals for rural destinations give you the vast majority of the freedom without many of the downsides.
> What's the strategy for emergency ambulances in a strictly walkable town? What's your evacuation plan during a natural disaster? What accommodations will be made for the elderly? A town without roads can just as easily be a "hellscape."
This isn't some untested technology, it exists now in many countries and most urbanism in the US is about just pointing to what already works in Europe and saying we should build it here.
In pedestrianised areas of my city, ambulances are allowed to just drive onto them.
> What's your evacuation plan during a natural disaster?
Aren't these usually carried out by buses etc. to avoid gridlock of private cars?
> What accommodations will be made for the elderly?
Mobility scooters, bicycles, special routes for vehicles with disabled badge holders, wheelchair-accessible public transport, etc.
Yep, and the SV glitterati (See Zuck) solution is to have everyone don a VR headset to "experience" Yosemite.
They'd prefer to live on Coruscant than the 6666 ranch.
It's true California does tax fossil fuels, but much of those taxes are more than offset by subsidies that go right back to the industry. The state did recently (as in a few months ago) ended one of their subsidies for fossil fuels, saving ~$160 million/year, which is a huge deal.
That said, there's still substantial subsidies for fossil fuels a the state level, and the feds chip in close to $15 billion/yr. The overall subsidy picture for fossil fuels dwarfs the subsidies for renewables.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/1642845...
I doubt that, since I was not making statements about California or any other location in the US, specifically. Which is why I didn't respond specifically to your previous comment. Which I will do now:
> Would you count subsides for fossil fuels as externalities? ;-)
My baseline assumption is that all fossil fuel subsidies are removed. If not, then yes, just slap the same amount back on through taxes.
Where I live, petrol taxes are about 5x higher than in California, with no subsidies. Use of fossil fuels for most other purposes, such as residential heating is banned. And cars have huge additional sales taxes, based on fuel consumption. Budget cars start at 2-2.5x the price compared to the US, while for fuel guzzlers it is way higher, easily adding $100-$300k for a sports car. Also, expect to pay $3 toll road tax to drive into the nearest large city. Toll roads are used to limit traffic in built-up areas, to keep local pollution down.
Meanwhile, electric cars have zero to low taxes and some priority access in some parking lots, bus lanes, etc.
GDP per capita is similar to California, but all these taxes make purchasing power a bit lower. Still, if I park my car at the grocery store, about 50% of the cars there will be electric and maybe 20% of the total will be Teslas. Most of the petrol cars remaining are old, cheap ones.
Clearly taxes do work.
I would argue that my country has actually done what California seems (at least pretend) to want to do.
Yup, it was me who was misperceiving what you were saying. Thanks for clarifying.
The fossil fuel industry tripled their profits in 2022, and we still have $20BN in fossil fuel subsidies.
For those keeping score at home, that is more than ten times the subsidies for electric vehicle purchases.
EV1's first appeared on the road in '96 (and it wasn't the first EV), so that means we've got a few years to go! ;-) Either way, California's plan is well within a "couple of decades".
> Trying to go faster will generate needless and extensive backlash, cost a lot of money, and lead to a lot of unsatisfactory experiences.
Same goes for not migrating, so you pick your poison.
> Somewhere along the adoption curve, electric vehicles will be cheaper than gas, and they are already (in many ways, though not range!) better than gas.
They already cheaper than ICEs.
> Therefore, even though subsidies were instrumental in getting electric off the ground a decade ago, it makes no sense to further subsidize at this time. If there is an irresistible urge to spend more money, spend it on infrastructure.
You might want to check the particulars on Prop 30. It does put money into spending on infrastructure.
But hey, if we want to take back the subsidies on gas instead of increasing subsidies on electric, I'm okay with that.
What California should do is repeal the great disaster that was (and still is) Prop 13. The article glosses over it (calling it a "fiscal toll" without saying much else). This is one of those rare situations where California should be more like Texas, namely:
1. Commercial property should be reassed and taxed accordingly at least every 5 years if not every year. Currently the tax rate that Disney pays in Anaheim was set in the 1960s and hasn't changed. A lot of commercial property is this way because it's passed around in LLCs so it doesn't trigger a reassessment because there is no transfer;
2. "Kicking old people out of their homes" is used as an argument against this. You can achieve this goal, if it's one you want, without giving billionaires generational preferential tax treatment. In Texas, for example, the state can defer pdroperty taxes until the sale of the house for the elderly. This gives you the choice of downsizing to save money or staying put until after you die;
3. Stop the inheritance of preferential tax rates (which happens now);
4. Make property tax relatively high percentage wise while essentially eliminating state income tax on those earning less than $100,000 such that those earning less than $100,000 are net better off under the new system; and
5. Make propety tax largely based on land use. This means a $2 million apartment will attract a lower tax rate than a $2 million single family house.
I actually think the tides have turned and this may actually pass with voters.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_30,_Tax_on_In...
It sounds like a great idea, but Lyft wrote this law and couldn't get the state legislature to pass it, so they are trying to do an end-around the legislature. The devil is in the details.
The law would tax high earners and put that money into a fund whose spending will be directed by an unelected board. Lyft would of course lobby to control that board and make sure all the money is spent on the upgrades the state had required for rideshare companies, which is their ultimate goal.
Also, it is budgeting by fiat -- it sets how state revenue will be spent for the next 20 years, with no way to change it if something changes in the next 20 years.
I love the idea of subsidizing electric vehicle adoption via wealth transfer, but this law is not the way to do it.
It’s also not entirely budgeting by fiat. One of the cool things about this prop is portions of the spending don’t count against California constitutional spending limit (this prop effectively raises that limit so we can improve our infrastructure).
I’m still on the fence about this prop. There seem to be good reasons to both vote it in and vote it down.
Tax the middle-class to subsidize the rich.
California was pretty nice when I was 22 and didn't mind living in a studio apartment.
I honestly think California is a negative sum game at this point. It seems like hardly anyone is winning, and most people are losing - most of them massively.
I guess the people living entirely off handouts are winning? Maybe 22 year-olds that get paid a bunch of money to work at FAANG and live in studio apartments?
It's not even clear to me that the majority of Prop 13 recipients are benefiting that much. You only really benefit if you sell and leave the state. And, yes, some people are doing that - but not anywhere near a majority.
But, when a huge portion of societies decision tokens are sitting idle in a few accounts, it calls into question whether the holders are capable of making decisions, or if they are just going be a bottleneck.
Therefore it's likely Tesla wouldn't benefit as much as you might suspect...but either way it still is corrupt.
Keep in mind that VPs at FAANG make more than $2M a year (which is where this tax kicks in). A VP at Google could pick up and go to another state, and some have, but most of them like it here.
Regardless of whether wealthy people like CA because of the weather or services the state provides (although I can't think of a single wealthy person who cares about the services that California provides), there's a tradeoff between those things and cost. If you increase the marginal cost of living in California by 4.5% some people will leave. Particularly those folks like startup founders or early employees who expect to earn the bulk of their net worth on a single transaction that will be taxed at the top marginal rate.
The point is that you have to be ultra-wealthy for it to be worth picking up your whole family and moving to another state just for tax purposes.
California is already experiencing population decline as people run away from the taxes and crime.
Do you have any data showing that is the reason they are moving and not some other reason, like the weather?
> California is already experiencing population decline as people run away from the taxes and crime.
The most cited reason for leaving the state is the cost of housing. It should be noted that CA has lower property tax rates than Texas and Florida and about 23 other states, so that's not even part of the cost of housing equation.
https://www.amgintrealty.com/why-new-yorkers-are-moving-to-f...
Note the #1 reason.
> The most cited reason for leaving the state is the cost of housing. It should be noted that CA has lower property tax rates than Texas and Florida and about 23 other states, so that's not even part of the cost of housing equation.
If the property tax rates are lower in CA, but the property is valued higher, then the total tax paid can be considerably higher than in other states. Ya gotta multiply the two to get a cost.
Don't forget CA's income tax and sales tax, too. Oh, and the highest gas prices in the country, due to CA regulation and taxes.
https://www.wealthspire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/qsbs-...
Some data on migration effects of taxation in CA from the last Prop 30 that raised income taxes, and that was blunted by Obama's ATRA which added SALT deductions that are now capped. None of this even counts the secondary economic effects of driving a bunch of high-earners out of state: https://www.nber.org/papers/w26349
And for what, so we can subsidize electric cars that people are buying anyway? What an asinine piece of legislation.
No, CA has a regressive tax system (considering sales tax and low property taxes for generational wealth and corporations). The generational wealth component was recently addressed, but was accompanied by another property tax break for the rich.
Is it also accurate to say that "people who are eligible for California EV subsidies are more often than not well off"? No, it's not. It turns out, the more well off you are, the less your eligible for subsidies, and the vast majority of subsidies go to people who are definitely not the people who'd be taxed by this proposal.
“It’s just false,” said Denny Zane, the founder and policy director at Move LA, a public transit advocacy group that helped develop the proposition. Lyft joined the effort to promote the proposition after environmental groups and policymakers came up with the idea, he said, but the company did not “devise” the proposition.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/14/california-p...
A man can dream.