Opinions
Navigation
Other Issues
This Issue
- Front page
- News
- Sports
- Opinions
- Intermission
- Dining Guide
- Night Life Guide
- Careers
- Features
- Classifieds
Buy
SMS
RSS feeds
Comments about "Editorial: Yes on Prop. 87"
<< Back to Editorial: Yes on Prop. 87
10 Comments on this article:
Proposition 87 is the dumbest idea ever. Look, I'm all in favor of decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil, but this proposition will have the opposite effect. By increasing taxes on California domestic oil, it will increase demand on other sources of crude - including foreign oil.
You have got to be kidding me? All that Prop 87 does is INCREASE our dependence on foreign oil by raising taxes on oil produced in Calfornia. If you wanted to increase use of domestic oil then slap a tariff on imported oil. Also, where is the money going to go to and what results are going to be achieved by it? Here is just another bureaucracy with no accountability and no requirement to deliver results. Another pure waste of money.
This is a terrible idea. It reduces energy independence by making domestic energy more expensive relative to foreign energy. Also, there are already billions of dollars going into alternative energy research; why do we need a government buerocracy and more taxes to accomplish this. I do not trust the CA gov to be a good venture capitalist when they have already driven the state into debt.
I think whether or not our oil comes from foreign sources or not is immaterial. We need to reduce our oil consumption overall. There are two reasons: first, global warming; second, the limits to the amounts of oil. So an oil tax of 6% will certainly do that, and I'm in favor of that as a worthy goal in of itself. That the money might end up doing something good (grant money, more fuel efficient cars, health) is a bonus.
How can you be worried about to much green house gases from oil at the same time as being worried about running out of oil. If we use up almost all the oil in the world, then you won't need to worry about greenhouse gases.
The $0.51 per gal. corporate welfare to the oil refiners for adding 5.6% ethanol to California gas is about $500,000,000.00 per year.
The ethanol may add over $1.00 per gal. to the gas profit in California.
That may be about $100 billion in oil profit from California motorists.
The science is interesting but so is the money.
A $4 billion Prop. 87 oil tax may add $40 billion in oil profit.
Charlie Peters
(510) 537-1796
Clean Air Performance Professionals
Darius, you must be smoking weed. This tax is not going to reduce dependence on oil. Gasoline prices have gone up more than 50% and has consumption gone down? NO. So what's another tax layered on top going to do in terms of consumption? NOTHING. And without any clear accountability or metrics, the $4 billion is going to disappear into a black hole. And a good chunk of the money is going to be blown on a bureaucracy to manage the rest. I agree with the principles of taxing gas to reduce gas consumption but the mechanics of this proposition are horrific and have little to no chance of meeting the objectives.
Prop 87 is designed to tax oil extractor profits before the product is traded on the global market, therefore it does not follow that this will cause an increase in foreign oil dependence since the domestic producers have to remain price competitive if they wish to continue to selling to refineries. 87 simply cuts into their profits, and does not reduce their participation in the market.
WR, you just might be the weed supplier. YES, as gasoline prices rose by 50% CONSUMPTION DID GO DOWN in the form of people buying more fuel efficient cars.
The No on Prop 87 crossed a line of ethics in their commercials that ran on television and they need to be sued. at the very least the No side should refund the Yes on 87 people's money.
I am extremely disappointed that the Yes on 87 phone number was basically disconnected the DAY AFTER the vote and the website, less than one month later, doesn't even exist anymore. If I knew then that the yes campaign was being run in such a suspect way, I would have gotten more involved.
No on 87 flat out lied on several points and they need to be held accountable in a court of law.
From an economic standpoint, if this proposition worked and more people started using more fuel efficient cars instead of suvs, it would decrease California’s dependence on foreign oil, this would decrease the amount of oil being imported which would in turn decrease the amount of money being leaked out of the economy. A decrease in leakages could help America’s overwhelming trade deficit. Since California is a major importer of oil this would have a fairly large impact on the overall economy.