California enacts a gas pump tax that, if not likable, is at least less hatable

    California is raising gasoline taxes -- again. The state now has the second-highest gas taxes in the nation, behind only New York.
    As a state California has taxes and spending that are far too high. The debt and problem is completely out of control. Essentially the California legislature is a lot like our national Congress, without the power to print money. I think the state is headed towards Dystopia in about 30 years.
    With all of those things said, if a state has to raise revenue one of the best ways to do it is through gas taxes.
    Sacré bleu you say, Le ColReb is calling for more taxes. Well, sort of.
    Governments must have revenue, and as much as I hate paying higher prices for gas, it's better to pay more for gas than for other things.

    1. Do we want to encourage people to drive more fuel efficient cars while allowing those who really need them to drive big SUVs? Higher gas taxes do that.
    2. Do we want to encourage people to car pool and use mass transit? Higher gas taxes do that.
    3. Do we want to encourage people to use hybrid or even electric cars? Higher gas taxes do that.
    4. Do we want to encourage people to live as close to their work as possible? Higher gas taxes do that.
    5. Do we want to reduce consumption so there will be oil available for export, thus strengthening the dollar and actually reducing the price of oil? Higher gas taxes might do that.

    Taxes have a way of bringing about social change invisibly, much like Adam Smith's invisible hand. When France announced that it was enacting a tax of 75 percent on all incomes of more than a million euros a year rich people started running like mad. Many went to French communities in nearby Belgium, where the top tax rate was "only" 50 percent. Soon France will find that it has very few citizens who make more than a million euros a year. And while it's easy to be envious of these rich people, they do contribute greatly to a nation's economy.
    Higher gas taxes work the same way. People just naturally change their lives in ways that will reduce their tax burden.
    Best of all, regulation through reasonable taxation gives people choices. The government bans nothing. People who want to drive SUVs can still drive them, it will just cost a bit more. I prefer a society that works through nudges to a society that works through edicts.
    There's nothing wrong with opposing higher taxes. I generally do. But if we do need higher taxes, let's have taxes that actually work to benefit society in more ways than just raising revenue.

Factoid of the day -- tankless water heaters don't save money

    I learned a little about tankless water heaters today and the lesson is unless you have the need for sudden bursts of unlimited hot water, don't buy one.
    These little devices are marketed as a way to save money, and they do save perhaps $80 per year in energy costs. But they cost about $1,200 more than a traditional hot water heater, so it can easily take 20 years to recoup your investment.
    And tankless hot water heaters are supposed to be "flushed" once a year to remove scale build-up on the coils. You might put this on a two-year schedule or even a three-year schedule, but it has to be done and will cost at least $150. And water heaters do break down and need to be replaced. It's far cheaper to replace a storage tank than a tankless heater.
    The bottom line is that a tankless water heater will cost substantially more than a conventional water heater. If you want to be "green," take the $1,000 or more you will save by using a conventional, gas water heater and use it to put extra insulation in your attic or to provide better seals for your doors and windows. You'll save money instead of throwing it away with a tankless water heater.
   

We don't want to government to put tracking devices in our cars!

    The former presidential candidate who once claimed he would never increase taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year now wants to put a new tax on all Americans based on how many miles they drive each year. In order to accomplish this the government will place a g.p.s. tracking device on every vehicle in America.
    I suppose Obama's excuse is like Bluto's line from Animal House: "You ----ed up. You trusted us!"
    Now make no mistake, if we lived in a society where every single citizen drove electric cars this might make a slight amount of sense. But we don't. The system we currently have of paying for our highways works just fine.
    That means that people who drive Hummers getting 12 miles per gallon pay a lot more in highway taxes than people who drive Priuses that get 60 mpg. That's as it should be. Small cars create a lot less wear and tear on our road system and should pay less. Those who invest huge sums on electric vehicles in an effort to end our addiction to foreign oil should get a free ride.
    Is the guy getting 12 mpg paying more than his fair share of highway funds? Almost certainly. And as our nation's car fleet gets more fuel-efficient, those who drive gas guzzlers will shoulder an increasing tax burden. That's as it should be. It's using our tax system to give people the maximum freedom of choice while nudging them in the right direction.
    We Americans don't want the government to put tracking devices on our cars. We don't trust our government because our government can't be trusted. Any proposal to put tracking devices on cars is just one more step towards totalitarianism. (No doubt Obama and his goons will soon want to track us to make sure we don't visit a doctor of our own choosing!)
    A common-sense energy policy should reward those who buy fuel-efficient cars. A mileage-based tax does just the opposite.
    For the foreseeable future we should finance our highways through gas taxes. If the day comes that American has an mostly electric car fleet we can fund highways through a tax on electricity, not by a mileage tax..
    What we don't need -- ever -- is tracking devices on our cars. Obama go home!