road tax in the UK used to be ringfenced in a similar way, it could only be spent on roads and associated projects. then in ww2 the govt said that they needed the money so the removed the protection but said that it would be put back in place, they are still waiting. other political pet projcets and vote getters always seem to get added to the list
Slán
~M

>Mark;
>
>Originally politicians imposed the taxation of gasoline in California with the purpose of improving our hiway system and maintaining roads. For a number of years these funds have gone directly into the State General Fund, to be used for any purpose.
>
>We have had bond issues to improve and maintain our roads, as well as local sales taxes for that purpose. Somehow the money does not get to where it was ear marked so we have additional bond issues, legislation and taxes imposed for our hiway system. Somehow the entire story is a joke.
>
>Tom
>
>
>>thats very true Tom. I guess that my point was that if you have a car and are using it to travel to the extent that you use so much petrol that this tax break makes a $6 difference in your weekly petrol fillup then the $6 wouldn't matter that much as i presume that you would be earning a decent wage. to help the less well off to whom the $6 would make a difference surely a tax rate reduction on the lower income bracket would be a better idea, or petrol vouchers as part of social security.
>>Slán
>>~M
>>
>>>Mark;
>>>
>>>When you are not well off $6 a week can be very important!
>>>
>>>Tom
>>>
>>>>what i find impressive is that what she is proposing will save consumers $6 a week by her own reckoning. now really if $6 is going to make that much difference to your lifestyle you may have bigger things to worry about than petrol prices, like affording to buy the car you are driving in the first place. populist vote getting programs don't get more obvious.
>>>>~M
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'd love to see it, but it ain't gonna happen in Cali.
>>>>>http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=9587