Moves to different states are just not that common for the average American, and I would prefer for states to retain the power to implement their own policies in this area. I would not want to see e.g. California unable to change emissions policy because Texas isn’t on board.

Complexity is a cost of our federal system and I am okay paying it in most cases.

Someone could compile every vehicle regulation from all the states into one common list. It'd be more restrictive than any single state, but it would be consistent. And if someone doesn't like it, they can fall back to their local laws.

States could harmonize laws (if they wanted to).

Except that states want their pound of flesh; California is definitely no exception.

There are entities that are federal registrations (eg: an aircraft with an "N-number" -- that N-number is federal) that individual states still try really hard to tax the same way as cars/trucks. Individual counties even take a stab at this.

It seems that the rules might be there for some benefit but mostly the rules help the state/county make income.

So a race to the bottom on licensing/taxation/safety/insurance/emissions? But only for those wealthy enough to have family trusts?

No. Each state needs the power to set minimum standards as to who can drive what. I don't want to see millionaires be allowed to drive around without insurance in unsafe cars simply because their daddy purchased them a share in a Delaware family-held plates LLC.

Window tint isn't nonsense, either. I think every stanced-out pickup with a tinted windshield should be apprehended and destroyed the instant it crosses my state's line.

>Car culture has a unique flavor of regressive entitlement. Every bit of societal and legislative progress that has made cars cleaner and safer has been fought tooth and nail by this group.

I'm a newcomer to this hobby, and am amazed how this resentment has perpetuated since their muscle cars were neutered in the 70's by emissions regulations. The resentment has transferred to subsequent generations who were not alive then, who still complain about all the emissions and efficiency efforts that carmakers undertake. Too much unnecessary machismo hanging around.

I am not overfond of Harley noise; and I understand that some people really object to the VOC-smell of poorly-tuned carburetors...but this is a bit much.

There's artistic merit in historic industrial design & engineering, and keeping those things in an operational state; for which I am willing to tolerate the occasional puff of blue smoke.

Is California making itself less car dependent or is it just taxing cars while remaining car dependent?

Still is pretty pollutant. You just don't see the brake and wheel dust as much as the fumes coming out of the car dusting everything with lead like they used to.

Land use tax needs to start first

You'd think that, but they are deeply unpopular.

I don't think it will hold up in federal courts. This seems to apply to cars that the company officer who lives and drives in Montana as well. If this only applies to cars used more than 50% in CA is would hold up. Of course truck drivers who mostly don't drive in CA but that is home may find an out with that plan.

Details are important and very hard to get right.

What, the government of CA is lobbing hastily-crafted, poorly considered legislation in the general direction of a problem that they think they have?

(surprised pikachu face)

You are speaking deeply to me about leaf blower bans in my town. They are useless.

> You want comprehensive enforcement with reasonable penalities.

> You don't want draconian laws randomly enforced.

This depends entirely on what the goal of the law is.

>>You want comprehensive enforcement with reasonable penalities. >>You don't want draconian laws randomly enforced.

Paying tax on a vehicle driven in a state is not unreasonable. And holding the executives of a shell/numbered/privately-held/tax-dodging organization liable for taxes owed is not draconian.

[flagged]

No wealthy person is going to save money by relocating from California to avoid a $30-40k tax bill on an exotic car. Wealthy people have a beach house in California because they like California.

The people who relocate to avoid taxes are upper-middle class people who are overextended on their finances.

HN crowd used to hate the rich.

Now comments like this, defending losers with lambos, are seen as admirable.

> More wealthy people leaving California.

Good! I do not understand why people think this is a bad thing. I would rather be surrounded by poor, kind people than these rich sociopaths.