^[PDF] Transportation Funding Overview

The Fuel Tax Swap of 2010 The Impact of the Fuel Tax Swap on State Gasoline and Diesel Taxesa Base Price + State Sales Tax (6%)b Base Price + Gasoline and Diesel Before 2010 Swap Gasoline (Effective 2010-11) Diesel (Effective 2011-12) aFigure does not include other statewide and local sales taxes. bThe 6 percent state sales tax, is scheduled to revert to 5 percent beginning July 2011.
https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/transportation/2011/Trans_Funding_Overview_02_28_11.pdf

^[PDF] Options for Increasing State Funding for Trans.indd

The Legislature could increase taxes or fees to generate additional funding for transportation programs. In particular, as shown in the fi gure on the next page, the Legislature could increase one or more of the state’s existing taxes and fees on fuels or vehicles (such as the excise tax on gasoline).  Use Other Existing State Revenues.
https://lao.ca.gov/handouts/transportation/2017/Options-for-Increasing-State-Funding-Trans-012417.pdf

^[PDF] ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FUNDING FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

As noted above, a payroll tax would impact salary and wage earners without taxing other income. In contrast to an income tax, it would not provide allowances for exemptions or deductions. For example, an employee earning $20,000 annually would be taxed $100 for each one-half percent increment of tax applied.
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/1979/01_alternitive_public_transportation_funding_for_los_angeles_county.pdf

^[PDF] THE ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS OF CALIFORNIA'S AIRCRAFT GROUND TIME EXEMPTION

The aircraft ground time exemption provided in Chapter 1169 Will result in a property tax savings to the airlines of about $3.5 mil- lion in 1979-80. The tax loss to local government is reimbursed by the state. 2.
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/1979/02_fiscal_impacts_of_californias_aircraft_ground_time_exemption.pdf

^[PDF] SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE 1983-84 BUDGET BILL

Proposition 13 effectively eliminated the ability of local school districts to levy additional special property tax rates to payoff new bonds or loans, and therefore severely limited the districts' access to funds needed for school building construction.
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/1983/03_recommendations_in_the_analysis_of_the_1983-84_budget_bill.pdf

^[PDF] THE UTILIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY IN CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNMENT

In addition, the Department of Consumer Affairs cost the state approximately $200,000 in 1981 when it decided to abandon a computer system it had acquired and instead purchase services from the Franchise Tax Board computing center.
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/1983/07_the_utilization_and_management_information_processing_technology.pdf

^[PDF] Legislative Options for Developing Welfare Computer Systems in California

These savings would be obtained by comparing a list of AFDC recipients with the Franchise Tax Board records of interest earned. Cases where the AFDC recipient earned sUbstantial amounts of interest would be investigated by local fraud investigators.
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/1983/12_developing_welfare_computer_system_in_california.pdf

^[PDF] An Overview of Community College Funding in California

Self-help courses in personal finance, personal income tax preparation, law for the layman, and real estate for the consumer. 10. Self-help personal development courses except for orientation to college, career planning, study skills, and group and assessment of academic preparation, aptitudes, and interests. 11.
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/1983/an_overview_of_community_college_funding_in_california.pdf

^[PDF] Proposition 41: Public Aid and Medical Assistance Programs

FINALLY, THE REDUCTION OF FEDERAL EXPENDITURES IN CALIFORNIA THAT WOULD HAVE RESULTED FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSITION 41 IN 1983 WOULD HAVE BROUGHT ABOUT, OVER TIME, A REDUCTION IN STATE AND LOCAL TAX REVENUES IN THE GENERAL MAGNITUDE OF $250 MILLION PER YEAR.
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/1984/proposition_41_public_aid_and_medical_assistance_program.pdf

^[PDF] Statement by the Legislative Analyst to the Conference Committee on AB 2313

THIS $235 MILLION IS THE NET RESULT OF THREE DIFFERENCES IN THE ESTIMATES: o PERSONAL INCOME TAX - OUR ESTIMATE IS $175 MILLION LOWER. o SALES AND USE TAX - OUR ESTIMATE IS $270 MILLION LOWER. o BANK AND CORPORATION TAX - OUR ESTIMATE IS $210 MILLION HIGHER.
https://lao.ca.gov/reports/1984/statement_by_the_leg_analyst_to_the_conference_committee_on_ab_2313.pdf