T1B

When you pay for a gallon of gas, your money goes to the following:



The Left blames Bush Co. (greed) for high prices.
The Right blames the Government (taxes) for high prices.

Where do you shake down on this?

As far as the taxes -- how the fuck do people think those roads get there? By magic?

The tax argument is asinine. Another example of Average Joe thinking that everybody else but him should pay his bill. Not nearly as egregious an example as people getting tax breaks for having children, but asinine, nonetheless.

You used the road...that's how you came to buy gasoline. Building and maintaining a road system is very expensive. I can't think of a better way to tax the actual users, in proportion to the amount they use them. People bitching about what amounts to as close to a "perfect" system of taxation is...asinine.

The "windfall profits tax" on oil companies that is being proposed is gaining bipartisan momentum. It sounds like a good idea to me..but I'd also like to see some clarity brought to how federal and state tax monies are allocated s it stands now, and what savings and potential services would be rendered with such an additional tax.

PSUFAN wrote:The "windfall profits tax" on oil companies that is being proposed is gaining bipartisan momentum. It sounds like a good idea to me..but I'd also like to see some clarity brought to how federal and state tax monies are allocated s it stands now, and what savings and potential services would be rendered with such an additional tax.

windfall tax = cost passed on to the consumer.

real win win there.

the right is not blaming taxes (alone)
as much as it is over-regulation, resistance to
drilling for oil in the USA, and lack of refinieries.
Oil futures (speculation) is high because of the uncertainty in the world thanks to Iran, Venezuela
etc---
however--I hear not one single person in DC
calling for even a temporary repeal of taxes
at the pumps !!
adding a tax on oil companies will do one thing--
guess what it is ??
hint--you do not have to have a BS in economics
to figure it out !!

Dinsdale wrote:As far as the taxes -- how the fuck do people think those roads get there? By magic?

The tax argument is asinine. Another example of Average Joe thinking that everybody else but him should pay his bill. Not nearly as egregious an example as people getting tax breaks for having children, but asinine, nonetheless.

You used the road...that's how you came to buy gasoline. Building and maintaining a road system is very expensive. I can't think of a better way to tax the actual users, in proportion to the amount they use them. People bitching about what amounts to as close to a "perfect" system of taxation is...asinine.

what doesn't get taxed that you use every day? hardly anything. trust me the, gubment is getting plenty of funds for construction and upkeep. besides, taxes will only go up no matter what crisis we're in.

fuck off.

Wolfman wrote:I hear not one single person in DC
calling for even a temporary repeal of taxes
at the pumps !!

Probably because that would be moronic beyond words.

Serious question -- where, exactly, would the money come from to do road maintainence?

Or should we just quit doing road maintainence, and suspend all current construction projects?

Do you have any idea how many people would be out of work if we went ahead with your moronic plan? And what would become of these displaced workers? They'd A) Be in financial straights because YOU don't want to pay a few extra cents at the pump(typical example of the right's "fuck everybody in this country but me...ain't no 'we' in 'team' "), and more tangibly, B) they'd now be...you guessed'er, Chester...collecting unemployment(and possibly tapping into their retirement to make ends meet).

So how, exactly, do you figure this is a good financial move? It's good for selfish one-foot-in-the-grave-halfwits, but a terribly bad idea for the country as a whole.

Wait...let me guess...the right's answer to everything...DEFECIT SPENDING!!!!!

Brilliant. You and mvscal can get together to do the books, and by the time you're done, I'm sure you'll have it figured as a profit.

Wolfman wrote: however--I hear not one single person in DC
calling for even a temporary repeal of taxes
at the pumps !!

Perhaps not there.....but there's been plenty by the conservatives around here.

maybe we could us peanut oil ??
it's only about $15 a gallon !!

mvscal wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:The "windfall profits tax" on oil companies that is being proposed is gaining bipartisan momentum. It sounds like a good idea to me..

It would be a disaster. The peanut farming dildo, Jimmuh Cahtuh, did that and the result was rationing and lines out the ass.

What, exactly, is that tax supposed to accomplish? How is that going to help?

Gas lines started with Nixon's Administration.

Since gasoline and deisel are vtal to the well-being of the country, and every person in it, the answer lies in that very dirty word...

Regulation.

I think a lot of people don't realize how deeply this bought-and-paid-for government aided gouge job is going to run, if left unchecked.

Just about every segment of every goods and services relies on petroleum products at some, if not many levels.

Discover a new widget? It now costs twice as much, due to transpotation costs. You Widget has approximately the same price-point appeal as it did before the gouging went unchecked, so now instead of you getting X% of the profit, you now get X% - whatever the oil comapnies have decided you owe them at present.

Yet another aspect of Corporate America protecting its own interests by squashing the American Dream. If you do well for yourself, you OBVIOUSLY owe them for it. They're getting their cut, one way or another.

Ours no longer even vagiely resembles a free-market system. Corporate entities are free to charge you any "surcharge" they see fit. Communism is still communism, regardless how cleverly you describe it.

But there's more. Water and sewage? Those have generally been run by communities and municipalities, for the mutual benefit of all involved. But even vital services such as these are now subject to the petroleum companies' "surcharge." Yup, you can't even pour a glass of water or flush a turd without paying this increased surcharge. You're being taxed...by a corporate entity, for taking a dump.

Think about that...Exxon and cohorts are charging you extra money to take a crap. Much of the country is having tough times, so the (record profit enjoying) oil companies have deemed it appropriate to charge you extra for taking a crap and drinking water.

Getting completely out of control. A few bullets to the heads of the CEO's and board members of big oil companies should send a message. It would be like the Boston Tea Party, but we could call it the Texas Blood Party. Why waste good oil, when there's worthless, defective brains to spill in the horbor, instead?

In comes down to Supply and Demand!!

Higher Crude Prices are the primary reason for the rising cost in the US (but of course, everyone in the oil food chain makes their profits..)

Even though we have a moderate supply... demand is through the roof!!

If noone needed gas and oil, the prices would come plummetting down..

However, that is not the case and will not be the case for at least the next 20 + (and probably +++) Years.

Another Link on Gas Prices..

Everyone in the Gas Chain is getting paid.. The Producer, the refiner, the distributor and of course State and Federal Government!!

(State and Federal Government make a %, so the higher the cost, the higher their profit!!)

Other than the Middle East, where the prices are less than $1/ Gallon.

The US Still has some of the lowest Gas prices in the World!
TAXES are the largest reason for the high prices in other countries..
Not in the US!

In England, Gas costs $5.79/ Gallon and taxes account for about $4.30 of that!

***
So, if you want to bring down gas prices, you have to decrease demand!!

I doubt people will do that en masse....

SO!

Sooner or later, oil and gas prices will get too high and businesses will fail, people will go bankrupt, nations will go to war... (errrh more nations will go to war)... A Global Depression will ensue.


and gas prices will come down... (many years and lives lost later..)

and then we will start the process all over again!!

HAVE A GOOD DAY!!

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote: It would be a disaster. The peanut farming dildo, Jimmuh Cahtuh, did that and the result was rationing and lines out the ass.

What, exactly, is that tax supposed to accomplish? How is that going to help?

Gas lines started with Nixon's Administration.

The OPEC embargo of 73 in response to the Yom Kippur War has nothing to do with Carter era price controls, dumbfuck.

Nixon never tried price controls?

You're slipping mv.

BTW: The gas lines preceeded the windfall profits tax, which was only signed into law in 1980. The tax lasted until 1987. Not coincidently, gas prices were very stable during that time.

Jack wrote:State and Federal Government make a %, so the higher the cost, the higher their profit!!

That's odd -- whenever I buy gas, the sticker that is required by law to be on every pump shows the taxes as a "cents per gallon" rate. And I don't believe those have changed at all recently.

And the government doesn't "profit" from taxes -- they spend it building and maintaining roads which facilitate the use of...gasoline.

Of all the taxes that can be bitched about, this one ain't it.

Completely agree on the whole supply/demand angle, though. It's nice that the oil industry isn't working with the auto makers to produce fuels that would increase efficiency and reduce emissions, though.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Nixon never tried price controls?

They were a mistake and he admitted as much, you stupid, braindead fuck.

Why are you so insistent that we repeat that mistake? Don't answer. Just go fuck yourself, dumbshit.

Melting after two replies eh?

No matter, the fact remains that the windfall profits tax did not have anything to do with the long gas lines of 1979 BECAUSE IT HAD NOT YET BEEN ENACTED YOU GIBBERING DUMBFUCK!

the answer lies in that very dirty word...

Regulation.

Certainly, deregulation has encouraged gouging. It astounds me to this day how little public outrage there is regarding ENRON's scuttling of the electricity marketplace. They begged for the marketplace to be deregulated, then they raped it. It's really as simple as that.

While most reasoning surrounding a new windfall profits tax has to do with punishing oil companies into lowering prices, mvscal is right...the result of this will be increased prices for the consumer -- unless there is new marketplace regulation.

State and Federal Government make a %, so the higher the cost, the higher their profit!!

I see the new buzzwords are taking hold. Gasoline tax doesn't result in "profit" for government. As Dins points out, these monies are used to maintain the road infrastructure - a staggering task at best.

If someone wants to link government representative salaries and gas tax, as I have heard at least one commentator do of late, then they are offering you up tripe for the gobbling.

PSUFAN wrote:

the answer lies in that very dirty word...

Regulation.

Certainly, deregulation has encouraged gouging. It astounds me to this day how little public outrage there is regarding ENRON's scuttling of the electricity marketplace. They begged for the marketplace to be deregulated, then they raped it. It's really as simple as that.

While most reasoning surrounding a new windfall profits tax has to do with punishing oil companies into lowering prices, mvscal is right...the result of this will be increased prices for the consumer -- unless there is new marketplace regulation.

Energy needs to be treated as a public commodity. Until it is, people will always try to game the system.

PSUFAN wrote:It astounds me to this day how little public outrage there is regarding ENRON's scuttling of the electricity marketplace. They begged for the marketplace to be deregulated, then they raped it. It's really as simple as that.

Plenty of outrage around here.

Enron owned our regional electric company. They managed to finagle a poorly-written law to add taxes on to the customers' bills. Catch was...they weren't acually paying any of the taxes they were charging the customers for.

Now, the people around here kind of want that money they were gouged out of back. Better luck getting blood from a turnip than money from Enron right now.

But hey -- at least our AAA baseball park is still named after an Enron subsidiary...so we've got that going for us.

Funny thing was, some group from Texas offered to buy PGE out for a bunch of cash. When faced with the prospect of having Texans controlling our power, we politely declined, based pretty much on the fact they are Texans...bad track record for anything that involves Texans and energy. It might be different if they gave us a price break on the petroleum jelly we need when they get ahold of the reigns.

PSUFAN wrote:As Dins points out, these monies are used to maintain the road infrastructure - a staggering task at best.

And a newsflash for the not-so-deep-thinkers (sup wolfman) -- The machinery and vehicles required to build and maintain that infrastructure use...are you sitting down?.....petroleum products. Lots of them.

The people who do the work on the road infrastructure get to work by...petroleum-consuming vehicles.

So, reactionary rocket surgeons -- will this result in:

A) Lower gas taxes

or

B) Increased gas taxes.

Think hard now...

Yup, even more money straight out of your pocket, into the coffers of the record-profiteering oil companies.

Must be nice to be a majority shareholder in an oil company. We have an entire government(that YOU elected) that puts all of its time and effort into making a few extremely wealthy businessmen even more wealthy.


A bought-and-paid-for government is a BAD government...do something about it. One person can't make a difference -- it takes a nation.

Impressive spin...well, not really. If Carter is really to blame for our dependence on foreign oil, then why haven't almost 5 full Republican administrations been able to change our energy policies for the better?

Kick that strawman's ass, mvscal. Sock it to him. Make him pay.

mvscal wrote: Congress reauthorized what were supposed to be temporary price controls from the Nixon administration from 1973 to 1979 or 80. Carter, for some inexplicable reason, decided to replace these price controls with a windfall profits tax and it knocked the bottom out of our domestic energy market and has left us in thrall to foreign producers to this day.

If that's the case, why were we paying as low as .99 cents a gallon in the 90s when Clinton was president?

PSUFAN wrote:Impressive spin...well, not really. If Carter is really to blame for our dependence on foreign oil, then why haven't almost 5 full Republican administrations been able to change our energy policies for the better?

Kick that strawman's ass, mvscal. Sock it to him. Make him pay.

I'd be more impressed if the strawman depiction of Carter he is presenting was even accurate. Not only is he reduced to blaming the shitstorm Chimpy has given to us on a man who hasn't been in office for 25 years, but he can't even get THOSE facts right.

PSUFAN wrote:Impressive spin...well, not really. If Carter is really to blame for our dependence on foreign oil, then why haven't almost 5 full Republican administrations been able to change our energy policies for the better?

One only need to look at the congressional hearings last year regarding the oil industry to see how interested republicans are in controlling gas prices. Dems wanted the oil executives to testify under oath, but were blocked by republicans.

Interesting that the republicans find it more important for baseball players to testify under oath than oil industry executives.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Not only is he reduced to blaming the shitstorm Chimpy has given to us on a man who hasn't been in office for 25 years,

No, I'm not. I'm using his mistakes and failures as an example of what not to do in the current situation while clueless dumbfucks like you seem hell bent on repeating those mistakes.

Are you at least capable of admitting that THIS is factualy wrong and an utter pile of partisan shit?

mvscal wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:The "windfall profits tax" on oil companies that is being proposed is gaining bipartisan momentum. It sounds like a good idea to me..

It would be a disaster. The peanut farming dildo, Jimmuh Cahtuh, did that and the result was rationing and lines out the ass.

What, exactly, is that tax supposed to accomplish? How is that going to help?

Let's run this past ONE more time. The Windfall Profits tax of 1980 had NOTHING to do with the gas lines of 1979. PERIOD. If you say otherwise you are relying on data from some other alternate reality, not any obtained from this here planet earth.

mvscal wrote:

Uncle Fester wrote:

mvscal wrote: Congress reauthorized what were supposed to be temporary price controls from the Nixon administration from 1973 to 1979 or 80. Carter, for some inexplicable reason, decided to replace these price controls with a windfall profits tax and it knocked the bottom out of our domestic energy market and has left us in thrall to foreign producers to this day.

If that's the case, why were we paying as low as .99 cents a gallon in the 90s when Clinton was president?

Come back, if and when, you figure out what the fuck it is you're talking about, you fatass dumbshit.

Great response... and well thought out once again!


http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profil ... in_history

[fixed for m2 - the psufan]

the truth

Anyone have a spare scroll wheel?

due to the expanding us economy (unless it hits glass ceiling before 08), dubya will not go down as bottom feeder prez whether he deserves credit for it or not

Dinsdale wrote:

Jack wrote:State and Federal Government make a %, so the higher the cost, the higher their profit!!

That's odd -- whenever I buy gas, the sticker that is required by law to be on every pump shows the taxes as a "cents per gallon" rate. And I don't believe those have changed at all recently.

And the government doesn't "profit" from taxes -- they spend it building and maintaining roads which facilitate the use of...gasoline.

Of all the taxes that can be bitched about, this one ain't it.

Completely agree on the whole supply/demand angle, though. It's nice that the oil industry isn't working with the auto makers to produce fuels that would increase efficiency and reduce emissions, though.

Dins,

State Tax on Gas link

Perhaps the word PROFIT was incorrectly used... but most States and the Federal Government do make more money when gas prices are higher than when they are lower to ahem (fix roads!! ) ..

*The Government charges a flat 18.4 cent per gallon tax at the pump but also charges royalties (about 14% of the sale price) for oil and gas production from Federal property, including Federal offshore areas.


Some states charge a flat rate but MOST charge sales tax and additional taxes..

Another link on Taxes and royalties..

**********************
These are very interesting times and although initially our presence in the Middle East had "nothing to do with oil".. our continued presence just might!!

I've seen that article before. I skimmed through it again enough to get to:

m2 wrote:Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover

List me as a "defender."

Not because of what he did, just being a homer. Hoover grew up down the road, and I often drive the Herbert Hoover Highway (which is actually a section of the highway I live a block off of, but up here, it's just called Pacific Highway"...like much of the 99W system throughout the West Coast is. Not sure why it's Pacific Highway South in Washington, but I'll ponder than another day. Seems like NW Washington is about as north as the Pacific Highway can get ...not to be confused with the Pacific Coast Highway, which is US101).

Jack wrote: Some states charge a flat rate but MOST charge sales tax and additional taxes.

Please stop with the retardation.

I'm much too lazy to count, but a quick skim-through of that list leads one to believe that nowhere NEAR "most" (that would be 26) states charge a percentage. In a quick glance, I saw very few percentage-signs (that's one of these "%") after state names. Very few.

Note to self: Scroll past any future posts from Jack, since he has his head way up his ass, and is making shit up.

Did I just land at "Smack Bat"?

I'm going to fill up another cup of coffee and see where it takes me this time.



m2

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:The Windfall Profits tax of 1980 had NOTHING to do with the gas lines of 1979. PERIOD.

It was a REPONSE to those gas lines....something we are talking about right now as a RESPONSE to "record profits".

It was the wrong RESPONSE then and it is the wrong RESPONSE now.

Clear enough for you?

That's not what you said the first time. You said this...

It would be a disaster. The peanut farming dildo, Jimmuh Cahtuh, did that and the result was rationing and lines out the ass.

The result was actualy price stability and a gradual lowering of prices for the long term. You have a problem with that?

Dinsdale wrote:I'm much too lazy to count

OK, I broke down.

There were 12 state listing that even had a percent sign in them.

So, where the fuck did you go to school that you were taught that 24% = "most?"

Was a pretty fucking simple fact to check...you know, since you went to all the trouble of finding a link, yet you still chose to lie about its contents.

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:The Windfall Profits tax of 1980 had NOTHING to do with the gas lines of 1979. PERIOD.

It was a REPONSE to those gas lines....something we are talking about right now as a RESPONSE to "record profits".

It was the wrong RESPONSE then and it is the wrong RESPONSE now.

Clear enough for you?

That's not what you said the first time. You said this...

Well, there you have it...

That sums up every post ever made by the Mission Viejo So. Cal Beaner has ever made.




the truth

Some of you might want to read this to refresh yourself on the WPT of the 80's

Historical Perspective: The Windfall Profit Tax -- Career of a Concept

Meanwhile, domestic oil production had fallen to its lowest level in 20 years. While demand had continued to rise, domestic producers had fallen behind in the search for new oil reserves. As a result, the United States had increased its reliance on foreign oil supplies. According to the American Petroleum Institute, the United States had derived about 32 percent of its energy from foreign sources in 1983. By 1986 that figure had climbed to 38 percent.

Meanwhile, domestic oil production had fallen to its lowest level in 20 years. While demand had continued to rise, domestic producers had fallen behind in the search for new oil reserves. As a result, the United States had increased its reliance on foreign oil supplies. According to the American Petroleum Institute, the United States had derived about 32 percent of its energy from foreign sources in 1983. By 1986 that figure had climbed to 38 percent.

And if we increased FUEL EFFICIENCY, that number could be much closer tyo 100%...without any expensive research and exploration.

But, once again, the shortsighted American consumer vetos increased efficiency with their purchasing dollars. People are too selfish and dense to understand that when they buy inefficient vehicles (sup "bigger is better"), that they're endorsing the dependance on foreign imports, and essentially voting for more expensive gas in the future.

Because that is how we roll...completely blind to basic supply/demand economics.

Not that I'm impressed with the current state of hybrid technology, but I commend people who can stomach the current hybrids -- in the current market, you're not going to see enough cost savings on gas to offset the increased purchase price and maintainence on a hybrid, but by purchasing them, the more-alert people are making a statement, and endorsing a policy with their consumer dollars. And this concept seems to fly right over the heads of most.

For myself, I'll continue to be part of the problem, rather than the solution, until such a time that I feel I can afford to make that "statement." So it's hard for me to rip on anyone for opting not to hybrid-up, but it would be nice if people at least had a vague clue as to the roots of their problem, and understood that they're making it worse with their actions.

As easy as it is, you can't blame the government for everything. Look in the mirror every once in a while.

I like my SUV. I've had once since I was 16. I am used to paying more for gas and as long as I can afford it, I dont care. Its not my fucking problem that gas costs $3.00.

Ways I would propose to remedy the situation:

1. Drill in Alaska and find areas to drill in other parts of North America

2. Expand the number of domestic refineries in this country

3. Have the Gov't promote that the avg consumer buy gas from companies that dont get their oil from the Middle East (never will happen)

Cicero wrote:I like my SUV. I've had once since I was 16. I am used to paying more for gas and as long as I can afford it, I dont care. Its not my fucking problem that gas costs $3.00.

Props on being firmly entrenched in the "doesn't get it" crowd.

Apparently, they don't teach "supply and demand" at FSU.

So, where do you draw the line? Almost 70% of the country now says that gas prices are causing them financial hardship.

So, how many people living on the street is too many?

How many American deaths are acceptable in the Oil Wars (which if you try and paint it as anything else, you are truly a fucking idiot)? What's an acceptable body count before you change your ways?

It's pretty well established that the worse the economic climate, the higher crime rates are...throughout all of human history. This brings the question" How many times do you have to get mugged, or how many family members do you have to lose to violence, before you draw the line and change your ways, and relinquish this strange "divine right" you seem to think you have to consume oil as quickly as possible?

Your mother? Father? Children? Where are you drawing this line...since increased crime is the inevitable outcome of widespread financial hardship, and financial hardship is the inevitable outcome of dramatically increased fuel prices in a syatem where oil consumption is your only viable means to sustain yourself and your family?

No wonder you side with the right -- you don't goive a shit about anyone but yourself, including your family and future offspring.

But remember, it's not YOUR fault -- blame the government.

Oh, wait -- you do:

Ways I would propose to remedy the situation:

1. Drill in Alaska and find areas to drill in other parts of North America

Newsflash, dumbass -- they drill the living FUCK out of Alaska.

And if you've fallen for the ANWAR scam, then you truly are a rube. Opening up ANWAR will do nothing to make any sort of dent in foreign dependence, but is YET ANOTHER way for the scammers to take public tax monies and use them for the gains of Big Oil. Just because an oilman proposes a scam, doesn't mean you have to believe it...and it's a scam.

As far as "North America" -- I assume you mean in Mexico and Upper Mexico. Another newsflash, dumbass -- we don't own that oil, either. Nor do our antitrust laws apply to global markets. The people with the oil are free to engage in collusion.

My question to you, dumbshit -- if oil is worth $70/bbl on the global market, why, pray tell, would either of those countries sell it to us for less?

Or is this just based on an ethnic hatred of Arabs/Persians? Because even YOU aren't stupid enough to try and tell me that where the oil profits are, there won't be violence committed by repressed people in those regions? Please tell me you aren't really this dumb?

2. Expand the number of domestic refineries in this country

Hello? There's been collusion between the oil giants to PREVENT this. Kind of tilts the whole "supply and demand" thing in their favor -- more profit for less work and production...tell me you knew?

3. Have the Gov't promote that the avg consumer buy gas from companies that dont get their oil from the Middle East (never will happen)

I believe this is where the :HUGEFUCKINGROLLEYES: goes.

You're really cementing the whole "Sissyroo isn't very bright" concept.

But at least we're in agreement that the government (the one that's "By The People, For The People"...like the one we DON'T have right now). We just disagree on the extent of their involvement. For now, I believe the government should actually enforce the laws we have at present, which ban collusion to manipulate large natinal markets, but Americans used their ballots to ensure this wouldn't happen...and now they're paying for their stupidity.

Dinsdale wrote:

Jack wrote: Some states charge a flat rate but MOST charge sales tax and additional taxes.

Note to self: Scroll past any future posts from Jack, since he has his head way up his ass, and is making shit up.

In other words, My minds made up! Don't CONFUSE ME with the facts!!

and Dude.... WTF do you for a living to have so much free time to allow you to get your panties all bunched up in wad, time after time after time??