Dems in Congress propose INCREASE in gasoline tax :huh !?!

[Sabre]

You're missing the point genius. Removing the gas tax doesn't increase supply. In the short term (and the proposal is short term) the oil companies aren't going to produce any more gas then they are producing right now.

And you my friend are missing the point of this entire thread, which is NOT the gas tax holiday the McCain (and H. Clinton, during the primaries) have proposed.  It's about increasing the price of gasoline by raising the tax.  If, as proponents of this increase claim, the loss in revenues has been caused by reduction in purchases by consumers (further reducing the pressure on refineries, by the way), which ultimately has been caused by higher gasoline prices, WHY in the world would anyone with even average intelligence think that increasing the tax further (and hence the price at the pump) would not simply result in still lower revenues?

As has been pointed out, the primary driver of the most recent increases in refined gasoline is not] lack of refinery capacity (though it was in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, due to damage to refineries).  It is because of the doubling and nearly tripling of the cost of crude, which is not affected by refinery capacity.  If anything, a shortfall in refining capacity should cause a drop in crude prices, since demand for crude would be throttled by ability to process it.  For the record, I opposed the gas tax holiday when Hillary proposed it, and I still think it wouldn't help much at the pump today.  There are a number of things that would.

1) Immediately lift the ban on off-shore and open ANWR to exploration/production. This would put a whopping hole in the speculation bubble that has been a driving factor in high crude prices (note that while world-wide demand certainly is also a factor, demand has not trippled, but the price of crude has)

2) Immediately begin the effort to streamline licencing of Nuke plants and new/upgrades of oil refineries (so refining capacity can keep pace when needed at some point)

3) Increase the margin required for oil futures speculation to at least 50%

4) Develop incentive packages for states and industry to develop alternate sources of automobile propulsion (hydrogen is my personal favorite) and the infrastructure to suppor them.

Some of these would have short-term effects (bursting the speculation bubble), some mid-term (2 to 10 years, such as increasing production of oil), and some long-term (new technologies for powering cars and shifting electricity production from fossile fuels to alternatives.  The point is, within 10 to 20 years we could be energy independant, while still running a growing and vibrant economy (which requires energy consumption, and can not be sustained simply by energy conservation.

[Nashwan]

If, as proponents of this increase claim, the loss in revenues has been caused by reduction in purchases by consumers (further reducing the pressure on refineries, by the way), which ultimately has been caused by higher gasoline prices, WHY in the world would anyone with even average intelligence think that increasing the tax further (and hence the price at the pump) would not simply result in still lower revenues?

Because the tax is a very low proportion of the overall price.

As I understand it, the federal tax is currently about 18c a gallon. Gasoline is currently around $4 a gallon.

If they increase the tax to 28c, they get 56% more tax per gallon sold. Is anyone seriously suggesting increasing the price of a gallon of gasoline from $4 to $4.10 is going to result in a 50% drop in gasoline sales?

In reality they'd get 56% more per gallon, and gasoline sales would reduce by less than 1%. The net result would be a 50%+ increase in tax revenue from gasoline sales.

That doesn't mean I think increasing the tax is a good (or bad) idea, just let's get things in perspective. A 10c increase in gasoline taxes would result in a large increase in the amount of tax raised by gasoline sales.

1) Immediately lift the ban on off-shore and open ANWR to exploration/production. This would put a whopping hole in the speculation bubble that has been a driving factor in high crude prices (note that while world-wide demand certainly is also a factor, demand has not trippled, but the price of crude has)

Small increases in demand can result in large increases in price.

If gasoline went up by 10%, would you reduce the amount you use by 10%? The truth is, large increases in price are required to cause small reductions in demand. Look at it another way, with oil at $120 a barrel the world is still using more oil than it's producing. That level of price has been necessary to reduce demand to balance the stagnation in supply.

There really is no evidence to suggest speculation has affected the oil price much, if at all. There is plenty of evidence it hasn't.

[john9001]

we should not drill now, we should wait 10 years and then say "but if we drill now it will take 10 years to get the oil".

[BluKitty]

I've repeated this before, I'll do it again. Hasn't anyone read "Earth in the Balance" by Albert Gore Jr.? You do know that one of the supposedly greatest, and most favorite Democrats in recent history, Albert Gore Jr., stated in his book that it should be a goal to drive the price of petroleum products so high that it became impossible to use/operate an internal combustion engine. Yes, that is Al Gore Jr.'s position, and one favored by a great number of Democrats and other liberals.

And yet people wonder why the Democrats refuse to allow drilling off shore, or in the ANWAR, and now propose to raise taxes on oil, whether by creating an arbitrary "windfall profits" tax, or by increasing taxes on gasoline and diesel. THEY DON'T CARE if you cannot afford to drive to work, or to the grocery store. THEY DON'T CARE if your school system can't afford fuel for buses. THEY DON'T CARE if your local law enforcement agency or fire department doesn't have enough fuel for all of their vehicles. THEY DON'T CARE what else you won't be able to afford because of the rising cost of fuel and the taxes on it, either.

No actually the stupidity is thinking that a finite resource will never run out.   Now we are scrambling and whining that prices are high.  If we had collectively planned ahead, we wouldn't be here.

If we don't learn our lesson now, we WILL be in for bigger problems down the road.  Oil will only become more and more expensive as the years pass.  If you don't understand this, I pity you.  All I can say now is, because I've told people such in the past, "I told you so"...

Fact is, we need to move away from oil.  Wouldn't you rather pay the price to move now, while we can still collectively afford it?

Unfortunately the US government will waste any taxes they get however, so it's not like I'm arguing for more taxes.

[BTW]

No actually the stupidity is thinking that a finite resource will never run out.   Now we are scrambling and whining that prices are high.  If we had collectively planned ahead, we wouldn't be here.

If we don't learn our lesson now, we WILL be in for bigger problems down the road.  Oil will only become more and more expensive as the years pass.  If you don't understand this, I pity you.  All I can say now is, because I've told people such in the past, "I told you so"...

Fact is, we need to move away from oil.  Wouldn't you rather pay the price to move now, while we can still collectively afford it?

Unfortunately the US government will waste any taxes they get however, so it's not like I'm arguing for more taxes.

(Image removed from quote.)

We can move away from oil AND tap the 23 trillion barrels the United States has. Its win/win and jobs all over.
Have you researched alternative energy sources? Solar, wind, and hydrogen have serious problems right now and are impractical as stand alone energy sources. They need to be backed up by oil and gas. That's a simple fact T Boon Pickens leaves out of his windmill commercial. In order to use wind for electricity, there needs to be gas or oil based electricity always running to bridge the gaps in power when the wind quits blowing. The wind produced electricity cannot be stored. Electricity is only produced when the the turbines are turning. If they stop, they need an alternative source immediately, to service the grid. Gas, oil or nuclear plants need power up time so they would already have to be on. Its really funny how this little detail is overlooked.

To think that alternative energy sources (other than nuclear plants) to produce electricity or power cars is just a few years away, is ridiculous. Its decades away at least, and we need to become oil independent while we perfect the other technologies.

[Hangtime]

That will only pass the taxes paid along to consumers and the price will go up just the same.

I dont believe imported oil is taxed but I do know taxes have been suggested for years. Hillary complained about profits of the oil companies and how she wanted 'to take that money' (theft in my book) and use it in her own way. Well she should take another look. Oil companies profit about $0.11 on the gallon. The truckers that deliver the final product make almost as much ($0.09) and when you add Federal Taxes State Taxes and Local Taxes there is as much as another $1.27 added to the price. The highest profit on gas of course is OPECs which is currently well over $2. The people that make the least are the marketers and retailers at about $0.04.

Taking OPEC out of the equation would drop the price of gas by at least $1.60/gallon. Oil companies would not increase costs above the current actual cost of production of $0.33/gallon because they would redirect R&D funds as required and we would not be sending that money to a foreign land.

Enh? If given a choice.. higher $ at the pump, vs NOT spending my tax dollars on lining their pockets...  WTF? I'll be glad to pay a fair price for gas... but I hate being robbed. Twice.

Digging a bit more; subsidies for oil companies to 'protect' the price at the pump is a freakin illusion... and banning imports from OPEC producers, shifting our contracts to non-opec producers is not only viable... it's rational. Think of the freakin billions saved by NOT having to protect oil fields and shipping lanes we no longer have any interest in.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nonopec.html

[Chalenge]

Hangtime I think we are arguing the same side of the issue.  What I was saying is if we allow drilling the price HAS to fall but I am all in favor of telling the OPEC group to go off themselves.

[TracerX]

I didn't read every page of this thread yet, but did anyone mention that the government is getting more $$$ from taxes on gas than the evil oil companies are making in profits off them?  We need to take the money from the Government.  Who gets the money from the Governments wind-fall profits?

[Chalenge]

yeah its something like a 10:1 ratio government:oil company.

[Nashwan]

and banning imports from OPEC producers, shifting our contracts to non-opec producers is not only viable... it's rational.

It's not rational when non opec production is stagnating. The US is importing ever more oil from OPEC countries. This year it has averaged over 6 million barrels a day, non OPEC imports just under 7 million barrels a day.

Think of the freakin billions saved by NOT having to protect oil fields and shipping lanes we no longer have any interest in.

Oil is a global market. If Saudi Arabia suffers a total loss of production, world oil production falls from about 85 to about 75 million barrels a day. That will push the oil price well over $200 a barrel.

Do you think Canada and Mexico and Russia will continue selling oil to the US at $120 a barrel if Europe or Japan or China is offering them $200?

[Getback]

Corporate taxes? You mean the taxes we pay for corporations when we buy their products? Corporations dont pay taxes you can trust that!

All companies pass any tax they pay to the end consumer. If they didn't they would be out of business. So any tax on corporations would be passed on to us the end users. I'm sorry did Hillary and Obama forget to mention that. Must have slipped their minds.

[BluKitty]

Gas, oil or nuclear plants need power up time so they would already have to be on. Its really funny how this little detail is overlooked.

To think that alternative energy sources (other than nuclear plants) to produce electricity or power cars is just a few years away, is ridiculous. Its decades away at least, and we need to become oil independent while we perfect the other technologies.

Well I'm all for nuclear energy.  It doesn't pollute in an uncontrollable manner, and works well now.  They are actually talking about shutting the plant down where I live, which is stupid.  I'm lucky to live in a region that gets most of it's grid power from hydro & nuclear.

My point is, we need to build infrastructure to get off gasoline.  Using food, like corn is not the answer either.

Things aren't that bad now, it's been worse.  That said .. it means we need to do something now, or things will get worse in the future.  We should use the still, relatively cheap energy we have now to build new infrastructure.  Hydrogen cars work.  Not that everyone on the planet needs to give up driving gasoline cars, but we need to build the infrastructure now, while it's easy.

Also, some solar technology is very simple, and produces well.  They just use highly focused mirrors to boil water, instead of trying to use solar cells, that are similar in cost to produce as computer chips.

People really need to just say, using oil is not acceptable.  Drilling for oil at home, will only postpone the problem, and limit our options later. People who say we need to drill more at home, are too often the ones who blow the security horn.  I don't think they understand what security is.

[gunnss]

What I don't understand is why we don't throw some money to this guy?

http://www.butanol.com/

11% more energy per gallon than Gasoline, and fermented from waste bio stocks.

Just a thought,
Kevin

[BTW]

What I don't understand is why we don't throw some money to this guy?

http://www.butanol.com/

11% more energy per gallon than Gasoline, and fermented from waste bio stocks.

Just a thought,
Kevin

I still don't believe growing fuel - any kind - is a good idea. I think its flawed from the outset as it takes away food that could be used for people or takes away land that could be used to grow food for people. How may people could be fed with the food or land it requires to make 1 gallon of this stuff? How much clean water is used? The devil is in the details as we are quickly finding out with the ethanol fiasco.

[bj229r]

Anyone know what % of our oil consumption is for electricity production vs transportation?

(ALSO like to know how many folks of the 'alternative energy' camp, who continually eschew ANY new drilling, are really just global warming nutbergers....somewhat harder to find that out)