John McCain’s gas tax is retarded
First off, I think it’s absurd to give a tax break to Exxon. I hope the prices go up a little more, because it’s going to start affecting their profits, the way people drive, the people who drive, and the vehicles on the road. I think in every instance it’s a better world when big oil’s profits are lower, people drive more safely, kids can’t drive as much, and fewer people are driving clunky, dangerous SUVs.
But taking it on face value, I think I drive more than the average American (commute alone is 75 miles round trip) and I have maybe slightly above average gas mileage (22-28mpg). So, multiplying that out, even irb sees that’s bullshit:
Gives me 32 bucks? WTF? I’d rather we keep the gas prices higher and start enjoying some of the benefits of people driving less frequently and shorter distances than have a dinner at Chili’s. Thanks.
Jimmy Bogard said:
Jun 09, 08 at 9:18 pmYeah we have it good here - wait until gas prices reach the level of the rest of the world (besides oil-producing nations, who pay like 75 cents a gallon).
I don’t get the tax break either. Oil is sold on the commodities market, where price is set by the market, so why do they need a tax break? Oil production is controlled by a series of dictatorship regimes, so why not pressure them to produce more?
Janet Marcum said:
Jun 10, 08 at 8:27 amThe big oil companies aren’t the ones setting the prices, as Bogard mentioned. I may be biased since I work for an oil & gas company, but why should “Big Oil” not be allowed to make as much money as the market lets them? Our purchasers pay us based on Nymex, not based on whatever price we feel like charging. We have to adhere to market price if we want to sell our oil, so if the government wants to keep oil companies’ profits down, they need to address what’s causing the price to rise. Demand is certainly a driving factor, as well as instability in a few key countries, and speculation by market traders. So how is this Exxon’s fault? I don’t think they should get special tax breaks, but they certainly shouldn’t also fall subject to a stupid windfall profits tax that Senate Democrats are trying to push to make uninformed Americans like them more.
terry said:
Jun 10, 08 at 8:51 am@vanweezy
I think we ought to let Exxon make as much money as possible off of us. As the prices continue to go up, I think it’d be a good thing even if the democrats introduce more gas taxes that takes that money and invests it in alternative energies.
As consumers feel the pinch more in their pockets, even if it hurts more in the short term, eventually it’s good news for everybody if we have more efficient cars/heaters/power plants.
@jbogard
I read it’s something like $8 a gallon in GB. That might be more bearable, though, since they have trains and better forms of public transportation (from what I’ve seen in movies, I could entirely be wrong here).
Janet Marcum said:
Jun 10, 08 at 9:38 am@terry I still think it’s a little sheisty to say that the solution for finding alternative energy sources is to take away money from oil companies. They earned it, yet somehow we’re entitled to it? I agree that it’s good if we have more efficient cars, etc, but why should Exxon or Chevron foot the bill? They are not the reason we require so much oil. I think my feelings on this coincide with my feelings about people wanting to tax the rich more simply because they have more money. The less prosperous will always despise the rich and want to take their money. T. Boone Pickens has more money than God, so I say we step back and let him continue his wind corridor project. Luckily the government hasn’t stepped in and taxed his windfall profits yet.
terry said:
Jun 10, 08 at 9:47 am@vanweezy
i don’t see how taxing consumers buying gasoline takes away oil from the gas companies. people might start consuming less, which will hurt exxon and chevron, but that’s not the same as reaching into their pockets and pulling out money.
taking money from the gas companies directly solves no problems. the pain has to hit consumers for there to be any impetus for more efficient energy consumption. until then, bob in his truck that gets 3 miles a gallon in tennessee isn’t going to see any reason to start acting better.
meezy said:
Jun 10, 08 at 9:49 am@terry
Its always nice when you base your comments off of what you’ve seen in movies. The reason gasoline prices were so cheap in the 90’s is because demand was lower because several people were riding around in spaceships instead of cars (from what I’ve seen in movies like Flight of the Nagivator and The Last Starfighter).
@others
The main issue here (while specifically applied to gas in this case) is how much government should affect the free market. I think we can’t look at either extreme. These extremes are basically the idea that ‘fair share’ can mean ‘what I think I deserve’ as opposed to just ‘what I have earned’. So taking that to either extreme is a problem. Not everyone can get what they think they deserve, but in some instances giving people everything they have earned leads to long term problems (monopolies, F’d up environment, testing pesticides on poor people).
If you read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” she takes it to both extremes and one ruins society and the other only works in her contrived Utopian society.
So back to the point: Oil. I say, don’t blame them for big profits, but at the same time either give them incentive to find new energy sources or tax them to make sure they do. That way we don’t have to wait until the market shrinks the demand enough to force them to. If we 100% wait on the market and do nothing, since our nations infrastructure is dependent on oil, we will see a lot of bad side effects while waiting.
Wow, I rambled in that one.
terry said:
Jun 10, 08 at 9:55 am@meezy
flight of the navigator is gay. stop plugging it.
i think if we tax consumers and they start shying away from excessive oil consumption, the oil companies will innovate out of fear. no company wants to be last century’s technology, and i’m sure the oil companies have plenty of smart people who will start to read the writing on the wall.
eventually, something has to give. with a finite supply of oil, increasing demand both in the US and abroad (china surpassed the US as #1 i read, and india is meant to come up pretty quick), and worries over the environment, it’d be stupid not to find some solution that satisfies those problems. whoever does is gonna have more money than boone pickens.
Janet Marcum said:
Jun 10, 08 at 10:07 am@meezy I’m still confused. “either give them incentive to find new energy sources or tax them to make sure they do.” But WHY? Why are oil companies responsible for finding alternative energy sources? They are in the business of producing and selling OIL. And in case you didn’t realize…less profits for oil companies = less money for Janet. I’m just saying.
meezy said:
Jun 10, 08 at 11:36 am@vanweezy-
1)Hey if the rising in gas prices had a direct correlation to your salary, I’d be all for it, but seeing as how they just changed your bonus structure and also you told me your company hedged a large percentage, I’m guessing its not as big of an impact as we would like on your salary.
2)Anytime you have a monopoly or close to it, it is very hard for a new comer to join the party. Right now oil companies have a monopoly on the energy market in the US. The infrastructure is there for obtaining it, refining it, and distributing it. But that didn’t all happen overnight, and it happened with help from the government (through tax breaks, incentives, etc.). So now that its time to start letting new comers to the energy party, we need a way to get that infrastructure built up so that its affordable. And part of the way to do that is through incentives (like I said) so if the oil companies want to branch out, they could get incentives, and the other part of it is through taxing. This could mean either tax breaks for people trying to start new things, and/or higher taxation on the people who currently have the monopoly.
Janet Marcum said:
Jun 10, 08 at 12:03 pm@meezy
1)I’m pretty sure higher revenues/profits do very directly impact my compensation, because last year our formal bonus structure wouldn’t have called for a great % bonus, but at our employee meeting, the chairman said, “Hell, when your company makes $1.7B, you have to give your employees a good bonus. You’re all getting 14%!” So I don’t really care what the “formal” plan says this year, I predict another great bonus if we hit record profits again.
2)Even though saying oil “companies” have a “monopoly” is technically an oxymoron, I think that oil companies have a monopoly on the oil and gas market, not the alternative energy market. So I agree that incentives should be available for anyone to enter that market, but not punishments. I’m down for positive solutions/incentives. So let’s give Pickens a tax break to help further his project, and give Exxon a tax break to invest in alternative energy, but not forcefully take money away from them simply because they aren’t proactively looking for a way to put themselves out of the oil and gas business.
Jim Jim said:
Jun 10, 08 at 12:36 pmPretty much any working adult in the lowest income bracket that’s paying more than 10% of their income on gasoline needs immediate relief, which can’t be accomplished without some kind of redistribution of wealth. Obviously, McCain would never go for that, and his discount is a slap in the face to anybody who is struggling to make it.