Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Report Your Local Gas Prices Here (retired discussion, please see the new one)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
How about Armadas and all the large and midsized SUVs from foreign manufacturers. I drive an American car that gets 33 mpg cruising on the interstate and 24 in short trip driving, seats 6 _comfortably_, and has large trunk.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
BUT ... that law does not FORCE someone to buy a house in a certain manner. In fact, far more adults rent a domicile than go carless. Tax incentives to own a house are an encouragement but not compulsatory - higher taxation of gas is a compulsatory imposition of "correct behavior" thru taxation.
I don't force you to take your tax deductions - why do you want to force me to pay your desire? What is it about your psyche that thinks you know more about my needs or protecting me than I do? I am 100% certain you don't, but if you are so bent on paying higher gas taxes, total up your gallons every year and cut your check to Uncle Sam whom you trust so much, or to your local government of choice. The only thing stopping you is your own hypocrisy in not doing so. Live up to your higher tax nonsense and prove your point before you inflict your unwanted pseudo-protection on me.
Oh wait - asking someone to live up to their word is probably going to far for most - particularly the "we need more taxes" crowd.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I don't force you to take your tax deductions - why do you want to force me to pay your desire? What is it about your psyche that thinks you know more about my needs or protecting me than I do? I am 100% certain you don't, but if you are so bent on paying higher gas taxes, total up your gallons every year and cut your check to Uncle Sam whom you trust so much, or to your local government of choice. The only thing stopping you is your own hypocrisy in not doing so. Live up to your higher tax nonsense and prove your point before you inflict your unwanted pseudo-protection on me.
I never said I knew better what your needs are. I'm merely stating an opinion held by many that it would be in our (American's) collective best interest to be energy self sufficient. There are a lot of leading economists that are coming to the conclusion that higher gas prices will accelerate the process.
I could total up the gallons of gas I burned and tax myself and send a check to the government but exactly what would that accomplish? Would my choosing to tax myself have any impact on market behavior? I'm not entirely sure why you would make such a ludicrous comment. I'm sure it seemed brilliant at the time.
Oh wait - asking someone to live up to their word is probably going to far for most - particularly the "we need more taxes" crowd.
If you actually read my posts you'd realize that I never advocated more taxes. My position is the fuel tax would be revenue neutral and it would result in a reduction in other taxes. Again, the majority of fuel tax advocates are taking this position. Apparently you're like most people. They see the word tax and their brain goes immediately numb and are no longer capable of further comprehension.
Did you catch the last two paragraphs ?
However, he said, "People need to step back and keep that in perspective, and not mislead the public into thinking that's how we're going to get off oil if we do all these other things.
"Because it isn't going to happen. They're just not ever going to be big enough."
He is basically saying arrogantly we in big oil, are in power and are here to stay. There isn't a damn thing you consumers can do about it either. :mad:
Rocky
I guess it's easy to be arrogant when you pull the puppet strings... :sick:
Rocky
Its also easy to be arrogant when you're the only game in town. Yeah, the government can eliminate all these sweetheart deals and the oil companies can just raise prices. What are we, as consumers, going to do? I'll tell you, we'll pay the higher prices because we have no choice. The government can then enact price controls and the oil companies can choose to not produce. The next step is nationalizing the oil industry. I personally don't think that is a good idea but its certainly been done in other countries.
I look at it this way god, made the earth and oil. Not the oil company's. :mad:
If big oil isn't going to invest in alternative energy's then we need to throw the whole cartel out of office and out of our politics. :mad:
My children, deserve better. Luckily the common people have people of power like GM CEO Rick Wagoner, that is leading the fight against the oil industry because company's such as GM, have felt the Oil cartels greed in their bottom-line. I'm pretty sure big Rick, would like to slam dunk that Exxon CEO suit through a Duke University rim.
Rocky
Rocky
I will also say this......GM, has invested millions in the alternative fuels industry. They are one of the founding fathers that have jump started the E85 program. They have gambled a large sum of chips on risky returns. I think being back-stabbed by the oil elites has forced GM, to take such a risk in a financial hard time.
Wife told me Gas Prices in Dumas, this evening were $2.17-2.19 so a few went down while others stayed the same. :surprise:
Rocky
I understand that.
I was just pointing out that the E85 program was a retaliatory way back at the oil company's since they don't realistically support alternative fuels with their R&D.
The oil company's blow smoke and not money on alternative fuels. :sick:
Rocky
Let me get this straight:
You guys are angry at 'Big Oil' due to their current effective monopoly on energy used to get everybody from point 'A' to point 'B'.
But you want them to devote R&D money to alternative fuels? Ummm,if Exxon-Mobile/Texaco/BP actually DEVELOPED cheap viable alternative fuels, wouldn't that just CONTINUE their monopoly? Is this what you want?
Actually my alternative fuel of choice is electricity, which could one day be cost effective for the consumer to generate on his own. That would pretty much cut the oil companies and OPEC out of the loop. It's not that far fetched. There are already people doing it. It just doesn't make sense from a financial perspective, at least not right now.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Personally, I think ethanol/E85 is a boondoggle, the chief beneficiary of which will be the giant ag company ADM. Simply burning hydrogen in the engine (as in the new BMW 7) is a nonstarter also, IMO.
I think the near- to medium-term future lies in hybrids (with or without plug-in capability), clean diesels, and batteries alone. Affordable fuel cells are still a long way off.
Regarding electricity, it's a lot easier to control emissions at a relatively small number of power plants than on the 200+ million vehicles on our roads.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I must not do a very good job of expressing my opinions. I specifically said that it "could one day be cost effective" and that it doesn't make sense from a financial perspective right now. Presently electricity generated from solar PV cells costs about 3x as much as electricity bought off the grid. There is a lot of venture capital being pumped into this field right now, which is funding aggressive R&D that could double the efficiency of these cells and also significantly reduce the manufacturing costs. And during this time I think its safe to assume grid electricity will become more expensive. If I were to make a guess I'd say there's a very real chance that solar energy will be competitive with the grid within 10 years. Obviously this is somewhat location dependent. Seattle won't be as advantageous as Phoenix. This technology has come a long way in the last 30 years. Solar electricity used to cost over 30x as much as grid electricity to generate.
BTW, this is not some hair brain idea I came up with. Tesla Motors has entered into an arrangement with PV installers for people that want to go this route for recharging their electric Tesla Roadster.
I don't know any reputable source that doesn't acknowledge solar energy being far better for the environment than burning fossil fuels.
I picture it as a windmill which costs to erect and maintain and then the windmill has to have a generator for the vanes to turn. The wiring has to be installed and equipment has to be installed to integrate the local generator source with the 60 Hz power grid for your home. If you are using solar cells, I see the same cost and more maintenance and replacement due to aging through the years.
I picture both of these as having an environmental impact because of the metals used in the motors and in the solar cells and in the batteries which they charge and in the equipment to integrate the source with the batteries and the local 60 Hz grid.
Throwing motors and batteries and solar cells into the trash is an environmentally unfriendly act. I.e., nickel-cadmium batteries are a problem ending up in the trash and landfill.
The local power company can be very pollution friendly with their large power plant and they can supply the electricity as a lower environmental cost than the same electricity supplied from 1000s or more of individual sources.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Actually most people that are going solar are having grid tied systems installed, which doesn't require batteries. This is considerably cheaper and provides more security. With this type of system during times you are generating more power than you are using it actually flows into the grid and you receive credits to be used when your system isn't generating power. The utility companies like these systems because it provides some load levelling for them. Your system will be producing this excess electricity during the day, obviously, which is when the grid needs power the most. You will be drawing off the grid at night when the grid has excess capacity. This is really the best way to go because it doesn't matter whether the utilities raise their rates. As long as you, on average, provide as much as you use your utility bill will be zero.
To make this post somewhat automotive related.
http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsASMA77.htm
I hope I didn't violate the Townhall User's Agreement.....
Rocky
P.S. Gas is still $2.17-$2.19 a gallon in Dumas.
Odie
Odie's Carspace
Suppose you bought a brand new Pontiac GTO in '66 for $3,500 and kept it in mint condition all these years.
Would you still sell it now for $3,500? Or even $3,500 times the rate of inflation over the last 40 years?
Would you still sell it now for $3,500? Or even $3,500 times the rate of inflation over the last 40 years?
Well if I had this vehicle for sale the first thing that I would do is find out how much similar vehicles were selling for, i.e. market price. Whether it was $500 or $25000 has nothing to do with me, and if I make a profit or loss doesn't determine whether or not I'm a good or bad guy. That's my position with the oil companies. If they are somehow conspiring to drive the price of oil above $60/barrel then they are bad guys. If they are simply capitalizing on favorable market conditions then we should get off their backs.
Cut me some slack rock. What you want is a return to cheap gas without having to curb your urge for 400+hp honkin' huge GM land sleds. If you want 'alternative energy' and 'good for the environment' you wouldn't keep expressing a burning desire for full-size GMC trucks or SUV's.
"If they want to stay on oil, they need to be broken up or taken over by the government."
I'm with you on the 'broken up' part. But think about who was at the helm when some of the biggest mergers went thru: Exxon-Mobile (merged in 1999). Texaco merged with Shell and Saudi Aramco(1998). BP merged with Amoco (1998). Only Chevron-Texaco (2001) and Conoco-Philips (2002) occurred under Bush's watch.
Taken over by the government? On what grounds? We aren't some tin-pot dictatorship where various industries can just be nationalized on a whim. Unless you think that ANY industry that shows "too much" profit should just be taken over by government since the owner's were obviously just being 'greedy'. (Although if your aim is to eliminate profit, then having an industry run by the government is a surefire solution....)
"We only have one earth, and preserving it as much as possible takes priority over the greed of a select few."
Then you should be actively seeking HIGHER prices, not lower. Higher prices ultimately mean that less fuel is consumed. Less fuel consumed = better for the 'one earth'.
Why aren't you actively seeking about a $2/gallon tax levied by the feds with the money earmarked for alternative fuel research. THAT would actually make more sense than you 'wishing' that Big Oil would simultaneously lower the prices at the pump AND spend EVEN MORE money on alternative fuel research.
That's up
13 cents
in the last month.....Whew !! ( Thank gosh for hybrids !! ) :shades:
87 - $2.159
89 - $2.259
91 - $2.319
93 - $2.359
diesel - $2.479
kcram - Pickups Host
Nah. You can always just get into the habit of refueling when you get to a half tank.....bingo, less than $30 to fill it up. :P
Yeah, I've thought of that. On a psychological level, it might help me feel better. FWIW, that $29-30 I spent to fill up got me about 12.1 gallons, 138 miles, and ~11.4 mpg. I guess that's not TOO scary, considering my old Silverado tends to get really thirsty when the weather gets colder, and my short commute doesn't give it much time to warm up. There was still frost on the hood this morning when I got to work.
$2.35
$2.45
$2.65
Not bad, but isn't it amazing how we just can't seem to creep below that Mendoza line of $2.00/gal for 87 no-lead? Wonderful profits can still be had if you gouge them for at least $2.00/gal for 87 no-lead.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
When the wholesale price of unleaded gas is $1.62, which doesn't include the 40+ cents for taxes or the transportation cost I'm not sure how a wonderful profit can be made at $2/gallon.
Sunaco at Delaware here 87 at 2.27, 89 2.44, 93, 2.54. Shell every thursday less 5 cents all gas, 87, 2.24, 89 2.39, 93, 2.49.
Ghastly shouldn't cost over $2.00/gal for 87 no-lead no matter where you live in the U.S. That's why I refer to it as ghastly and not gasoline.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Based on......?
And bang-for-the-buck.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I don't think you understand. If the wholesale price is $1.62 and fuel taxes are 43 cents a gallon and distribution/marketing costs run around 10 cents a gallon the station owner needs to charge $2.15/gallon just to break even and that doesn't cover any of his operating costs. For the most part station owners are not getting rich selling gasoline. In fact the cheapest stations usually have some sort of mini-mart on the premises, which is where they make the bulk of their profits. They simply sell gas as a way to lure in customers.
For gas to drop below $2/gallon the wholesale price would have to go below $1.40/gallon, which means the price of oil would have to drop below $50/barrel. It's certainly possible but right now it doesn't look likely. And there's a new variable to consider. The dollar is losing ground against other currencies. If this trend continues it will be just one more factor supporting higher fuel prices.