...blame the consumers. It's the consumers that are using so much fuel that the market lives right on the edge and so every world hicup or dropping dollar increase the price of gas. We Americans like a free market and minimal regulations when it suits us, but when gas (for example) goes up then there are cries for the government to do something.
Agreed. This is the core of the problem..it's staring back at us every morning. There is a simple solution to this as you note...don't buy as much of their product.
Don't complain ...DO SOMETHING!!! Complaining does no good at all.
This is a free market afterall. We are free to buy as much fuel as we want and to set it on fire in anyway that we want day after day after day. There are other boards with similar discussions and the general concensus is 'It's my money and if I want to spend every last cent on gas to drive my toys then I will.' 'Yeah me too' 'You said it' 'You'll have to pry my cold dead fingers off the steering wheel of my V8 [......].' 'This little increase means nothing to me and my money.' 'Screw everybody else, I drive what I want.'
These are our fellow citizens. And rightfully ( to a point ) everything that they say is valid. At some point in the future however their unfettered freedom may by necessity be curtailed for the overall national good.
However since it is a free market we can also choose not to use the oil producers' products by choosing to drive less, stay at home more, drive more efficiently, carpool, walk, bike or innovate even further. These are our own choices and they're our free choices.
I heard that the original agreements the US was involved in had the Dollar as the standard for the oil pricing.
That is not being followed now so as the Dollar weakens, the cost of the oil goes up.
I believe the person meant when OPEC orginally formed was where that agreement was made.
If they were still using the Dollar we wouldn't be having rising prices to the degree we have for the crude. Does anyone have more knowledge from the past.
"The one driving the non hybrid is paying 40% more gas tax to maintain the highway they are both using."
Correct in theory, but not in practice. The government STEALS huge portions of the gas tax and spends it elsewhere -- like bike paths and mass transit projects. Here in Texas, the state takes 25% of gas taxes and puts it in the general fund.
All drivers, including hybrid owners, are paying MORE than enough money to maintain the roads. It's just not being used for that.
"Federal and State governments DO NOT want us to get better mileage."
Agree 100%. The gas tax is like a giant ATM to them. That's why we all sit in worse traffic year after year (burning more gas), and stop at every red light in town wondering why the gov't doesn't synchronize them.
And that's why any threat to their ATM is met with socialist proposals like the per-mile tax. Gotta keep that money flowing, baby!
I know that it's not your idea, and that you don't really like it. But maybe you're looking at the gas tax situation the wrong way.
Did you ever consider that maybe hybrid owners are, infact, paying every bit of their fair share, and SUV owners are simply paying too much?
Perhaps instead of raising taxes on hybrids, the gov't should lower taxes on SUVs, since you guys are shouldering MORE than your fair share of the burden.
The US$ is still the benchmark currency for pricing oil. Officially anyway. Iran and Venezuela want to change it to the euro or a basket of currencies primarily to laugh at Uncle Sam and figuratively to stick a finger in our eye. 'We don't want that worthless trash being used to price our valuable oil.' Saudi Arabia as the front and the voice of the US has been able to resist this switch at the behest of the US.
The US doesn't want the dollar to be considered waste paper or some minor currency.
OTOH any sane person in the oil business would buy and sell oil in euro's, then convert it to US$ when sold to the US refineries/consumers. Example..Shell
Shell is a european company doing business all over the world. They have a supply of every kind of currency imaginable stashed in banks all over the globe. Mostly it's probably euros, dollars and yen. Jan 2007 the price of oil was $60 / bbl Jan 2007 the price of 1 euro was $1.24 Jan 2007 Americans paid $60 / bbl Jan 2007 Europeans paid 48.4 E / bbl
Today the price of oil is ~$105 / bbl Today the price of 1 euro is $1.57 ( 26.6% more expensive ) Today Americans pay $105 / bbl ( 75% more expensive ) Today Europeans pay 66.9 E / bbl ( 38% more expensive )
European 'market' prices have only gone up 38% due to a more stable currency whereas our prices have jumped 75% due to an increasingly worthless currency.
No way can I afford to buy a diesel car if it's already over $4 a gallon.
It's only a 60 cent spread here: $3.19 versus $3.79. At those price points, the diesel car would only have to get 19% better mileage (30 mpg versus 25) to break even on fuel costs. Even with a $1.10 difference, the diesel would break even at 34 mpg.
The government STEALS huge portions of the gas tax and spends it elsewhere -- like bike paths and mass transit projects
Bike paths and mass transit are consistent with what the fuel tax is meant to be used for. However there are states that have been diverting fuel taxes to pay for programs like law enforcement and schools. I personally have no problem with this. If they didn't use fuel taxes they would have to raise some other tax like income, property, sales, etc.. Since a state has to balance it's budget they are going to get their money one way or another. So it basically comes down to whether you'd rather pay less in fuel taxes and more in income taxes or vice versa.
Yes I also paid extra this year. I could have bought a HCH and got the tax credit, but I was magnanimous and allowed someone else to purchase it.
Also talking about "fair"; who has realized they aren't going to get a rebate check? I guess it is fair for the government to take my money, and redistribute it to others, to pay for their gasoline and heating fuel? Forced-charity always makes me feel warm inside.
It's almost as good as my tax $'s being spent by the government on ads promoting travel and tourism, which increases the amount of discretionary driving and gas usage; which then of course drives gasoline prices higher. :mad:
Bike paths and mass transit are consistent with what the fuel tax is meant to be used for.
Wouldn't it be fairer if bicyclists and mass transit riders paid their fair share? Fair meaning bicyclists pay for the bike paths, and mass transit riders pay for the trains and buses? I want my gas taxes to be reduced if not needed for the roads. Let's see what the real cost of public transportation is, and stop subsidizing everyone and everything. I'm not just singling out the little-guy; this applies to using tax $ for a new football stadium ...
Since a state has to balance it's budget they are going to get their money one way or another.
Well if your school system has 1:1 ratio of administrators to teachers, you might consider "budget cuts" an option. Also if your state has any system of tolls, that whole system is a waste of labor. The amount collected in tolls should simply be added to the gas tax, and 1,000 toll employees (MA Turnpike example) or so could find some useful work (produce a product!).
What worries me more is shortages and waiting in long lines like back in the 70's. That could happen again.
How would that happen again? This is a different situation entirely. Unless there is an embargo, there will be no shortage. As long as you are willing to pay the market price, you'll be able to get gasoline. It's not a shortage situation. We will be competing with other countries (like China) for resources, but as with any commodity, those that are willing to pay the most will get first chance at those resources.
I can think of several ways - confrontation over Iranian nukes; Venezuela/Equador/Colombia come to blows; terrorist sinks a tanker in the Straits of Hormuz; terrorists successfully strike Arabian oil fields (they've tried before and failed); there are many possibilities other than an orchestrated boycott, which I doubt would happen.
Seems like the debate has gone well beyond gasoline prices and taxes! It's back to "the government is bad" "it's my money and don't give it anyone else" etc...
I think it would be great to see $5 gal gas. Maybe we'd get some of the small hatches that Europe has!
"personally am sick and tired of the goverment not doing anything about opecs oil control. Sitting back and watching them raise prices every summer..and every holiday that comes along. Just because some so-called expert says gas will hit $4.00 a gallon. interesting that gas isnt 6.50 right now considering oil is $100.00 a barrel and when it was $50.00 ..gas went up to 3.25."
You kind of argue against yourself there. Could you please clarify your point? By your own account, gas should be way more expensive than it is now (since crude prices are up so high), yet in your post, you argue that the gasoline prices are too high right now and the US government (that does not control OPEC by the way) should do something to reduce gas prices. Please clarify.
"If we make it a sore spot that wont go away, they'll eventually listen to us and either make changes....or be impeached... We vote for them....hire them...they work for us, and yet since they have a little power they seek unrightcheous dominion."
So your opinion is that being mad that a president or other elected official, that can't influence gas prices, is a valid reason for impeachment?
"WHEN GAS HITS $4.00 to $5.00 dollars there wont be a food shortage...BUT... the Truckers Will STRIKE...and it will take just 3 days for every grocery store in the country to have empty shelves."
Trucks don't use gas. They use diesel. But I understand where you are going with this. However, as long as the price gets passed along to the entities paying the trucking companies to move their product, there won't be an issue. Then those entities (like grocery stores) will pass along the extra cost of transporting goods to their customers, and the price will go up. There are not going to be empty grocery store shelves for weeks at a time.
Truckers won't strike because it doesn't really impact them. It impacts the trucking company (including the indepentent and owner/operator). Basically, the trucking company will say "fuel has gone up, so here is the new price to hall a load of freight from MN to CA". If that is the goine rate, the hiring company will either pay it, or not get their cargo delivered.
Besides, do you really think the government would sit on the sideline and let the grocery store shelves be bare and folks not have food for weeks?
I am not saying it is right. I am saying IT WILL happen. How do you suppose they will tax people with EVs? If the guy with a Civic Hybrid gets 50 MPG and your Civic only gets 30 MPG who is paying their fair share of the road tax? My gas guzzler is paying a lot of road tax. If it was diesel getting nearly twice the mileage I would be paying half as much. My choice was a diesel SUV. I test drove the GL320 CDI and did not like it. No other diesel and the Sequoia was highly discounted.
Simple just ban gas guzzlers altogether and not allow any vehicles to be built unless they get 40mpg! Wow! would the outcries go up from that! I pay taxes already for the road I don't have to pay for road i don't use so if I use less gas I probably use less road and certainly if I do it's not as destructive as a big truck or SUV. Either that or require everyone to own a big SUV. :lemon:
Don't expect this Congress or any of the Presidential candidates to do ANYTHING about the price of gas. They are not going to cut off the feed to their trough.
It's only a 60 cent spread here: $3.19 versus $3.79. At those price points, the diesel car would only have to get 19% better mileage (30 mpg versus 25) to break even on fuel costs. Even with a $1.10 difference, the diesel would break even at 34 mpg.
Lucky you! It's much worse in other areas. Truckers will strike soon, probably by summer and then either prices will drop or something will be done to subsidize truckers fuel costs. Add in the extra cost a a diesel engine and it's tougher to break even and no guarantee it will stop at $1.03 more per gallon, at least nothing yet. Diesels are great but not at those prices.
We will be competing with other countries (like China) for resources, but as with any commodity, those that are willing to pay the most will get first chance at those resources
Those resources are not unlimited. China doesn't give a rats [non-permissible content removed] about pollution. Ever been there? I have. Just try and breathe, it's not fun! It's getting worse and Indonesia is ramping up as well. Much less fuel to go around. Embargo was before, now it will be shortages as the prices go sky high and supplies become less.
hey, don't worry about it, your Fed.tax amount owed for 2007 taxes helps fund our soldiers, including the moronic thug who grabbed the puppy by the scruff of the neck and hurled it off the cliff. Remember that one?
Hey, Ahhhnold, can you go over and pick up that idiot and hurl him off a cliff for us all? What was that supposed to prove? I wonder if he drives a bling-bling SUV, too. :sick:
In the late 80's, 4 cylinder 5 speeds got 40+ highway mpg. These cars did have Catylitic Converters and some emmisions components on them just like todays cars. The only real difference I can see is that these 4 cylinder cars were anyware from 85 to 100 hp and todays 4 cylinders are 125 to 140 hp. I do like the extra power, but if geared properly my late 80's 4 cylinders had plenty of power to get me comfortably where I wanted to go. ( 80% of my driving is just like most drivers, to and from work. Do anyone really need a huge, 5 ton towing capacity vehicle to drive down a highway to and from work?) Why can car companies begin to build basic/common cars again that get this better mileage instead of forcing a high priced hybrid at us that gets only slightly better mileage that a basic car of the 80's. The only affordable high mileage cars of today aren't any bigger than a golf cart.
Seems like the debate has gone well beyond gasoline prices and taxes!
There is a little topic drift in here occasionally. :shades:
I'm seeing more stories about increased mass transit use and carpooling lately. One of my ski buddies is recovering from an ACL repair and swears he not going to ski any more because gas prices are too high (50 mile RT to the hill). I'm not sure I believe him though.
One or two people using Edmunds Answers are wondering why their rig is idling weird after trying E85 for the first time.
I moved my grocery shopping 2 miles closer (but would have gone 2 miles further to shop this particular chain) and will be moving my Rx's to the new Walgreens going in next to the grocery. But the new grocery is so convenient, I'm going more often now. An electric golf car would be perfect for those jaunts, but aren't legal here. It's downhill all the way but I'm too lazy to ride my bike back up.
My house needs a lot of weatherization still, so that's on the todo list for this summer.
If it gets really bad, we'll go back to one car and use the insurance savings on gas.
The other thing on my todo list is to actually get the cars "tuned up" - it's been years. :P
Well #1 is that the consumer has not desired these types of vehicles until the price of gas has risen, and that has just happened. Since it takes time to change what types of vehicles are manufactured, it doesn't happen quickly.
The #2 reason you don't see a lot of little or efficent cars, is the safety standards. It seems with every year that goes by the safety standards are raised. While that in itself is noble, it causes a compromise - adding weight which never improves a vehicle's mpg especially in the city, where you have to start the mass moving. I doubt any of the lightweight, low-powered vehicles of the 80's would be legal to sell new these days. They'd do poorly in crash tests, not have airbags, and not have ABS. I believe next year cars will need tire-pressure monitoring systems.
The funny thing about car-safety standards is that you can't choose to get a car with lower safety - without these mandated systems. But you can choose to buy a motorcycle which is much more dangerous! Quite a disconnect?? The logic here is car-drivers are stupid and need to be told how to be safe, but motorcycle riders are free to make their own choices?
If I was in the market for an economy car, it would either be a very low cost one like an '09 Fit, or a Smart car.
but they're not gonna import them here if Americans won't buy them. Suzuki is the leader in Japan making the best kei-cars. I like 'em, but, then again, I like small cars. Something would need to happen here, a new way of thinking, perhaps. $5.00/gal 87 no-lead, possibly.
Funny how all these downsized lightweight cars existed in the 1980s - an era of low-priced fuel. My 1988 Buick Park Avenue has a mere 165 hp, but it hardly feels like a slouch and delivers respectable fuel economy probably due to its light weight. Better yet, it can take a hit in the bumper much better than all new cars. The bumpers appear to be aluminum, but they're protected by a thick rubber molding. Today's cars' bumpers would crack or tear from a similar impact. The only thing bad is its lack of airbags.
The Isetta revival has been mulled over, and the only thing keeping the good kei cars out of this country are the onerous private import regulations (you can get them in Canada at the moment).
Did you ever consider that maybe hybrid owners are, infact, paying every bit of their fair share, and SUV owners are simply paying too much?
While what you say is true. I don't think reducing the tax I pay on my SUV will fly. You are also correct about the fuel tax being used for many things beside maintaining the infrastructure. I am sure there would be plenty if it was put in a fund that could not be filched by our stinking legislators.
Well #1 is that the consumer has not desired these types of vehicles until the price of gas has risen, and that has just happened.
By American standards gas prices have been high for some time now. I'm thinking that the typical car buyer is starting to realize these prices are not a temporary anomaly.
Yes, HP is up, but the bigger problem is weight/size.
Weight and size is definitely the adversary of mpg, especially in stop and go driving. However I look at the Honda Fit's mpg numbers compared to the Honda Civic and I'm not all that impressed by the difference. The same can be said for Toyota's Yaris compared to their Corolla. I think it's unrealistic that we can create a useable ICE vehicle that gets much better than 40 mpg by our current EPA rating methods. So I see smaller, less powerful vehicles as a way to slow the bleeding, at best.
"And my point on the whole subject is the Federal and State governments DO NOT want us to get better mileage, with hybrids or diesel cars. It cuts into their fuel tax."
The tax is really our tax. How do propose we keep our bridges and roads repaired?
No gas prices haven't been that high for long; maybe a little longer in CA. I would guess that most people would consider high to be $3.00 or more and I bet the total time they have been there is about 1 year. Since it takes several years for a manufacturer to change their product lineup, 1 year is not a long enough time to see a change in what's for sale.
You can not simply expect that a new small car can be designed and tested, and a factory be shutdown from making pickups and converted in a short time. If GM or Ford though could produce the same cars they sell in Europe here in the U.S. then the conversion time would be shortened.
If people drive higher mpg vehicles in the future, I would guess the tax/gal. would be increased so as to collect the same amount. I don't see that as being particularly difficult to do.
Maybe a good way to tax EV's would be to have separate meters on the rechargers. The electricity rate for those chargers would include a road-tax/KWh to compensate for not paying a gas tax.
The big difference is weight as a few others have already mentioned. My 84 Accord weighed about 2300 lbs. The new Accords are in the 3200+ lb. range. Back in the 70s my Corolla weighed a massive 1700 or so pounds. The 2009 Corolla is about 1,000 pounds heavier. Force = mass x acceleration and Energy = 0.5 x mass x velocity squared. Or at least it was a few years ago.
"The only affordable high mileage cars of today aren't any bigger than a golf cart."
The tax is really our tax. How do propose we keep our bridges and roads repaired?
We're going to have to pay to maintain our infrastructure. Our entire society benefits from a well maintained system of roads that allows mobility and the transport of goods to the market. How these roadways ever got to be classified as something that needed to be funded by user fees is beyond me. Why doesn't this rational apply to our public schools? Let the people with kids pay for the schools? Well our society benefits from educated children so it makes sense for us all to share the burden. The same can be said for our roadways.
The tax is really our tax. How do you propose we keep our bridges and roads repaired?
You are right of course it is our tax money. I propose they use the fuel tax for what it was intended. Not for a lot of Pork projects that have nothing to do with the infrastructure. That includes not using it for mass transit. I believe we currently pay enough to keep all the roads and bridges in good condition. I am surprised that fuel tax is not a percentage of the price of gas. Of course we would be paying much more right now for a gallon of gas.
To me, "fair" is a four-letter word, beginning with an "F"!
I agree completely. Actually the word that I find objectionable is "unfair". It seems that people differentiate between fair vs. unfair based solely on how it affects them. It has nothing to do with objective, unbiased analysis. I work with a lot of people in civil service. It's amazing how quick this bunch is to throw out the unfair term. Yet as we all know these people enjoy some pretty nice benefits that exceed what the private sector can provide.
I am surprised that fuel tax is not a percentage of the price of gas.
I pretty much agree. The problem with that is that gasoline prices are so volatile it would make it tough to budget. However when gasoline prices are rising it would allow the government to increase their revenue without the politically unpopular move of having to raise per gallon taxes. It would be somewhat transparent to the consumer.
Mass transit has some real advantages in cities. Part of the goal of mass transit is to get some people out of cars. Mass transit will reduce congestion and air pollution. It will also reduce the need for parking spots. I am for some funding. Cars are not the be all and end all. Funding some of the so called pork projects like bike paths is well worth it. They make a city very livable.
If we were keeping our roads and bridges in good condition and there is money left over in the fuel tax fund, I have no problem with bike trails and mass transit. When the money is used for capitol projects and leaves current infrastructure in disrepair I feel we have been cheated. The money does come from those that are using fuel and the roads. Tax bike riders and mass transit riders. Why do mass transit riders deserve a cheaper ride than the other citizens.
Bigger vehicles use more gas, thus paying more tax.
Bigger vehicles "tax" the road surface to a much greater extent than lighter vehicles (civil engineers please chime in here).
Until we get to the point that a Freightliner tractor trailer becomes something that you can recharge overnight, the tax loss equation is a mute point, or admittedly, defiled by skunk politicians.
If you're a trucker and you think you're not ripping up the roads more than a Prius - you REALLY don't understand physics and shouldn't be driving anything that weighs more than a Geo Metro..... But that's asking a lot these days (yes, I saw you menacing the mini-van on I-95 the other day that was already five over the limit, in the right lane).... I know - another forum appropriate, I'll drop it.
Interesting to note that the tax on one gallon of gasoline is actually a great demonstration of the laws of abundance vs. scarcity and that the mean rich are NOT getting away with murder as some "political" people would have you believe.
A CEO I was familiar with got a kick out of his Volkswagen and loved the mileage, probably still drives something economical. All the while one of the minions (one of my co-workers) had a need to drive a Suburban and was in the habit of verbal attacks of the CEO's pay package.... You figure it out.
Some people that will never be wealthy are also the ones that see no need to squeeze an extra five miles out of that gallon of four dollar gasoline..... with it's associated taxes.
Bigger vehicles "tax" the road surface to a much greater extent than lighter vehicles (civil engineers please chime in here).
I think I have explained how fuel tax is not linear. I also think you would get the argument that pounds per square inch on the road surface is what counts. A Prius with LRR tires will exert more stress on the road than an SUV with big fat donut tires.
The issue is the high cost of gas is more of an economic problem. As consumption goes down due to lack of funds to buy gas so will the tax revenues that are supposed to be used to maintain the roads. We could be in for a spiraling downward of our life style. Some may have a rough road to follow.
"Why do mass transit riders deserve a cheaper ride than the other citizens.
If we want to reduce the number of cars on the road you would want to keep the cost per mile a bit lower for the mass transit riders. If mass transit was dropped how much extra congestion would be created in cities? Do people want to see their commute times increase? I think not.
And to the question of funding our infrastructure. Can you imagine what improvements we could make to our roads and bridges if we were not spending billions in Iraq!!!
"A federal commission recently calculated what it will cost to repair and upgrade the nation’s roads and highways: $225 billion a year for the next 50 years. Add sewers and water systems to the mix and that number increases tremendously." http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/gmathis229
How much are we spending in Iraq per year - $50, 100, 200 billion???
In another interesting piece of news, J.D. Power and Associates is saying that auto sales may dip below 15 million in 2008. The higher fuel prices, among other things, are really starting to take a bite. My guess is that fuel efficient cars will gain at the expense of pickups and SUVs.
"I think I have explained how fuel tax is not linear. A Prius with LRR tires will exert more stress on the road than an SUV with big fat donut tires."
Maybe a 3,000 lb. car actually causes more damage than a 5,000 lb. SUV, but the Prius owner is already paying more than enough to maintain the roads. The SUV owner is paying a LOT more than enough. Until ALL the gas tax money gets spent on roads (not pork projects), the gov't has no "need" to raise taxes.
"... auto sales may dip below 15 million in 2008."
Another effect of high gas prices -- instead of buying a new, fuel-efficient car, many consumers are choosing to keep their old cars (since they're paid off) as a means of compensating for higher gasoline costs. .
Comments
Agreed. This is the core of the problem..it's staring back at us every morning. There is a simple solution to this as you note...don't buy as much of their product.
Don't complain ...DO SOMETHING!!! Complaining does no good at all.
This is a free market afterall. We are free to buy as much fuel as we want and to set it on fire in anyway that we want day after day after day. There are other boards with similar discussions and the general concensus is
'It's my money and if I want to spend every last cent on gas to drive my toys then I will.'
'Yeah me too'
'You said it'
'You'll have to pry my cold dead fingers off the steering wheel of my V8 [......].'
'This little increase means nothing to me and my money.'
'Screw everybody else, I drive what I want.'
These are our fellow citizens. And rightfully ( to a point ) everything that they say is valid. At some point in the future however their unfettered freedom may by necessity be curtailed for the overall national good.
However since it is a free market we can also choose not to use the oil producers' products by choosing to drive less, stay at home more, drive more efficiently, carpool, walk, bike or innovate even further. These are our own choices and they're our free choices.
That is not being followed now so as the Dollar weakens, the cost of the oil goes up.
I believe the person meant when OPEC orginally formed was where that agreement was made.
If they were still using the Dollar we wouldn't be having rising prices to the degree we have for the crude. Does anyone have more knowledge from the past.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Correct in theory, but not in practice. The government STEALS huge portions of the gas tax and spends it elsewhere -- like bike paths and mass transit projects. Here in Texas, the state takes 25% of gas taxes and puts it in the general fund.
All drivers, including hybrid owners, are paying MORE than enough money to maintain the roads. It's just not being used for that.
"Federal and State governments DO NOT want us to get better mileage."
Agree 100%. The gas tax is like a giant ATM to them. That's why we all sit in worse traffic year after year (burning more gas), and stop at every red light in town wondering why the gov't doesn't synchronize them.
And that's why any threat to their ATM is met with socialist proposals like the per-mile tax. Gotta keep that money flowing, baby!
I know that it's not your idea, and that you don't really like it. But maybe you're looking at the gas tax situation the wrong way.
Did you ever consider that maybe hybrid owners are, infact, paying every bit of their fair share, and SUV owners are simply paying too much?
Perhaps instead of raising taxes on hybrids, the gov't should lower taxes on SUVs, since you guys are shouldering MORE than your fair share of the burden.
Just a thought.
.
So if the country goes bankrupt, you know who to blame.
.
The US doesn't want the dollar to be considered waste paper or some minor currency.
OTOH any sane person in the oil business would buy and sell oil in euro's, then convert it to US$ when sold to the US refineries/consumers. Example..Shell
Shell is a european company doing business all over the world. They have a supply of every kind of currency imaginable stashed in banks all over the globe. Mostly it's probably euros, dollars and yen.
Jan 2007 the price of oil was $60 / bbl
Jan 2007 the price of 1 euro was $1.24
Jan 2007 Americans paid $60 / bbl
Jan 2007 Europeans paid 48.4 E / bbl
Today the price of oil is ~$105 / bbl
Today the price of 1 euro is $1.57 ( 26.6% more expensive )
Today Americans pay $105 / bbl ( 75% more expensive )
Today Europeans pay 66.9 E / bbl ( 38% more expensive )
European 'market' prices have only gone up 38% due to a more stable currency whereas our prices have jumped 75% due to an increasingly worthless currency.
Oh don't worry, because I ended up owing this year. So I'll be giving the federal gov't back about half of the check they cut for you. :sick:
It's only a 60 cent spread here: $3.19 versus $3.79. At those price points, the diesel car would only have to get 19% better mileage (30 mpg versus 25) to break even on fuel costs. Even with a $1.10 difference, the diesel would break even at 34 mpg.
Bike paths and mass transit are consistent with what the fuel tax is meant to be used for. However there are states that have been diverting fuel taxes to pay for programs like law enforcement and schools. I personally have no problem with this. If they didn't use fuel taxes they would have to raise some other tax like income, property, sales, etc.. Since a state has to balance it's budget they are going to get their money one way or another. So it basically comes down to whether you'd rather pay less in fuel taxes and more in income taxes or vice versa.
Also talking about "fair"; who has realized they aren't going to get a rebate check? I guess it is fair for the government to take my money, and redistribute it to others, to pay for their gasoline and heating fuel? Forced-charity always makes me feel warm inside.
It's almost as good as my tax $'s being spent by the government on ads promoting travel and tourism, which increases the amount of discretionary driving and gas usage; which then of course drives gasoline prices higher. :mad:
Wouldn't it be fairer if bicyclists and mass transit riders paid their fair share? Fair meaning bicyclists pay for the bike paths, and mass transit riders pay for the trains and buses? I want my gas taxes to be reduced if not needed for the roads. Let's see what the real cost of public transportation is, and stop subsidizing everyone and everything. I'm not just singling out the little-guy; this applies to using tax $ for a new football stadium ...
Since a state has to balance it's budget they are going to get their money one way or another.
Well if your school system has 1:1 ratio of administrators to teachers, you might consider "budget cuts" an option. Also if your state has any system of tolls, that whole system is a waste of labor. The amount collected in tolls should simply be added to the gas tax, and 1,000 toll employees (MA Turnpike example) or so could find some useful work (produce a product!).
How would that happen again? This is a different situation entirely. Unless there is an embargo, there will be no shortage. As long as you are willing to pay the market price, you'll be able to get gasoline. It's not a shortage situation. We will be competing with other countries (like China) for resources, but as with any commodity, those that are willing to pay the most will get first chance at those resources.
I can think of several ways - confrontation over Iranian nukes; Venezuela/Equador/Colombia come to blows; terrorist sinks a tanker in the Straits of Hormuz; terrorists successfully strike Arabian oil fields (they've tried before and failed); there are many possibilities other than an orchestrated boycott, which I doubt would happen.
I think it would be great to see $5 gal gas. Maybe we'd get some of the small hatches that Europe has!
You kind of argue against yourself there. Could you please clarify your point? By your own account, gas should be way more expensive than it is now (since crude prices are up so high), yet in your post, you argue that the gasoline prices are too high right now and the US government (that does not control OPEC by the way) should do something to reduce gas prices. Please clarify.
"If we make it a sore spot that wont go away, they'll eventually listen to us and either make changes....or be impeached... We vote for them....hire them...they work for us, and yet since they have a little power they seek unrightcheous dominion."
So your opinion is that being mad that a president or other elected official, that can't influence gas prices, is a valid reason for impeachment?
"WHEN GAS HITS $4.00 to $5.00 dollars there wont be a food shortage...BUT... the Truckers Will STRIKE...and it will take just 3 days for every grocery store in the country to have empty shelves."
Trucks don't use gas. They use diesel. But I understand where you are going with this. However, as long as the price gets passed along to the entities paying the trucking companies to move their product, there won't be an issue. Then those entities (like grocery stores) will pass along the extra cost of transporting goods to their customers, and the price will go up. There are not going to be empty grocery store shelves for weeks at a time.
Truckers won't strike because it doesn't really impact them. It impacts the trucking company (including the indepentent and owner/operator). Basically, the trucking company will say "fuel has gone up, so here is the new price to hall a load of freight from MN to CA". If that is the goine rate, the hiring company will either pay it, or not get their cargo delivered.
Besides, do you really think the government would sit on the sideline and let the grocery store shelves be bare and folks not have food for weeks?
Simple just ban gas guzzlers altogether and not allow any vehicles to be built unless they get 40mpg!
Wow! would the outcries go up from that!
I pay taxes already for the road I don't have to pay for road i don't use so if I use less gas I probably use less road and certainly if I do it's not as destructive as a big truck or SUV.
Either that or require everyone to own a big SUV. :lemon:
Don't expect this Congress or any of the Presidential candidates to do ANYTHING about the price of gas. They are not going to cut off the feed to their trough.
I expect if anything they will make it worse.
Here is a link
http://www.mondovista.com/money.html
Lucky you! It's much worse in other areas. Truckers will strike soon, probably by summer and then either prices will drop or something will be done to subsidize truckers fuel costs.
Add in the extra cost a a diesel engine and it's tougher to break even and no guarantee it will stop at $1.03 more per gallon, at least nothing yet.
Diesels are great but not at those prices.
Those resources are not unlimited. China doesn't give a rats [non-permissible content removed] about pollution. Ever been there? I have. Just try and breathe, it's not fun!
It's getting worse and Indonesia is ramping up as well. Much less fuel to go around. Embargo was before, now it will be shortages as the prices go sky high and supplies become less.
Bingo! it's not just fuel. No matter what you do you get screwed.
Hey, Ahhhnold, can you go over and pick up that idiot and hurl him off a cliff for us all? What was that supposed to prove? I wonder if he drives a bling-bling SUV, too. :sick:
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
There is a little topic drift in here occasionally. :shades:
I'm seeing more stories about increased mass transit use and carpooling lately. One of my ski buddies is recovering from an ACL repair and swears he not going to ski any more because gas prices are too high (50 mile RT to the hill). I'm not sure I believe him though.
People over in the I spotted a NEW (insert make/model) today! discussion are reporting more sightings of smart cars.
One or two people using Edmunds Answers are wondering why their rig is idling weird after trying E85 for the first time.
I moved my grocery shopping 2 miles closer (but would have gone 2 miles further to shop this particular chain) and will be moving my Rx's to the new Walgreens going in next to the grocery. But the new grocery is so convenient, I'm going more often now. An electric golf car would be perfect for those jaunts, but aren't legal here. It's downhill all the way but I'm too lazy to ride my bike back up.
My house needs a lot of weatherization still, so that's on the todo list for this summer.
If it gets really bad, we'll go back to one car and use the insurance savings on gas.
The other thing on my todo list is to actually get the cars "tuned up" - it's been years. :P
The #2 reason you don't see a lot of little or efficent cars, is the safety standards. It seems with every year that goes by the safety standards are raised. While that in itself is noble, it causes a compromise - adding weight which never improves a vehicle's mpg especially in the city, where you have to start the mass moving.
I doubt any of the lightweight, low-powered vehicles of the 80's would be legal to sell new these days. They'd do poorly in crash tests, not have airbags, and not have ABS. I believe next year cars will need tire-pressure monitoring systems.
The funny thing about car-safety standards is that you can't choose to get a car with lower safety - without these mandated systems. But you can choose to buy a motorcycle which is much more dangerous! Quite a disconnect?? The logic here is car-drivers are stupid and need to be told how to be safe, but motorcycle riders are free to make their own choices?
If I was in the market for an economy car, it would either be a very low cost one like an '09 Fit, or a Smart car.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car
Maybe kei cars are the key?
http://microcarmuseum.com/
While what you say is true. I don't think reducing the tax I pay on my SUV will fly. You are also correct about the fuel tax being used for many things beside maintaining the infrastructure. I am sure there would be plenty if it was put in a fund that could not be filched by our stinking legislators.
By American standards gas prices have been high for some time now. I'm thinking that the typical car buyer is starting to realize these prices are not a temporary anomaly.
Weight and size is definitely the adversary of mpg, especially in stop and go driving. However I look at the Honda Fit's mpg numbers compared to the Honda Civic and I'm not all that impressed by the difference. The same can be said for Toyota's Yaris compared to their Corolla. I think it's unrealistic that we can create a useable ICE vehicle that gets much better than 40 mpg by our current EPA rating methods. So I see smaller, less powerful vehicles as a way to slow the bleeding, at best.
True, as long as their ox isn't being sacrificed they think its fair.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The tax is really our tax. How do propose we keep our bridges and roads repaired?
You can not simply expect that a new small car can be designed and tested, and a factory be shutdown from making pickups and converted in a short time. If GM or Ford though could produce the same cars they sell in Europe here in the U.S. then the conversion time would be shortened.
Maybe a good way to tax EV's would be to have separate meters on the rechargers. The electricity rate for those chargers would include a road-tax/KWh to compensate for not paying a gas tax.
The big difference is weight as a few others have already mentioned. My 84 Accord weighed about 2300 lbs. The new Accords are in the 3200+ lb. range. Back in the 70s my Corolla weighed a massive 1700 or so pounds. The 2009 Corolla is about 1,000 pounds heavier. Force = mass x acceleration and Energy = 0.5 x mass x velocity squared. Or at least it was a few years ago.
"The only affordable high mileage cars of today aren't any bigger than a golf cart."
That might be OK, no reason to rent a golf cart.
Eye, Captain...we be a drifting toward the rocks. What be your orders....arrrr!
We're going to have to pay to maintain our infrastructure. Our entire society benefits from a well maintained system of roads that allows mobility and the transport of goods to the market. How these roadways ever got to be classified as something that needed to be funded by user fees is beyond me. Why doesn't this rational apply to our public schools? Let the people with kids pay for the schools? Well our society benefits from educated children so it makes sense for us all to share the burden. The same can be said for our roadways.
You are right of course it is our tax money. I propose they use the fuel tax for what it was intended. Not for a lot of Pork projects that have nothing to do with the infrastructure. That includes not using it for mass transit. I believe we currently pay enough to keep all the roads and bridges in good condition. I am surprised that fuel tax is not a percentage of the price of gas. Of course we would be paying much more right now for a gallon of gas.
I agree completely. Actually the word that I find objectionable is "unfair". It seems that people differentiate between fair vs. unfair based solely on how it affects them. It has nothing to do with objective, unbiased analysis. I work with a lot of people in civil service. It's amazing how quick this bunch is to throw out the unfair term. Yet as we all know these people enjoy some pretty nice benefits that exceed what the private sector can provide.
I pretty much agree. The problem with that is that gasoline prices are so volatile it would make it tough to budget. However when gasoline prices are rising it would allow the government to increase their revenue without the politically unpopular move of having to raise per gallon taxes. It would be somewhat transparent to the consumer.
Mass transit has some real advantages in cities. Part of the goal of mass transit is to get some people out of cars. Mass transit will reduce congestion and air pollution. It will also reduce the need for parking spots. I am for some funding. Cars are not the be all and end all. Funding some of the so called pork projects like bike paths is well worth it. They make a city very livable.
Talk-Like A Pirate Day isn't until September 19. :shades:
Hmmm, sailing doesn't use much gas. The masts can't be too big though or your land yacht won't fit under the stop lights.
Bigger vehicles "tax" the road surface to a much greater extent than lighter vehicles (civil engineers please chime in here).
Until we get to the point that a Freightliner tractor trailer becomes something that you can recharge overnight, the tax loss equation is a mute point, or admittedly, defiled by skunk politicians.
If you're a trucker and you think you're not ripping up the roads more than a Prius - you REALLY don't understand physics and shouldn't be driving anything that weighs more than a Geo Metro..... But that's asking a lot these days (yes, I saw you menacing the mini-van on I-95 the other day that was already five over the limit, in the right lane).... I know - another forum appropriate, I'll drop it.
Interesting to note that the tax on one gallon of gasoline is actually a great demonstration of the laws of abundance vs. scarcity and that the mean rich are NOT getting away with murder as some "political" people would have you believe.
A CEO I was familiar with got a kick out of his Volkswagen and loved the mileage, probably still drives something economical. All the while one of the minions (one of my co-workers) had a need to drive a Suburban and was in the habit of verbal attacks of the CEO's pay package.... You figure it out.
Some people that will never be wealthy are also the ones that see no need to squeeze an extra five miles out of that gallon of four dollar gasoline..... with it's associated taxes.
I think I have explained how fuel tax is not linear. I also think you would get the argument that pounds per square inch on the road surface is what counts. A Prius with LRR tires will exert more stress on the road than an SUV with big fat donut tires.
The issue is the high cost of gas is more of an economic problem. As consumption goes down due to lack of funds to buy gas so will the tax revenues that are supposed to be used to maintain the roads. We could be in for a spiraling downward of our life style. Some may have a rough road to follow.
If we want to reduce the number of cars on the road you would want to keep the cost per mile a bit lower for the mass transit riders. If mass transit was dropped how much extra congestion would be created in cities? Do people want to see their commute times increase? I think not.
And to the question of funding our infrastructure. Can you imagine what improvements we could make to our roads and bridges if we were not spending billions in Iraq!!!
"A federal commission recently calculated what it will cost to repair and upgrade the nation’s roads and highways: $225 billion a year for the next 50 years. Add sewers and water systems to the mix and that number increases tremendously."
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/gmathis229
How much are we spending in Iraq per year - $50, 100, 200 billion???
In another interesting piece of news, J.D. Power and Associates is saying that auto sales may dip below 15 million in 2008. The higher fuel prices, among other things, are really starting to take a bite. My guess is that fuel efficient cars will gain at the expense of pickups and SUVs.
Maybe a 3,000 lb. car actually causes more damage than a 5,000 lb. SUV, but the Prius owner is already paying more than enough to maintain the roads. The SUV owner is paying a LOT more than enough. Until ALL the gas tax money gets spent on roads (not pork projects), the gov't has no "need" to raise taxes.
"... auto sales may dip below 15 million in 2008."
Another effect of high gas prices -- instead of buying a new, fuel-efficient car, many consumers are choosing to keep their old cars (since they're paid off) as a means of compensating for higher gasoline costs.
.