Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency

1…34689…79

Comments

  • gljvdgljvd Member Posts: 129
    Listen it all comes around to this .

    America can do whatever we want

    If we really wanted to decrease our oil dependancy by a third in 10 years we could do it . Sadly no one really cares . Next election we will get a ton of officals running on a platform for less oil dependancy and yet nothing will come of it .
  • catamcatam Member Posts: 331
    The taxes that the oil companies pay (and nearly all large for-profit companies), is based on total gross revenue.
    Profit is the difference between total revenue minus all expenses (including taxes). Just comparing 2004 to 2005 Exxons rate of profit increased from 8.69% to 10.06%. Most large corporations would kill for such an increase. (Some probably have).

    I get sick of hearing that oil companies need to profit like they do in order to fund new oil discovery, and refinery development. This is already part of their business plan, and those expenses have already been calculated into the operating costs.
    And to top it off, the Bush Administration gave them a $2 billion tax cut for this same reason. Somehow the logic was that the huge profits weren't enough to fund further development, and the taxpayers should help out more. Get real!

    Pharmaceutical companies use the same BS marketing ploy, "Today's drugs fund tomorrow's miracle's". Translation, "We need these huge profits to pay for further development." What they don't say is that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable in the world. By comparison, the oil industry's 10% profit margin is tiny, the pharmaceuticals are around 30%. Poor vilified WalMart is around 3%, yet they get all the bad press.

    I have no problem with companies "making a buck." What I do have a problem with is being taken advantage of by companies that know they garner a collective monopoly, and use it to profit off those who can ill afford it.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    You might be right about these negative consequences. If $2/gallon was forced on us by market conditions how would that be better than the government doing it? At least the government would have the funds to mitigate. Otherwise these funds are in OPEC's hands. I am a little puzzled. I have posted that excess consumption is resulting in higher prices on all gas consumers. You've defended the right of the individual that can afford the fuel to use it as he wishes. So the individual can impose higher gas prices but the government can't? I see that as an inconsistency.
  • u136646u136646 Member Posts: 17
    Then please stop buying their products. Or do you suspect that they are sending brain washing waves from space into your house. Oh wait, you probably already have your aluminum foil hat on. Just kidding, but you probably should read a few econ 101 books before you comment.
  • catamcatam Member Posts: 331
    That's the problem. Our country is designed around the automobile. I would love to stop buying oil, but there is no alternative.
    Just FYI, I ride mass transit to work, but the cost of my monthly bus pass has increased about 20% in the last 3 years, the transit autority sites "rising gas prices".
    So even though I drive a lot less than most people, I am still affected.

    If I didn't like the prices at my local grocery store, I can choose another, or I can even grow my own produce in my garden every summer. Nobody in this country has that option with their cars. This is what I meant by "collective monopoly." At best, you can shop around and save a few cents per gallon, but your money is ultimately going to one of the big oil companies.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    tpe,

    Well what if we used trains like automobiles for cross country travel ?I'm not neccessarily saying everyone will communte to and from work on one. I know I'd love to hop on a bullet train to Michigan, and enjoy the scenary. ;)

    Rocky
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    What don't I get. I agree with revenue - costs = profits. In my previous posts I showed just how much tax Exxon paid. If they didn't pay that tax it would have been profit. So that is what I based the %-ages on. They would have had a profit before taxes of about $130B, but paid taxes of $95B to keep approx. 30% of what they could have had in profit. That is very similar to if you made $100,000 and after taxes took home $30,000.

    No matter how you want to look at, they pay a lot of taxes, and get to keep a little.

    ABC news reported last night that the lion's share of profits go to the producing countries. Saudi Arabia will profit to the tune of $150B and Venezuela about $40B, amongst OPEC.

    By the way I have an MS in Management and am an engineer and manufacturing cost analyst; maybe you'd like to share your credentials
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,139
    I think this year's dose of American-style socialism for big oil should be an even $5BN
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Rocky,
    I think we are in agreement on this. There is energy everywhere. The idea that we concern ourselves with price, availability, supply will someday seem ridiculous. So when deciding whether or not to go from here to there won't be a matter of affordability. I realize that this position makes me appear as some fringe, whacko to some but anyone that's taken one physics class realizes that energy can neither be created or destoyed.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Anyone earning less than $80k isn't paying their share. As much as we like to bash the rich, make no mistake, they are paying the bills. And as much as people like to accuse Bush as being a President for the rich the data doesn't support this. The overall tax burden on the rich has increased during the Bush administration. I'm not a Bush supporter, I just prefer to base my opinions on factual data.

    They pay the most I agree, but as a percentage of their income they don't. ;)

    Rocky
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,139
    "Anyone earning less than $80k isn't paying their share. "

    Hogwash...those who benefit the most from the status quo need to pay the most. It's pretty simple.
  • pmerk28pmerk28 Member Posts: 121
    No it's not that simple.
  • pmerk28pmerk28 Member Posts: 121
    Whose "they"?
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: Our country is designed around the automobile. I would love to stop buying oil, but there is no alternative.

    me: There is absolutely no housing near your employer such that you can walk or bike? Or there is no job closer to your house?

    you: Nobody in this country has that option with their cars.

    me: Are you saying everyone in this country has a car? We better get out the history books and see how people got along in the 19th century. ;) WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE AND ADJUST.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    They actually pay less than us as a percentage. My millionaire relatives pay about 10 %. :surprise:

    Rocky
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,139
    OK, it's on you to explain why someone who isn't benefitting the most from society shouldn't pay the most to maintain it.

    Some people want all of the gain and none of the sacrifice. When the peasants gather their torches and pitchforks, these people will wish they'd thought differently.
  • pmerk28pmerk28 Member Posts: 121
    People don't benefit from society they get an education and skills to earn what they can. The only people benefitting are those who don't earn but take from those who do. IF you make 4 times as much as the next guy should pay 4 times as much in taxes not 15 times as much.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    You really are a Socialist.

    I have no use for the guy that's rich because he was born into an affluent family or the person that hit some Mega Lotto Jackpot. But for the individual that turned hard work and a few good ideas into a fortune I've got to stand back and applaud. The idea that he owes something to the less successful is BS. If anything we owe him. He is the driving force in our economy and carries the rest of us on his shoulders. Be grateful lest he shrug (paraphrase Ayn Rand).
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: They pay the most I agree, but as a percentage of their income they don't.

    me: but fair in our society is that everyone pays the same and their way. Only in the starnge world of taxes, is it fair to charge people different rates. Road tolls, gas tax, electricity, phone, store items, food, ... fair is paying the SAME AMOUNT. Why is a fair tax someone wealthy paying for a poorer person's trash pickup, or such? No wonder wealthier people look for loopholes. I'm solidly middle class, but I think everyone should be kicking in a minimum of $10K tax per year. Some people need to get some pride, and pay their way.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    Five years ago I was single amd making between 35-40k a year. My Fed income tax bill was a joke. Got a refund for just about what little I paid. A friend of mine at the same time was single and making 85-90 k a year..he got creamed.

    You have a skewered view of middle class. I make significantly more than your friend, am certainly middle class, and paid more income tax this year than what you say was salary.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,139
    Not all people who "benefit" do it from work.

    "IF you make 4 times as much as the next guy should pay 4 times as much in taxes not 15 times as much."

    Hilarious
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,139
    If I had to choose between being a socialist or a right-wing libertarian, I'll choose the former, thank you very much.

    "The idea that he owes something to the less successful is BS."

    It's nothing about owing anything to the less successful. It's not the children of the elite being slaughtered in Iraq. Some people make no sacrifices at all...endless loopholes, small percentages of income paid compared to those who really work, it goes on forever.

    And it won't last forever.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Will our dependence on oil ever end?

    That's the subject - not each other's beliefs and personal principles.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: Hogwash...those who benefit the most from the status quo need to pay the most. It's pretty simple.

    me: Double hogwash. People making the most are earning it. You should be encouraging those sitting in front of the TV with a beer, with no motivation or idea to improve their lot in life, to change, and stop waiting for someone else to pay the way for their kids in the schools.

    In general: I have little respect for those looking for a handout, or someone to pay their way. Pay for the gas like the rest of us, or don't buy it. The world really doesn't care. The Chinese guy on a bike isn't going to care if he someday is driving using the gas you could have had if you worked harder or smarter.

    you: why someone who isn't benefitting the most from society.

    me: you're whole premise of people who make the most is wrong. People who make money aren't "Benefitting FROM" in most cases; they are the ones who create the most wealth by creating products, economic activity and jobs. As you yourself have said before, people can't just start a business (not really true, but ...). So if they can't start a business, I guess the wealthy are doing most people a GREAT SERVICE by providing the economy with jobs. Having a job is a definite improvement of not having a job (or business).
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    I think that its time for a big reality check. The top 5% of wage earners pay 54% of income taxes. If you were to take the federal budget and divide it by the number of wage earners you would come up with an average tax burden per wage earner. Anyone earning less than $80k isn't paying their share. As much as we like to bash the rich, make no mistake, they are paying the bills. And as much as people like to accuse Bush as being a President for the rich the data doesn't support this. The overall tax burden on the rich has increased during the Bush administration. I'm not a Bush supporter, I just prefer to base my opinions on factual data.

    Unfortunately, it is no longer free, but the NY Times ran a pretty detailed analysis that show the bulk of US taxes being paid by people like me: wage earners with a low to mid six figure income. Millionaires and billionaires paid a significantly lower portion of their income.

    I don't see my position as bashing the rich. I think the US post WWII investment in making the world safe for globalization has provided a short term boost for most of the people, but has brought the most tangible results for the very rich.

    I think a US that taxed all of us less but did not pay for the military that allows Exxon to drill and recover oil in places you otherwise would not want to send a rabid pit bull, would be a different but quite likely more sustainable industry.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    This isn't a closley packed in country like Europe is. We are an open country where transporatation via car or train or Airplane can often be long distances, using fuel.

    Most of the US people live work and interact in the top 15 or so major cities. The wide open spaces in the plains states, great basin, and northern midwest have very low populations.

    Unfortunately, our current system encourages people to drive through these largely empty areas. A modern passenger rail system would considerably reduce interstate travel fuel consumption.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,139
    " People making the most are earning it"

    You should do stand up.

    I am sure you can give me a Mises link to support it, too.

    "I have little respect for those looking for a handout"

    Same here...I also have little respect for entitlement-minded pseudocapitalists who want all of the gain and none of the sacrifice. Who is REALLY paying the price to keep this society going?

    Some people believe an abolition of taxes on the wealthy (and I am not talking about people making 60-100K or whatever) and a complete deregulation of the labor market will lead to endless prosperity for all.

    "you're whole premise of people who make the most is wrong"

    Only in your twisted world.

    Amazing. Is Mises paying your way here? Seems a lot of people recite the same silly mantra.
  • pmerk28pmerk28 Member Posts: 121
    No one can agree on who is rich, upper middle, middle or poor and besides people move between income all time anywya. The word rich is the same as specia linterest..it depends on who you ask.

    I have a fmaily of 6 live on Li lsand NY and my Family makes 150-170 k a year. TO some we are rich to others we are not.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: wage earners with a low to mid six figure income.

    me: I believe that puts you in the top 5%. Thus your statements about paying a lot of tax fit what TPE was saying.

    you: I think a US that taxed all of us less but did not pay for the military that allows Exxon to drill and recover oil in places you otherwise would not want to send a rabid pit bull,

    me: where is the U.S. military guarding besides in Iraq. I know we have military in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia but those countries are providing their own security. I seriously don't know where else you mean. We get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, the Gulf, maybe the North Sea, Nigeria (chaos, but no U.S. troops there).

    We have troops in Germany and other areas of Europe, Korea and Japan.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    When the peasants gather their torches and pitchforks, these people will wish they'd thought differently.

    I'm sure this has happened numerous times throughout history. How often are the peasants left with something better than the conditions they destroyed? Not often.

    Creating wealth really is a talent. I'm sure for the poor person it is comforting to think that it is all arbitrary and they could just as easily have been Bill Gates or Donald Trump. Or maybe they delude themselves that these rich people achieve this status by exploiting the poor. Trust me, neither of these guy's business models involve the poor.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: The word rich is the same as specia linterest..it depends on who you ask.

    me: Right. But the cutoff level of the top 5% in income can be accurately known. 5% is objective (definite) not subjective (many, few). According to this web-site anyone over $100K is in the top 5%. Anyone over $300K is in the top 1%. http://www.lcurve.org/
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,139
    "Not often. "

    Indeed...but that won't stop it from happening again.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    please show us your data. Exxon Mobil made $21.5B profit and paid $72.5B in taxes in 2003. In 2004 they had $25.3B profit and paid $84B tax. And last year their record profit year of $36.1B, they paid $95.5B tax. See P. 38 http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/sar_2005.pdf

    You have to get Mobile's full financial filings (and not the glossy SH report) to see the actual taxes paid. There are any number of accounting provisions and government programs that will reduce the actual amount of taxes paid.

    This of course does not count the taxes shareholders paid when they received dividends, or any of the taxes that Exxon employees paid in federal, state, and property taxes, plus all the social security taxes. It sounds like a lot of tax to me. And there are other major oil companies paying proportionally large taxes.

    Dividend income is taxed at a much lower rate than regular income. And it does not impact Mobile again. I don't see how dividend taxes give Mobile any additional right to US military resources.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Yes that's a flat-tax and it sure is better than what we have now, where some people pay nothing or actually get a check from the gov't. :mad:
  • pmerk28pmerk28 Member Posts: 121
    You: According to this web site anyone over $100k is in the top 5%.

    me: True but top 5% where I live is middle class due to the price of housing/property and state taxes we pay. thats where the federal income tax system is a joke as well. Practically all middle class Long Island families make over 100K a year. Cops on L Island start at 50k and if your wife is a school teacher making 50k you are at 100k without overtime. For my family to live in a more upscale neighborhood like say Garden City we'd have to be pulling down probably 225-250K a year. I consider that upscale not rich.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Unfortunately, it is no longer free, but the NY Times ran a pretty detailed analysis that show the bulk of US taxes being paid by people like me: wage earners with a low to mid six figure income. Millionaires and billionaires paid a significantly lower portion of their income.

    That may very well be true. These people have obviously structured their finances to take maximum advantage of the tax code. This could be solved by eliminating deductions and implementing a flat tax. That idea gets floated around from time to time and the main objection is that it favors the rich. No matter what you do the rich are the bad guys.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    you: You have to get Mobile's full financial filings (and not the glossy SH report) to see the actual taxes paid.

    me: I believe by law, this is the same report that is filed with the SEC. Now you can argue that they are cooking the public books like Enron, but I've never seen any company like Enron be able to cover up for more than a year or 2.

    Please post some links on how "mobile" is cooking the books. Don't do the search on "Mobile" though unless you want to report on Alabama to us. :) Also please tell us what countries U.S. troops are protecting Exxon's facilities (besides Iraq).
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I find it interesting that you make 6 figures and actually care about current gas prices. I make less than that and it really doesn't impact me all that much.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    And the cycle starts again. The capable do better than the less capable. At some point the less capable destroy the system. Again, the capable do better than the less capable, etc... What's the point? Maybe its an ego thing and less capable just can't accept their ineptitude.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    I find it interesting that you make 6 figures and actually care about current gas prices. I make less than that and it really doesn't impact me all that much.

    In fact, I am carless by choice.

    My attraction to the thread was the headline: getting over the oil addiction.

    I believe post WWII we created an economic system that cannot be sustained in the long run. I do not have children either, but I care about who come later.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    My rich millionaire relatives are referred to "as they" ;)

    Rocky
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    This could be solved by eliminating deductions and implementing a flat tax. That idea gets floated around from time to time and the main objection is that it favors the rich. No matter what you do the rich are the bad guys.

    One, I happen to think a flat tax would free up currently wasted resources for other more important uses.

    Two, I never said I hated anyone who is rich. My operating theory is that since WWII the US people as a whole have paid an enormous price creating and maintaining a global economic system that is bringing huge rewards to a global elite.

    In the meantime, after a brief moment that arguably peaked in the late 1960s or early 1970s, the majority of the US people have seen the quality of their life go stagnate and recently, I submit, go backward.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,139
    If only it was about true capability.

    "Two, I never said I hated anyone who is rich. My operating theory is that since WWII the US people as a whole have paid an enormous price creating and maintaining a global economic system that is bringing huge rewards to a global elite.

    In the meantime, after a brief moment that arguably peaked in the late 1960s or early 1970s, the majority of the US people have seen the quality of their life go stagnate and recently, I submit, go backward."

    I'm on that same page, hear hear
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    me: where is the U.S. military guarding besides in Iraq. I know we have military in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia but those countries are providing their own security. I seriously don't know where else you mean. We get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, the Gulf, maybe the North Sea, Nigeria (chaos, but no U.S. troops there).

    We have troops in Germany and other areas of Europe, Korea and Japan.

    My theory cuts much broader. I think post WWII, the entire global network was assured primarily by the very good but very expensive US military. Heck, even in the 1960s, the Soviets arguably were winning.

    But we outmanuvered them, largely with big spending. The investment yielded cheap fossil fuel for us for many years. IMO the yield is not sustainable. The military investment would have been better spent elsewhere.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Good for you. My goal is to be carless. You're absolutely correct that the path we are pursuing is unsustainable.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    I believe by law, this is the same report that is filed with the SEC. Now you can argue that they are cooking the public books like Enron, but I've never seen any company like Enron be able to cover up for more than a year or 2.

    Please post some links on how "mobile" is cooking the books. Don't do the search on "Mobile" though unless you want to report on Alabama to us. Also please tell us what countries U.S. troops are protecting Exxon's facilities (besides Iraq).

    I am not saying Mobile is cooking its books at all. The link you provided is to a promotional report that does not provide anywhere near the entire financial story.

    The Mobilie SEC filings - also publically available on the SEC will provide the full details. The full Mobile report is something in the area of 270 pages. I submit the full report will show refunds and other government paybacks for programs only available the oil industry that reduce the overall burden.
  • pmerk28pmerk28 Member Posts: 121
    If you want to be carless why are you posting on an automotive forum?
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    I'm on that same page, hear hear

    Well, I am happy to read we are finding some common ground.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    If you want to be carless why are you posting on an automotive forum?

    Well, I am not a societal drop out. To the contrary, I am very interested in society. The automobile plays a huge roll in US society. I have to be interested in automobiles.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    If only it was about true capability.

    I agree, that's a big if. As I posted previously I have no use for someone that was born into wealth. What's amazing is that these people seem to project the most superiority. I would support wholeheartedly any policy that reduced what wealth gets passed down from one generation to the next. Let everyone start out at the same point.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles