[kenberg]

OK, today I filled the tank with Sunoco regular for $1.87 a gallon. Gas price swings are making the Dow look stable. by comparison. Questions:

The obvious first question, only partly facetious: Will falling prices at the pump lead to a bail out for large oil companies? "Our profits have fallen from truly obscene to merely grotesque, oh, the pain, the pain..."

More serious (I hope): Can anyone actually explain this? Yes I have heard of the Law of Supply and Demand, but is that the whole story? I haven't been driving that much less. Neither has anyone I know. The housing and mortgage mess was partly from supply and demand, partly from some people screwing around. What's up with gas?

Final question: Is it not time, and way past time, for a substantial increase in the tax on gas?

Your essays on this subject will be graded and promptly returned. Two misspellings will lead to an automatic F.

[Lobowolf]

I'll take a crack at the last one:

No.

[matmat]

I layk czokolate.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Nov 10 2008, 09:03 PM, said:

Final question: Is it not time, and way past time, for a substantial increase in the tax on gas?

Yes, this would be just the right time, imo.

[jdonn]

PassedOut, on Nov 10 2008, 10:05 PM, said:

kenberg, on Nov 10 2008, 09:03 PM, said:

Final question: Is it not time, and way past time, for a substantial increase in the tax on gas?

Yes, this would be just the right time, imo.

I agree, many conditions make now a great time for an increase in the gas tax. Of course it will not be happening any time soon, unless some politician wants to become about as popular as an infected hemorrhoid.

[Al_U_Card]

Oil, like house values, is subject to speculation.

$3/bbl in the 50's

$6/bbl pre-70's oil "crisis"

"real" value cost 2008? Say $50/bbl so less than $2 a US gallon for sure. ($0.50/l)

Value for money....salvation.
Speculation....damnation.

Your choice.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on Nov 10 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

OK, today I filled the tank with Sunoco regular for $1.87 a gallon. Gas price swings are making the Dow look stable. by comparison. Questions:

The obvious first question, only partly facetious: Will falling prices at the pump lead to a bail out for large oil companies? "Our profits have fallen from truly obscene to merely grotesque, oh, the pain, the pain..."

More serious (I hope): Can anyone actually explain this? Yes I have heard of the Law of Supply and Demand, but is that the whole story? I haven't been driving that much less. Neither has anyone I know. The housing and mortgage mess was partly from supply and demand, partly from some people screwing around. What's up with gas?

Final question: Is it not time, and way past time, for a substantial increase in the tax on gas?

Your essays on this subject will be graded and promptly returned. Two misspellings will lead to an automatic F.

Obama's polls changed from being tied with McCain, to him leading by 6-8 points without anyone I know changing his opinion (ok, you are the exception).
If oil consumption just drops by two percent, it has a huge effect on prices.

Yes, a substantial carbon tax starting now would be very helpful (assuming the money is used to lower other taxes). It would Americans less dependent on fluctuations of the oil price. No it won't happen.

[TimG]

kenberg, on Nov 10 2008, 09:03 PM, said:

I haven't been driving that much less. Neither has anyone I know.

I've put about 3000 miles on my vehicle in the last six months which is quite easily less than half of what I put on my vehicle last year over the same six months. I also sold my hybrid SUV and bought a less gas efficient pickup truck. Even so, I've used less gas than I did last year. I know others who have changed their driving habits in the last year.

[mike777]

"More serious (I hope): Can anyone actually explain this? Yes I have heard of the Law of Supply and Demand, but is that the whole story? I haven't been driving that much less. Neither has anyone I know."



Yes....that old supply and demand was it for the most part. I know many people who drove less, in fact in my town, it was simply hard to find gas at any price for about 6 weeks. I know people who used less electricity(oil made).....business is using much less oil..NOTE this was worldwide.


"Final question: Is it not time, and way past time, for a substantial increase in the tax on gas?"




Gas tax has traditionally gone for more roads and highways...if you raise the gas tax(not the same as carbon tax) where does the money go? Are you going to build more roads or pay down the Trillion$ budget deficit or use it for new spending programs?

[blackshoe]

Doesn't matter. The important thing is that we raise taxes until nobody has any money left.

[mike777]

blackshoe, on Nov 11 2008, 12:41 AM, said:

Doesn't matter. The important thing is that we raise taxes until nobody has any money left.

Based on what I have read I cannot disagree more strongly.

Tax the super rich 5%.but tax cuts or .rebate..taxes for the rest of us.

[helene_t]

You guys are funny but Arend suggested gas taxes being used to lower other taxes. So maybe it does matter.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Nov 11 2008, 06:12 AM, said:

You guys are funny but Arend suggested gas taxes being used to lower other taxes. So maybe it does matter.

this won't happen... what will happen is more spending, but i think that's not contingent on more income (raising taxes) - it'll happen anyway

as for carbon taxes, can someone tell me how exactly that works and what the point is

[Al_U_Card]

blackshoe, on Nov 11 2008, 12:41 AM, said:

Doesn't matter. The important thing is that we raise taxes until nobody has any money left.

No, I think that your defense budget and medical costs are taking care of that, just fine...

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Nov 11 2008, 03:59 PM, said:

as for carbon taxes, can someone tell me how exactly that works and what the point is

A carbon tax is a tax on point sources of carbon emission. If some activity results in carbon being emitted into the atmosphere, it gets taxed.

For example, driving automobiles results in carbon being released into the atmosphere. The amount that is emitted is (roughly) proportional to the quantity of fuel that gets burned. So, a tax gets tacked on to the price of gasoline.

In a similar vein, coal burning power plants emit significant quantities of C02. The folks who run said power plants, get taxed based on the amount of C02 that gets released into the atmosphere.

The idea behind a carbon tax is to compensate for an externality. There are other ways to skin the same cat (cap and trade systems are one obvious example). I prefer carbon taxes because it is a simplier policy instrument than cap and trade.

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Nov 11 2008, 05:20 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 11 2008, 03:59 PM, said:

as for carbon taxes, can someone tell me how exactly that works and what the point is

A carbon tax is a tax on point sources of carbon emission. If some activity results in carbon being emitted into the atmosphere, it gets taxed.

For example, driving automobiles results in carbon being released into the atmosphere. The amount that is emitted is (roughly) proportional to the quantity of fuel that gets burned. So, a tax gets tacked on to the price of gasoline.

In a similar vein, coal burning power plants emit significant quantities of C02. Te folks who run said power plants, get taxed based on the amount of C02 that gets released into the atmosphere.

The idea behind a carbon tax is to compensate for an externality. There are other ways to skin the same cat (cap and trade systems are one obvious example). I prefer carbon taxes because it is a simplier policy instrument than cap and trade.

Nice idea. Also impossible to implement.

When I go to the gas station, do they ask me what kind of car I drive so that I get taxed accordingly? I would challenge: "the amount that gets emitted is roughly proportionate to the gas used".

If you are trying to impose the tax at the time of the vehicle registration, thats tough too, since you have the problem of determining how many miles I drive.

Even then, people that drive in Los Angeles and Seattle emit a lot more CO2 per mile, since the cars are sitting idling in traffic compared to someone that drives in Billings or Lubbock.

[kenberg]

TimG, on Nov 10 2008, 10:26 PM, said:

kenberg, on Nov 10 2008, 09:03 PM, said:

I haven't been driving that much less. Neither has anyone I know.

I've put about 3000 miles on my vehicle in the last six months which is quite easily less than half of what I put on my vehicle last year over the same six months. I also sold my hybrid SUV and bought a less gas efficient pickup truck. Even so, I've used less gas than I did last year. I know others who have changed their driving habits in the last year.

I have thought that I put on fewer miles than most Americans but three thousand miles in six months is astounding. I assume you own (and use) a bike. We moved three years ago and while I am mostly happy with the results the area is very bike-unfriendly. High speeds, narrow shoulders. A few brave souls venture out and maybe I will give it a try come spring.

A whimsical observation: This is also more of a Republican area than where I lived before. I wonder if there is a correlation between bike trails/lanes and political parties? It wouldn't surprise me. Seattle and Toronto are very bike friendly and, I think, somewhat toward the left politically.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Nov 11 2008, 04:41 PM, said:

Nice idea. Also impossible to implement.

When I go to the gas station, do they ask me what kind of car I drive so that I get taxed accordingly? I would challenge: "the amount that gets emitted is roughly proportionate to the gas used".

If you are trying to impose the tax at the time of the vehicle registration, thats tough too, since you have the problem of determining how many miles I drive.

Even then, people that drive in Los Angeles and Seattle emit a lot more CO2 per mile, since the cars are sitting idling in traffic compared to someone that drives in Billings or Lubbock.

What's the old saying... "Don't make the best the enemy of the good"?

Its not necessary to come up with a system that is perfect; something that is significantly better that we have available today will suffice...

As for your comments about C02 emissions

I can back my statements up quoting standard EPA documents.

https://www.whatcomsmarttrips.org/pdf/Emiss...acts%202005.pdf

Here's a direct quote from said document

Quote

Carbon dioxide (C02), while not regulated as an air pollutant is the transportation sector’s primary contribution to climate change.  Carbon dioxide emissions are essentially proportional to fuel consumption (and inversely proportional to fuel economy)  - each 1% increase (or decrease) in fuel consumption results in a corresponding 1% increase (or decrease) in carbon dioxide emissions.

[helene_t]

pclayton, on Nov 11 2008, 02:41 PM, said:

Nice idea. Also impossible to implement.

Extremely easy to implement. 1kg of coal is 1kg of carbon. One kg of gasoline, diesel or methane slightly less. Just tax fuels per kg of carbon they contain.

The amount of CO2 emitted is proportional to the amount of carbon in the fuel. OK, a tiny bit of the carbon may be emitted in the form of CO or methane or whatever but there is hardly any reason to tax that less.

The current schemes we have over here are much more complicated. Registration taxes on new cars depend on weight and price of the car (so there is an incitement to sell cars with as little extra equipment as possible I suppose) and maybe fuel economy (why on earth should I pay extra for an un-economic car regardless of how little I plan to use it? Besides we can argue for years about how to measure fuel economy), and there is the issue of used cars transfered between countries with different tax schemes. Yearly taxes for owning a car is even worse. Then there are the proposed schemes of taxing the use of cars in inner cities and during rush ours (arghhhh) etc.

Just tax fuel so many cents per kg and get rid of all the other bureaucracy.

[blackshoe]

Al_U_Card, on Nov 11 2008, 09:19 AM, said:

No, I think that your defense budget and medical costs are taking care of that, just fine...

The FY 2007 defense budget was 20% of the total federal budget. Medicare and Medicaid was 21%.