Price TAX Gouging

Our Politicians took advantage of our misery yesterday and grandstanded over the price we pay at the pump. In order to keep the masses calm and make themselves look good - try to - they put the executives of the Oil Companies on display for all of us to see.

Making an example of those who make money off other peoples misery.
When was the last time any of these Politicians LOOKED IN THE MIRROR!?

Not once did I hear them mention how much money our government is making from our misery. Our own governments' (Fed, State, & Local) profits, off each and every gallon of gas we buy, makes the pay of those CEO's look like chump change.
Of course I didn't watch the entire hearing - boring.
Why didn't the Oil Companies point out how much MONEY our Government makes from our suffering?
Could it be because of the tax breaks and incentives they receive on a regular basis from our leaders?

"Local, State and Federal Gas Taxes Consume 45.9 Cents Per Gallon on Average"

From that page:
"In 1932, the federal government imposed the first federal gas tax. It began as a temporary levy with a rate of just 1 cent per gallon. Over the years, the tax burden has increased significantly. The Revenue Act of 1941 made the federal gas tax permanent and increased the rate to 1.5 cents per gallon to help fund the war effort. A decade later in 1951, the tax was increased to 2 cents per gallon to assist in the funding of the Korean War. "

That was only the beginning!

In 1993 the tax raised to 18.4 cents per gallon.
Our Government seems to make sure they earn more money from gasoline than the companies that actually supply it.
In '04 the taxes paid on gasoline, state and federal, more than doubled the profits made by the Oil Companies.
(A better look at State Tax on Gasoline in PDF format from the American Petroleum Institute)

Do the math -
The Oil Companies profit about 10% - that's 10 cents on the dollar.
The Government profits on average 45 cents per gallon.
Yesterday the price here was $2.269/gallon.
Put 20 gallons of gasoline in your calculator and see what you come up with.

The market price yesterday was $1.55/gallon. As of right now it has gone down another 2 cents.

Do the math - use your own price at the pump. How much of a difference do you pay between cost and profit? Profit from all the middle men. Businesses and Government.

If our Government places a windfall profit tax on Big Oil, they will have to do the same for all other companies AND the Government itself.
For the Politicians to sit there and claim the American Public is having it stuck to them by Oil Companies alone is being much less than honest.

Posted by Dawn at November 10, 2005 10:00 AM
Comments
Comment #91754

You don’t mention anywhere what government actually spends taxes on: health care, roads, defense, justice, parks, environmental protection …

Posted by: Steve K at November 10, 2005 10:44 AM
Comment #91757

True. Louisiana has the lowest State Taxes in the country. So low in fact they could not build the New Orlean Levees themselves. They had to wait for the Federals to give them money. Now they whine about the flood.

Posted by: Aldous at November 10, 2005 11:00 AM
Comment #91768

Steve K,

First, I want to make it clear that I am not defending the Oil Companies. Not all people know exactly who gets the money each time they fill up.

If you have the stats on where the actual gas taxes go please show them.
While you’re at it you may subtract any waste.
(One thing I consider waste is the retirement benefits our mostly WEALTHY Politicians receive after doing so much ‘good’ for the rest of us.)

Money from oil company profits are also shared with stockholders who, in turn, pay taxes on that money too.

Posted by: dawn at November 10, 2005 11:35 AM
Comment #91772
If you have the stats on where the actual gas taxes go please show them.

You are equating a tax with a private business’s profit. This is an absolutely false comparison from the get go!

Posted by: Steve K at November 10, 2005 11:43 AM
Comment #91775

These politicians have some nerve. The enviornmentalist and politicians imposed all these regulations and stipulations on the oil industry over the past decades, it’s no wonder we’re not paying $10 per gallon. We need 40 different fuel grades, can’t drill here, no more oil refineries, yada, yada, yada…

Posted by: rahdigly at November 10, 2005 11:50 AM
Comment #91782

One of the reasons the government taxes gas is to decrease cunsumption and encourage development of alternative energy sources. In fact I support higher taxes because that would spur even more alternative energy research.

Posted by: Warren P at November 10, 2005 12:27 PM
Comment #91785
If you have the stats on where the actual gas taxes go please show them.

It really doesn’t matter what the tax money is “earmaked” for. Our current “leaders” in Washington simply lump all of our tax dollars together and give them to the wealthy in the form of tax breaks and incentives. This includes the oil companies themselves. This year Big Oil will get $2.6 billion in new tax breaks. Farm subsidies award our tax dollars to some of the wealthiest farms in the country. The list goes on and on and on, etc., etc., etc.,.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 10, 2005 12:36 PM
Comment #91787

Oh, and let’s not forget our Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” and the like.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 10, 2005 12:39 PM
Comment #91790

Funny how you completely overlook the huge tax breaks oil & gas industry received (and even more breaks and incentives were passed just this year). These are the same companies that cheat states out of royalties (and when they are caught they just ask a senator from Texas to pass a law eliminating their penalties) and have cheated native americans and others of of royalties as well.

If you are such a free-market Republican, why are we subsidizing oil & gas, esp. since this industry hasn’t created net new jobs in 30 years. Add to that the fact that 80% of our defense budget ($4trillion) goes to defend our shipping routes.

I think these oil execs have plenty to answer for.

Posted by: Mike Tracy at November 10, 2005 12:46 PM
Comment #91791

The gas tax pays for highway work. Do you expect construction companies to repave roads for free?

And the take from this tax does not increase with gas prices. This is a Seinfeld post. A post about nothing.

Posted by: Schwamp at November 10, 2005 12:48 PM
Comment #91792

How about the House repugnants caving in on drilling in ANWAR. My goodness, get some backbone and help this country. If we want to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, why not drill hear in the US?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 10, 2005 12:50 PM
Comment #91794

So Dawn, You’re saying : “Our own governments’ (Fed, State, & Local) profits, off each and every gallon of gas we buy, “

Yet, they operate trillions of dollars in the red! BTW, more than 100% of the govt’s income goes to the DoD or debt service so don’t give me the GOP lies about welfare sucking us dry.

I don’t get your post. Do you want me to believe that an increase in gas prices of over 100% (remember, much of the cost of gas is a consistent tax so the increase as a percent is based on only part of the price) when the cost of oil went up only fractionally, is reasonable? And, that despite the obscene profits, more than any company ever, you think they deserve more tax breaks?

Holy crap! I can’t believe people really believe that.

Posted by: Dave at November 10, 2005 12:52 PM
Comment #91795

Dawn
I think the 45 cents is conservative. I have heard on a variety of programs that it is closer to 60 cents. Be that as it may. I think the point you are trying to make is narrow and good. And that is that the profit the government makes on a gallon of oil is scandalous. If the congress wanted to help the citizenry it should put on hold the fed tax on gasoline. That would help people in general. This flows thru to natural gas prices as well. What the congress wants to do is pure socialism and marxist. Redistribution of the wealth. Don’t be surprised if there is an entourage of congressmen taking a learning trip to Zibabwe to learn from Robert Mugabe how to confiscate property.

Posted by: tomh at November 10, 2005 12:57 PM
Comment #91797

rahdigly
I agree. There is enough oil below Utah, Colorado and Wyoming to remove us from the middle east oil dependency and also from Venezuela. It time for the congress to show they have gonads and make a decision that is neither rep or dem and pro-american.

Posted by: tomh at November 10, 2005 1:03 PM
Comment #91800
I think these oil execs have plenty to answer for.

Mike,

It is actually the Repulicans in congress that have plenty to answer for.

We live in a free market capitalist society. Unfortunatly there really is not any true competition in the industry to drive prices down.

Republicans wrote an energy bill that gave $14.5 billion in new tax breaks and incentives to the energy industry, including big oil. Apparently, these tax dollars were given to the industry to “stay the course.”

Instead of awarding the energy industry for keeping the status quo, why don’t our leader award energy companies that are aggressive in research and development of new energy sources.

For instance if the auto industry was awarded those tax breaks and incentives for creating cars that ran entirly on Ethanol and the energy industry was awarded for creating new Ethanol production facilities, it would lessen our dependance on foreign oil and create true competition in the industry.

A side effect would be a huge new demand for domestic corn products, which could result in an end of farm subsidies.

But then again, what do I know, I’m just a tax payer.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 10, 2005 1:09 PM
Comment #91802

Ok, quick question. If the price of gasoline was .90 cents when oil cost $10 per barrel five years ago, doesn’t that equate to 9% of the cost per barrel? Today it’s around $2.50 per gallon at $65 per barrell. Now doesn’t that equate to 4% of the cost per barrel? In fact, if it was 9% today, shouldn’t we be paying $5.85 per gallon?

Someone throw me a line please. And don’t get sarcastic if my equation is wrong. Thanks :)

Posted by: rahdigly at November 10, 2005 1:11 PM
Comment #91810

rahdigly,

You are probably correct. Gas prices are actually at historic lows when you factor in inflation.

Americans actually pay less for a gallon of gas than most other countries. In fact it is the increase in gas prices that has spurred development of new oil sources.

In the last few years Canada has overtaken Saudi Arabia as the biggest exporter of forein oil into the U.S. This was made possible because the price of extracting the oil from Canadian oil sands is around $18-$20 a barrel. (compared to $2-$4 a barrel it costs in the middle east.) With a barrel of oil selling for $50-$70 a barrel it has become profitable enough for Canada to extract the oil from the largest deposit of oil in the world. Unfortunatly this oil is in the form of oil sands. Which is expensive to extract the oil from the sands, which accounts for the higher production cost.

The point is that big oil is making enough money now to spend their own money on new production, that our government should not be handing our tax dollars over to them.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 10, 2005 1:36 PM
Comment #91820

Dawn,
I liked this post better when it was on Hannity and Colmes. Can you conservatives come up with things by yourself or do you have to be spoon fed everything? I will be sure to tune into Rush so I know what your next post will be about.

Posted by: Vic at November 10, 2005 2:17 PM
Comment #91831

Does anyone know what the oil industries profit margin is and what it normally is? And how much of this profit is from inventory profit?

Posted by: Dr. Bob at November 10, 2005 2:51 PM
Comment #91834

Do the math, oil companies only make 10% on gas. What in the world are you talking about. You’re telling me the the oil companies were only making 10% profit on a $30 barrel of oil, and now that oil is around $60 a barrel they are still only making 10%. Where in the world did you get these numbers, and why are oil companies coming up with extremely high record profits. I think you need to take some more math. The cost to get the barrel of oil hasn’t gone up that much, the price is high because of the demand. The other issue is that government doesn’t make a percentage of how much gas costs. They have a set rate per gallon sold, so we pay the same in taxes if we are buying gas for $1 or $3 per gallon. The governments profit hasn’t gone up any at all. The other issue is that this money goes to pay for transportation. Until you can find a way to fund building roads better then this you let us know. Most conservative tax advisors would say that we should make the people that drive on the roads pay for them. That is precisely what this gas tax does. I think that your argument is weak.

Posted by: Ivan Mitchell at November 10, 2005 3:09 PM
Comment #91836

You don’t mention anywhere what government actually spends taxes on: health care, roads, defense, justice, parks, environmental protection

Posted by: Steve K at November 10, 2005 10:44 AM

If you have the stats on where the actual gas taxes go please show them.

Posted by: dawn at November 10, 2005 11:35 AM

If you have the stats on where the actual gas taxes go please show them.
You are equating a tax with a private business’s profit. This is an absolutely false comparison from the get go!

Posted by: Steve K at November 10, 2005 11:43 AM

Can we assume you don’t have the the stats?
You brought up a good point about where the tax money is actually spent. I’d like to see those stats too if you have them.
The gas tax money is supposedly to go to roads. I doubt most of it goes there though.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 10, 2005 3:11 PM
Comment #91839

Farm subsidies award our tax dollars to some of the wealthiest farms in the country. The list goes on and on and on, etc., etc., etc.,.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 10, 2005 12:36 PM

Evidently you don’t live on a farm. The Government gives subsidies to ANY farmer that that wants them regardless of their wealth. And tries to force them on the one’s that don’t.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 10, 2005 3:18 PM
Comment #91840

Vic,

Was this on H & C? I missed that one.

A discussion with my brother a WEEK ago about gas prices actually inspired me to write this … it wasn’t fed to me on a spoon.
Anyway…
after reading thru the posts …

There isn’t enough land to produce enough corn to run all of our vehicles.
Ford Motors - according to their commercials - is going to rescue us from our dependency on Mid-East Oil.
ANWAR is out.
I believe CA is the state that pays around 60 cents.

If I knew EXACTLY where the money goes - like the roads we drive on - I wouldn’t mind paying the tax.

Ron,
Hope he’s looking.

The point of this was to show people that it ISN’T just the oil companies who get their money.
Not everyone is as well educated as some of you who responded.


Posted by: dawn at November 10, 2005 3:21 PM
Comment #91843

Dave,

When did I mention this?

“….the GOP lies about welfare sucking us dry.”

and this:

“And, that despite the obscene profits, more than any company ever, you think they deserve more tax breaks?”

It would actually please me if I knew for a FACT that the taxes on gasoline were ACTUALLY helping the poor in our country with food, housing, healthcare & education.

I don’t recall EVER saying I agree with ANY tax breaks for the Oil Companies.

Holy crap!
Get a bigger spoon.

Posted by: dawn at November 10, 2005 3:31 PM
Comment #91844

Oh, and let’s not forget our Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” and the like.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 10, 2005 12:39 PM

That bridge is important. How else do you expect the politicians from Alaska to get reelected.


How about the House repugnants caving in on drilling in ANWAR. My goodness, get some backbone and help this country. If we want to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, why not drill hear in the US?

Posted by: rahdigly at November 10, 2005 12:50 PM

Agreed!

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 10, 2005 3:31 PM
Comment #91846

Vic
It is really hard to understand the mind set of a person or situation unless you have experienced or are experiencing the mindset of said person or situation. For instance one can understand somewhat cancer of the body. But until you have studied at research level or experienced cancer of the body personally you can only empathize or have compassion for the victim. Until you have become a comservative or I become a liberal (which will never happen) you cannot understand that a conservative does not have to be spoon fed anything. The liberal position lacks logic so many times that the mindset is a variety of ranges that settles to unstable. That is why a liberal lacks clarity of position.

Posted by: tomh at November 10, 2005 3:34 PM
Comment #91852
Evidently you don’t live on a farm. The Government gives subsidies to ANY farmer that that wants them regardless of their wealth. And tries to force them on the one’s that don’t.

No I do not live on a farm, but you make my point exactly. Why is the government giving our tax dollars to just ANY farm regardless of wealth. Shouldn’t their be standards as to whom the money goes?

There isn’t enough land to produce enough corn to run all of our vehicles.


I never said that ALL of our vehicles had to be Ethanol capable. But that by encouraging companies to develop alternatives to big oil, it would increase competition in the market and reduce our dependancy on foriegn oil.

Besides, I think your statement would rely highly on what the fuel effeciency of such vehicles could become. Also, Ethanol isn’t the only possible alternative. It’s called Research and Development. That’s why we need to shift our tax breaks and incentives away from companies that only “stay the course” and move it to companies that are actively working on a solution to the problem.

The liberal position lacks logic so many times that the mindset is a variety of ranges that settles to unstable. That is why a liberal lacks clarity of position.

So you think that it is logical to give our tax dollars away to companies that are making more money than any other industry in history? And you think it’s logical to continue with policies that promote the status quo and only add to the problem? Apparently that is the logic of the Repubs. The percieved liberal lack of clarity of position only exists in the mind of the right.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 10, 2005 4:17 PM
Comment #91855

No I do not live on a farm, but you make my point exactly. Why is the government giving our tax dollars to just ANY farm regardless of wealth. Shouldn’t their be standards as to whom the money goes?

To waste OUR tax money.
I have 25 head of Angus cattle on my place. The price of beef dropped drastictlly a few years ago. The Dept. of Agriciulture told me that I had to signup for a price subsidy. When I told them I didn’t want it, they told me that I didn’t really have a choise. The program was there and I had to use it. I reckon they’re still tyring to figure out what I meant by ’ Shove your subsidies in you a.. I wonder if they’d try to make me take a subsidy if my cattle were stolen even though I have them insured.


Posted by: Ron Brown at November 10, 2005 4:28 PM
Comment #91863

Ron Brown
I think your argument is simple, as it should be. Is it constitutional? NO! Then get outta here. Now it must be looked at for all the institutions in DC that are unconstitutional. The Agriculture, Education, HUD, OSHA, and I think you get the drift. Get rid of those institutions where the United States Constitution does not authorize them and save the tax payers a bundle of money. If any of those institutions should exist, it should be at the state or local level. Then we could make progress on the economic front, the social front, the international front and so on. As they used to say in some other decade, Keep the Faith.

Posted by: tomh at November 10, 2005 4:54 PM
Comment #91875

tomh,

Right on! Section I, article 8 spells out the roll of the federal government.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
All other functions that are not explicitly spelled out by the constitution fall to the individual states. This one line makes much of the federal government unconstitutional. The main function of the federal government is national defense and even that is limited.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Doesn’t this make the continued funding of the Iraq war unconstitutional? (off topic, I know)


Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 10, 2005 5:42 PM
Comment #91880

I find it extremely ironic that we love to praise ourselves for this notion that we have a great and profitable “free market economy” yet every major industry gets huge subsidies every year. That’s not a free market, that’s welfare. But people defend it. This year we’re talking about oil. A few years back it was the aeronautics industry. Before that is was bioengineering, etc, etc. All making profits yet all getting huge Govt. handouts. It’s just socialism with a profit.

Now would these industries be profitable without the welfare? I don’t know. I tend to think they would. I think their profit might be ONLY 2 billion instead of 7 billion, as in the case of Exxon/Mobil this last quarter.

Food for thought.

Posted by: Matthew at November 10, 2005 6:02 PM
Comment #91902

tomh

Most of the Governments agencies are not Constitutional if you look in the Constitution for them. So are most if not all the spending programs that Congress has enacted over the last several decades.
I agree that we need to get rid of ALL these unconstitutional agencies and programs. We just might be able to balance the budget if we did.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 10, 2005 8:54 PM
Comment #91904

Matthew

Now would these industries be profitable without the welfare? I don’t know. I tend to think they would. I think their profit might be ONLY 2 billion instead of 7 billion, as in the case of Exxon/Mobil this last quarter.

I think they would too. The subsidies are their reward for their huge campaign contrabutions.
These contributions are how the PC get the money needed to spread their lies and keep their jobs. They then reward these coroporations with the subsidies.
It’s just another example of the irresponsibilty of our elected officials.
It’s time for WE THE PEOPLE to take our Government back from these corrupt and irresponsible politicians. That is why starting with the next election cycle, we need to vote nonincumbent third party or independent, and keep voting the incumbents out untill OUR EMPLOYEES get the idea that WE ARE THE BOSSES, NOT THEM.
The only thing I ever agreed with Ross Parot on is that WE the taxpayers ARE the owners of this country. NOT the politicians.

http://voidnow.org

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 10, 2005 9:20 PM
Comment #91919

Steve K….where do you think that the oil company’s profits go to? Do you think they hoard that money away? They spend money on exploration and drilling and maintenance on refineries. Exploration can’t be done in this country, so they send that money (and it is VERY expensive) to the Middle East in Kuwait, Qatar, and the like. Off-shore drilling is the ONLY means of “exploration” is allowed “within” the US borders but that’s on the chopping block of the environmentalists too. And maintenance of refineries is paramount and the equipment they are repairing is 30 years old and possibly obsolete in all practical respects that it is expensive to replace…and again the environmentalists are all over that if they have to adjust or move a pipe. Also, equating taxes to a company’s profits is a GREAT analogy except the government does not provide any real goods for the average comsumer and we are FORCED to give them money and not told where it goes or if it is wasted. In private industry, that kind of practice would be terminated for lack of productivity.

warren p…”One of the reasons the government taxes gas is to decrease cunsumption and encourage development of alternative energy sources. In fact I support higher taxes because that would spur even more alternative energy research.” Slightly right…higher taxes would simply encourage oil companies to find loop-holes in the tax laws (because they’re always there). Second, the taxes are NOT to decrease consumption unless you’re talking about cigarettes (that are what $12 a pack now?). For that to be true the tax on gas would have to be $1.50 or more for consumption to go down and for it to be non-economical to drive anymore. We live in a country unlike any other in the world (thanks Dwight Eisenhower) where the car and not mass transit (trains, busses, etc) is the major mode of transport. The fuel of choice is gasoline…therefore we are dependent on it. There are over 57 different blends of 87 octane gasoline that HAVE to be produced for the different areas of the country. The regulation is ridiculous.

Finally, I live and work in Nebraska and I work for the Dept of Roads and build highways for a living. The state of Nebraska has consistently a gas price in the bottom 10 in price, but has the 7th highest state gas tax in the country. There is one MAJOR difference between Nebraska and most other states and the federal govt. ALL of Nebraska’s gas tax goes into a special state “account” that pays for all road projects and the entire budget for the Dept of Roads. We still receive federal money for projects, but only through the highway bills that are passed. If the fed would set up a similar account to pay for the FHWA and all partially federally funded projects (b/c NONE are 100% funded federally)using the gas tax…we’d find that our gas tax would go down…a LOT, and thus our gas prices.

Posted by: Robert at November 10, 2005 11:25 PM
Comment #91929

The problem with oil is that it’s the chief resource and foundation of our infrastructure. In order to replace oil with alternative fuels, we have to redesign that infrastructure.

We haven’t even started. We have a lack of leadership, and that void is costing our future generations devastating hardships. While Bush (and countless others) support more discovery and refineries, they fail to see the faults of that plan. See, we are already using more than twice as much oil as we are discovering because demand is outgrowing supply, so you guys want to —>USE MORE OIL EVEN FASTER?story of Easter Island, which some may find humorous, others sad, and still others horse crap.

Our complacency will kill us, just like a frog in steadily hotter water. The design of our government is a good thing, but we desperately need to take back the reigns, and no, I’m not calling for yet another switch to the “other party”. We must overcome our ignorance, our complacency, our greed, and our petty disputes with rival political team-whores. Then (pfft) take back the electorate, then the government, then perhaps we have a chance at diverting a tragedy. I think of us, the oppressed, as the wayfarers, the third class boarders of the Titanic; what would it take for some of us to get to the deck and steer the ship away from the iceburg? Well for starters, we have to believe that an iceburg could exist, and that the Titanic could sink if it hits it, regardless of being assured that “not even God can sink this ship”.

Posted by: subverter at November 11, 2005 12:48 AM
Comment #91933

Sorry — Correction in text:

After —>USE MORE OIL EVEN FASTER?

Insert:

We are in a mess, obviously, but don’t fool yourselves into expecting some genius plan from our entirely reactionary government. Just wait until the fact that Gwahar is gushing 55% seawater gets stuck to the major headlines when they finally can’t omit it anymore. Oh, what do we do? Find and use more oil faster than before? Why would anyone in their right mind conclude this? Iraq has the most known underulized oil fields in the world … coincidence? Bzzzzzz!

On that note, ever thought that we might (likely) be heading for a global die-off? With all our technology and brains, which thus far has simply enabled us to gut the earth more efficiently, we think perhaps that we are above and beyond that scenario. One of the closest comparisons to our situation in history is the story of Easter Island, which some may find humorous, others sad, and still others horse crap.

Posted by: subverter at November 11, 2005 12:52 AM
Comment #91956

Ivan Mitchell said:

“The other issue is that government doesn’t make a percentage of how much gas costs. They have a set rate per gallon sold, so we pay the same in taxes if we are buying gas for $1 or $3 per gallon. The governments profit hasn’t gone up any at all.”

Is this accurate?

You are right that the Federal tax rate has not gone up since 1993. You are correct that the tax is PER gallon and NOT based on the dollar amount of gasoline.

But..
Their profit hasn’t gone up?

It would be my guess that there are MORE vehicles on the roads since 1993.
It would also be my guess that this means more gasoline consumption.

The vehicles on our roads are getting less mileage per gallon - more gasoline consumption?

The rate is PER gallon. The more gallons of gas WE use the more money the government gets.

Could this be the REAL reason why our government doesn’t demand vehicles that get better gas mileage? The government can’t afford it.

If we start driving vehicles that get 60 miles to the gallon our government will have to change the tax from per gallon to per dollar.
Isn’t that like a 60% tax? Triple mileage - triple tax to make up for it.
OR triple the per gallon tax.
I really can’t see them making all of us turn in our mileage and pay a ‘miles driven’ tax.
How will that go over with the average American?
Especially if the government continues to be seen as mismanagers of our money.

Posted by: dawn at November 11, 2005 8:00 AM
Comment #92014

I own two businesses and am a partner in a third.
One of the businesses I own is a country store. We are currently selling gas for $2.219 a gallon. Of this $2.219 I make 3 cents. The tax, federal, state, and local is 46.7 cents. That leaves $1.722 a gallon that the oil company gets. I don’t know what it cost them to buy, refine, and get the gas to me. But one thing I’ll bet on, they’re making more than 3 cents a gallon.
BTW, when was the last time you bought a gallon of gas and got charged the 9/10 of a cent? @ $2.219 you’ll be charged $2.22. Guess who doesn’t get that extra 10th of a cent? You have to buy 10 gallons of gas before that 9/10 cent comes out to and even 1 cent. Untill then the pump rounds up to the next cent. And guess who doesn’t get that?

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 11, 2005 11:45 AM
Comment #92031

i would like to now why new york gas prices are 2.48+ when p.a. is 2.16 ,maryland is 2.20 etc . could it be that chuck schumer is up for election or maybe M.Hincey.last go round maurce was going to look into gas gouging,got elected and then no answers. Now Schumer (Press & sun-bulletin fri. nov. 11 ,2005) Says because of the high cost of fuel that school districts could pay 18% more to heat and run buses . So he has introduced a bill that would allow hard hit districts to get grants from u.s.dept of energy .Yes you guessed it a tax on oil companys . who do these politican’s think the money comes from ? so then gas prices will stay up to pay for the new tax . and of course the politican’s will ride scott free in limo’s paid for by the working poor

Posted by: joe at November 11, 2005 12:30 PM
Post a comment