"A gas tax holiday proposed by U.S. presidential hopefuls John McCain and Hillary Clinton is viewed as a bad idea by many economists"

YEAH!

Duh! Anyone with Half a Brain can deduce that another "tax holiday" in the throes of a crumbling highway infrastructure, a War, the first DECREASE in fuel consumption in decades and most ironically what GW himself declared an Oil "shortage" (even though there is no evidence of stations running out of gas or lines of cars waiting to get gas) a measure that's intended to INCREASE wasteful consumption of Fuel and ultimately further deepen our dependence on dictators is a dumb short sided idea that does nothing but make today's problem tomorrows problem!

With that said im sure it will get full support from the Bush Cult

let's suspend the gas tax and also suspend any Iraqi reconstruction projects till the tax returns.

let's suspend the gas tax and also suspend any Iraqi reconstruction projects till the tax returns.

For the first time in my adult life I agree with Obama, I really agree with him.

This is the dumbest gimmick I have heard...besides of course the gimmicks Obama and Hillary tried to pull by giving $1,000's of dollars for simply being born.

Duh! Anyone with Half a Brain can deduce that another "tax holiday" in the throes of a crumbling highway infrastructure,

Posted by Redneckville

Our bridges have been in a sad state of repair for at least 30 years. That IS old news.

Take a real close look at the federal budget and you tell me where there are the places for the biggest cuts. That is what we realy need, a smaller government.

"That is what we realy need, a smaller government."

Then I'd imagine you're pissed beyond belief at an administration which grew government more than any Democrat's wet dream.

Let's just "suspend" all taxes. We'll just borrow from the Chinese and let our kids pay for it.

"Take a real close look at the federal budget and you tell me where there are the places for the biggest cuts."

Those Republicans had six years of complete control and still they didn't cut that which you think is the problem. Me thinks they just like to have something to bitch about. Raise taxes on the rich, as we have always done, and balance the budget. No more wars without taxation to pay for them no matter how many crazy Republicans tell you we can have both guns and butter.

Take a real close look at the federal budget and you tell me where there are the places for the biggest cuts.

Military.

Republicans "just like to have something to bitch about."

Yea, Democrats never bitch. They are the problem solvers of the country. They always take the pro-active approach. They are always looking at the positive side of things. When they are in power everything comes up roses.

Stupid fluff pandering.

Ness,

Military is about the only thing the Feds should spend money on because no one else can do it.

"When they are in power everything comes up roses."

Well, if you consider a budget surplus roses then you are correct.

Funny how "privatize" is the mantra right up until you get to the military. Then its "well we need the guberment ta do that." Yes, some things are too important to be left to the vampires in corporate America. The military is one of them. Healthcare is another. In fact is there anything more important than the health of our citizens? The only thing the private sector is good for is leeching the most money out of us while providing the least amount of service.

Economists' mantra: let gas prices get high enough, and better mass transit will emerge.

They may be right, but no candidate who gives a damn about lower-income folks should be willing to make them bear the brunt of the Bush Administration's failures until it does.

For the life of me, I can't figure out how this is a "dumb gimmick" or "pandering." Can someone please tell me why this is a bad idea?

-Can someone please tell me why this is a bad idea?

Obama didn't come up with it.

Joe,
It is a gimmick because it's like putting a band aid on a bullet wound; yer still gonna bleed to death just a fraction of a second slower if at all. It is bad because that money (hopefully) goes into maintaining our transportation infrastructure.

You are a law student, yes? How are your grades?

Joe,

-Can someone please tell me why this is a bad idea?


It's the dumbest idea to attract dumb people so far in this election campaign.

Only McCain and his dopplegangerette Hillary think it's a good idea.

Joe,
Because this suspension will save your average citizen about $4. It's a feel good measure that sounds good but in reality it's a gimmick.

Hillary plans to suspend the tax and then tax the oil companies.

Supplies are tight so the oil companies will just increase their price and pass the tax back onto the consumers.

People like to throw out the whole supplies are tight type comments, but there are no shortages at the pumps. For prices to rise a sharply as they have I think one would expect to see shortages similar to the 70's. I only have a BA in Economics Math minor and I am pretty rusty so I could be wrong.

What was Obama's cash give away in regards to? I forgot what his equally stupid offer was.

Posted by 101Chairborne


Sort of a waste of a post, eh chair? Let us know when you come up with it.

For the life of me, I can't figure out how this is a "dumb gimmick" or "pandering." Can someone please tell me why this is a bad idea?

Posted by JOE
* * * *

Well, because the fuel tax is one of the only true use taxes there are, and true conservatives shouldn't have a problem with them. That's why fuel taxes on diesel are so much higher--they are used primarily by large trucks and heavy commercial vehicles, which tear up the roads to a far greater extent than passenger cars. Someone who drives more should pay more in road use taxes than someone who doesn't; by repealing the tax, the repairs and maintenance of the roads are going to be done anyway--they have to be--but people who drive 50,000 miles a year should pay 5 times more than people who drive 10,000.
Also, virtually all the spending stays in the local community; a station that collects $10,000 in fuel tax receipts has almost all that money spent in the county in which it was collected.
In an imperfect analogy, suppose Yosemite Park has a big spike in costs, to maintain the roads and bridges there. It would be better to raise that money via higher tolls and admittance fees to the park itself, rather than asking the citizens of Georgia and Maine to pony up more tax money.

Sort of a waste of a post, eh chair? Let us know when you come up with it.

Posted by midiman at 2008-05-02 11:19 AM | Reply

No, not at all Maxipad. Turns out we were wrong though, it wasn't an "it", but a whole slew of pandering. Read it and weep limpwrist:


If Mr. Obama is beholden to taxpayer-funded, government-designed highway and energy pork projects, he has gone hog wild over "refundable tax credits," which is the polite description of taxpayer-financed cash payments to people who pay no income taxes. Mr. Obama promises a $4,000 refundable tax credit to finance college tuition for students who spend 100 hours performing community service. There will be a refundable 10 percent mortgage-interest tax credit for married couples who take the $10,900 standard deduction because their itemizable deductions (including mortgage interest) fall below that level. Couples will also receive a refundable $1,000 tax credit to offset payroll taxes even if their refundable earned-income tax credit (EITC) has already eliminated their payroll-tax burden. Taxpayers will also finance a $500 refundable tax credit to augment a $1,000 savings-account deposit made by families earning up to $75,000.



Mr. Obama also promises to "triple the [EITC] benefit for minimum-wage workers." Let's do the math. For a married couple with two children working full-time and earning the minimum wage ($5.85 per hour, $24,336 per year), their refundable EITC would rise from $3,225 to $9,675. They already qualify for refundable child tax credits totaling about $1,850. Mr. Obama would increase their refundable child-care tax credit to $3,000. Don't forget his refundable $1,000 tax credit to partly offset their $1,500 Social Security taxes, which had already been more than offset by their nearly $10,000 refundable EITC. If they put that $1,000 in the bank, they would get another refundable tax credit of $500. A future editorial will examine how Mr. Obama intends to pay for all this.

Source was the Washington Times

Salaryman-

"It is a gimmick because it's like putting a band aid on a bullet wound; yer still gonna bleed to death just a fraction of a second slower if at all. It is bad because that money (hopefully) goes into maintaining our transportation infrastructure.

You are a law student, yes? How are your grades?"

The government cannot and should not do anything about oil prices other than what relates to their own tax upon that fuel. The government has trillions of dollars to spend every year, and they should be able to maintain our roads with what they have without adding to the cost of fuel.

My grades are just fine.

"Because this suspension will save your average citizen about $4."

The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. If you gave Americans the choice between spending $4.00 per gallon and $4.18 per gallon, they would all line up at the $4.00 pump. The aggregate savings doesn't matter. The fact is that nobody likes the gas tax, and the fed has trillions they could be spending on our roads they they choose to spend on other moronic things, like eggplant subsidies and wars with arabs.

The political pandering is strong with these two...

And yes, the biggest place to cut spending is the military. Why do we have to spend double what all of Europe spends, and 10x what China spends? I'm all for maintaining military superiority, but there has to be at least some inquisition into what is fiscally necessary and what isn't. Right now the military has a blank check to spend WHATEVER it wants, and we're left with the bill. I want accountability instead of pet projects for various congressman's districts...

"Well, because the fuel tax is one of the only true use taxes there are"

That's the only good argument I've heard against the repeal of the fuel tax.

Maybe a compromise could be reached. Considering the fact that the government diverted $7 Billion to ethanol subsidies in 2006 ($1.45 per gallon), perhaps they could just divert that money to subsidizing gasoline to bring the price down.

also... just ran the math:

I use about 2 gallons/day to commute back and forth to work (and driving on the weekends is negligible).

2 gallons/day = 10 gallons/week = 40 gallons/month = 100 gallons between Memorial Day and Labor Day.

100 gallons x $.18 federal tax = $18.

Eighteen freakin' dollars!! *This* is what clinton and mccain are going on and on and on over, and what pundits like Scarborough keep harping on? Give me a FREAKIN' break.

Maybe a compromise could be reached. Considering the fact that the government diverted $7 Billion to ethanol subsidies in 2006 ($1.45 per gallon), perhaps they could just divert that money to subsidizing gasoline to bring the price down.

Posted by JOE
* * * *

A better idea would be to shut down the ethanol program completely. That would demolish commodities prices in the ags, and food prices would come down, dramatically. I would rather save Americans $100 a month at the supermarket than $12 at the pump; repealing these ridiculous ethanol mandates would do exactly that, and it would happen very, very quickly.
As long as we're growing corn at $6 a bushel to burn in our car engines, getting just under 2 gallons out of every bush, we're losing money, and getting hungry. It's so stupid, and the results so completely and predictably disastrous, that only a Dem Congress and the Bush people could've come up with it.

Also from that link.

Another economist, Jeffrey Perloff, of UC-Berkeley, agreed that a federal tax moratorium would likely have less impact on consumer gas prices than a state moratorium. He said his models showed that a suspension of the 18.4-cent federal tax on gasoline would likely result in a temporary 9- to 12-cent reduction in the cost of a gallon of gas to the consumer, with the remainder of the reduction coming in wholesale prices.

The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. If you gave Americans the choice between spending $4.00 per gallon and $4.18 per gallon, they would all line up at the $4.00 pump. The aggregate savings doesn't matter. The fact is that nobody likes the gas tax, and the fed has trillions they could be spending on our roads they they choose to spend on other moronic things, like eggplant subsidies and wars with arabs.

Posted by JOE at 2008-05-02 12:03 PM | Reply |

Joe,
You asked why it was a gimmick. It's a gimmick because they are actually wasting their time talking about something (and making it seem as if this Holiday is important) that will save the average Joe $4.
It's not as if this is for a year, 5 years, or 10 years.

What sense does it make to discuss a $4 per citizen savings other than to explain it away as a gimmick.

Never occurred to me 'til just now, but whenever the Bush Administration and the Democratic Congress seem to agree on something, it's going to suck. No Child Left Behind, the new drug plan for seniors, now ethanol--a disaster. A total disaster, that was universally predicted by everyone in the markets.

Of course, nobody asked any of us. As long as Iowa kicks off the elections calendar, we can expect to starve peasants to death around the world so that we can pay our farmers to grow corn that goes up in smoke, and out our exhaust pipes.

"A better idea would be to shut down the ethanol program completely."

See the thread I recently posted on the back page. A bill has been introduced to do just that.

"You asked why it was a gimmick. It's a gimmick because they are actually wasting their time talking about something (and making it seem as if this Holiday is important) that will save the average Joe $4."

It doesn't seem like a gimmick to me if the average American would rather pay 18 cents less per gallon than they do.

Joe,

They are not going to 18 cents less per gallon. Prices will raise to counter some of that.

"Prices will raise to counter some of that."

Nonsense. By that logic we should never repeal or lower any sales tax.

Joe,

Did you read any of my links. When they reduced the gas tax in Illinois by 5%, the consumers only saw a 3% reduction in price.

It is not nonsense. It is what trained economists say will happen. The refiners will grab some of the decrease (a few cents, by most accounts) to boost their profits. But please tell us more, Economist Joe.

"Economists also saw it is a poor way of getting money to the households that need it most and warned that it might end up in the cash tills of the oil companies.

"If you want to provide households tax relief, a direct rebate ... is more effective. Not all of the tax relief from a gas tax holiday will be passed on to consumers. Some will likely be kept by refiners," Mankiw said in an e-mail response."

Who is this liberal idiot Mankiw?

--Joe

"Score one for Obama," wrote Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. "In light of the side effects associated with driving ... gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower."

"The question to ask about such plans, says Billy Pizer, an economist with the Washington, D.C., think tank Resources for the Future, is how much of the money will flow into the hands of consumers versus corporations."

Duh! None.
--Joe

"The fact is that nobody likes the gas tax, and the fed has trillions they could be spending on our roads they they choose to spend on other moronic things, like eggplant subsidies and wars with arabs."

What a weird argument. The "fed has trillions" from taxes. Those trillions aren't manna from heaven. How does it make more sense to use income taxes or payroll taxes to pay for roads and bridges?

"In light of the side effects associated with driving ... gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower."

That's assuming that we have no other funds to fix our roads with. The government is spending billions in Iraq, but we need 18 cents per gallon of gas to fix our own roads? Yes, I do disagree with Mankiw on this point.

I happen to believe in true cost pricing, where the price of various goods and services reflect their true cost on society. Using the income tax paid by a dedicated bicycle commuter to pay for interstate highways and bridges subsidizes automobile drivers and trucking companies.

"I happen to believe in true cost pricing, where the price of various goods and services reflect their true cost on society."

Agreed. That fact is that gasoline taxes are not nearly high enough to cover the externalities generated by our addiction to oil.

So what? There are plenty of other taxes paid for social programs in our society that subsidize only those who benefit from it. I take it you're against medicaid?

What do you mean? Gas prices should be less, not more! And what's this 'externality' you speak of? Can I use it to get a student loan?

--Joe

"I take it you're against medicaid?

Posted by JOE at 2008-05-02 01:11 PM"

No, you idiot. I think that, whenever possible, goods and services should be priced to reflect their true cost on society. (I should mention that this is not some novel idea I thought up myself - it's not even particularly controversial among people who actually think.)

"That's assuming that we have no other funds to fix our roads with."

There are "no other funds to fix our roads with" that aren't generated by taxes. So what's with this particular animus against gas taxes? I thought libertarians loved flat taxes.

I think that too. But when you say that "using the income tax paid by a dedicated bicycle commuter to pay for interstate highways and bridges subsidizes automobile drivers and trucking companies," you suggest that only the user of the government-provided service should have to pay for it. Of course, now you add the caveat that this should only be done "whenever possible," which essentially makes it a big tax on people or groups that have money, and no tax on people who don't.

I am all for it. Let's have a gas tax holiday.

It's the best idea ever.

Second best idea.

Let's have a payroll tax holiday, too.

No money from your paycheck for taxes.

Then, in three months, let's see the gov't go back to taking it.

Want to see a tax revolt?

You truly are an idiot, Joe. Or, you're almost idiotic and you just hate to admit when you're wrong. You get yourself backed into more corners, Mr. Gov't Subsidized School Loan "Libertarian."

"what's with this particular animus against gas taxes?"

Gas is expensive. Working people living paycheck to paycheck are seeing their standard of living decrease because they now have to pay $40-$80 everytime they fill up their tank. And yet, federal and state governments are taking an average of 42 cents per gallon sold.

I don't have a problem with taxing the shit out of unnecessary or luxury purchases. Gas is not a luxury for most people.

Munty-

Respond to my 1:20 post without insulting me, or just shut the fuck up. You are a waste of time.

Raise the taxes on gas.

I ride a horse and they're cheaper these days.

"But when you say that "using the income tax paid by a dedicated bicycle commuter to pay for interstate highways and bridges subsidizes automobile drivers and trucking companies," you suggest that only the user of the government-provided service should have to pay for it.

Posted by JOE at 2008-05-02 01:20 PM"

No, I don't. I suggest that, whenever possible, goods and services should be priced to reflect their true cost on society. Only an idiot would suggest that this concept can be applied to every issue and every governmental outlay.

Now, why do you think gasoline should be subsidized, Faux Libertarian Joe?

"Only an idiot would suggest that this concept can be applied to every issue and every governmental outlay."

I never said it "could" be applied to every governmental outlay. I said that only applying true-cost pricing "whenever possible" is just another way of saying "i only support a use tax when it can be imposed on the rich."

"Now, why do you think gasoline should be subsidized, Faux Libertarian Joe?"

When did I say that gas should be subsidized? If we are choosing between subsidizing gas or ethanol, I would choose gas. I'd actually prefer subsidizing nothing. What does that have to do with taxing gas?

""i only support a use tax when it can be imposed on the rich."

Posted by JOE at 2008-05-02 02:03 PM"

Wrong again. Are you really this dense, Lil' Joe? How is making automobile drivers pay the true cost of burning gasoline imposing a tax only on the rich? Newsflash, Joe - most people drive cars. Even poor people.

Poor people also use social services like welfare and medicaid. Why don't you support making those users pay the true cost of the services they use?

"I said that only applying true-cost pricing "whenever possible" is just another way of saying "i only support a use tax when it can be imposed on the rich.""

You're all over the map. First you say poor people suffer the most from a gas tax and then you claim it's a tax on the rich.

"What does that have to do with taxing gas?

Posted by JOE at 2008-05-02 02:04 PM"

Currently, many externalities associated with burning gasoline (e.g., air pollution, water pollution, adverse health effects, etc.) are not included in the price of gasoline. Rather, society bears these costs, not gasoline purchasers. Raising the taxes on gas and using the resulting funds to pay for these externalities would promote true cost pricing of gasoline.

I didn't say that a gas tax is a tax on the rich. I said only applying a use tax "when it can be" is ultimately progressive by its very nature. The fact that the only time it "can't be" is when the poorest are receiving services paid for by everyone else is proof of that. If I said something else, this is what I meant.

"many externalities associated with burning gasoline (e.g., air pollution, water pollution, adverse health effects, etc"

Add in:

Property damage from airborne pollution
Wasted man-hours from traffic congestion and underfunding of public transit
Dependence on foreign oil leading to resource wars and higher defense budgets
Higher trade deficits

Currently, many externalities associated with farming (e.g. air pollution, water pollution, adverse health effects, etc.) are not included in the price of food. Rather, society bears these costs, not food purchasers. Raising the taxes on food and using the resulting funds to pay for these externalities would promote the true cost pricing of food.

-Montecore

Price goes down, no matter why it went down, and DEMAND go up.

Anything wrong with this picture, especially when demand is also up on a global basis???

We do not have the supply to support this kind of stupid idea. Demand goes up and since the supply is down, regardless of whether you want to believe it or not, and since supply is down, prices go up.

My guess is the price of the gas would go up faster than the time it took the 18 cents decrease to take effect.

bottom line.

BAD IDEA

Currently, many externalities associated with electricity production (e.g. air pollution, global warming, adverse health effects, etc.) are not included in the price of electricity. Rather, society bears these costs, not energy purchasers. Raising the taxes on energy and using the resulting funds to pay for these externalities would promote the true cost pricing of energy.

-Montecore

Was that supposed to mock me, Joe? if so, you might be surprised that I agree with that quote. If you raise cattle, you should be taxed for the damage you cause to our water, etc. And if you use a bunch of pesticides to raise food, you should pay more tax than the farmer who grows organically.

I'm honestly surprised that you don't agree with this concept.

Currently, many externalities associated with corn production (e.g. carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (which can cause cancer), smog, etc.) are not included in the price of corn. Rather, society bears these costs, not corn purchasers. Raising the taxes on corn and using the resulting funds to pay for these externalities would promote the true cost pricing of corn.

-Montecore

"If you raise cattle, you should be taxed for the damage you cause to our water, etc. And if you use a bunch of pesticides to raise food, you should pay more tax than the farmer who grows organically."

Except, you would tax the meat purchaser, not the cattle producer who did the polluting.

Car manufacturing causes pollution! Tax car purchasers, not the corporations the did the polluting!

-Montecore

If I produce electricity and my process pollutes the water and fucks up the air, the price of my electricity should be the same as the guy next to me who produces electricity without polluting the environment. Society at large should just pay for my fucked up, inefficient process.

--Joe

"Except, you would tax the meat purchaser, not the cattle producer who did the polluting.

Posted by JOE at 2008-05-02 02:23 PM"

Goddamn, you really are this dumb. I've always known you were an angry little prick, but I never knew you were this stupid too.

In order for me to do my heap-leach mining, the water gets polluted and municipal water suppliers must spend millions of dollars to make it safe to drink. But these costs should not be taxed to me, because, well, just because.

--Joe

If someone produces electricity via a process that pollutes the water and air, they should pay for that themselves. The government shouldn't be taxing the users (who in the case of a utility company probably have no choice in who their supplier is) and filtering the money through endless bureaucracies to "fix" the problem. The producer should be the one who pays.

Apparently you're completely incapable of having a discussion without calling names like a child. Have a good day.

"Munty-
Posted by JOE at 2008-05-02 01:24 PM"

"You are a waste of time.
Posted by JOE at 2008-05-02 01:24 PM"

"Apparently you're completely incapable of having a discussion without calling names like a child.

Posted by JOE at 2008-05-02 02:30 PM"

Classic Angry Joe.

Including all costs into the price of a product at the point of sale, and allowing the government to make up the difference with a tax are two different things. Government is less efficient than any business. From what I've read, I'm in favor of true cost pricing. I'm just not in favor of it when it's done by proxy via the government.

Putting more stringent environmental standards on businesses in the first place is a better idea. You cut out the governmental middleman through which your money is filtered and inefficiently spent.

I assumed we were simply having a communicatiuon problem. TCP seems right up your alley, from what I've gleaned from your posts.

"Government is less efficient than any business. "

That's bullshit, unless you think polluting is efficient. Government had to regulate these "efficient" businesses that were dumping toxins into the air and water.

And that's ignoring corporate scandals like Enron, the thousands of businesses that go bankrupt ever year, etc. It's just a myth that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector in all, or even most cases.

Jesus Christ Almighty. Joe is imitating Rob_The_Asshole's debate style.

"That's funny. Government is a bigger polluter than any business."

What's funny is that you don't get it. Government is far larger than any single business. Just contracting out defense spending alone will generate far more pollution than a single company generates. Duh.

So wait. First you respond to my point that government is the largest polluter of all by saying "government is far larger than any single business." Now you come back and say that "It is an objective truth that government organizations are usually less efficient than privately-owned enterprises." So which is it? Is government less efficient, or are they simply larger but still more efficient?

"Now you come back and say that "It is an objective truth that government organizations are usually less efficient than privately-owned enterprises."

Figures you wouldn't quote the entire statement.

This is the dumbest gimmick I have heard...besides of course the gimmicks Obama and Hillary tried to pull by giving $1,000's of dollars for simply being born.

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2008-05-02 09:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

.....but you're all revved up to get your 600 dollar tax rebate, right?

Bless George Bush, for he has saved us all with this $600 cash windfall! BLESS HIM!!!!!

Military is about the only thing the Feds should spend money on because no one else can do it.

Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-02 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

You want to privatize our Minting capabilities as well?

Walter Reed....there was a great idea of privatization. An Ex-KBR exec who is a friend of Cheneys gets the 'no-bid contract' to run the hospital. He's already making a fortune, but he wants more so he starts cutting back on things like maintenance, sanitation and pest control.....and while we're at it, let's start charging the individual soldiers for their meals and bed linen. Why not, after all, they're only our wounded soldiers that have to live there.

.....but you're all revved up to get your 600 dollar tax rebate, right?

Bless George Bush, for he has saved us all with this $600 cash windfall! BLESS HIM!!!!!


Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2008-05-02 06:54 PM | Reply


Keep trying stupid.

Gas taxes, like all other taxes are too high, period...both state & fed. The hard working American family is fucked on a daily basis. If you want even more...vote for a socialist/lib dem.

"Gas taxes, like all other taxes are too high, period...both state & fed. The hard working American family is fucked on a daily basis. If you want even more...vote for a socialist/lib dem.

Posted by BusyB "


You sure are stupid. I suppose you think roads and bridges are self-repairing.

Moron.

Nulli...you're a true bad ass online. I said "too high." I didn't say we shouldn't contribute a little...pussy boy.

"I said "too high."

Define "too high." What is the proper rate of gas taxes, in your opinion?

I pay over 40% now (state/fed)...which is outrageous, just to go along w/ the endless handouts from sales tax to property taxes. Did I mention what is deducted from ea paycheck (about 41%)until one of your socialist candidates wins (God Fobid), and the vehicle taxes to the county? Is that reasonable to you, or am I not doing my fair share?

"Gas taxes, like all other taxes are too high, period..."

Yet we're running record deficits. So, in your brilliant analysis...who's going to pay? You, or your kids and grandkids? And is that the way you run your own household?

"I pay over 40% now (state/fed)"

Please explain.

"I pay over 40% now (state/fed)...which is outrageous,"


Perhaps. Do your gas taxes pay for all the damages that your vehicle(s) inflict upon the roads and the environment?

Actually, Null, I was calling bullshit.

I'm waiting for an explanation from BusyB.

I've always said vote for the politician who tells you what you don't want to hear. In this instance, that was Obama.

McBush and Killary are nothing more than the usual pandering pigs.

I've always said vote for the politician who tells you what you don't want to hear. In this instance, that was Obama.

No. That was Ron Paul. Obama talks in such vague generalities, you think he is telling you want you want to hear.

BUSYB if you are really paying a total of 41% then you are obviously not in the income bracket which will pay more tax under the Democrats. It get so tiresome dealing with so many who purposely do not hear or comprehend what anyone except the right wing talkers say.

Isn't it fairly obvious from the rising prices and record profits, something is going on in the background?

Competition in the fuel industry should be driving prices down for gasoline, but...NOOOOO...we're seeing record profits.

OBVIOUSLY there is collusion going on somewhere. We know the current administration and oil companies are in bed together.

If a tax break on gasoline was put in place, oil companies would just take it from us and it would give them even more profit.

Then when the tax break holiday was over, prices would take yet another jump.

This might be a short-term savings, but it wouldn't last. You can be sure the oil companies would see to that.

Actually, the TRUE picture is realized when you look at the PROFIT MARGIN. In reality, most of the oil companies are making a profit margin which is in line and many times less than the profit margins of other corporations. Take Microsoft for example. Microsoft profit margin is higher than the oil companies so why are we not bitching about Microsoft, or other organizations, including FARMERS too by the way??? Maybe we should tack on an EXCESS PROFIT margin to the grain a farmer sells. You cannot blame the oil company because it sells a product in high demand. hell yes the profits are up there but so are the taxes as well as other expenses. same of farmers. Same for most all other companies.

PROFIT MARGIN people. Check it out and see whose profit margin is higher than the oil company you happen to buy your gas from. I believe you would be surprised.Also check farming too.

Farmer,

So...you're saying you think you're paying a fair price for gas?

I can agree with you about profit margins. I have not studied the financials of Microsoft. I can only guess their profit margin probably is much higher considering Microsoft's major expenses are probably R&D and labor. What kind of raw materials or inventory does Microsoft purchase. How much does it cost to put a cd in a box? Their expenses are probably mostly labor.

Microsoft has been called on the carpet for their business tactics and pricing.

However, when it comes to oil companies, I keep hearing about the rising cost of oil, which is their raw materials.

Oil company's raw material costs are rising and they still are making record profits. Something is terribly wrong with this picture.

I haven't studied the financials of oil companies but common sense tells you that either the cost to process oil is has significantly lowered from previous years due to improved processing methods, or they are pushing up the price of gas at a higher rate than the increase in oil.

This is very simplistic because there's a lot of variables in between. However, with an ever increasing rise in the price of oil, it is very odd they continue to keep making record profits year after year and they keep breaking their own records year after year while the cost of their raw materials continues to go up.

Frankly, I suspect all this talk about oil prices is a ruse.

What I'm saying is this.

While oil is a major problem, I keep hearing it implied that the reason the price of gas keeps going up each month is due to oil prices, when I think it's really got more to do with those record breaking profits.

Congress is looking closer into this, not that they stand much of chance of getting anywhere until Bush is out of office.

Just my opinion...

No refineries since 1976, but gas demand goes up and up.

No drilling in ANWAR or off our coasts because it might upset an endangered Yellow Farting Creek Snail.

50+ blends of gasoline for "environmental" reasons in the summer, which stresses our over-worked refineries.

Confiscatory taxes on the companies that bring us our oil and gas, which gets passed directly to the consumer (that's us for the government educated).

The oil companies get 8 cents a gallon profit, but Federal and State taxes are an average of 50 cents a gallon. Who's getting rich there?

Increased demand from China and India for oil, but we don't drill our own.

American oil companies moving overseas to get away from the taxes.

Oh what the heck, let's turn off our brain cells and blame Bush and the evil oil companies. Bush is for drilling our own oil instead of buying from our enemies, and turning old military bases into oil refineries. It sounds like a good plan to me. But I will hand it to you liberals, it is easier just to blame Bush.

Instead of removing the federal tax on fuel, I propose a tax provision that would allow the US taxpayers to deduct from their federal taxes a percent of their gross income to offset the high fuel prices. Revoking the federal tax on fuel for the summer period would only take money away from the nation's infrastructure and that in not a good idea; especially in the working months of the summer.

Boor,

You sound like a lobbiest for the oil companies.

However, I'm not seeing where you're explaining how oil companies are making record profits.

If we were reading about a struggling fuel industry and you made that argument, I could see your point.

But, we're talking about RECORD PROFITS!!!

Read up on profit margins. Their product has risen in value so of course the dollar profit has gone up. The size of the "pie" has grown so each slice is bigger. If you look at the percentage of the rise in crude oil the price of gas hasn't gone up near as much

Read up on profit margins. Their product has risen in value so of course the dollar profit has gone up. The size of the "pie" has grown so each slice is bigger. If you look at the percentage of the rise in crude oil the price of gas hasn't gone up near as much

We don't need a gas tax holiday. We need bread and circuses. And we need our foreign deployments to provide us with a rich life.

We have control of Iraq's oil. Let's use it to our advantage.

Let's get control of Iran's oil too. And use it to our advantage.

What's the use of being an imperialist power if we don't secure benefits for our people from our efforts.

The gas tax is chump change.

Use oil revenues for the benefit of Americans. We should not use our money when we can use other peoples' money to secure our prosperity.

First Iraq. Then Iran.

That should hold us for a while.

We can pay off our debt to China and for continuing purchase of Chinese manufactured goods with Iraqi and Iranian oil revenues. China needs oil. We control oil.

Johnson,

You know...you might on to something.

How about we annex Iraq and make it a state?

We could call it Georgeland.

It would be a fun place to plan a vacation.

Hey...maybe even open a Disneyland there?