• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are we still not paying enough for gasoline?

I know I am a minority group when it comes to this subject but I want gas to go to 10+ bucks a gallon and stay there. That will force consumers and the auto companies to make the change away from gas and to electric and also produce new ways to propel vehicles. It will also create real mandates for mass transit. Why I can't take a bullet train from Phoenix to Vegas? Cheap gas.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
You agree, then. Higher prices are needed. How high do you suggest? Are we there, yet?
Click to expand...
My personal "solution" would have been to never let them fall from the July 2008 peak, making up the difference from the falling fossil fuel prices in gas taxes. The positive results would have included: Plenty of money banked for infrastructure projects, including not only bridge and tunnel maintenance, but more mass transit; plenty of money put aside for fossil fuel environmental cleanup; less recreational wasting of gas; less low mpg gas guzzlers on the road; less frequent idling of cars for no purpose other than listening to the radio/heating up/A/C, and other simply lazy practices people tend to have when gas is too cheap. If it goes up to $4.25, don't let it drop. If it goes up to $4.50, don't let it drop. As the price per gallon comes down, raise the gas tax to make up the difference.

Less pollution. Less obscene profits for the oil companies. Less healthcare costs down the road. Less hidden costs in cleanup.
More incentive to switch to more economical options.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Not long ago, the Left in the US - pretty much any socialist or socialist adjacent, along with a hefty portion of the Democrat Party
Click to expand...
Since you can't prove your opening premise, what is there to talk about?
 
Crakhobarbie said:
Jesus. Do you know anything at all about the issues we discuss here? Or is all you know what the alt-right MSM propaganda machine tells you...

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI

www.eesi.org www.eesi.org
Click to expand...
The MSM pushes your narrative, that the oil industry is subsidized to the hilt. The MSM propaganda machine is on your side.

The short response to your link is that the first two items are simply clarifications on how the oil, gas and mining industries deduct depletion and costs, which are normal deductible costs of doing business like deductions taken by any business. A tax deduction is not a "subsidy," and these particular tax deductions are not unusual or unusually generous to the oil industry. So, strike one on your part.

The second two items regarding the credit for clean energy investment and the credit for nonconventional fuels are actually credits given for the use of environmentally preferred energy sources and greener fuels - and that is not applicable to the oil industry - it's only for mining. Strike two on your part.

Next, Master Limited Partnerships are not just for the oil and gas industry - many large companies operate as partnerships with such flow-through taxation. As your link notes, the partners in the drilling pay income tax on the income of the limited partnerships at their individual income tax rate, which is higher than the corporate tax rate. And there are tons of businesses that do this, either as limited partnerships, joint ventures, limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations.

Last in First Out accounting does not necessarily work the way it's explained, because even though as oil prices are rising, the company can sell of the more expensive recently purchased reserves first, when oil prices fall, the reverse happens - the cheaper reserves are last in and they become the first out. So, it's only sometimes a benefit. This kind of accounting is, again, not a subsidy and it's not specific to the oil industry, although the link dishonestly implies that it is. The pharmaceutical industry uses it, as does the automotive industry, and any other company can choose to use it, if they do so consistently.

That's it - that's what you have. And, you accuse me of not knowing anything about the issues you discuss here? You accuse me of just knowing what the "alt right MSM" say? LOL. YYour link is a biased, left wing source, which relies on the assumption that people will read it without looking up the tax code provisions and without looking up what things like limited partnerships and FIFO accounting are. It relies on the dishonest implication that when the oil industry gets a deduction for various business expenses that this is unusual, or somehow irregular, when they aren't. And, it relies on calling things subsidies which aren't subsidies.
 
I'll add that ending Master Limited Partnerships would result in them being considered corporations that must be taxed before their distributions are passed along to shareholders. That's what I meant by "flow through taxation." Thus, repeal of the Master Limited Partnerships would mean that income would be taxed at the corporate level and then again at the dividend level. Distributions to shareholders would be impacted substantially. Preventing double taxation is not a subsidy. Master LImited Partnerships also exist for Real Estate and other industries., and therefore they are not "subsidies to the oil industry" and this business form affects people across the spectrum from Pensioners, 401ks holders, to widows and orphans – hardly a “subsidy” for the oil and gas industry. But, the environmental lobby wansts you to think this is a subsidy to the oil industry.

To expand on the intangible costs, Intangible Drilling Costs are essentially the cost of drilling a new well that has no salvageable value. In what world would money spent that may or may not be recovered be capitalized as an asset? Answer, in no world. This is normal deduction of costs which happens in every industry.

I should also mention that the government only allows the "depletion allowance" deduction for independent producers. Integrated oil companies such as Exxon, BP etc. are not allowed the exemption. Companies across the US are allowed a depreciation deduction on assets for taxation purposes. Why would the oil and gas industry be deprived of the same tax treatment?
 
MrNiceGuy said:
How so? Are you saying the left doesn't want higher gas prices? LOL.

Democrats wanted to propose higher gas taxes "for infrastructure," - that's higher prices. They wanted to add a higher tax on oil companies (more higheer prices), and it's a common narrative among rank-and-file left wingers here in the States that we should be paying as much as Europe.

Well, here we are, with $4.30 a gallon average for regular unleaded, and that's not even half what a lot of Europe is paying....
Click to expand...
And some of those other countries also have annual 'registration' fees that vary according to the cars emissions as well. Guess what? People use smaller, more fuel efficient, less polluting cars.

You can replace your v8 truck or 4x4 etc with a 4cyl, or maybe 6cyl, version that will do everything the same other than make v8 noises and maybe tow an extra heavy load.

When I was living in a country with a rural background like the US, but higher gas prices, you almost never saw a v8 anything. 4cyl pickups and 4x4's where you see v8 equivalents in the US. It's just a bad habit based on years of gas being effectively subsidised out of general taxation. When I worked in the UK my company car choice was affected by the pollution tax. i ended up chosing a nicer, but less powerful, and less polluting vehicle to fit the company guidelines. Recognising the true cost of burning carbon fuels just drives better decision making.
 
Ishm said:
When mom is driving a 4cyl Honda/Toyota etc to the supermarket and on the school run instead of an F250 etc, gas prices will be starting to be effective. Historically cheap gas has lead to a lot of unnecessary waste becoming part of the culture. If you could change that without increasing gas prices it would be great, but the reality is that only enough pain in the hip pocket will get people to change wasteful habits.
Click to expand...
There are finer points to this though, because in that mix are people who rely on work vehicles (pickup trucks, vans etc.) for their business. I do take your point about gas prices leading to a larger portion of the population choosing less than ideal vehicles in terms of fuel efficiency though. The assumption gasoline prices are going to be stable isn't the best way to make a vehicle choice if it's one whose only use is basic transportation.
 
uptower said:
View attachment 67381861
Click to expand...
What kind of truck is that? Image shows three doors on one side - this is a six door truck, and I don't think anyone makes that off the assembly line. Aren't they all aftermarket modifications?

The verbiage across the windshield and along the side doesn't strike me as English. One of the Rs on the windshield is reversed. I can't make out the lettering on the side - looks like it says Diesel and something else, but might not even be English.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
The MSM pushes your narrative, that the oil industry is subsidized to the hilt. The MSM propaganda machine is on your side.

The short response to your link is that the first two items are simply clarifications on how the oil, gas and mining industries deduct depletion and costs, which are normal deductible costs of doing business like deductions taken by any business. A tax deduction is not a "subsidy," and these particular tax deductions are not unusual or unusually generous to the oil industry. So, strike one on your part.

The second two items regarding the credit for clean energy investment and the credit for nonconventional fuels are actually credits given for the use of environmentally preferred energy sources and greener fuels - and that is not applicable to the oil industry - it's only for mining. Strike two on your part.

Next, Master Limited Partnerships are not just for the oil and gas industry - many large companies operate as partnerships with such flow-through taxation. As your link notes, the partners in the drilling pay income tax on the income of the limited partnerships at their individual income tax rate, which is higher than the corporate tax rate. And there are tons of businesses that do this, either as limited partnerships, joint ventures, limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations.

Last in First Out accounting does not necessarily work the way it's explained, because even though as oil prices are rising, the company can sell of the more expensive recently purchased reserves first, when oil prices fall, the reverse happens - the cheaper reserves are last in and they become the first out. So, it's only sometimes a benefit. This kind of accounting is, again, not a subsidy and it's not specific to the oil industry, although the link dishonestly implies that it is. The pharmaceutical industry uses it, as does the automotive industry, and any other company can choose to use it, if they do so consistently.

That's it - that's what you have. And, you accuse me of not knowing anything about the issues you discuss here? You accuse me of just knowing what the "alt right MSM" say? LOL. YYour link is a biased, left wing source, which relies on the assumption that people will read it without looking up the tax code provisions and without looking up what things like limited partnerships and FIFO accounting are. It relies on the dishonest implication that when the oil industry gets a deduction for various business expenses that this is unusual, or somehow irregular, when they aren't. And, it relies on calling things subsidies which aren't subsidies.
Click to expand...
Gish gallop garbage. The oil industry being subsidised is a verifiable fact. And since it doesn't fit into your wagon of alt-right MSM propaganda garbage, it must mean it a conspiracy!!! See below...

Directory of Cult Recovery Resources

cult recovery directory of professional resources
www.google.com www.google.com
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
OK. What do you do for transportation? When you have to take a trip? Commute to work etc?
Click to expand...
BEVs. They work great for all these purposes nowadays, at least for those with Supercharger access. It should get better for everyone else in the next 2-3 years.
 
Ask the shareholders.🤷‍♀️
 
Cost me $30 to fill up today.
 
ElChupacabra said:
There are finer points to this though, because in that mix are people who rely on work vehicles (pickup trucks, vans etc.) for their business. I do take your point about gas prices leading to a larger portion of the population choosing less than ideal vehicles in terms of fuel efficiency though. The assumption gasoline prices are going to be stable isn't the best way to make a vehicle choice if it's one whose only use is basic transportation.
Click to expand...
I've lived and worked in a few different countries with much higher gas prices. While an American might more naturally relate a pickup etc to something that has a large engine, the reality is that in the rest of the world they mostly use pickups with smaller engines. They just aren't as popular in the US so you don't see them as often. If gas stays high, people will start to look for those models with a couple less cylinders than what they have today. There is so much room for the average American to downsize their engine choice and keep their fuel costs reasonable as the price of gas rises. It's the transition that is tough. If Ford and Chev took most of their v8 engine options away tomorrow, people would adapt quite easily as the older cars got retired. Low gas prices though mean that there is no major incentive yet for those companies to stop building large volumes of needlessly inefficient vehicles.
 
j brown's body said:
Cost me $30 to fill up today.
Click to expand...

Cost me I think $46 for 3/4 of a tank. But I always get supreme, I could have spent 79¢ per gallon less if I had got regular. I believe the regular was $4.09, the supreme was $4.79.

Its a pretty big tank too.
 
phoenix2020 said:
BEVs. They work great for all these purposes nowadays, at least for those with Supercharger access. It should get better for everyone else in the next 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

I have no fight with EVs, its clearly the wave of the future.
An EV would be great for me since I dont drive a lot every day, I'll probably have one in a few years. If the Universe sees fit that I still be around then.
 
Ishm said:
I've lived and worked in a few different countries with much higher gas prices. While an American might more naturally relate a pickup etc to something that has a large engine, the reality is that in the rest of the world they mostly use pickups with smaller engines. They just aren't as popular in the US so you don't see them as often. If gas stays high, people will start to look for those models with a couple less cylinders than what they have today. There is so much room for the average American to downsize their engine choice and keep their fuel costs reasonable as the price of gas rises. It's the transition that is tough. If Ford and Chev took most of their v8 engine options away tomorrow, people would adapt quite easily as the older cars got retired. Low gas prices though mean that there is no major incentive yet for those companies to stop building large volumes of needlessly inefficient vehicles.
Click to expand...
Especially for those who aren't using that high horsepower for anything other than commuting or recreational driving.
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
Cost me I think $46 for 3/4 of a tank. But I always get supreme, I could have spent 79¢ per gallon less if I had got regular. I believe the regular was $4.09, the supreme was $4.79.

Its a pretty big tank too.
Click to expand...

I have a hybrid. A Honda Insight I bought 5 years ago used for $8000 w/80,000 miles. I'd never heard of it, but it was a Honda, so why not?
 
j brown's body said:
I have a hybrid. A Honda Insight I bought 5 years ago used for $8000 w/80,000 miles. I'd never heard of it, but it was a Honda, so why not?
Click to expand...
Guess I meant "70¢ less per gallon" and not 79¢ less, but you get the idea.

Yeah, I live in a rural area and Im planning on taking some major road trips soon. I ride my motorcycle almost all the time in the decent months so its pretty cheap on gas. I put only 7000 miles on my Terrain through the entire preceding 12 months, so gasoline isnt a huge concern of mine, but I'll get an EV eventually. For my trips to the store etc its all I'd need around here.
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
I have no fight with EVs, its clearly the wave of the future.
An EV would be great for me since I dont drive a lot every day, I'll probably have one in a few years. If the Universe sees fit that I still be around then.
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether an EV plays into your future, I hope you are around for a long time to come :)
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Not long ago, the Left in the US - pretty much any socialist or socialist adjacent, along with a hefty portion of the Democrat Party - were telling us that we were not paying enough in gas prices, when compared to the enlightened European countries, and when examined in relation to the "true social cost of transportation."

For example, in January 2015, the average price of regular unleaded gasoline in the US was about $2.50 a gallon at the time. It was argued that this did not represent the true cost of transportation, and that we should have a giant gas tax to increase the price, so that the price we paid for gasoline reflected the true social cost of driving. And that would result in a $4.36 cents gas tax, which would result in Americans paying over $7.00 a gallon. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-americans-don-t-pay-the-true-cost-of-driving

This was a common theme for years, including among the green energy crowd and Democrats in general. We weren't paying too much for gasoline. We were paying too little, and the price should at least double. I'm sure we all remember that.

Democrats have also taken steps to reduce oil production - https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-for-higher-gas-prices-11647042264

Democrats supported higher gas taxes: https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/signs-times/democrats-should-support-increasing-gas-tax

Remember when the Left cheered rising gas prices as "good for the environment?" You won't hear it from Democrats on Capitol Hill, but higher gas prices are a good thing for the environment. Expensive gas should slow the use of cars, and the pollution they emit. But politically savvy environmentalists aren't calling for taxes that would raise the price still further. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5378487

Some Democrats wanted us to pay more for gas to slow the climate crisis: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/opinion/gas-price-climate-change.html - Is that still a good proposal?

Energy prices around the world are too low—far too low. https://www.wri.org/insights/price-...ossil-fuel-prices-reflect-environmental-costs Birdsall highlighted the current U.S. tax on gasoline, which has been at 18 cents since 1993. “Correcting” this tax to account for gasoline’s environmental impact would raise it to about $1.60 -- had that been done in January, 2021, that would have raised the price of a gallon of gas to about $4.00 a gallon, give or take - about what it is now. So, this is what the Left wanted. They like this.

Well, the prices have nearly doubled in the past year and 3 months. Is that a good thing or a bad thing, and why?
Click to expand...
The more gasoline costs, the fewer poor on the road, and that is a good thing unless one likes to sit in traffic alongside the unwashed masses.

Let them take the bus, and give them a MAGA hat.

MAGA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom