Diesel 9,5$/gl in Norway

Hey you Americans talking about expensive fuel. Ceep calm, it will surely reach you as well. RD

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Trust me, armed revolution will happen and the citizens will demand that all the domestically produced diesel the oil companies now export stay onshore long before diesel hits $9.50/gal. As spread out as the US is and the critical impact of fuel prices have on our economy I predict a lot of things will change here before prices get much higher. CAFE standards will get much more aggressive which could easily reduce our consumption by 30%. Property values in the suburbs will drop like a rock as people start moving closer to work (this is already happening) and we're going to finally start getting serious about mass transit like Europe is. Tax breaks for buying stupidly wasteful SUV's will go away no matter how loud Detroit cries. $9.50/gal will NEVER happen here.
JD
rd wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I hardly think commuters moving to places like central NJ and paying $700K for houses are going to be all that concerned about paying a few bucks a gallon more for fuel. The average car gets driven about 15K miles a year. At 20MPG, that amounts to 750 gallons of fuel a year. An extra $3 a gallon amounts to $2250. Will that be a hardhip for some people living in the US? Yes. But here, for people commuting to work in NYC, that's a drop in the bucket compared to income taxes, real estate taxes, health insuracne and all the other high costs of living that they manage to live with. And what would moving to the big city solve? The cost of living differential there will make the extra few bucks a gallon gas look cheap.
and we're going to finally start

And exactly what tax breaks are those?

It could, if we don't do some common sense things to increase supply.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Trust Me.....Don't ever say NEVER. I have seen oil rise from about 20 US cents per barrel to about US $120.00 per barrel during my 40 year professional career. When I started driving, regular gasoline was about 19 US cents per gallon.
EJ in NJ
JD wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OK, it MAY happen but I don't think any of us want to see the sociological and political repercussions that are going to go with it.
JD
Ernie Willson wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JD wrote:

I heard on the radio today that new Fords come with a "$2.99 fuel price guarantee" for three? years. All the fuel (within some established number of miles driven) that you buy over that time is only going to cost $3/gal. So now the car companies are subsidizing fuel, which I find interesting...
-tom!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We're half way there - $4.60/gallon tonight - S.F. Bay Area.
--

2008 T.G.Lambach. Publication in any form requires prior written
permission.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

of oil, it is because your government chooses to put high taxes on motor fuel in order to fund it's womb to tomb socialist programs. your $9.50 a gallon gas funds your free health care, free schools and funds the masses of people on the dole __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Personally, I'd prefer to see higher prices due to taxes that benefit society than high prices that benefit already rich oil companies and investors.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's just the kind of voter the politicans love. The kind that thinks the more money the govt has, the better off we all will be. How successful have many of the govt programs been? LBJ declared war on poverty in the 60's and 4 decades and trillions of dollars later, the poverty rate is about the same. They did create lots of single parent welfare families with lots of kids though.
The govt already gets half of the oil company profits. What's left, a lot returned as dividends to investors, which include many retirement plans that provide income and pension benefits to Americans of modest means. And a lot of it gets invested back in exploring for new oil. All of that is better than sending off to a rat hole in DC.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Where do you get that at the government gets half of the profits?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

than the oil companies do __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's a well known fact that the top corporate tax rate is 50%. With record profits, the major oil companies are paying at the top rate. And even with that rate, income tax is less than half of the total taxes paid. Here's Exxon for example:
"On May 1, Exxon Mobil announced first-quarter 2008 earnings of $10.9 billiona figure that marks the second-largest U.S. quarterly profit ever, even if it slightly missed Wall Street's expectations.
Perhaps more surprising was this figure buried in the Exxon (XOM) report: $9.3 billion. That's how much Exxon paid in worldwide income taxes in the first quarter of 2008, representing a 49% tax rate on its gross income of $20.2 billion.
Blogger and economist Mark Pery generated a lively discussion when he pointed to Exxon's "all-time high" income-tax figure, noting it was a small portion of the company's overall $29.3 billion total tax payments in the quarter. "
Now, isn't it a funny thing how you just about never hear any of that reported by the popular news media?

I leave it for others to judge who's clueless here. But you are correct that the govt actually receives more money per gallon sold than Exxon keeps as profits.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

when the subsidized, oil depletion allowance, oil corps return any profit in taxes. The individual welfare checks are peanuts compared to the corp welfare that Bush and his buddies give them.
Chip
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL. If you spent 2 mins trying to learn something, you'd avoid making an ass out of yourself. Take a look at Exxon as an example. They paid $9.3Bil in income tax in the first quarter, which amounts to 49% of their profits. In total taxes, they paid a whopping $29.3 bil. But it's never enough for guys l like you, who obviously don't even know the most basic facts. And if you took an entry level economics class, you'd learn that just like any other cost, taxes get passed along and paid by consumers in the end.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2008/db2008051_596535.htm?chan=rss_topEmailedStories_ssi_5
"On May 1, Exxon Mobil announced first-quarter 2008 earnings of $10.9 billiona figure that marks the second-largest U.S. quarterly profit ever, even if it slightly missed Wall Street's expectations.
Perhaps more surprising was this figure buried in the Exxon (XOM) report: $9.3 billion. That's how much Exxon paid in worldwide income taxes in the first quarter of 2008, representing a 49% tax rate on its gross income of $20.2 billion.
Blogger and economist Mark Pery generated a lively discussion when he pointed to Exxon's "all-time high" income-tax figure, noting it was a small portion of the company's overall $29.3 billion total tax payments in the quarter. "
The individual welfare checks are peanuts compared to

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trader4 wrote:

"The politicians" have no interest in social services. Their interests are 1) maintaining their jobs, and 2) making money.
I'd love to see greater service to our people from the government (in the United States), and I'm happy to pay for it, but I don't think any politician is interested in putting anything real into place despite their lip-flapping.

Half the profits is not half the cost at the pump, by the way. Regardless, if the corporations charged just enough to yield exactly $0 profit or loss, then one must think that the price of fuel would go down considerably.
-tom!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course it's not. No surprise there.

No, it wouldn't because the profit amounts to around 8.3% of the cost of a gallon of gas.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html
So, your $3.75 gas would go down by 31 cents to $3.44. Meanwhile governments at all levels are taking a total tax burden on that gallon of gas that is many times the 31 cents.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.