May 15th "gas protest" nonsense

[Soxy]

Its a shame our national rail system sucks so bad. We need to take some notes from Europe. Some individual cities have good systems, but Amtrak is a mess and a half. With all the added pain in the ass of air travel, and high gas prices, Amtrak should be booming, but isn't. Now is the time to get that system working efficiently and intelligently. For intercity travel, particularly regionally, it should be a main source of travel (Acela does that, but its the only one that works at all right now).

Preach it! I wish some candidate would talk about this on the campaign trail.

[NorthSideSox72]

Preach it! I wish some candidate would talk about this on the campaign trail.

Dangerous topic for candidates. For one, previous attempts to "fix" it (which actually was just propping it up financially) have failed, so it looks like a losing effort. Also, this country is not used to using the trains that way, and many people won't see the benefit. The only way I can see using it as a campaign piece is just a small mention among energy policy statements, and to achieve anything with it, you'll need to essentially tear it apart and just about start over.

 

I hope these things happen, but I have little faith.

[kapkomet]

The government makes a hell of a lot of money off of the oil... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more then "big oil" ever does. Do you think that could just possibly leave these idiots to drag their feet on real alternative energy?

[Texsox]

On a number of occasions I thought a rail trip would be interesting. I like meeting people on my travels and I thought trains would be fun. Every time I priced it, it came out more than just flying. Then I figured I would just get to my destination faster and meet people there.

[NorthSideSox72]

The government makes a hell of a lot of money off of the oil... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more then "big oil" ever does. Do you think that could just possibly leave these idiots to drag their feet on real alternative energy?

I have a very hard time believing that the government makes more money on oil than oil companies do. Do you have any stats on this? And are you comparing revenue and revenue, or profit and net gain, or what?

 

Just curious what makes you think that is the case.

[GoodAsGould]

So, when the station fills his tanks up with gas that he would normally sell for $2.50 a gallon, raises it to $2.75 the next day, because the price of his NEXT batch went up, that's not making a little 'extra' profit? When gas goes up overnite by .25 per gallon, every gallon in his tank at that moment nets the owner and extra .25 net. I'm all for profit, being a business owner myself, but that always seemed like a bit of greed to me. However, you are right, big oil would be the guys you would want to hurt, or even better, the speculators that drive the cost per barrel up because Imadinnerjacket, or whatever his name is, looked crosseyed at Condi Rice, or mentioned that he hates Jews.

 

I know this was on the first page but this is completely utterly wrong. The individual owner of the gas station doesnt recieve anymore money from when the gas goes up from 2.50 to 2.75. If anything the high gas prices are hurting the individual owners more. The way the system works is the station owner receives maybe 15 cents per gallon. If the price goes up the owner is still only getting his cut of 15 cents per gallon if not less.

[kapkomet]

I have a very hard time believing that the government makes more money on oil than oil companies do. Do you have any stats on this? And are you comparing revenue and revenue, or profit and net gain, or what?

 

Just curious what makes you think that is the case.

Loosely held, the "big oil" companies make about .08 to .12 cents on refining gas. What's the federal tax on gas again?

 

Ummm hmmm. And I just re-read my comments - I should have said that they make more on GASOLINE then the oil companies do, not oil itself.

[Texsox]

http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/blog/note...line-state.html

 

Not certain if this backs the Kap or not.

[EvilMonkey]

We keep on mentioning cars as the main problem, but shouldn't we also look at where everyone lives and how far away from work that is? Commute times are going up every year. I think that we also need to find creative ways to get people to move in closer to where they work.

 

If you are 30 minutes from work instead of 60 minutes, how much gas/oil would that save? You would also be closer to public transportation and be able to use that as well.

I live 38 miles each way from work. 2 years ago I live 52 miles each way from work. i would have moved closer to work, but just the small increase I got took me from a $120k house, to a $200k house. And a house similar to mine within 10 miles of my work costs over $400k. There was one 2 blocks away from my store that was a mirror-image of the $120k house I had, except for the $375k price tag. I would love to drive less, maybe use public transportation. But to get from Plainfield to Bloomingdale there is no easy way. So I have a 4 cyl car, car pool with Juddling once in a while, and try to combine the rest of my trips into multi-purpose outings.

 

I know this was on the first page but this is completely utterly wrong. The individual owner of the gas station doesnt recieve anymore money from when the gas goes up from 2.50 to 2.75. If anything the high gas prices are hurting the individual owners more. The way the system works is the station owner receives maybe 15 cents per gallon. If the price goes up the owner is still only getting his cut of 15 cents per gallon if not less.

So are you telling me that if a station owner fills his tanks up with say $5000 worth of gas that he would sell for $10,000, and the next day the price to him goes up to $5500, if he raises his pump price to net $11,000 that very day, he doesn't get to keep that difference for all the gas he BOUGHT at the lower price, but is SELLING to reflect the FUTURE HIGHER price? Does the gas supplier retroactivly charge him for the increased cost of gas he already bought?

[Texsox]

So are you telling me that if a station owner fills his tanks up with say $5000 worth of gas that he would sell for $10,000, and the next day the price to him goes up to $5500, if he raises his pump price to net $11,000 that very day, he doesn't get to keep that difference for all the gas he BOUGHT at the lower price, but is SELLING to reflect the FUTURE HIGHER price? Does the gas supplier retroactivly charge him for the increased cost of gas he already bought?

 

The opposite happens. The station across the street receives a new shipment at the lower pricer and the owner is forced to match prices, sometimes selling at a loss.

[GoodAsGould]

The owner of the gas stations do not own the gas. Not many people seem to understand that....They get their cut of like i said 12-15 cents sometimes higher/lower per gallon and make most of their money from the store.

[NorthSideSox72]

Loosely held, the "big oil" companies make about .08 to .12 cents on refining gas. What's the federal tax on gas again?

 

Ummm hmmm. And I just re-read my comments - I should have said that they make more on GASOLINE then the oil companies do, not oil itself.

You are comparing REVENUE for the government to PROFIT for the company, so I don't think that's a fair comparison. You would want to compare oil company profits on oil production (possibly including refinement for other purposes than gasoline, like plastics or commercial oils), to the net amount the government makes AFTER pegged purposes for that revenue (specific amounts for transit and what not). That would be a profit vs profit comparison. Or, just go on revenue - oil company revenue versus tax revenue on the given product set. Those are like-for-like comparisons.

[Texsox]

The owner of the gas stations do not own the gas. Not many people seem to understand that....They get their cut of like i said 12-15 cents sometimes higher/lower per gallon and make most of their money from the store.

 

I am certain there are multiple business models. My mother works taking gas orders at a distributor. Her customers do own the gas. They distribute for several of the major companies. I also was friends with two cousins who owned a chain of C-stores here. They also said they make their money off the stuff in the stores. Very little of the profit was made at the pump. They were a company store and sold Diamond Shamrock branded gasoline.

 

I think you are confusing company owned stores with independent and franchise operations.

 

I found a link to a Chicago area Wholesaler of gas.

[GoodAsGould]

I am certain there are multiple business models. My mother works taking gas orders at a distributor. Her customers do own the gas. They distribute for several of the major companies. I also was friends with two cousins who owned a chain of C-stores here. They also said they make their money off the stuff in the stores. Very little of the profit was made at the pump. They were a company store and sold Diamond Shamrock branded gasoline.

 

I think you are confusing company owned stores with independent and franchise operations.

 

I found a link to a Chicago area Wholesaler of gas.

 

No im not confused, my dad owns a gas station and my cousin owns an gas distribution company. And before that he owned a bunch of gas stations. There might be some cases where it differs, but for the most part the owner of the gas station does not own the gas. And almost all their profits come from the goods they sell in the stores.

Edited May 17, 2007 by SoxFan101

[kapkomet]

You are comparing REVENUE for the government to PROFIT for the company, so I don't think that's a fair comparison. You would want to compare oil company profits on oil production (possibly including refinement for other purposes than gasoline, like plastics or commercial oils), to the net amount the government makes AFTER pegged purposes for that revenue (specific amounts for transit and what not). That would be a profit vs profit comparison. Or, just go on revenue - oil company revenue versus tax revenue on the given product set. Those are like-for-like comparisons.

REvenue for the government = straight profit, because the government has no expense against the collection of the gas tax.

[southsider2k5]

REvenue for the government = straight profit, because the government has no expense against the collection of the gas tax.

 

Well except for that whole waste factor...

[NorthSideSox72]

REvenue for the government = straight profit, because the government has no expense against the collection of the gas tax.

I disagree with that view, but I understand what you are saying.

[Texsox]

REvenue for the government = straight profit, because the government has no expense against the collection of the gas tax.

 

Actually, they do have expenses against the collection, and the store has expenses to collect, track, and pay the tax. One of the things I really hated in owning a small business was being a tax collector for the government.

 

Also, aren't most fuel taxes ear marked for specific driving related expenditures? IIRC a user fee system is classic Republican ideology. In this case, I do think it is valid to have those that drive the most pay the most to maintain roads. And as anyone who has driven in many other countries, we do have a great road system. Perhaps now we wish we had spent more on rail, but our consumer habits would not allow for that.

[kapkomet]

Come on, sheep.

 

The government is just fine with gas prices being high because they get their cut. Why (besides special interests up the ass) are they dragging their feet so much on alternative energy?

 

Because gas taxes are HIGHLY reliable as a revenue source for the government as it stands right now.

[southsider2k5]

Come on, sheep.

 

The government is just fine with gas prices being high because they get their cut. Why (besides special interests up the ass) are they dragging their feet so much on alternative energy?

 

Because gas taxes are HIGHLY reliable as a revenue source for the government as it stands right now.

 

baaa baaaa

[Texsox]

Come on, sheep.

 

The government is just fine with gas prices being high because they get their cut. Why (besides special interests up the ass) are they dragging their feet so much on alternative energy?

 

Because gas taxes are HIGHLY reliable as a revenue source for the government as it stands right now.

 

I agree 100% with you. But aren't all these fuel taxes earmarked towards roads and bridges? Isn't this about the most fair way for the government to collect these funds?

 

Plus, the government prices are fixed, not a percentage, so it would seem they receive the same blood no matter the resale. Or am I missing something?

But to Kap's point, there are a great deal of very organized groups making money on fuel. And they probably weild a great deal of influence on the topic. I just don't see taxes as being the reason.

 

I'll bet things would be different if we had an oil man in the White House.

[kapkomet]

There are taxes (mostly at the state level) that are %... now that's slightly different, but it's the same point.

 

Allocations, smallocations. Social Security taxes coming out of my paycheck sure as hell isn't for social security. Earmarks don't mean crap in Washington.

[Iwritecode]

I live 38 miles each way from work. 2 years ago I live 52 miles each way from work. i would have moved closer to work, but just the small increase I got took me from a $120k house, to a $200k house. And a house similar to mine within 10 miles of my work costs over $400k. There was one 2 blocks away from my store that was a mirror-image of the $120k house I had, except for the $375k price tag. I would love to drive less, maybe use public transportation. But to get from Plainfield to Bloomingdale there is no easy way. So I have a 4 cyl car, car pool with Juddling once in a while, and try to combine the rest of my trips into multi-purpose outings.

 

I'm in a similiar situation. The company I work for is located in a very small town surrounded by lots and lots of cornfields. There's 2 gas stations, 2 bars, a couple of banks and one small grocery store.

 

It just woudn't make sense for me to move closer to my work considering everything else I need (wife's job, babysitter, shopping) is still in Rockford.

 

I'm trying to figure out a way to convince my company to move closer to me...

Edited May 17, 2007 by Iwritecode

[Texsox]

There are taxes (mostly at the state level) that are %... now that's slightly different, but it's the same point.

 

Allocations, smallocations. Social Security taxes coming out of my paycheck sure as hell isn't for social security. Earmarks don't mean crap in Washington.

 

Where the switch occurs, much like lottery revenues going to schools, is when funds are cut from the general fund and the net expenditures remain the same. From the links I found on gas tax, perhaps some local are a percentage, but the federal and state governments wisely went for a price per gallon. Didn't at least one Eastern state reduce their tax bite when prices went through the roof a couple years ago?

 

I thought with Social Security the problem has been that deductions alone are not paying for all the benefits and we've had to augment that with other tax revenue. I don't think it's Social Security has been a surplus and they are using it elsewhere.

 

Overall, we agree. We are taxed left and right and never see the whole bill in one place. I've seen some averages, but I would love to get to a system where at least once a year I received a total I have paid in taxes, from income to "sin" taxes.

[Balta1701]

I thought with Social Security the problem has been that deductions alone are not paying for all the benefits and we've had to augment that with other tax revenue. I don't think it's Social Security has been a surplus and they are using it elsewhere.

Social Security has been running a planned surplus since the early 80's and the Greenspan reforms. The design was to have Social Security take in more money for the 30 years from the mid 80's to the mid 10's so that when the baby boom hit retirement, Social Security would have extra money saved up.

 

Social Security has therefore been running a surplus in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year for years now. The problem with that plan is that the Social Security Administration used that money to purchase government bonds...and the Congress treated the money coming in through those bond purchases as added tax revenue in the general fund. Therefore, the couple hundred billion Social Security surplus has been spent every single year. Without that revenue, the deficit would have been $200-$300 billion a year greater than what we've already seen it as. The problem is, those bonds are going to come due eventually when the Social Security system starts cashing them in. So either the government will be raising taxes again to pay for them, or it will decide to destroy the world's financial system and default on its debt.

 

Al Gore's whole "Lockbox" thing was a proposal that the government should stop spending all the money in the Social Security surplus, so that the money would actually be available when the baby boomers retired, instead of constantly spending it as part of the general fund.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Balta1701