Whats going on w/ the price of gas...

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

My last two fill ups were $47 @ $3.65...If I'm on the road alot for work I fill my tank up at least once a week..if I'm mainly in the office..I can go almost two weeks on a fill-up..and that's when it's not ski season. People only making 20-30K a year must be having a really tough time since they don't have a spare $50 a week for gas. I can see alot more lower middle class people not being able to afford cars in the future and relying on public transportation which will be tough unless they live in a large metro area. Where I live it takes an hour by bus to go somewhere that takes 15 minutes by car.

 

[ctenidae]

That 10% margin includes compensation expenses. Raymond's $400 million is also taxable, at close to 50%, probably. Pretty sure the government needs that$200 million+/- to cover the retarded rebate.

If Raymond didn't get the payout, it would end up going to investors as either a dividend or capital gains, neither of which is taxed at 50%, so really, it's better for Raymond to get it than anyone else.

If the playing field were forceably level, then what incentive would there be to do anything at all? Maybe that's a bit Ayn Rand-ish, but she was a nut for her extent, not her intent.

 

[wa-loaf]

That 10% margin includes compensation expenses. Raymond's $400 million is also taxable, at close to 50%, probably. Pretty sure the government needs that$200 million+/- to cover the retarded rebate.

If Raymond didn't get the payout, it would end up going to investors as either a dividend or capital gains, neither of which is taxed at 50%, so really, it's better for Raymond to get it than anyone else.

If the playing field were forceably level, then what incentive would there be to do anything at all? Maybe that's a bit Ayn Rand-ish, but she was a nut for her extent, not her intent.

I don't have a problem when someone is running a successful company and they are rewarded for it. It's all these a-holes that run their companies into the ground (ahem, Countrywide...) and then bail with huge bonuses. I don't think Ayn Rand would approve either.

 

[snoseek]

I don't have issues with Exxon/Mobiles 10% profit margin. I do have issues with the $400 million retirement package Lee Raymond received. Sure free market society blah, blah, blah, but I think a much greater issue than $3.60 gasoline is the widening gap between the rich and poor in this nation. Things would be a lot more tolerable during downturns if the playing field was a bit more level and no a $600 tax rebate doesn't cut it. That's just smoke and mirrors if you ask me.

I agree 100%


I personally think modern capatalism is some pretty scary $hit.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm

next time you have an hour or so to kill check this out. I'm not behind it 100% but there is some fascinating stuff in there.

 

[deadheadskier]

If the playing field were forceably level, then what incentive would there be to do anything at all? Maybe that's a bit Ayn Rand-ish, but she was a nut for her extent, not her intent.

slippery slope her, verging on politics, so I'll be brief

I think there's some major flaws when 5% of the populus owns 95% of the wealth nationally and at the same time 1 in 4 kids live in poverty and 40 million plus people don't have health benefits. Would that top 5% not strive for economic prosperity if say they only owned 50% of the nations wealth? Seemed to work out okay in the 50's.

 

[ctenidae]

slippery slope her, verging on politics, so I'll be brief

I think there's some major flaws when 5% of the populus owns 95% of the wealth nationally and at the same time 1 in 4 kids live in poverty and 40 million plus people don't have health benefits. Would that top 5% not strive for economic prosperity if say they only owned 50% of the nations wealth? Seemed to work out okay in the 50's.

Leaving the question of the 50's aside (there may be some merit there), the rest is, truly, a poilitical issue, and not a GOP vs Democrats type issue. More one of political will overall, and the population's excersising of it, or, more accurately, lack of it. 1 in 4 kids living in poverty has nothing to do with CEO paychecks. Exxon is in the business of refining and delivering oil, not providing healthcare for kids. Nor should they be. Paying the CEO less would not enable them to hire more people, particularly not more people who have none of the skills or experience they need. Not to mention the issues surrounding the definition of "poverty," or the underlying causes of health care costs, or the causes of any other social ill you care to mention.

Remember, too, that Exxon's profits benefit a huge number of people- mainly all the people whose retirement savings are invested in the market (many of whom are the same people grousing about the profits). You can't have it both ways- profits=increased stock price=increased retirement account balances.

 

[deadheadskier]

All good points cetinedea and due to your occupation, facts and figures that I'm sure you know far more about than I.

Yes, those profits do benefit a lot of people. However, fat paychecks to often corrupt execs lead to glutinous behavior. The glutinous behavior drives up the cost of goods for the common man. In no way am I suggesting that the top income bracket be taxed at 90% like they were earlier last century. I do think policy can be put in place to curb this behavior and bring overall costs of goods, in this case fuel, down for everyone.

You want to drive a Hummer? Go for it, but were going to hit you with an anual five thousand dollar excess fuel charge and part of that money will go towards the federaly highway budget as your vehicle creates more damage to roads than a passenger car, part will go towards the epa for waste clean up projects and another portion will go towards offsetting the federal gas tax.

You want to live in a 3000+ square foot McMansion? Go for it, but you're also going to pay an excessive energy use tax with the proceeds going towards heating fuel assistance for the needy because your excess consumption is driving up demand and hence driving up price. We're also going to hit you with a one time excess lumber charge with the proceeds going towards reforestation projects. Can you imagine the amount less heating oil, gas or electricity this country would need if our homes were of similar average size as back in the 50's?? Homes have needlessly doubled in size.

I know I'm getting off target here for my arguement, but in a way not really. The glutonous behavior of the wealthy, the Al Gore's with their 31K annual electric bills, drive up the costs of these goods for everyone and its the low income sector that gets hit the hardest.

 

[drjeff]

All good points cetinedea and due to your occupation, facts and figures that I'm sure you know far more about than I.

Yes, those profits do benefit a lot of people. However, fat paychecks to often corrupt execs lead to glutinous behavior. The glutinous behavior drives up the cost of goods for the common man. In no way am I suggesting that the top income bracket be taxed at 90% like they were earlier last century. I do think policy can be put in place to curb this behavior and bring overall costs of goods, in this case fuel, down for everyone.

You want to drive a Hummer? Go for it, but were going to hit you with an anual five thousand dollar excess fuel charge and part of that money will go towards the federaly highway budget as your vehicle creates more damage to roads than a passenger car, part will go towards the epa for waste clean up projects and another portion will go towards offsetting the federal gas tax.

You want to live in a 3000+ square foot McMansion? Go for it, but you're also going to pay an excessive energy use tax with the proceeds going towards heating fuel assistance for the needy because your excess consumption is driving up demand and hence driving up price. We're also going to hit you with a one time excess lumber charge with the proceeds going towards reforestation projects. Can you imagine the amount less heating oil, gas or electricity this country would need if our homes were of similar average size as back in the 50's?? Homes have needlessly doubled in size.

I know I'm getting off target here for my arguement, but in a way not really. The glutonous behavior of the wealthy, the Al Gore's with their 31K annual electric bills, drive up the costs of these goods for everyone and its the low income sector that gets hit the hardest.

On the flipside, with respect to alot of those new 3000 sq. ft. McMansions from a heating cost, many of them if designed incorporating modern materials, high efficiency furances/water heaters and simple things such as some basic passive solar concepts cost less per sq. foot to heat(and sometimes even on an outright dollar basis) then many much smaller homes built 50 years ago. It's what's gets plugged into many of those extra outlets in all that extra sq. footage that's often the culprit.

 

[ctenidae]

Hummers already pay more highway use tax- it's incorporated in their gas costs. McMansions (aside from being more efficient, as the good doctor pointed out), also pay more for energy adn property taxes, so it's fair.

Now, if the money being generated is actually being used for what it was intended is another question entirely, and one which gets very close to the political edge. Still, it all comes back to the excersise of political will. Or, the lack thereof.

 

[deadheadskier]

On the flipside, with respect to alot of those new 3000 sq. ft. McMansions from a heating cost, many of them if designed incorporating modern materials, high efficiency furances/water heaters and simple things such as some basic passive solar concepts cost less per sq. foot to heat(and sometimes even on an outright dollar basis) then many much smaller homes built 50 years ago. It's what's gets plugged into many of those extra outlets in all that extra sq. footage that's often the culprit.

Very true conscerning the efficiency of a modern home compared to yesteryear. Perhaps the tax is levied based upon use. I guess my whole point is to do more to discourage glutinous behavior that results in higher prices for all.

 

[deadheadskier]

Hummers already pay more highway use tax- it's incorporated in their gas costs. McMansions (aside from being more efficient, as the good doctor pointed out), also pay more for energy adn property taxes, so it's fair.

We'll have to disagree that it's 'fair'. What would be 'fair' would be measures put in place to reduce the demand for such luxories. Perhaps you are right and it's how the taxes are spent, but I don't feel that the additional gas tax and property tax revenues that these types of things generate offset the increased burden they generate on our resources.

The property tax issue is highly variable to. A friend of mine owns a 2200sqft home in S.Carolina and pays $1600 annually in property taxes. So, I'd imagine the taxes on a 3000sqft home are certainly not high enough there to discourage people from building them.

 

[wa-loaf]

We'll have to disagree that it's 'fair'. What would be 'fair' would be measures put in place to reduce the demand for such luxories.

In fact there's a tax loophole that encourages people to drive hummers and other large SUVs. Small business owners can deduct most of the cost of the vehicle from their taxes. The deduction was meant for contractors and landscapers who need to drive trucks for a living, but it applies to all small businesses so you have doctors and lawyers and what not driving these vehicles around virtually free.

 

[Warp Daddy]

In fact there's a tax loophole that encourages people to drive hummers and other large SUVs

Time for a Change in this and Other parts of the tax code. Several loopholes need to be examined

Better yet in stead of putting a bandaid on teh process --CHUCK IT !! Draft legislation that is FAIR to ALL--just sayin !

 

[ctenidae]

Better yet in stead of putting a bandaid on teh process --CHUCK IT !! Draft legislation that is FAIR to ALL--just sayin !

Again, that pesky political will problem.

 

[Warp Daddy]

H'mm member 1776 those ole boyz didn't wait for the elite class to move on the problem.

We seem to have lost our way , our will and our souls along the way

But hey that's just an ole guys opinion, but over time one can readily see the decline

 

[deadheadskier]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24481436/?GT1=43001

great time to buy a jeep apparently

 

[snoseek]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24481436/?GT1=43001

great time to buy a jeep apparently

Sounds like a pretty desperate move to me. I truly hope they suffer dearly for this.


edit-Chrysler’s U.S. vehicle sales fell 23 percent in April, with car sales down 19 percent and truck and SUV sales down 25 percent. The Jeep Commander SUV saw sales plummet 49 percent

Yep that's desperation.

 

[wa-loaf]

H'mm member 1776 those ole boyz didn't wait for the elite class to move on the problem.

We seem to have lost our way , our will and our souls along the way

But hey that's just an ole guys opinion, but over time one can readily see the decline

Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, John Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington were the elite back then. Plantation owners, lawyers, etc . . .

 

[Warp Daddy]

Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, John Adams, Ben Franklin, George Washington were the elite back then. Plantation owners, lawyers, etc . . .

i stand corrected Absolutely they were colonial "elite" but not not of the "Ruling Monarchy" or of that class at the time-- thus in a power vacuum prior to the revolution . They saw the need and mustered the drive to upset the apple cart

 

[twinplanx]

It's been a while but as I watch the bottom fall out on the pump these days I can't help to think of this thread and wonder if its all a consperisoy to draw us to the dark side of our consumstious ways. When I first read the speculation of even more outrageous fuel prices and attempted to point out the silver linning I was not convinced. Nock on wood but, now I may have to agree to an extent. Speaking of consperisoy theroys did anyone else notice the timming of the recent offshore-oil drilling vote. It is my thinking that we gota kick the oil habit anyway and should look into other alternitives.