Jump to content

$10 a barrel- driverless cars


Guest NC1406

Recommended Posts

So the latest great idea is to impose a $10 tax on every bbl of crude. The article suggests it will add 25 cents per gallon to every gallon of gasoline purchased. That is actually a low estimate when you look at what products are cracked out of a barrel of crude. This is the most regressive tax proposed in quite some time. Also when considering where the proceeds are proposed to be spent it would transfer more wealth from rural communities to urban areas. Proceeds go to mass transportation and driverless car research and development. The good news is this is a political proposal with no hope of passing. Doubtful I could ever agree with this proposal but at least suggest the proceeds be spent on infrastructure of roads and bridges. The current federal tax on gasoline is around 19 cents. This would more than double the current rate. Do they teach economics at Harvard?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-proposing-10-a-barrel-oil-tax-to-pay-for-clean-transportation-2016-02-04

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I can deal with the general gas prices. What's really screwing us are the diesel prices. Products get to market on diesel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The federal diesel tax is already higher than the gasoline tax. It is easier to tax businesses than it is to tax the everyday consumer. Reality is the consumer still pays for it eventually. $10 a barrel will raise the price of all delivered goods. Again, do they teach economics at Harvard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The federal diesel tax is already higher than the gasoline tax. It is easier to tax businesses than it is to tax the everyday consumer. Reality is the consumer still pays for it eventually. $10 a barrel will raise the price of all delivered goods. Again, do they teach economics at Harvard?

Yes. Scientists too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, at least in SC, the reason diesel is taxed at a higher rate than gas - which I oppose on several levels having a diesel daily driver - is the trucking lobby succeeded in eliminating the road fee on individual trucks and made up the revenue by taxing the fuel truck use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it would be cool to have a bionic arm like Will Smith did in I Robot, I doubt very much that cool cars in the movie would be anything like the real world. But as for another $10 barrel tax, that is just putting the pillow over the US economy's face in the hospital bed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, at least in SC, the reason diesel is taxed at a higher rate than gas - which I oppose on several levels having a diesel daily driver - is the trucking lobby succeeded in eliminating the road fee on individual trucks and made up the revenue by taxing the fuel truck use.

I have been told that the reason diesel is higher, is the Obama admin. EPA mandated the removal of sulfur from diesel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I eagerly await the day driverless cars arrive. That would. Be awesome to commute in my own vehicle while reading a book.

That will be great until the computer driving the car goes crazy and you crash.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it would be cool to have a bionic arm like Will Smith did in I Robot, I doubt very much that cool cars in the movie would be anything like the real world. But as for another $10 barrel tax, that is just putting the pillow over the US economy's face in the hospital bed

As if oil won't inevitably rise far, far beyond $10 a barrel. :-\

So yeah, let's just wait until the market puts a "pillow over the economy's face". We'll worry about it then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, at least in SC, the reason diesel is taxed at a higher rate than gas - which I oppose on several levels having a diesel daily driver - is the trucking lobby succeeded in eliminating the road fee on individual trucks and made up the revenue by taxing the fuel truck use.

I have been told that the reason diesel is higher, is the Obama admin. EPA mandated the removal of sulfur from diesel.

"Obama admin. EPA"? :-\

Since is started in 2004, wouldn't that be the Bush admin. EPA?

Regardless, that's a justifiable reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At current levels, $10/barrel tax represents a significant increase. This is where I always part ways with liberals. There is nothing wrong with attempting to make changes for the better. It is asinine to believe that you can do it in one day. Effective change/progress is typically slow and methodical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it would be cool to have a bionic arm like Will Smith did in I Robot, I doubt very much that cool cars in the movie would be anything like the real world. But as for another $10 barrel tax, that is just putting the pillow over the US economy's face in the hospital bed

As if oil won't inevitably rise far, far beyond $10 a barrel. :-\/>

So yeah, let's just wait until the market puts a "pillow over the economy's face". We'll worry about it then.

I trust you have faith that a gas tax will be repealed once oil pops up over 30, 50, 90$ a barrel ?

:laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it would be cool to have a bionic arm like Will Smith did in I Robot, I doubt very much that cool cars in the movie would be anything like the real world. But as for another $10 barrel tax, that is just putting the pillow over the US economy's face in the hospital bed

As if oil won't inevitably rise far, far beyond $10 a barrel. :-\/>

So yeah, let's just wait until the market puts a "pillow over the economy's face". We'll worry about it then.

I trust you have faith that a gas tax will be repealed once oil pops up over 30, 50, 90$ a barrel ?

:laugh:

Why should I expect that?

I don't think you understand the rationale of implementing an oil tax to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical government though. Thing is the money would just be wasted then they will just tax something else. It is also more symbolic than anything since I see no way that it ever had a chance to pass. Thankfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it would be cool to have a bionic arm like Will Smith did in I Robot, I doubt very much that cool cars in the movie would be anything like the real world. But as for another $10 barrel tax, that is just putting the pillow over the US economy's face in the hospital bed

As if oil won't inevitably rise far, far beyond $10 a barrel. :-\/>

So yeah, let's just wait until the market puts a "pillow over the economy's face". We'll worry about it then.

I trust you have faith that a gas tax will be repealed once oil pops up over 30, 50, 90$ a barrel ?

:laugh:/>

Why should I expect that?

I don't think you understand the rationale of implementing an oil tax to begin with.

There is none

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, at least in SC, the reason diesel is taxed at a higher rate than gas - which I oppose on several levels having a diesel daily driver - is the trucking lobby succeeded in eliminating the road fee on individual trucks and made up the revenue by taxing the fuel truck use.

I have been told that the reason diesel is higher, is the Obama admin. EPA mandated the removal of sulfur from diesel.

The reduction in sulfur content began long before obama. ULSD is currently down to 5ppm. When i began in the oil industry we were above 5000 ppm. The lack of sulfur really causes lubricity issues for the engines. The 500 ppm sulfur content wouldn't provide enough lubricity for what we will need with a $10 a barrel tax though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I forgot. Some of you are AGW deniers.

Raising taxes on anything you need to consume less of is rational, especially if that commodity is at a temporary low.

do you support sugar, soda and junk food taxes? I think obesity is a bigger threat than AGW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I forgot. Some of you are AGW deniers.

Raising taxes on anything you need to consume less of is rational, especially if that commodity is at a temporary low.

We don't need to use less oil. And it's already being taxed enough as is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proud manner in which stupidity is, not merely displayed, but regularly paraded in this forum, is embarrassing.

Does it make you feel inferior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama believes that carbon based fuels both in finding, producing and using are polluting the Planet. He is correct it does cause pollution but what he doesn't take into consideration is the impact on the world if we go green before it is economically viable.

Good intentions without a coherent plan to correct a problem often creates a new set of problems that are often worse then the existing problems. The government decides which technology to subsidize basically stopping research on other promising areas. Cheap energy provides heating and cooling, allows manufacturing all of these things help in providing jobs. Cheap energy helps everybody not just the rich.

Coal is a dying industry it doesn't need government intervention to kill it. Cheaper less polluting energy like natural Gas that has been made available via fracking is killing coal. For people in the coal belt without Government intervention as new Electric plants are built they will use natural Gas as it is cheaper per Kilowatt over time the older coal plants will shut down. This not even taking into account Wind and Solar are starting to have with their price point being lowered through the use of better technology.Without government intervention the coal belt will have time to slowly overcome the reliance on coal jobs. Government intervention can cause a complete collapse of the Industry. Causing a tremendous hardship in this part of our Country.

Solar and Wind energy due to technological breakthroughs has become competitive with Natural Gas and cheaper then coal. They have issues to overcome the ability to store energy when wind isn't blowing or sun not shining or a National Power Grid where one form of cheap energy can be shipped to an area where needed. Green Electric Energy is becoming a viable option because there is a need for it and that need is being addressed through scientific research that is improving the product so that it can compete on its own merits. Government Intervention is not needed the open marketplace will find real winners and we will eventually be green.

Electric cars are very expensive one because not enough cars are being produced to take advantage of mass manufacturing, expensive battery packs that have limited range, slow recharge times and must be replaced about every three years which is an added cost to the consumer. Again Science will address these issue. In the last few years various groups like Berkley Labs have announced various breakthrough's. Unlike in the past where breakthrough's were announced and then never came to fruition. Some of these breakthrough's are showing the ability to scale, to be cheaper then curent batteries, have longer ranges, much quicker recharging capability and a much longer lifespan. We are probably looking at 3-10 years before these are being used commercially. Once these batteries are available the demand for electric cars will increase and as more cars are built the cost of the car will come down. Capitalism works Green will win out as it becomes cheaper, more efficient and allows improved quality of air and water in the world.

An electric engine is lighter then Internal Combustion engine has less moving parts to be replaced, uses direct drive to the wheels so has quicker, steadier acceleration. Then we will have a new quandary how will we pay for our roads. The road Infrastructure in the US is deteriorating. One of the key reasons is as cars get more miles per gallon people are spending less on gas per mile driven so gas taxes have not been able to keep up with miles driven. How will we tax Electric cars or the Electricity they use to pay for upkeep of our road systems.

My problem with individuals and the government pushing green energy isn't that I am against green energy it is I believe their intervention is often counterproductive. When a technology is ready for prime time it will take off without the people on Capital Hill trying to decide who has the best energy based on who donates the most money to their campaign chest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...