The notion that failing to tax people because they make more money is ridiculous. Go to Africa, South America or Southeast Asia and ask people there who in the United States is rich and they would say that everyone in the United States is loaded. The notion that you can tax one person because he makes more money than another is absurd and we all must be taxed equally. Now if only the federal government would can its unconstitutional programs, so that it will stop having excuses for its corruption.

 

A graduated tax code makes a lot of sense. At the lower ends, it gives folks relief so they can buy the products sold by those at the upper end.

As for the Federal, State, County and City programs, the courts and ballot boxes remain open. Hire (or train) to be a lawyer and sue them or run for office. One of the better programs are public education that provides a way kids can get the skills needed for success and not just what accident of birth provides.

Bob Wilson

 

I agree that both parties are not doing their job that was promised to the american people, I would like to see another political party to be thrown into the mix, like the Wigs of old. Hopefully that way we can get a message to congress to let them know that we are tired of this failed system that has been created by money hungry Democrats and Replublicans. We as people should go out send out those emails and letters to our congress people and let them know that we are tired of their anticts of taking advantage of the american people. That we will not stand for this and the end result will be the replacement of our current congress people.

 

The title of this thread is:
The Democrats want to raise taxes on oil companies

The last five threads have nothing to do with taxing oil companies.
Please stay on topic.
If you want to discuss general taxation then open a new thread.
Thanks.

 

During the Katrina crisis I was doing research on the breakdown of the cost of a gallon of gas and the Fed & state government's "take" on a gallon of gas is often more than double the oil company profits. Take NY for example the state tax alone is about .50/g while oil profit is around $.18
Personally I think the government should have something to say about that as well...especially during a national energy crisis like we had.
.

 

Agreed.

Yeah it really is absurd, and that is just the state gasoline taxes. When we buy gasoline, we also pay state property taxes (on the gasoline station), state sales tax, tolls (from transportation), federal income tax (on the oil company, transportation company and the gasoline station) and in addition to the income/property taxes that are placed on the transportation company and oil company.

The last I calculated, one third of the cost of gasoline went to either the state or federal government through taxes in various areas of the supply chain that make it really hard for the average person to see that such a large amount of the price of gasoline is from taxes.

 

Most-times, I'm all for the gov't just leaving us alone. But this is a matter of national security. Those in power, Dems & Reps alike, should raise the tax at the PUMP, not at the oil company - to discourage commuting to work in your Hummer, or your other 6000+ pound tax-advantaged vehicle (what a loophole).

This extra tax-money could be used for whatever. I'd opt for using the money to alter our electric-grid to use even less oil - more windmill and solar, maybe even more nuclear. The electric-grid could become cleaner, greener, and energy independent. Alternative fuel and electric vehicles will develop naturally as the price at the pump becomes unbearable. That's when the general public will clamor for Ford and GM to wake up and develop a better vehicle. Sure, the rich (and some others) will continue to drive gas-guzzling behemoths, but the majority will trim their vehicle size. Gas hit $3 a gallon, and I have trimmed already.

Like has been said, taxing the oil companies more is probably NOT the answer - and does NOTHING to help us become energy-independent.

In many other countries, folks pay a LOT more (triple or more) at the pump than in the US. We are fortunate to pay so little. But we have the worst oil appetite in the world, and depend on it from sources that are anti-American (to say the least). I believe this is entirely due to the expectation of cheap oil.

Arguments against taxing more at the pump:
(1) Somehow the country will just magically "wake up" and see the need to ween ourselves away from foreign oil. It ain't happening on its own. Didn't happen in the Oil Embargo days, ain't happening now. OPEC knows exactly how to keep the price reasonable enough most of time, and it keeps us hooked. We just gotta break free of this deadly habit, even if the govt has to jump-start it. I believe cheap oil and indifference are the largest contributers to us NOT breaking the habit. Give me a better way to force a "wake-up call" and I'm in, but I think you've got to hit our wallets, period.
(2) This hurts the poor disproportionately. I agree, and this is a vexing issue. I think some of the extra tax money could be used to aid the very poor in buying fuel efficient vehicles. Again, this is more gov't than I like to see, but it's a way to get the really old gas guzzlers out of the hands of the poor, and onto the scrap-heap. And this is an equalizer for the extra burden placed upon the poor.

Or we can just keep everything as-is (or even lower those existing taxes) - and keep on funneling money to terrorists. The system is working so well now

 

Taxing gasoline places a tax on all vehicles, fuel efficient or not, and that would be bad for all of us. Instead of advocating taxes on gasoline, why not advocate high taxes (by the state governments) on gas guzzling vehicles (i.e. anything that gets less than 25 mpg from either city or highway driving)?

High taxes on gasoline guzzlers would not hurt those of us who cannot afford to pay more for gasoline and it will ensure that the economy transitions to being more fuel efficient without causing an economic depression by forcing vehicle manufacturers to make fuel economy their number one priority (or else they will lose sales and therefore market share to foreign competition). The price of gasoline would decline from the resulting decline in demand and the economy would become less dependent on foreign oil, which would be a win-win situation.

Here is an description of the process, using the Toyota Avalon as an example:

Toyota presently uses their 2GR-FE engine and a five speed automatic transmission in the Toyota Avalon. They presently have direct fuel injected engine that uses less fuel and gives more horse power, which is called the 2GR-FSE. They also have six speed and eight speed automatic transmissions that are more efficient than the five speed that they are currently using and they have automatic manual transmissions, which in theory are even more efficient, available to them from a transmission company they spun-off. Using the more efficient direct fuel injected engine plus a more efficient transmission would improve the Toyota Avalon's fuel economy, but because fuel economy is not Toyota's number one priority, they are not using them and instead only seek to be simply better than their competition rather than the best that they can be (as making the Toyota Avalon that good would undercut their Lexus division, which uses the more advanced components to justify their high price points and compensate for additional weight).

If high taxes were placed on vehicles that do not sustain 25 mpg in city driving, the Toyota Avalon would be subject to them and Toyota would lose market share; since Toyota does not like to lose market share, it will use more fuel efficient components in their Toyota Avalon, resulting in better fuel economy, perhaps even 25 mpg, as they will finally have a reason to improve the Avalon beyond being slightly better than its current competition in fuel economy. As time passes and Toyota and other companies (which will have been through the same process) develop newer components that they will again not use in their mainstream vehicles, the 25 mpg figure could be raised to say 30 mpg, and the process will repeat itself.

 

Wow, talk about some serious government medling in private industry affairs. I am personally against so many "assistance" programs. The more people we can ween off of the support programs the better, and increasing taxes just to increase to support programs to prevent a problem with the taxes that were not a problem before the taxes is not a solution.

 

Ag4ever, it is not clear as to whether you are replying to my idea of placing high gas guzzler taxes on vehicles or you are replying to the Democrat's plan to raise taxes on oil companies.

If you are replying to my idea, I can assure you that when I suggested placing high taxes on gas guzzlers, I did not insinuate that the funds from them should be used for any government programs. If I had been asked to clarify what I thought that the funds from such taxes should fund, I would have suggested using them to offset existing taxes through a tax rebate, such that if a state has an income tax and the amount of funds that the state raises from the gasoline guzzler tax I suggested is equivalent to 10% of the funds raised from the income tax, people would only send 90% of what they normally would send the following year.

My idea does not involve any government meddling in private affairs, as it does not force any private party to do anything; it only makes it highly desirable that they do by manipulating market prices for new vehicles through a selective form of economic coercion based on the fuel economy of each new vehicle sold.