Clinton focuses on Obama's opposition to gas tax plan
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 2 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 2 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 23 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
22 Comments
Login to comment
0
Sarge
"Democratic Party chief Howard Dean"
Why didn't he run for president this year? He was a leading candidate in 2004.
0
adaydream
Like you'd have voted for him.
I'm not for the gas tax suspension because the money will have to be repaid to the fund. Roads will still be built and repaired. It don't pay for itself.
0
SezWho2
I keep wondering if I've done my math correctly. At 5 cents a gallon reduction, it seems like it would take 20 gallons to save 1 dollar. If you get 20 miles to the gallon--as the EPA assumes--you'd have to drive 400 miles to save a dollar.
Now assuming--as the EPA does--that the average driver puts about 12,000 miles a year on his car, that would be about 3,000 miles every 3 months. For fun let's assume that in the summer you drive more and let's make the figure 4,000 miles. This means that suspension of the gas tax for 3 months would save you $10.
I think this makes Clinton's and McCains arguments look very, very silly. But there's hope yet for the anti-Obama crowd. Can't we now all get on his case for being bad at math? We certainly don't need another president who can't cipher.
0
SuperLib
The plan almost seems like an election ploy rather than anything significant. I'd rather hear how they'd decrease America's dependence on foreign oil than actually lowering the price which would increase consumption.
0
Zaphod
It is ridiculous seeing all three candidates promising to use government money to subsidize gas prices. What happened to energy independence, to green technologies, to cutting carbon dioxide?
Oh yes, it is all supposed to be painless...
0
Taka313
Sez, You are not the only one who thinks it's silly. This is an excerpt from an article I read the other day entitled, Ten Reasons Why Suspending the Federal Gas Tax Would be Bad for the Economy and Poor Public Policy:
It would eliminate almost billion that would be invested in road, bridge and public transit investments that benefit the public and American businesses-- billion in highway improvements; billion in transit investments. This would trigger a series of negative economic consequences.
State and local governments, already cutting back in many instances due to the economic downturn, will decrease their capital investments in highways and transit. This, in turn, will decrease business opportunities for private sector design and construction firms already hit by the recession, which will then reduce demand for related materials, supplies, equipment--and employment.
More than 310,000 Americans whose jobs are currently supported by federal investments in highways and transit will have their employment placed at risk.
The Highway Trust Fund's Highway Account, already facing a first-ever deficit, due in part to the economic downturn, would see that deficit grow to more than 0.8 billion by September 2009. This will trigger additional cutbacks in state and local investments in highways and transit infrastructure improvements in 2009 and beyond.
Even if the federal excises were reduced, the federal government could not guarantee that gas and diesel prices would drop commensurately at the pump. In fact, research shows that when the states of Illinois and Indiana temporarily suspended their sales tax on motor fuel purchases in 2001 in response to escalating retail prices:
-- the impact on consumer pocketbooks was minimal; and
-- state transportation improvement programs were shortchanged by tens of millions of dollars.
The U.S. economy would lose an estimated 3 billion in long-term economic benefits that would be generated by billion in highway and transit investments--a net loss of 4 billion. The U.S. Department of Transportation has reported that every in highway infrastructure investments generates .60 in economic benefits.
Cutting federal investments in highway and transit improvements would exacerbate traffic congestion across the nation--causing motorists and truckers to spend even more on motor fuel. Research by the Texas Transportation Institute shows traffic congestion is now responsible for about three billion gallons of wasted motor fuel in the U.S. each year.
Cutting federal investments in highway and transit improvements would affect traffic safety. Nearly 43,000 Americans died last year in motor vehicle crashes. Poor road conditions and outdated alignments were a contributing factor in an estimated one-third of them. Highway crashes cost American society 30 billion--20 per person--each year. Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death of Americans 6 to 28 years of age and result in more permanently disabling injuries than any other type of accident.
Reducing or eliminating the federal motor fuels tax would do nothing to increase the supply of motor fuels--a major reason why motor fuel retail prices are up.
What would happen when the federal gas tax suspension ends on Labor Day? Would Americans experience--in one day--an 18.4 cent per gallon spike in the retail price of motor fuel?
http://www.buildingmarketnews.com/2008/04/ten-reasons-why.html
Taka
0
redacted
"Clinton focuses on Obama's opposition to gas tax plan"
Another act to add to their Punch n Judy routine.
Go Hillary!
Go Baracky!
0
SezWho2
Taka,
Thanks for the reminder. I get it now. 5% not 5 cents.
So that makes the savings about $35, being charitable. Obama was right and we can elect him as Cipherer-in-Chief. I, alas, have to disqualify myself as a careful reader.
0
adaydream
McCain just wants to suspend the taxes. But the tax has to be collected from somewhere to make up for funds not collected through gas taxes. And bridges continue to get built.
At least when Clinton talks about suspending the tax, it has to be replaced. That means we'll have to borrow more money from China to suspend the gas tax. Doesn't make much sense.
0
WhiteHawk
Has anybody noticed that the U.S. government makes more profit on each gallon of gas than the oil companies do? And that's in the U.S., which has lower gas taxes than the UK and Japan!
As for the issue of funding roads and transit, all too often the taxes are funneled into the general fund, and spent on pet projects and vote-buying entitlements. We have a law in Tennessee that prohibits that, but it didn't stop our governor, Phil Bredesen(D). But instead of any consequences for him, our esteemed legislature has only passed another law repeating the first.
Oregon must have used its gas taxes for other purposes, because they were trying to find new ways to create revenue to offset the decrease in gas consumption after the liberals in their state bought hybrids.
0
adaydream
Whitehawk, how much are other countries paying in taxes on gasoline?
Is there a comparison link that shows these numbers.
0
WhiteHawk
adaydream, I'll see if I can find a link. I remember the blokes on Top Gear were discussing the topic on a recent episode; the oil companies were getting 35p/liter (gross) while the government was getting 65p/liter.
0
adaydream
The items I've seen here in the states on CNN etc. is about:
50% cost of crude 25% refining 5% federal taxes 5% end of the line profits, stations/dealers 15% state taxes Now I know my numbers are off a little.
But the taxes accessed on gasoline in the states is much less then in Europe and other parts of the world.
0
WhiteHawk
So that's 3 times the profit for state taxes than for the oil companies, is that right? Was there any mention of federal taxes? My city also has local taxes on each gallon.
0
WhiteHawk
Aha! Here is a map of gas taxes for the U.S.:
http://www.factsonfuel.org/images/pdf/GASTAXMAPJANUARY2008.pdf
0
WhiteHawk
From the page:
http://www.factsonfuel.org/gasoline/index.html
0
WhiteHawk
And here is some information on the Brits:
http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html
0
adaydream
Thanx for the link. If you look at the total of the state excise taxes and other state taxes, that total + 18.4 cents gives you the total of taxes.
Diesel federal taxes are 22 to 24 cents percent greater. But this is overshadowed by the amout of the state taxes.
Like I said my numbers were a little fuzzy, but they are real close.
When I lived in Missouri I remember one state gas tax raise that raised it 6 cents over a few years. (Ah yes, and the state squandered it in the general funds for years and didn't give it to the road dept till several years later, with no repayment of the money diverted.)
But anyway you cut it. You cut taxes here, they got to be made back up somewhere. You keep building and repairing bridges, you got to get the money somewhere.
0
WhiteHawk
Or the government could cut its spending...
No, that's just for those of us who fund it.
0
unscrejects
Sorry WhiteHawk - did you say the state makes more on gas than the gas company? Due all respect sir but I would have to disagree. The oil companies make Hollywood accounting look honest. Their profit margins are the highest in any so-called "every day industry". And remember that most of the crude they're pricing at 120 bucks per barrel was actually taken from the source at about 10 bucks per barrel. We're dealing with an industry that thrives on the ignorance of the arm chair analyst. Are you familiar with West Texas? Spend six years down there and you'll know how the BP's, Chevrons et al make billions on crude they literally take out of the ground for free. And the logs are hardly, if ever, verifiable. The API paid my way through six years of schooling so I should really be grateful but... dude I was in Angola at the height of the little war and you wouldn't believe it but Gulf and Tennaco personnel were sharing the same billets with N.Korean and Russian military advisors. The US was buying 90% of it's DoD aviation class crude in Angola at less than 3 dollars a barrel. In the US the oil shippers claim full repair, upgrading and laying costs on infrastructure that is shared by the industry. They are getting away with legalized false booking of expenses. Hey in Japan they jack the price up on crude delivered three years ago when somebody in Nigeria sneezes - yet they get no supplies from there. The Arabian Oil Company scandal is a point to note - they pumped crude out of the Khafgi Field for over 30 years at no more than $3 a barrel (until around 2002) when SArabia gave them the boot.
0
WhiteHawk
unscrejects, the last time I saw figures for what it costs to get crude out of the ground, Saudi Arabia had it cheapest a $2/barrel. America averaged $10/barrel. This was when oil was $40/barrel. West Texas crude was free? It jumped out of the ground and into tanker trucks (driven by volunteers, I suppose) with no drilling equipment or pumps to buy? Wow, I'm in the wrong line of work!
Did you follow any of my links? How do you explain the U.K. taxes at the pump, were a liter cost 95.1p in 2007, and 63.7p of that went to taxes, leaving the oil company with 31.4p? Do the U.S. or U.K. governments refine crude into petrol or diesel fuel? Do those governments transport the fuel to retail stations they've built? No, it's the oil companies who do that.
63.7p per liter. And for what...?
Do oil companies pull scams? Sure, so do our governments. So do anti-establishment activists. Which one profits the most for it?
0
unscrejects
WhiteHawk
We're in a hep a' truble as they say in Texas. And out there the wells were drilled decades ago. They just keep on pouring that crude out - turning the pumps on an' off according to the space in the holding tanks. And in most areas little granma's with the land sitting above the oil don't get paid a penny - they use lateral drilling. The law says if they drill on your land it's your oil. But drilling under from the side is not in the books. That was what led to Kuwait being hit in 90. They drilled under Iraqi fields and bragged about it. Actually the Texans set up the service. In Britain the government takes commissions for the concessions. And besides most of the infrastructure is virtually state owned or heavily subsidized. We're definitely in the wrong field.
Back to top