Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
So Much for the Recovery
- Thread starter jaywa
- Start date
Hilarious.
I've lived in Michigan almost my entire life, most of that in Muskegon - which averages 110" of snow a year (unlike the ~40" where you are)... and I've never once had an AWD or 4WD vehicle.
Never had a problem.
Bill, I think it also has to do with different cultures. A great example is the industry I'm in, Sport-fishing. In the US Sport-fishing has huge participation, almost 100 million people in the US pick up and rod and reel at least once a year and try to catch a fish. A vast majority of our fisheries have good access, and it is one of the largest leisure industries in the country. People drive to fishing spots, many of them pull a small boat for use when they fish.
In the UK about 3 million people participate in Sport Fishing. Much of your access is highly limited paid access. British trout streams while world famous are almost all very expensive private club fisheries. While those fisheries are available in the states, many of our states have got almost unlimited access to the same or better quality water than something that would cost you thousands of dollars a year in membership fees to do in the UK.
I would also suggest if you've never been to the Western US you wouldn't appreciate the distances that people routinely travel in the country and how wide open the country is. If you drive at night in Eastern Montana the lights you see ahead of you on the highway are the next town, that's twenty miles away. The population densities just aren't comparable, and neither are the distances traveled. I suspect the lack of population density in many places also makes us a bit more independent minded. I can head north for twelve hours at 70 mph and not leave the State of MI. Even though I did change time zones. It really is a different place, and what works in Europe doesn't always work here.
It doesn't mean you guys are wrong (well except for that pansy sport you mistakingly call football
) they're just different places that have molded different cultures.
But do you travel five states for living? A 3-400 mile day is not uncommon for me.
When I was just local, front wheel drive was fine. But as my job situation changed, my requirements changed.
I think anyone that can't get around in 90% of Michigan road conditions with rear wheel drive probably needs to work on their driving.
Is it a joke?
No.
If you don't think gasoline is highly subsidized, you're missing a lot.
If you'd actually pay attention, you'd see that they catch fire up in the engine bay, because the fuel pump is up there in most of the vehicles. When that gets ruptured in an accident, fuel starts to spit out on the heated headers, engine block, heads etc. Of course it's going to ignite... Most (if not all) cars on the road have fuel cut off switches in case of accidents...
Bill, I think it also has to do with different cultures. A great example is the industry I'm in, Sport-fishing. In the US Sport-fishing has huge participation, almost 100 million people in the US pick up and rod and reel at least once a year and try to catch a fish. A vast majority of our fisheries have good access, and it is one of the largest leisure industries in the country. People drive to fishing spots, many of them pull a small boat for use when they fish.
In the UK about 3 million people participate in Sport Fishing. Much of your access is highly limited paid access. British trout streams while world famous are almost all very expensive private club fisheries. While those fisheries are available in the states, many of our states have got almost unlimited access to the same or better quality water than something that would cost you thousands of dollars a year in membership fees to do in the UK.
I would also suggest if you've never been to the Western US you wouldn't appreciate the distances that people routinely travel in the country and how wide open the country is. If you drive at night in Eastern Montana the lights you see ahead of you on the highway are the next town, that's twenty miles away. The population densities just aren't comparable, and neither are the distances traveled. I suspect the lack of population density in many places also makes us a bit more independent minded. I can head north for twelve hours at 70 mph and not leave the State of MI. Even though I did change time zones. It really is a different place, and what works in Europe doesn't always work here.
It doesn't mean you guys are wrong (well except for that pansy sport you mistakingly call football
I wouldn't argue with much of that at all - it's mostly factual (except the bit about being able to drive north 840 miles in Michigan, and also the misguided football comment
). But I do think you and others here are still mixing up what you would like to happen with what is actually happening. Higher fuel prices are inevitable, either sooner or later, regardless of policy.In other words, yes, I understand that fuel being unaffordable will make a huge difference to the lifestyle and working pattern of many people. And not only in the US, although the changes there may be more drastic than in other countries. But we're fast approaching the point (if we haven't already reached it) where the status quo will change unavoidably. I honestly think that the second half of the twentieth century and the early part of this one will be seen by posterity as the only time in history that significant numbers of people had their own personal motorised transport, and that in a few years (very probably within my lifetime, and yours) motoring will once again be the privilege of the rich or very rich, just like it was a few years ago and like private jets are today. I think that really sucks, by the way, same as you do. But unfortunately my view of this or yours will not change reality one iota.
I'll admit I'm wrong when you and I can buy fuel for half what it costs us now.
PS - I've driven thousands of miles in the USA, by the way, mainly in Nevada / Arizona / California, on multiple visits.
PPS - does the term "coarse fishing" mean anything over there? It's massively popular here amongst people who might not afford the sort of participation you describe and I used to do it as a kid. Just curious, sorry for the potential derail.
How much money do we send to Saudi Arabia to maintain a stable theocracy?
Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead
Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
Income tax breaks
Aborgman, how much are fuels taxed you think from the moment the oil enters an oil refinery to the moment you can refill your car's tank?
I could agree with you in another way, saying that gas is strongly subsidized, but not the way you think.
About 9% of an oil refinery by-products are used in a petrochemical plant. The value of those petrochemical products is so high that gasoline might be actually given away free. Now, the gas is still relatively cheap in the States compared to most of developed countries, meaning that it technically could be taxed far heavier. In this sense, yes the gas is subsidized in the States.
Now, the cost of gas in Indonesia is close to nothing. Will you tell me why?
Wahoo...$80 to fill the tank in my Dodge Ram today. It will all be gone by Tuesday, maybe Wednesday.
-Mike
-Mike
Significantly less than other products.
Sales taxes on fuel are lower, production taxes are lower, income taxes on producers are lower...
You're ignoring lots of gas costs in this analysis... particularly environmental.
Average cost of gas in Indonesia last month was 4,500 Rupee per liter... or about $1.93/gallon (US).
While significantly cheaper than the US, it isn't close to nothing.
... and it's MASSIVELY subsidized by the government.
You missed out the word "helped".
Our deficit would be greater if taxes were lower in a fairly straightforward way. That's just arithmetic.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not claiming we've got all this right over here. In the section that you quoted, I was just pointing out the fairly obvious link between taxation and revenue rather than saying anything controversial.
I find different numbers in a search, but it seems we use around 150 billion gallons of gas/year here. If we tax it $2.00/gallon that would give $300 bdfillion/year toward the deficit. Our deficit this year is over $1 trillion. So, in a straightforward arithmetic way, it would help.
But there are a few assumptions:
If gas is $2 more expensive we will use the same amount.
All the gas is taxed. No one gets a break.
The $300 million that goes to the government will not affect any other revenue stream (income taxes, corporate profits, etc.)
Government will use all the revenue to reduce the deficit and will not spend it on anything else.
I'm probably missing a lot more.
Certainly this is true, but in this case the arithmetic is not straightforward. Taking money out of private hands and putting it in government hands affects the ability of private hands to generate taxable revenues. There are many straightforward economic variables to deal with, not to mention the effects of corruption and incompetence that may be impossible to calculate.
There is also another side to the deficit equation. Spending.
I'm not trying to be argumentative or controversial. I just don't see it as being straightforward.
In any event the current increase referenced in the OP is not going to the government.
By not taxing it.
I was just about to say that the merciful American authorities undertax the gas understanding how big the US is and how far US people have to travel.
On the same principle, vodka in Poland is heavily subsidized (not taxed enough) because Polish people need it so badly as the American people need gasoline, and this is why a 3/4 liter of vodka costs only US$10 in Poland
By not taxing it.
I was just about to say that the merciful American authorities undertax the gas understanding how big the US is and how far US people have to travel.
On the same principle, vodka in Poland is heavily subsidized (not taxed enough) because Polish people need it so badly as the American people need gasoline, and this is why a 3/4 liter of vodka costs only US$10 in Poland
but how far can you drive on 3/4 liter of vodka?
Then they shouldn't say indestructible, even if qualified with the word practically. It implies hubris. History is rife with fallen mighty.
I don't have a problem with hydrogen cars. They should just say it's as safe as cars we drive now. Or safer, if that's what they think.
If someone says something I know to be false it makes me more skeptical of their other claims, even if they are true. I'm more inclined to believe someone that recognizes human fallibility.
but how far can you drive on 3/4 liter of vodka?
Now! And fasten your safety belt before you read it!
In Sweden, everything is enormously taxed. Sweden is a classical example of welfare state based on high taxes. The Swedish government is -- IMHO -- overwhelmed with any socialist ideas they can apply in a modern society. So -- Sweden is the first European country where fuel-grade ethanol can be bought at any decent gas-station. By the way, it is 85% almost dry ethanol mixed with gasoline and some additives (anti-corrosive, lubricant, etc.)
Now, guess what the price of such fuel-grade ethanol is. Let us say this is at slightly lower price than gasoline. Yes, you need more ethanol by mile, but AFAIK the ethanol cars are nice for tax reasons. How can be ethanol cheaper than gasoline? All ethanol there is imported from Brazil! So, the answer?
Yes, the Swedish government taxes diesel oil heavily to reduce pollution, next is gasoline, and the government taxes ethanol the least to make their idea work...
I wonder if you really preferred such high taxes as those in Sweden... Where the industry does locate their production abroad to avoid such high taxes. (If one thinks it was the US to pioneer the offshore production then one is very very wrong).
