THSCC Forums

I understand Diane's feelings People get on my about my '95 Protege, but the thing gets 35mpg around town.

Granted, the Celica gets decent mileage too, considering I've seen 37+mpg on the highway in full STS trim

The Saab is another story. It gets around 22 around town. Good thing I have a 5.6 mile round trip commute - AB

_________________
'14 Toyota Sequoia Platinum 4WD
Super Westerfield Bros - '93 Integra - LeChump Du Jour
STX 93 - Scion FR-S

The same would be true for almost any car with Bosch L-Jetronic or Motronic 1.xx and a turbo. The acceleration enrichment is insane.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/

If it were a direct subtractor to the GDP, 170 billion would amount to 1.2% of our 14 trillion dollar GDP. Not insignificant considering a GDP growth of ~4%. Of course its not a direct subtractor, because some of that extra cost stays in the GDP since US crude producers, refineries, and "quickie marts" see some precentage of that extra price and therefor contributes to GDP. But discounting that effect, which I couldn't begin to predict how much of the 1.2% it would be, it is a significant impact on US economic growth, but not quite, the end of the world. Might make Greenspan reconsider the aggresivness of his rate hikes for sure...

I believe that the current level, crude oil is about 54% of the price of fuel. Since over 50% of our crude is imported (and 80% used to make gasoline) that means at least a quarter of the 170 billion is leaving the country. More likely $68 billion.

The other problem is that the oil companies are using increases in crude prices to mask extra margin for themselves. With about half the price of fuel being crude, if the crude prices doubles, that only guarantees a 50% increase in fuel prices. Yet, when examined closely, and specifically for diesel, we see that the refiners portion of the resale price is 350% of what it was in June of 2003. There has not been a 250% increase in the cost of refining operations in the past two years to justify that level of increase, especially when same time crude increase are at 71%. Transportation and distribution expenses contribution has risen about 25%. The gas station owner is not the one making the money.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/

How long until the gubmint gets in on the action and tacks on a percentage of the total price per gallon rather than the current "flat" tax ...

_________________
Has no responsibility whatsoever.

With the current focus on rising gas prices, calling for greater fuel taxes would be political suicide. The only way it could be done would be to put it out at a percent that lowers the dollar impact today, but quickly nets a revenue increase later. The likelihood of the government signing up to decrease current revenues are practically zero, IMO.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/

How many of the members of the NC Legislature got to keep their jobs after voting to increase the sales tax several years ago? All? How many people really know how much taxes they're paying on gas as it is?

_________________
Has no responsibility whatsoever.

I agree it that it could happen, but I don't see anyone with the political will to face the fire over greater fuel taxes. There is a huge lobby behind low fuel taxes and the record of those who supported an increase would be made very public.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/

I would actually have guessed that the amount leaving the country would have been a higher number, a majority of the total even, but of course it would have been a total SWAG. Your numbers make sense, but I think that the amount of crude we import is more like 70-75% rather than ~50% which would make the number leaving the US GDP larger. Still, its obviously not the full 1.2%, less than 1% certainly.



Yeah, the refiners are making a killing from this it would seem. I do believe the gas station owners get some percent as well. They have control of the price right? Hence the widely varying prices between stations we've seen the past few days. Those stations costs haven't gone up a lick quite *yet*, but that hasn't stopped them from raising the price immediatley a few percent. They definitely realize some of the gain.

$0.427 sounds great to the taxers when gas is $1.609, but now that it's $[b]2[/2].609, tis but a pittance. I imagine that they could institute a percentage and be able to make the carbon blobs think that they're paying less.

_________________
Has no responsibility whatsoever.

There are realizing a gross dollar gain as their percentage of the final gas price has not decreased. If they made 10% on $1.50 gas, they now make 10% on $2.50 gas. However, their margin, the percentage, has not seen a dramatic change. Since June 2003, the margins of all post refining contributors has average 103% of the June 2003 level. So, if they made 10% in June 2003, they now make 10.03%. The refiners, on the other hand, have increased both their gross dollar and gross margin profits.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/

As much as a hate to do it, I have to agree with Rich on this one. Anyone who knows me, knows I hate me some gubmint, but doing something like that in the current environment would be political suicide. Certainly, gubmint would llllloooovvveee to do it, and it may happen in the future, but I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. It would need to be done at a time when gas prices aren't so prevalent on everyone's minds. Or a "bait n' switch" sort of thing, like Rich mentioned, in which the precentage implemented would actually drop the price in the short term. That way it could be "spun" as helping alleviate the "pain at the pump." And could be a political win situation. Of course they would then need to be certain that prices are going to continue to climb for that to work, cause a drop in pump prices would mean less total revenue, bad for gubmint. Anyway, its probably better to just leave the gas tax alone, there are other easier, and less "high profile" ways to increase tax revenue.

I actually do remember hearing rumblings from the current administration of doing the exact opposite and temporarily lowering the fuel tax to help alleviate "pain at the pump" since this is something that seems so important to people. It didn't materialize, but it was definitely mentioned some.

Sounds like your not just pulling this our of your a@@, and you've actually seen the numbers.

Agreed, but the oil companies, the auto manufacturers, the $365 billion auto parts industry, the $1.242 trillion transportation sector and many others all have a vested interest in keeping taxes low. While the voters might not see enough to care, the political and monetary clout opposing such an increase would be staggering.

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/

Not only seen them, but in many cases collated data from a number of different sources in order to generate them. And you are getting to see them before they are published. Just don't tell anyone!

_________________
Rich
http://www.v8mongrel.com/