• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fuel Tax

Jon_in_london

Illuminator
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
4,989
This is something that I really find irritating!

As the price of oil goes up- so the price of petrol goes up- so the amount of revenue the gov gains from the sale of it goes up.

Any fule kno that higher fuel prices = economic slowdown.

So why doesnt the government regulate is fuel tax to minimise fluctuations in the price for the consumer?
 
Here's a letter to the editor I submitted to a local weekly paper about this very subject.

(BTW, a little background: there is no Mayor Duke H. Norman. He's a fictional character they made up to write little editorial tirades on the issue. I played along a bit. They also like publishing long letters, something I really like about them.)

----------------

In response to, "When will we get our 'fill' of high gasoline prices and do something?" on 12 May 2004:

Y'know, I think I saw Mayor Duke H. Norman at the Citgo the other day waving his arms and cursing the high gasoline prices. I couldn't tell for sure, though, because I was too busy waving my arms and cursing the high gasoline prices. Then I read his editorial in news@norman. Believe me, I feel his pain and anger, but I think it's directed at the wrong people. He says the high gas prices are because "the big oil companies are ripping us off." I think there's a different group of ripoff artists to blame.

He cites that Citgo's profits are expected to grow between 30-40% this year. The truth is, according to the Houston Chronicle ("National Earnings: Citgo suffers big profit drop," 4 May 2004), Citgo's profits for the first quarter of 2004 fell 75%. A 30-40% growth would be only half of what they need to make this up. And the $5.44 billion in ExxonMobil profits he made such a big deal of, only amounts to about 5¼¢ for every gallon of gas in profits according to SmartMoney.com (by the way, ExxonMobil's profits dropped 23% in the first quarter). It hardly sounds to me like that's being "ripped off."

Where I feel ripped off is by the entity that represents the single largest line item in gasoline costs: government. Government motor fuel taxes currently represent 42.7¢ per gallon. That's over eight times as much as ExxonMobil is making in profits!

Gasoline prices affect us all, and not just from what you put into the pump. Pretty much everything you consume was put on a truck at one point or another, so the prices of shipping (which would include fuel costs) are included in the price of the good. Their recent rise is not due to the oil companies cutting production, because the oil companies haven't cut oil production--in fact, they've increased it over 4% in the first quarter. It's due to increased demand. We're consuming more. The oil companies don't have much choice.

But the government does. In a survey conducted by the John Locke Foundation, the tax burden was cited by North Carolina's business leaders as the #1 impediment to economic growth in the state. That's all taxes, including the ones that cause minor myocardial infarctions upon seeing prices at the gas pump. It hits you on the way to work. It hits you at the supermarket because those goods needed gasoline to be shipped. It hits you at the video stores, the restaurants, the hospitals, and the schools.

It's the cost of all that government "help" that never seems to do any good, that never seems to make us safer or better educated, and that certainly doesn't make us richer. We need smaller government in order to reduce the tax burden and help us prosper. And we need it NOW.
 
ExxonMobil profits he made such a big deal of, only amounts to about 5¼¢

Government motor fuel taxes currently represent 42.7¢

..........................................................................

How much is 'gas' in 'Merica?
 
Shane, at least in N. Carolina they have the sense to tax gas by the gallon. Here in the People's Republic of Illinois they charge tax as a percentage of sales, so as the gas price goes up so does the tax! Idiotic, because not only does it create a multiplier effect for the consumer, it also makes the tax revenue a function of gas prices. The revenue would be much more predictable and stable if it was charged per gallon. Illinois now has one of the highest gas prices in the nation, and it's even more here in Chicago where there is a county and city tax on top of the federal and state taxes.

Jon, it's about $2.27/gal here in the city. Probably a good 40 cents less a few miles away in Indiana. I know this is low by Euro standards, but it's artificially high over there. And this country doesn't have the population density to support public transportation on the scale of Europe.
 
WildCat said:
And this country doesn't have the population density to support public transportation on the scale of Europe.

You just need a really dense public transport system :p
 
WildCat said:
Jon, it's about $2.27/gal here in the city. Probably a good 40 cents less a few miles away in Indiana. I know this is low by Euro standards, but it's artificially high over there.

For those who don't like doing conversions, that works out to about $0.60 per liter or, assuming I guess your location correctly, about 0.5 Euros per liter (I think...sorry, I don't know the symbol)

I just filled up yesterday (here in Virginia) and the price at the pump was $1.78 per gallon. I forgot to look at the tax on that but I think it's currently $0.37 per gallon.

Is either price high, historically speaking? Not really. Adjusted for inflation, the price has remained fairly steady for half a century...spikes and dips notwithstanding.
 
WildCat said:
Shane, at least in N. Carolina they have the sense to tax gas by the gallon. Here in the People's Republic of Illinois they charge tax as a percentage of sales, so as the gas price goes up so does the tax!

Actually, it's pretty much the same case in NC. Every six months the tax rate is changed to reflect the change in gas prices. Of course, that's based on a six-month average, so it's not prone to the peaks and troughs of the gas prices as they go through their cycles, but in the long run it ends up being the same thing.
 
Jon_in_london said:
You just need a really dense public transport system :p

Look around America—most of our public transporation systems are really dense! :p :D
 
TwoShanks said:
60 cents a litre? You yanks don't know you're born.

Can you provide an american translation???

Does it mean something like, "You don't know how good you've got it." If so, you might be right. Some American's really don't. Some don't even care. Some wish we had it much worse -- but the logic behind that wish is, IMNSHO, lacking. Some wish we'd tax it (much more) to ease the 'social' burden, although I think such a scheme all but impossible.

Some wish we'd tax it directly according to the costs (direct and indirect) associated with its procurement and use. I happen to be a part of that set.
 
Rob Lister said:
Is either price high, historically speaking? Not really. Adjusted for inflation, the price has remained fairly steady for half a century.

Not really. Real prices have steadily risen, and now real prices are the largest they've been since the energy crunch of the 1970s. Here's a graph of nominal and real gas prices over the last ten years. I got the nominal prices from:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html

And the CPI Index to adjust for inflation from:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
 
Rob Lister said:


Can you provide an american translation???

Does it mean something like, "You don't know how good you've got it."

That's it exactly. In the UK, unleaded fuel is around 80 pence/litre, that's around $1.60. This is why I find it amusing to hear people complaining about paying 60 cents.

Then again, we do have that free healthcare business, I suppose.
 
TwoShanks said:


That's it exactly. In the UK, unleaded fuel is around 80 pence/litre, that's around $1.60. This is why I find it amusing to hear people complaining about paying 60 cents.

Then again, we do have that free healthcare business, I suppose.

Well, there are significant cultural differences that have been mentioned to explain this. My understanding is, though, that your high gas prices are caused by the same effect: high taxes.
 
shanek said:


Not really. Real prices have steadily risen, and now real prices are the largest they've been since the energy crunch of the 1970s. Here's a graph of nominal and real gas prices over the last ten years. I got the nominal prices from:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html

And the CPI Index to adjust for inflation from:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

Thank you shanek. My assertion however was that it has remained fairly steady over the last fifty years. Please, if you would be so kind, provide a chart including that total range. I would, but I'm not disputing my assertion.

Edit: oops with the missing words.
 
Well, I did find this:

http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/gasol.htm

I was right, this is the highest they've been since the 70's, but going back to the 50s the price did stay more constant than I thought it would. Real prices are currently higher, though, than at any point in that graph other than the spike in the 1970s, although not by a whole lot.
 
shanek said:
...
Real prices are currently higher, though, than at any point in that graph other than the spike in the 1970s, although not by a whole lot.

Well, if they were not, it probably would not have come up for debate. What might be interesting is to see the same graph but adjusted for taxes. I hunted briefly for an easy link but couldn't find one for any given state. Still, considering what a few have suggested regarding the price/tax ratio, I'd be interesting.
 
Rob Lister said:
Well, if they were not, it probably would not have come up for debate. What might be interesting is to see the same graph but adjusted for taxes.

I thought about that. I don't know at what point gas taxes were introduced. But I'll bet the arresting of the downward trend in real prices (not counting the effects of the supply shock in the '70s) had something to do with the introdution or the increasing of taxes.

This is also the fastest rise in real prices since the beginning of the supply shock in the '70s. Could we be heading for another one?
 
Check this out: I quickly did a new version of the above graph (the one from 1950 onward) with a ratio scale so that the trends could easily be identifiable as straight lines.

Notice that from 1950 until the start of the energy crisis, it followed a certain downward trend (the orange line) and didn't deviate much from it. If this trend had been allowed to continue, then the result would have been near the dashed orange line.

If this trend had resumed from the point where it was after the energy crunch, it would have been near the dashed magenta line. In reality, it followed the solid magenta line which is a much lesser downward trend than the one before, and it deviates wildly from it.
 
shanek said:
Check this out: I quickly did a new version of the above graph (the one from 1950 onward) with a ratio scale so that the trends could easily be identifiable as straight lines.

Notice that from 1950 until the start of the energy crisis, it followed a certain downward trend (the orange line) and didn't deviate much from it. If this trend had been allowed to continue, then the result would have been near the dashed orange line.

If this trend had resumed from the point where it was after the energy crunch, it would have been near the dashed magenta line. In reality, it followed the solid magenta line which is a much lesser downward trend than the one before, and it deviates wildly from it.

Any conclusions?

One possibility, sort of off the cuff:

Texas oil peak -- reduction of domestic supply increases control by other more-monopolistic sources (OPEC)
 
Rob Lister said:
Any conclusions?

Not yet, just putting it out there. I strongly suspect that both fuel taxes and OPEC are involved, though.
 

Back
Top Bottom