how long before fuel prices drop?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by richard, Oct 11, 2008.

  1. richard

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Bill added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
    Sounds right to my limited info. Any truth to my guess that some is
    coming from Russia?
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 13, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. richard

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    chuckcar added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    No. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding here. I was talking only
    about Federal and state GAS taxes in the paragraph you quoted and
    NOT IRS income taxes. In Michigan, I believe that total gas taxes
    are in the range of less than 60 cents but haven't verified this
    for accuracy. But, it isn't much more or less than that.

    Now, to the extent that income taxation of all type, social taxes
    of all types, healthcare taxes and costs of all types, yada,
    yada, then real disposable income available to buy new, higher
    efficiency cars and/or buy gas is severely limited especially for
    the poor. This further extends the effects that elasticity alread
    exerts on gas usage in the U.S. that has so hastened a change in
    buying habits from big trucks and SUVs to small cars.

    We can debate conservative or liberal tax policies if you like
    but I have a suspicion that you are unable or unwilling to accept
    the truth as you have spouted the Far Left Loon line by
    implication. Get it through your head, McCain is NOT giving $4B
    in tax cuts to Big Oil as Obama accuses him of, the tax breaks
    are part of overall cuts on business including small, medium and
    Fortune 500 size companies. Since business provides ALL self-
    sustaining jobs and might again pay significant taxes on profits
    if Big Government would only get out of it's way, then more
    people would be in favor of granting tax cuts not increases to

    Now, lest you or anyone jump to an incorrect conclusion of where
    my views lie, guess again. If I were able to influence tax policy
    in favor of business cuts, it would ONLY be with strong
    restrictions on the paying of dividends and executive
    compensation in any years that the companies in question actually
    pay income taxes and even then, I would only allow the pool of
    money available to be given to the fat cats to the EXCESS of that
    paid in taxes.

    This, my friend, is a centrist's view and neither a liberal or a
    conservative view. In conclusion, please keep in mind that NO
    government entity at any level ever has ANY money except that
    which is willingly or unwillingly given to it by it's citizens,
    and that includes the authorization to borrow money to finance
    budget deficits.

    If you're not already aware, the U.S, has about doubled the size
    of the national debt since President Bush took office and within
    the last month alone has nearly doubled it AGAIN! No one truly
    know how much of this is owed to our enemies but there is not
    ample evidence that the root of the Fannie and Freddie bailouts,
    and maybe all the rest, came primarily from the Chinese who may
    own a trillion dollars or more of our debt. It seems that the
    Chinese told Henry Paulson that he either did something to shore
    up the dollar and insure their T-bills or they were going to dump
    them on the world market which would be an economic disaster of
    epic proportion.

    I cannot reveal the source or the detail, but I am in possession
    of a report produced independent of the Federal government that
    claims that the portion of the national debt owed to foreign
    countries is some $16.3 TRILLION and rising. I cannot yet verify
    this. It doesn't seem to pass the laugh test nor my own research
    but that is precisely because there is zero transparency in
    today's government.
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 13, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. richard

    Aardvark Guest

    You seem to be implying that all our taxes go towards social programmes.
    Wrong. In financial year 2007-2008, £92.6 Billion was spent on the NHS,
    representing 9.2% of GDP. Although this is around the average expenditure
    on national health services in the EU, it is much lower than those of
    France and Germany, who spend more than 10% GDP on theirs.



    Personally I'd like to see more of my money spent on health care, despite
    the fact I rarely avail myself of it. I think it's been at least five
    years since I've visited my doctor and he had gone grey since the
    previous time I'd seen him :).
    Aardvark, Oct 13, 2008
  4. richard

    Aardvark Guest

    Apart from taxes on petrol (which do include, as you hinted, VAT which is
    an EU sales tax) the owners of road vehicles here in the UK must also
    carry a 'Road Fund Licence', or as the-man-in-the-street calls it, 'Road
    Tax'. The income from this tax is notionally to pay for the building and
    upkeep of the nation's roads although in reality it doesn't. Lower road
    tax is paid on more economical and 'green' vehicles:


    There are also existing and proposed inner city congestion charges, most
    notably that of London, although the one that will affect me most is that
    which will soon be introduced in Manchester.


    Okay, you asked for it :):



    Hope this helps you.
    Aardvark, Oct 13, 2008
  5. richard

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Aardvark added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    Not all of any country's taxes go anywhere near only for social
    programs but depending on which country at what time in history
    or today, the percentage of total tax revenues divided between
    domestic and foreign policies can vary widely. Looking only at
    the domestic front, the amount of money spent on what we call
    "entitlements" and how we view our European friend's socialist
    ways also varies widely country to country and also varies over

    But, comparing government spending to GDP really isn't all that
    useful except in the abstract case as it is at least hoped that
    Big Government doesn't pig out at the trough and steal too much
    GDP for itself but rather allows the economy to be as self-
    sustaining as possible which is the only true way to grow.

    Let us also be reminded that NO government can create jobs and
    wealth as they have no capital with which to do so. At best,
    governments skim money off the top and prevent business from
    being successful by investing in new product leading to ever
    higher taxes AND increased employement.

    A much better measure would be the percent of NHS of the total GB
    budget. I have no clue what that may be but can make at least a
    partial comparison by noting that our social programs such as
    Social Security and Medicare appear to be a reasonable percentage
    of the domestic portion of our Federal budget, as I have outlined
    earlier, we are only a few years from another kind of meltdown
    which will last for at least 20 years - that of the baby boomers
    going on the dole.

    BTW, 9.2% isn't "much lower" than 10%, it is only 9.2% lower by
    coincidence. Again, though, a much more useful measure is percent
    of budget. But, the overriding concern for any citizens of any
    country is the cost-benefit tradeoff in entitlements or "free"
    government service as these must be paid for by other than the
    recipients. And, again, I suggest one read Ayn Rand's novel
    "Atlas Shrugged" for an extremely cogent and realistic example of
    why Marxism/Socialism has never and can never work, and she wrote
    that book only relatively early in the modern day non-
    capitalistic experiments.

    It may be most instructive to take note of what is happening not
    in the U.S. GB or even all of Europe, but China who has finally
    figured out that it CAN have it's cake and eat it to by letting
    go of centralized control of the economy, heavy handed control of
    the birthright, and establishing a capitalistic system that is
    roaring toward the democracies of the world like a jauggernaut.

    Finally, I will observe that once "hooked" on "free" social
    programs such as retirement, medical, veterans, subsidized
    housing or loans, ANY kind of government aid other than that
    which is actually earned by the recipient inevitably leads the
    recipient to become more and more exactly like a drug addict.
    Namely, they want more of the "free" drug, not less, and they
    will become irresponsible until returned to self-sufficiency
    which can be analogized to withdrawal symptoms. People's
    behaviors are very predictable in this regard.

    One other thing, Aardvark. I'd be quite interested to know who
    your country has managed to buffalo it's medical professionals
    into taking such low returns on their considerable investment in
    education, training and experience. Those are well understood in
    the United States but curiously absent in this elections
    discussion on what to do about our alleged broken healthcare
    system. Personally, I don't think a damn thing about it is broken
    except perhaps that my government is already allowing it to be
    too expensive by regulating the wrong things.

    Have a great day!
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 13, 2008
  6. richard

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Aardvark added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    I was mainly asking about VAT as I didn't know if it was still
    alive although I suspected that it was. VAT is one of those
    interesting Marxist ploys because it diverts taxpayer attention
    from the true cost of the hidden taxation. In other words, there
    is almost no transparency for voters to decide on when evaluating
    how best to tax themselves.

    Please tell me what green Nazi vehicles have at all to do with
    road building and repair? Your lorries - our heavy duty trucks -
    are the main source of damage to roads and bridges and NOT POVs
    (Privately Owned Vehicles).
    Yeah, great, thanks muchly.

    Now, can you confirm or refute if your country or any EU country
    still taxes vehicles based on the outmoded nototion of "taxable
    HP", real rated HP in the modern world? Or, it's close cousins,
    other artificial measures of efficiency? I'm not slamming your
    methods as it is your country to manage as it's citizens think
    best. I just think from a world perspective, especially that of
    someone who's American-centric as I am, that intentionally making
    it expensive to drive anything except itty bitty city cars is
    false economy at best but is again Marxist if said taxes are in
    fact also used to advance social programs at the expense of
    freedom of choice.

    I have very strong feelings about the true agenda of who I think
    will be the winner of this year's election but I don't want to
    get an overtly very disruptive, very polarized political battle
    started so I'll try to stick as close as possible to the general
    thrust of these threads, that of figuring out as best we can why
    oil and gas prices appear so disconnected.

    Thanks and have a great day!
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 13, 2008
  7. richard

    Aardvark Guest

    Definitely a right- no question about it (with the caveat that with
    rights there always come responsibilities). See the Universal Declaration
    of Human Rights, Article 21 , subsection (2).
    Something I have also pondered of recent years with advances in medical
    care and treatment, the costs of some of which would place a
    disproportionate burden on any government's ability to maintain a
    national health service. On the other hand I feel that health care should
    be a non-profit endeavour, with any and all profits being reinvested for
    the ultimate good of the patients. I have been a lifelong Socialist, as
    was my father before me (I can remember as a teenager selling 'The
    Socialist Worker' newspaper on street corners :)) and this feeling is
    visceral for me rather than cerebral.
    It is my considered opinion that the US military has far too big a slice
    of your national budget. See the following and compare US defence
    spending with that of the other G8 countries:


    As for withdrawal from Iraq, it was an illegal war (ie not sanctioned by
    the UN, but that's another subject I'd sooner avoid in this thread-
    remember thread drift? :)) but we now have a moral obligation because of
    that and it would be improper to withdraw fully at this time or anytime
    soon. Who pays for it? We pay financially for it. It's only right that we
    do for the reason I give above. The Iraqis? They have paid for it in
    other ways and continue to pay:


    Payment doesn't always have to mean cash.
    People who forget that with rights come responsibilities. Sadly prevalent
    on this side of the pond too. It's a matter of educating these people in
    their societal obligations as well as having organisations setting up
    shop on every street corner to advise them of their 'rights'. More so, in
    fact: "....ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do
    for your country." J.F. Kennedy January 20th 1961

    (as I write this, I've just heard on the news that a number of British
    banks have gone cap-in-hand to the government and the British taxpayer is
    now a major shareholder in these banks to the tune of £37 billion LOL)

    Two words for you to google: 'pram-face' and 'chav'. These words
    represent a culture (at least to me) that expects 'rights' without
    We have exactly the same problem developing here.
    As we discussed above.
    Our government is looking round for alternatives to the Road Fund Tax
    also and have examined some of the solutions you mention.
    Seems to me that that is the sensible thing to do.
    You know infinitely more about macro and microeconomics than I would ever
    wish to know so I'll leave any calculations in that respect to you.
    Nevertheless over the last couple of days my knowledge of the subject has
    been increased quite a bit, despite my previous total disinterest in the
    subject :)
    Yeah, I'm pretty good at googling, ain't I? :)
    Back atcha!
    Aardvark, Oct 13, 2008
  8. richard

    Aardvark Guest

    The following table explains income tax bands as a proportion of
    individual income in the UK:


    You must remember that those earners in the highest tax band also have
    some portions of their income deducted at the lower bands. They only pay
    top-rate tax on any income over £34,800 in this tax year (2008-2009).
    Well of course! :) Squeeze the rich until their pips squeak. :)

    As I mentioned in another post, I consider the paying of taxes as merely
    paying rent to live in a free (and hopefully fair) country.
    I heard somewhere the other day that the wealth of the richest 400
    Americans amounts to something like $4.5 TRILLION, more than that of the
    poorest 150 million Americans combined. If anything is obscene in this
    world, then that is, and this obscenity should be done away with in
    utmost haste.
    These are fiscal balancing acts I'm only too happy to leave to others.
    You may have noticed that our middle tax band has gone from 22% to 20%
    since last year and that may have been done with the above in mind. If
    anyone can control the UK economy to operate optimally, I trust Gordon
    Brown to do it (just look at his record as Chancellor of the Exchequer).
    Works for me.
    I should think could help you there if you're
    interested in UK and European economies. The latest news on how UK
    taxpayers have all become shareholders in a number of main banks
    (including Lloyd's and HBOS) today.
    I'm short of time right now, but I'll see if I can find your figures a
    little later.
    OK. Will do.
    Aardvark, Oct 13, 2008
  9. richard

    Aardvark Guest

    And that since Bush came to power, their wealth has increased by $700
    billion. More obscenity.
    Aardvark, Oct 13, 2008
  10. richard

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Aardvark added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    NO, again! At least, not to me. I strongly beluieve in Thomas
    Jefferson's view that "the givernment that governs least governs
    best." So, I depend on my government to provide for national
    defense andd pretty basic human rights that everyone enjoys but
    there is nothing inherently a "right" about healthcare. After
    all, we've gone a LONG time - but not by EU standards - using the
    free market system and businesses. Now, I could make a case that
    removing the burden on our business for healthcare would make us
    more competitive but there's a problem with shifting this to the
    gubmint, which is that it is always FAR less efficient and
    effective in it's spending of my money whereas business at least
    has an economic incentive to minimize it's labor costs.

    I don't believe in anything like a Universal Declaration of
    Rights. I believe in two documents - the Declaration of
    Independence and the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Our Founding
    Fathers made it difficult to alter the basic makeup of our
    government so it wasn't see-sawing in the wind each time the
    party in power changed. But, a contrarian view might be that the
    bureacrats do more damage. Not sure.

    The reason why I am so much of both a fiscal conservative and a
    capitalist is that they have been proving over and over and over
    again to be superior to socialism, Socialism, Marxism and
    Communism in EVERY country they have ever been tried, bar none.
    Now, again, you and your fellow citizens have every right to
    choose the form of government and taxation system you want and to
    mandate whatever entitlements and right you want. Occasionally, I
    catch a floor debate in the House of Commons on C-SPAN and find
    it fascinating to watch. Compared to the vehemence and passion of
    the arguments, often getting well into personal attacks right on
    the floor, makes our Dems and Repubs look like friends!
    I am NOT an unbridled capitalist, Aardvark, having studied the
    outrageous excesses of the Robber Baron days of our 19th Century
    and the very positive effect of the so-called Trust Busters of
    the early 20th Century. When there is no regulation at all,
    business will always take the easy way out and make it difficult
    on it's employees but very nice for it's executives. But,
    regulation as we have seen of late, or lack thereof, can be
    very,very bad but what is even worse is the lack of transparency
    in both government and business.

    I didn't know but strongly suspected your political affiliation.
    Let's just agree to disagree. So far, I think we've been doing OK
    in keeping this discussion factual (from our own points of view,
    of course) and checking our egos at the door.

    As to profits from the healthcare system, I think that the
    closest analogy/metaphor I can think of here is what we used to
    call HMOs (Health Maintence Organizations). The theory was that
    preventative medicine would cut costs and increase profits in the
    medical and insurance industries which in the end would benefit
    patients as well as doctors et al. But, about 30 years ago we
    began to see that this wasn't happening, in fact HMOs and their
    dental version, DMOs, actually cost more but patient care also
    got worse because there were strong financial DIS-incentives to
    allow expensive testing and specialist care. I can discuss more
    on this, if you like, but within the last 5-10 years I believe
    that almost all HMOs have perished except for modified versions
    mainly in the Medicare supplemental healthcare system.

    Which brings me to a question. My Canadian friends all carry
    supplemental private insurance and occasionally even come to the
    United States to get diagnostics, surgery, treatments, and drugs
    locked out of their market by the Socialized universal medical
    system. Do you have that in Great Britain as well?
    I think we need to agree to disagree on this one as well. Again,
    I don't want any more sharp sticks even aimed at your glass eye
    but I'd like to see my EU and Japanese allies tote more of their
    share of the load. As for our miltary's spending as a percent of
    either the Federal budget or even GDP, for what we get back, the
    percentage is very small, only a fraction of Medicare, for

    We could easily cut military spending by going back to
    traditional forms of warfare instead of today's expensive high
    tech weapons on a low tech world such as Afghanistan or Iraq.
    But, the world and the American people will no longer accept
    civilian casualties, now known by the bullshit euphemism
    collatoral damage. It is a whole lot cheaper, but far more
    barbaric, to level Baghdad with iron bombs dropped from B-52s
    than to make surgical strikes using $2M laser guided bombs
    dropped from B-2 stealth bombers.
    I do not agree although I wish we'd either never gone at all or
    at least pulled out after Saddam Hussein was removed from power
    in April, 2003.

    The United Nations simply does NOT - and never did - have any
    force of international law wrt waging war, even though the United
    States has always gone to the Security Council before attacking.
    Sorry, but we have the right of any sovereign nation to take
    unilateral action against enemies of our freedom.

    As for financial payment, about the only thing worth talking
    about is the effect of our deficit spending on the value of the
    dollar in relation to the euro or your Pound.
    J.F. Kennedy was far, FAR from a Socialist and in the very same
    speech pretty much threatened Nikita Krushchev and the USSR that
    "we will support any friend or oppose any enemy." Kennedy made a
    serious mistake with the Bay of Pigs but was masterful with the
    Missiles of October.
    Your banks have already stolen over $400B equivalent of YOUR tax
    dollars, Aardvark, and the talk this morning was the Chancellor
    of the Exchequer [sp?] is now talking about another $100B equiv.

    I can back into our GDP by noting that last week during the Wall
    Street selloff, it was estimated to be in the $7 trillion range
    and that was somewhat over half our GDP, which backs into the
    $14-16T range. What's yours?
    I don't know - YET - what we're going to do about it except that
    I am sure that neither presidential candidate will be able to
    implement more than a smattering of their stated goals.
    As I said we are, also, but it is by no means a slam dunk as
    Americans are currently violently opposed to black boxes. This
    can be forced on us by government fiat or it can be encouraged by
    economics if there can be real savings in insurance and real
    increases in road quality. Pretty dicey, though, at best.
    I'd tend to agree although ANY taxation scheme like that is
    highly regressive for reasons I've already stated.
    I have no formal training so I'll thank you for the complent. I
    am a thinker, though, and have an outstanding financial advisor
    who has majorly edumacated me over the last 3-4 years.
    I can Google for sure but have never been able to master the
    advanced searches. Often, though, I can learn more faster and
    easier from talking to a knowledgeable person like you than I can
    just reading web site (or books for that matter). That said, I
    have to adjust for your political/economic bias which is strong
    and you have to adjust for mine which are equally strong but
    again, I think we're doing just fine.

    As you say, 10-4, Roger/Wilco!
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 13, 2008
  11. richard

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Aardvark added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    I'll take a look, thanks. BTW, I mulled over your use of GDP
    rather than budget to get a handle on the true cost of
    healthcare, defense or anything and concluded that neither of us
    is 100% right but you are righter than I was.

    Reason: my method of calculating efficiency and effectiveness
    (they're different, see my sig) shows how much of my tax dollars
    is being spend on what I want them to be while yours does provide
    a better measure to take out the size of any given GDP out of the
    percentage calculation so that if I knew mine or could find it
    easily Googling, I think we might be better able to make an
    apples-to-apples comparo.
    We talk mainly in terms of "marginal tax rate" which is defined
    as the percentage tax on the NEXT dollar we earn. I'm not sure
    because I've never been close to the top bracket but I think we
    peak out in the high 30% range. So, if I were making
    $100,000,which I'm not, I'd be paying in the $35-40K range. There
    used to be brackets at 70% and 90% IIRC but these were repealed
    with the IRS finally figured out that they were actually counter-
    productive and reduced revenues.
    Well, that's only part of it. e.g., Sen. Obama claims to reduce
    taxes for 95% of the workers yet 40%+ pay no tax at all so he has
    to skate with some bullshit refundable tax credits, or so he
    claims. But, my 4-function calculator can easily show that it is
    voodoo economics (Ronald Reagan buzzword) to think that he can
    fund the entire current Federal budget and even add nearly $1
    trillion of new spending on the backs of those above 250,000.

    BTW, as of last year, the top 5% isn't at 250,000 at all, it is
    in the $2 million range,therefore this is yet another way of
    proving that Obama can't possible save taxes for 95%.

    McCain, OTOH, although theoretcially a fiscal conservative, for
    small government, and a claimed maverick, has proposed a gigantic
    socialist scheme costing $300B to buy out and refinance all the
    toxic home mortgages but worst, also reduce the owed principe!
    WTF?! Wait a minute, John! You're telling me I was stupid for
    making my monthly house payments or even stupider for paying it
    off 20 years early? See, Aardvark, there just ain't no single
    right answer to this crap.
    Same thing as my oblique statements that imply that it is the
    patiotic thing to do.But, as I also said, nobody ever has enough
    money nor thinks their tax bill is low enough, hence it can be
    deceptively difficult to home in on how much is too much. But,
    far more insidious is that too much "free" stuff makes Jack a
    lazy boy, meaning that people will literally stop getting higher
    education and stop trying to improve their lot in life,
    preferring that the 5% rich will somehow carry them.
    Hmmm. Our wealthies people are hard to figure out right now
    because of their lost value in the meltdown, but looking back to
    when Bill Gates of Microsoft was the top cat at around $150B, I
    suppose the number might get into the trillions. The only figures
    I have are total family income which I cited about. Only a few
    years ago, $1 million got you top 10% and I think that $2M gets
    you to 5% but starting backwards from $150B to only $2M yet
    accounting for maybe 5% of 100,000,000 people suggests that your
    number is WAY, WAY high. Or, looking at it from a GDP standpoint,
    the top 400 people owning half of our GDP doesn't pass the laugh
    test. Sorry for not knowing what it is, just what it is NOT.
    I understand. But, as a life-long Socialist, how do you know
    you're not dead wrong? I think you are but my opinion doesn't
    count for a bucket of warm spit. I've already said I haven't done
    any recent research on our tax brackets except that I do know
    that reducing capital gains rates from 28% to 15% plus allowing
    dividends that are a return of capital to be taxed at the lower
    rate has brought a huge amount of money back from off-shore bank
    accounts and from investment in foreign business operations as a
    tax dodge. Naturally, us middle class folk don't do those things
    but them who employ is clearly do, hence I am in favor of getting
    the money back in-country.
    Again, Aardvark, I have no formal education this stuff nor have I
    spotted anything on cable news, but I am a thinker and I am big
    on both deductive and inductive reasoning. It is the latter I
    used to exclude the obvious crap and do what I call "back into"
    the answer by process of elimination.
    I only have Comcast analog cable TV, don't need nor want to pay
    for digital although some day I'll be forced to. So, right now I
    don't have access to the BBC on television but I may take a look
    at their web site. Thanks for the heads up.
    Great! Note that I changed the subject of our private thread. If
    you don't like it, just change it, no big deal to me. I'd just
    like to give people not interested in high finance a break.
    Thanks, muchly. As I've said, I view learning as a life long
    experience. Neither of us can really change the others mind but
    we can and should understand each other better because it helps
    us to better understand our own systems.
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 13, 2008
  12. richard

    Whiskers Guest


    Technically, until recently it was called "Vehicle Excise Duty" and is now
    known simply as "Vehicle Tax". Also known colloquially as "car tax" or
    "road tax", I don't think it was ever predicated to any particular
    purpose. HM Treasury hates predicated revenue; it all goes into one pot
    from which all government spending is drawn. I think some politician or
    other may have allowed people to make the association between the tax and
    the roads when the tax was first introduced in 1921 (if this page is to be
    believed) <>.
    Whiskers, Oct 13, 2008
  13. richard

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Aardvark added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    Don't think that is either valid nor true. Look, A, the desire of
    all poor people is to climb to lower middle class, middle class to
    move to upper class, and those to the super rich. We call that the
    American Dream, not obscene. I guess it depends whose ox is being
    gored, right?

    Now, what so many of my friends, countrymen and women and even my
    college educated daughter fail to understand is that while blind
    good luck plays a role in the lot we get in life wrt income and
    goodies, the by far biggest factor is old fashioned damn hard work.
    In my 33 year career at Chrysler, I moved from entry level engineer
    to Senior Manager through 6 promotions of which only two were more
    or less automatic with experience and seniority. The other 4 were
    because I set goals for myself, got smart on how to attain them,
    and worked my ass off until my expertise was recognized. I do
    acknowledge, though, that having a mentor helped a bunch.

    Now, wouldn't you personally like to move from, say, $10,000 to
    20,000 to 40,000 to 80,000 to 160,000 to 320,000 to ... ??? Please
    tell me that you'd like to do that and are taking whatever
    reasonable steps that might qualify you for that some day? Dreams
    are not built just in America nor just in a free market system,
    although my long study of the negative effects of other than
    capitalistic systems shows them to be powerful DISincentive to
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 13, 2008
  14. richard

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Whiskers added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    Sounds right to me! Other than pretty low titling and annual
    license plate fees, we have no car tax of any sort except for a so-
    called Gas Guzzler tax on vehicles that get less than about a CAFE
    of 15/22. We have never had any sort of VAT or tax on size, taxable
    HP, or the like preferring so far to go with a simple gasoline and
    diesel tax. That will change in the near future because the Highway
    Trust Fund is rapidly going broke trying to keep up with more fuel
    efficient cars.
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 13, 2008
  15. richard

    Whiskers Guest

    I happen to think that a straight tax on fuel is the 'greenest' way to
    raise revenue from vehicle use; that reflects both mileage and vehicle size
    in a way that few people could dispute. The British 'vehicle tax' is very
    inequitable to low-mileage car owners and is only very loosely related to
    road wear and tear or pollution or congestion or anything else.

    Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding: VAT is not a specific
    vehicle tax, it is "Value Added Tax" - ie a sales tax, being a percentage
    of the net price of the service or goods sold. It is applied to almost
    all commercial transactions. In the case of vehicle fuel, VAT is applied
    /after/ fuel taxes have been applied - so to some extent it is a tax on a
    tax for road users!
    Whiskers, Oct 13, 2008
  16. richard

    chuckcar Guest

    Well, where I am is rather unique: we produce more oil than we need,
    export it and then import what the east needs from Venezuela and the
    arabs. The tax is and has been about 30-50% for a *while*. Gas is right
    now just below $1.00 (about 87 cents us) a litre. The price peaked this
    summer arround $1.40. The *reason* we import instead of trucking it across
    the country so to speak, is so the people in Alberta can get more money
    for it from The US. There's even several oil pipelines going straight *to*
    the US from Alberta, but none to eastern Canada. If you look at a map of
    Canada, The provinces that are roughly retangles are the "west" and the
    ones to the east are naturally the east. Manitoba is the most east of
    those. Just below Manitoba is Minnesota (give or take a bit). Duluth is
    the farthest east any of the pipelines from Canada go.
    No, it's due to lack of refining capacity where the prices are higher. You
    don't have to do environmental assessments in the desert before you build
    Yeah, taxation is what the oil companies say, cost of production is what
    the oil countries say, profit gouging is what the environmentalists say,
    and lack of refining capacity is what public television says.
    chuckcar, Oct 14, 2008
  17. richard

    chuckcar Guest

    Firstly, I'm *not* in the UK, I'm in Canada. And yes Canada *is* your
    largest oil supplier.
    What "conclusion" are you referring to?
    chuckcar, Oct 14, 2008
  18. richard

    chuckcar Guest

    Social programs are more than just health care. Job training, fitting
    immigrants into western society, the list goes on and on. I was referring
    to what the gov't spends money on except for it's own basic costs of
    operation and what it gives corporations/employers actually, but couldn't
    think of a word for it.
    chuckcar, Oct 14, 2008
  19. richard

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Whiskers added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    The green Nazis have nothing to do with it. Again, ANY flat tax
    is highly regressive unless it is accompanied by some sort of
    escape clause for the poor. Think about it. One works for $9/hour
    at Wal-Mart and has a rather old car or truck with a big V-8 that
    is pretty much gone to hell and is out of tune. Said Wal-Mart
    employee can barely feed and clothe themselves plus keep a roof
    over their head other than the car's. And, Bang! Gotta buy some
    gas at the former price of $4.50/gal of which maybe 60 cents of
    which is tax here. Not exactly what they had in mind.

    So, said green agenda best served by taxation in reality works to
    dis-courage rather than en-courage the purchase of a newer, more
    fuel efficient vehicle.

    Look, I'm not out to convince anyone that I'm right about
    capitalism. Decide for yourself what works for you. I'm just
    suggesting that people who are in favor of soak the rich schemes
    in the name of fairness, green, or simply transfer of wealth
    power grabs really ought to study their economic and finance
    theory a bit more as they are completely missing the point. Which
    is, tax revenues always go down when aggregate tax rates go up -
    plus the poor get skewered - but overall tax revenues always go
    UP when tax rates go down.

    It can easily be shown by economic history that both efficient
    and effective regulation is good while either unbridled
    deregulation or ill conceived and executed over regulation are
    always bad. And, just like the laws of physics that are inviolate
    outside the quantum physics realm, so do are the laws of business
    cycles. But, pols in every country on earth regardless of
    government type or current party in power seem to still think
    they can actually change the science. They can't. At best, they
    might be able to ease the pain,but at worst, they greatly
    increase it.

    It has oft been said that Herbert Hoover caused and/or greatly
    aggravated the Great Depression by doing nothing after the 1929
    stock market crash, except that he did take prudent measures that
    were too little too late. Likewise, it is widely believed that
    FDR rescued us from the Depression except that his monetary and
    taxation policies actually skewed the economic and financial
    conditions so that unemployement increased, not decreased and
    business failures including banks increased, not decreased. FDR
    was saved from himself by WWII which accomplished two main goals:
    it provided 100% employment and made price controls and rationing
    feasible for a limited time.
    That is correct. But, true VATs are insidious in the each time
    during the creation of goods and services where value is added -
    and there can be many - tax is also added. But, it is completely
    hidden from view and no one can understand that it affects the
    prices they pay nor how much the hit is. Isn't Socialism great?!
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 14, 2008
  20. richard

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    chuckcar added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    Canada, right? Gas at C$1.40/liter is about $1.50 more or less
    when converted to USD then it gets converted to gallons at the
    rate of a tad more than 4/gal (I'm too lazy to look it up, so
    I'll just SWAG it). Works out to be about USD$6.25/gal. Hardly
    cheap in my book since gas peaked in the U.S. in the mid $4
    range. Don't know what your tax is, but the rest of the
    difference is likely your "voluntary" tax.
    No, taxation as I view it is definitely NOT what the oil
    companies say. Gas taxes most places is very transparent and can
    easily be found by any buyer who wants to spend a few minutes.
    However, conspriacy theories about Big Oil and the usual
    Socialist babble about price gouging and other non-factors rages

    Now, suppose you're one of those greedy oil executives who's
    owners - the shareholders - actually think the idea is to
    generate profits which in turn generate dividends and higher
    stock prices wants to greatly increase refinery capacity and a
    distribution network on the if come that higher demand is coming
    and they need to get ready for it. Not. Businesses simply do not
    invest money unless they have to or because they want to in order
    to try to increase business.

    So, reduce the ultra complex macro economics issues involved here
    to simple supply and demand so us mortals can understand it, and
    world-wide demand may still be going up due to higher miles/year
    driving in some countries - notably the U.S. - but at the same
    time fuel efficiency is going up very fast both for marketing
    reasons and by government regulation and NO oil company is going
    to increase refining capacity just to make the Socialists happy.

    Socialists/Marxists of the world take note: your ideas have
    never, EVER worked in ANY country that has ever tried them. Yes,
    yes, yes, many are still doing it but only because the citizen
    taxpayers either can't figure out how to rid themselves of it or
    won't because they like all the "free" stuff it provide.

    Welcome to the world of macro economics, friends!!
    HEMI-Powered, Oct 14, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.