Posted on 09/14/2006 9:28:58 AM PDT by Uncledave
>I will still stand by my comments - government will do >what it can to stop any loss of tax revenues it has >realized in the recent run-up. Even going to a new tax >scheme by bringing back the tax-per-mile-plan.
Actually the government would get more tax revenue if the price of gasoline drops because more people would be willing to buy gasoline, and you've got to be stupid to not admit that more gallons of gas would be sold at $1.15 than at $3.15. The amount per gallon they would make is the same (I think here it's like $0.28/gal) so they would easily get more tax revenue if prices dropped. Remember the Klinton era? there was no shortage of tax revenue and gas prices were in that range (around $1)
And would kill off efforts to develop alternative fuels.
I hope the price settles in about $45-50/bbl. A price that people can afford, but also a price that encourages more exploration and more alternative fuels development.
Exactly. I don't believe that even a world-wide depression we would actually see a drop in oil demand (although the rate of increase would certainly do so). But I think we will see alternative sources come on line in just a few years - about the same timeline as new deep wells. Oil shale/tar sand extraction and coal liquefaction are all very competitive at current prices, and remain viable down to $40 per barrel or less. And by far the greatest reserves of these are in the West.
I do not believe that corn is a viable ethanol source for the long term, but am certain that cellulostic (switchgrass) ethanol will be, because it will be far less resource intensive (water, land, fertilizer, and cultivation) once the necessary enzymes are developed.
I believe that OPEC fully understands this threat, and is frantic to lower the price drastically in order to kill the development incentive for these alternate technologies - but dares not discuss it openly! I hate to say it, but I do believe that the Gub'mint should intervene, by providing a guaranteed subsidy for these alternative products for a few years in order to get the plants built.
Then we can tell the Saudis that our kids already have their sandboxes full and we don't need anything they produce.
I would if I thought that local and state government could keep the price of oil from falling in order to preserve their tax revenues ... which was ed's premise in his original post ..
Gov will not allow it, think of their loss of tax revenue.
That, is why no matter how much you make, the price never gets lower.
It's also interesting that you use cali for your example ... one of only 12 states that have any sort of % basis on the taxes levied on gas ..
Open mouth... Insert foot...
more like a swing and a miss I'd say.
See thackney's number 58. Also note in your own post that most of the tax, even in California, is on a per-gallon basis, and that the *entire* federal tax (the only one that pertains to this discussion) IS on a per-gallon basis.
Gold is down $10 today. Sure wish I'd listened to that gold guy yesterday and bought gold--on margin.
I don't give a crap what his original assertion was, it just irked me that everyone was giving him a load of crap over his assertion that the actual price of gasoline didn't affect tax revenues, and you were one.
BTW, only 12 states may add sales tax, but I'd be willing to bet that that works out to close to half the fuel sold in the nation.
I'll guarantee you the pansycrats running this state will blubber and cry to raise the dead when their gas sales tax revenue starts to deflate with prices and they'll be pandering and crabbing like bugs with RAID splattered on them to get some sort of offsetting taxes and fees passed to make up for the fix they'll be missing...
Really, how much would you bet?
Again, ed, the gov't taxes on gas are on a per gallon basis, not a percentage ... hence, no revenue loss.Facts (not differences of opinion) are pesky little things, aren't they.
Was your exact verbage that I was commenting upon...
And why didn't they do that in 1998~99?
Your exact statement was:
You're entitled to your own opinions; you're not entitled to your own facts. If anything the government has lost money in the price runup; taxes are per-gallon, not per-dollar. You can stand by your comments all you want; they still don't make sense.
My comment addresses that which is in bold.
I'm takin' a do over then ...
Again, ed, the gov't taxes on gas are on a per gallon basis, not a percentage ... hence, no revenue loss.
Again, ed, almost all the gov't taxes on gas are on a per gallon basis, not a percentage ... hence, almost no revenue loss.
Better?
In my statement, as (I can only hope) in ed's, "the government" refers to the federal government, not the government of California or of any other state or locality. My statement was correct as written, as the federal excise tax is indeed independent of price; what is irrelevant is some local authority's taxing schemes. Why aren't you attacking ed's erroneous assertion that "here in California, it is 18% and, depending on where you fill up, a sales tax of 8.25 on top."?
"How would the Government lose tax revenue from the decreasing price of gas?"
In North Carolina, the amount of per gallon tax is tied to the price per gallon. So when prices went up, so did the per gallon tax. A double whammy imposed by the Dems.
Well, the Fed taxes are per gallon, not per dollar sold. Californai may lose revenue, but Uncle Sam won't.
bttt
Why, I am not surprised.
This price rise and projected decrease tracks exactly my purchases of gasoline (in storage) for hurricane season. They must know that I'm about ready to start using up what I have in storage and may not buy any more gasoline for the next three months.
It's 42% to be close to exact. Depending on your retentiveness, one of us can buy the other a beer...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.