$9 / gallon gasoline hits London

[FLPanhandle]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8346035/Motorists-facing-6-a-gallon-at-the-pump-due-to-Libya-crisis.html

The cost of unleaded has broken the barrier in 267 forecourts already and the number is set to increase sharply over the next few days.

Brian Madderson, chairman of RMI Petrol, the filling stations’ trade body, said motorists will be paying 10 pence a litre more by the end of April because of the looming increase in fuel duty and higher oil prices on the world market.

By the middle of next week £6 a gallon – or £1.32 a litre – will be the norm across Britain, Mr Madderson added.



Looks like we'll all be conserving. This is one way to reduce carbon emissions I guess.

[hobbit709]

1. Of course over $5 of that is taxes.

[FLPanhandle]

2. Europe is better at taxing the true cost of automobiles on gasoline

I wish we did the same here. If we had from the beginning we'd have more public transport, less urban sprawl, and smaller more efficient vehicles.

[gratuitous]

5. Yep

Although I got scored pretty good a few weeks ago for daring to suggest that now might be a good time to raise the federal gas tax here in the United States. The price is going to go up, and keep going up anyway, but apparently looking for some of that additional cost to actually go to laying and maintaining roads is The Worst Proposal Ever, because it would just clobber hell out of the underclass.

Quiz time: If the federal gasoline tax (which hasn't gone up since 1993) was raised 50%, how much more would a person pay for a 12 gallon fill-up?

A. $12.60
B. $7.12
C. $3.00
D. $1.08

[bobbolink]

6. Yes, you got "scored" (?) because that is a REGRESSIVE tax, and shows disdain for poor people.

What would make sense is to RATION fuel.

But that would put as much burden on the muddleclass and rich, so of course, none of you will even consider it.

IT IS RATIONAL TO RATION FUEL!

[FLPanhandle]

10. Rationing doesn't recover the true cost of automobiles, roads, environmental impact, etc.

I have to go with Europe/UK on this one. Tax the true cost.

[Modern_Matthew]

13. Simply destructive to people already living paycheck to paycheck.

Make the oil companies pay for it and prohibit them from passing the cost on to the consumer.

[FLPanhandle]

18. You can bump up the taxes on the oil companies

But it will still end up being passed on to the pumps.

Better to get oil companies out of the middle and just charge the true cost of gasoline. It should have been done from the beginning.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

22. "true cost"? How is that determined? Rationing does better. We could simply select an amount...

of gasoline that we are willing to have consumed and an amount of carbon dioxide that we are willing to have released and go with it.

[FLPanhandle]

23. Because everyone's needs are different

Someone on a farm in Montana is going to need more than an apartment dweller in NYC. There is no one model fits all in the U.S. that would be fair.

The organization and logistics to make rationing work would add more to the cost than just taxing it in the first place. It works in Europe and it works elsewhere. The taxes fund public transportation. The taxes encourage efficiency. The taxes discourage urban sprawl. It works. Rationing is usual a disaster.

[JVS]

25. We handled that the last time we rationed. Also if everyone's needs are different, why use..

pricing? Prices take no account of circumstance or need and simply drive out poorer consumers. You're point about logistics is bullshit, we did it before fine, and is typical of the "let the free market handle it" approach that is killing our country. And if you think pricing encourages efficiency when fuel has been demonstrated to have quite an inelastic demand curve, you're incorrect. It makes minor differences. Rationing is much more effective at changing behavior. You need to rethink your arguments because you don't know what you're talking about.

[FLPanhandle]

26. I know what I'm talking about and have a working example

Europe and the many other places are a working example of this. Rationing didn't work well here in WWII, had wide spread abuse, and wasn't fine. You are the one who needs to learn what you are talking about.

[JVS]

28. No you don't. You don't understand inelastic demand.

[FLPanhandle]

30. Gas is not totally inelasic though

That's where you are wrong to think gas demand doesn't decrease with price. Historically, as prices have hit high points, demand has fallen and sometimes fallen dramatically.

The middle east pricing is designed to keep oil prices just high enough to keep alternative options from taking over.

[JVS]

32. Yes, the elasticity comes from the fact that poor people get priced out of the market.

So the problem with the pricing mechanism is that it reduces consumption only in cases where it forces poor people to decide between fuel and other necessities, while rich fucks continue to drive their SUV's because the cost is relatively minor to them. That's why it's a stupid system.

Also, you're factually incorrect. http://blogs.reuters.com/commodity-corner/2009/03/11/us-gasoline-demand/ According to this graph the only significant decline in gasoline demand came with the economic collapse of 2008. Basically instead of the usual summer peak, demand caved as the economy collapsed and demand for all goods declined. Some of the decline in demand is also attributable to decreased industrial activity and the corresponding transport of goods.

[FLPanhandle]

39. OK, so we agree it's not totally inelastic...good.

And the article states "analysts say lower pump prices have led some Americans to drive more" and "U.S. demand fell last year for the first time since 1991 as gasoline and crude prices raced to record highs" are examples in your own article of prices effecting demand.

Yes, some comes from the poor & some comes from the middle class not driving to Disney World during "peak summer". True the rich just keep on trucking around in SUV's. However, the impact on the poor is worse because we've never truly charged the full cost of gasoline therefore there is inadequate public transportation, massive urban sprawl, and inefficient automobiles.

The economics work elsewhere, they'll work here too but the longer we subsidize the true cost of automobiles the harder it's going to be to switch.

[northernlights]

51. I'll believe it's inelastic

when I see many, many, many more people carpooling to work.

Also, when I *stop* seeing assholes leaving their truck engines running while they're in Hannafords food shopping. (And yes, I saw not one, but 2 of them, just last weekend. Beat up, rusted out, old gas guzzlers, I might add...)

What I'd like to see is a ban on commodities speculation, a realistic price on gas, new mass transit, *and* an end to the wars intended to bring "cheap" gas.

Realistic price of gas would hurt the lower classes if done in a vacuum, but within a comprehensive program would help out both the lower and middle classes, as well as the environment.

[JVS]

54. Actually, that's evidence that the demand is inelastic.

Even at the outrageous prices we've had, those who can afford it will buy it and use it exactly as they have before.


I agree that some kind of policy would be how to approach this instead of "hurr tax it so people don't use it durr"

[gratuitous]

14. But gas going up a quarter a gallon doesn't fall on poor people?

Do they get some kind of price break in your state? And where does the extra money paid at the pump go when gas prices go up $0.25 a gallon, or $0.50 a gallon? Does it go toward road maintenance? No, it goes directly into the coffers at BP or Exxon or Chevron, so their CEOs can pay themselves an even fatter bonus.

So, how much more would a 50% increase in the gas tax cost on a 12-gallon fill up?

As for rationing, who gets how much, and who decides these questions? What are the penalties for cheating the system? And how are you going to pay for administration, enforcement and punishing the wrong-doers?

[bobbolink]

16. I have no clue why you are peppering me with questions that don't even relate to what I posted.

Are you replying to the right post?

[gratuitous]

34. Gee, it looks like I addressed your subject line and its content

Your subject line said "Yes, you got "scored" (?) because that is a REGRESSIVE tax, and shows disdain for poor people." Perhaps you were confused by the word "scored" since you put it in quotes and put in a parenthetical interrogative. I suggest you consult a good online dictionary.

As to a REGRESSIVE tax, you may or may not have notice that gas prices are going up right now, without any increase in the gas tax. I don't know about your state, but poor people in my state have to pay the full pump price, regardless of the reason the price goes up. Right now the price at the pump is going up and the increase consumers are paying is going solely to line the pockets of oil companies rather than contributing to a pot of tax revenue to be used for everyone's benefit. One of those alternatives strikes me as more desireable.

Second, the body of your post nattered on about rationing. Whoops, sorry, you wanted to RATION gasoline. Your post was short on the details, except that the burden would fall as much on the "muddleclass and the rich." I asked what I thought was a perfectly reasonable question: What is your proposal to RATION gasoline? What will be the mechanism to RATION gasoline? I would guess there will be a cost involved to institute a program to RATION gasoline, and some basis for determining who gets how much gasoline. Now, I suppose there's a possibility that everyone everywhere will agree on this program to RATION gasoline. But it's just possible there might be one or two scalawags who try to cheat the system. Surely it won't be more than a couple nationwide, but even then it will cost some money to apprehend, try and punish cheaters. Where is the money for that going to come from? It appears that the proposal to RATION gasoline will necessitate the creation of a whole new bureaucracy to administer, monitor and enforce the system.

Unless your proposal to RATION gasoline is purely voluntary, without any checks, rules, regulations, enforcement or punishment. If that's the case, then I would say that this proposal to RATION gasoline would be utterly useless. But I could be wrong.

And back to my original post that you responded to: How much more would a 12-gallon fill-up cost if the gas tax was increased by 50%? I even helpfully provided a multiple choice option.

I could understand your befuddlement if you don't read your own posts.

[bobbolink]

37. you know, I am really tired of snark. After all the pleas from Skinner to be more polite, many are

still trying to see just how much nastiness they can get away with.

One last try, and I wasn't posting to YOU...

1. Gas tax is what is being promoted in this tread.

2. No matter how many times DUers post about the evils of REGRESSIVE taxes, and that REGRESSIVE taxes are NOT liberal, NOT progressive, people still come back to the same tired and quite REPUBLICAN theme of regressive gas taxes.

3. Poor people are hit hard, much more than those who are middleclass, by these regressive taxes. Liberals USED to know that, and stand up against it. It shouldn't even have to be explained.

4. It becomes clear, after arguing this many times, that there is absolutely NO concern for the effort on poor people.... it just doesn't matter how destructive it is to those without means.

5. Come election time, all those ignoring poor people the rest of the time start hammering on the need to vote for THEIR interests. If they remember poor people at all, it is usually in the way of name-calling, and how those awful poor people vote against their own best interst... which is patently FALSE. Inner city voting machines have been attacked BECAUSE POOR PEOPLE VOTE OVERWHELMINGLY FOR DEMOCRATS!

6. Yet, no matter how many times it is explained, the cycle continues... advocate for taxes that disproportionately hurt poor people, then demand that poor people vote for more of the same.

7. It is time to actually THINK.

[kelly1mm]

55. I agree. If you think pointing this out on gas taxes is like talking to

bricks, try pointing out the regressiveness of cigarette taxes. Not only will many posters ignore you, they will actually say it is good to force the poor to quit smoking due to economics while happily having no problem with the rich and middle classes puffing away.

Anyway, I got smart and just grow my own tobacco now - sorry SCHIP kids - no money from me! Since getting the equipment to cure tobacco and to make my own cigarettes (about $75), my costs are down to $2.39 per carton for tubes. However, I am more and more smoking a pipe so even that small cost is going away.

[LeftishBrit]

36. It's a bit different in the context of the UK

Here there is more public transport, and poorer people especially in the cities are much less likely than the rich to have cars. Therefore it's at least arguable that the more progressive move would be to tax fuel, and invest the revenue in public transport. Whether this government would do so is quite another matter!

[FLPanhandle]

41. Thanks, that's the point I was trying to make.

However, trusting politicians to do so is another matter. They'd probably just take the additional taxes and fund another tax cut for the rich.

[deaniac21]

40. Europe has 731 million people and we have 308 million in

an area approximately the same (Europe 3.9 million sq miles America 3.8 million sq miles)area. This possibly could make it more logical to have more mass transit in Europe.

[FLPanhandle]

43. Yes, but most of our population is in the coastal states

We aren't evenly spread in that 3.8 million sq miles.

[deaniac21]

46. whatever

[azul]

7. To cover the hidden costs of morbidity and clean-up

that this industry leaves in its wake. And also to cover the infrastructure that gas vehicles need to operate when this monopoly has decided on the dominant form of transportation available.

What a bargain.

[roguevalley]

45. I feel their pain. Its $4.11 a gallon up here. But then, England and

the UK have the greatest damned mass transit ever.

[BeFree]

3. BP is happy, eh?

Bloody damn well happy.

[ClarkUSA]

4. Great Britain usually has the highest prices for petrol in the EU.

I'm surprised it's as low as it is. A few years ago, it hit $11/gal. and some change during a strike. It's no wonder that when Brits and most other EU denizens come to this country, the first thing many of them do is drive around with abandon and smoke like chimneys.

Don't ask me how I know this.

[dipsydoodle]

8. That's what cracks up the rest of us

when some of you whine about it going up a few cents a gallon over there. Yes we've got higher taxes but those taxes can least be made subject to modification to suit the situation if need be which is what could happen when it hits $200 a barrel - when NOT if.

Aside from that it's hypocritical to support the protests in the Middle East and not accept the price rises as being inevitable.

[FLPanhandle]

11. Higher prices are inevitable.

I'd just prefer the higher prices be due to a more realistic tax on gasoline vs. covering the profits of the oil companies.

[Orrex]

24. Truly

I expect that despite the turmoil in the middle east, Exxon will still post record-breaking profits this quarter.

And they won't pay taxes on any of it, either.

[dkf]

9. Solar panels and an electric car...

I am seriously going to need to look at this soon.

[FLPanhandle]

12. We all will

and that's a good thing.

[Shagbark Hickory]

17. Avg commuter there prolly paying the same as avg commuter here. Why?

Because their cities are not as sprawling, their cars get 2-3 times the mpgs and they have other transport options.

Oil companies need to charge more there to make the same money they would here.

[FLPanhandle]

20. They are not as sprawling and have more efficient cars and better public transport due to the taxes

I can't see why some people here can't see that.

[Shagbark Hickory]

29. Of course they also have the dreaded speed cameras nt

[WinkyDink]

19. And the farthest they drive, from Land's End to York, e.g., would be?

Oh, wait; England has MASS TRANSIT everywhere.

[ikri]

33. The mass transit is shit though

Yes we have plenty of buses & trains but they're not cheap & they're often hopelessly unreliable.

A train journey from my town to London would cost me between £200-£300, far more than it would cost in petrol to drive.

I used to get the bus to work. I live in a fairly large town & there are a couple of bus companies here "competing" for price and business. There's no competition though, they've simply carved the routes up between them and they charge whatever they damn well please. I only travel 4 miles to work each day but the journey was taking 45 minutes every morning and in the evening the journey often took over an hour. For the 90 minutes a day I would spend travelling to and from work, I probably spent 20 minutes actually on the bus, the rest of the time was spent walking to & from bus stops and waiting for the buses to turn up.

The cost of petrol for my daily work commute is about £10 per week, travelling by bus used to cost me £20 per week a couple of years ago since when the prices have gone up again. Even taking maintenance and insurance into account the costs aren't much different, but I spend less than 15 minutes per day travelling to work now instead of 90.

In London there are buses and the underground network, plus the public transport system is still well regulated. Outside London you're out of luck, high prices and a crap service is all the rest of us get.

[JVS]

35. What's ghastly is that you can only travel cheaply if you reserve far ahead of time.

Book two weeks ahead and you can get from Birmingham to Oxford for around £16 round trip. Misplace the ticket and it's £20 one way. A bus ride in the midlands within a city is £2 or £3 each way. The best deal I got was the megabus

[dixiegrrrrl]

21. Current USA averages.

You can check your area prices, station by station, on this site: gasbuddy.com

Today ............... 3.333
Yesterday ........... 3.328
One Week ago..... 3.169
One Month ago..... 3.086
One Year ago ..... 2.696

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. That's $8 per US gallon

£1.32/litre = 1.32 * 3.78 pounds per US gallon = 1.32 * 3.78 / 0.621 dollars per US gallon = $8.03/gallon

[FLPanhandle]

42. I think I used an old exchange rate. Thanks.

[Spider Jerusalem]

53. Or you were going by the "£6 per gallon" in the article.

Which means "Imperial gallon" (1 gal. Imp. = 4.55l; 1 gal. US = 3.79l). The Imperial fluid ounce is slightly smaller than a US fluid ounce, but there are 20 Imperial fluid ounces to a pint and 160 to a gallon (vs 16 US oz/pint, 128/gallon).

[Iwasthere]

31. No problem for me

I can drive from Seattle to Miami for free. I converted my Ford Excursion Diesel to straight waste oil. 3 years now and going strong. Plenty of fuel for me at mom and pop restaurants all along the highways (owners are happy to give it to me). You can buy an old mercedes and convert it yourself for just 500 bucks or so.

[bobbolink]

38. We are all relieved to know that you are safe.

[Iwasthere]

47. Just sayin

This is very easy to do, safe for the engine and virtually anyone can do it. Comes as a kit. Just trying to be helpful, though i am also very proud of my car.

[bobbolink]

48. Of course, anyone can do anything. It is all simple, if you are affluent and have resources.

What would it take to GET that not everyone has resources?

What would it take to actually begin to think of OTHERS?

IS it even possible?

Its just one more version of "I got mine, fuck you."

[MineralMan]

49. Well, as long as people who do what you're doing are rare.

If everyone did it, the supply of used cooking oil would be gone almost instantly, and you'd be paying market prices for your fuel. What may be a solution for you is not a universal solution. It's nice that you're able to do that, but it's only a temporary fix, I promise you.

[Iwasthere]

50. Didn't suggest it as a solution

I suggested it as a method for anyone to use to survive. And the resources are there for anyone, $500 1988 Mercedes (dime a dozen) + $500 more to convert it, VIOLLA! One day more will use this method and more bio diesel plants will contract with restaurants for waste, then I will have to pay, albiet far less than you for fuel.

[MineralMan]

52. You suggested it as a solution. You were recommending that others

do the same thing that you're doing. The amount of waste cooking oil is actually quite small. It wouldn't take long until it disappeared if very many people did your conversion. Further, as soon as a significant number of people were powering their vehicles with that fuel, it would be taxed by the government and would no longer be available by stopping by restaurants. They'd be selling it to bulk refiners and your free ride would be over.

What you are doing is just fine, as far as I'm concerned. But don't make the mistake of thinking that it will last. It will not. I'm assuming you can quickly convert back to normal diesel, if you need to. Expect to be doing that shortly.

[Taitertots]

56. And if/when we do, there would be no free waste oil for you

Just so you know it will certainly be a huge problem for you too.

[SoCalDem]

44. BUT...and it's a big one

What "they" pay has no real correlation to what WE pay or will pay, in money or angst.


SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-24-11 02:28 PM
Response to Original message

1. The problem we have is this..


Poor people HAVE to use their cars to get to their mediocre jobs in most places in the US.

Other countries (with forward-thinking leaders) have PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION..good transportation, so people don't HAVE to rely on cars.. Many people only use a car when they rent one for vacation.

Lobbyists have made sure that the US never put in place a good public transportation system, and they dismantled the ones we DID have..

Gas could be $20 a gallon & the rich could pay it easily, but when you are barely covering expenses @$2 a gallon and it just keeps going up, millions of people who are NOT rich, can barely afford to get back & forth to work :grr:

Those same countries with the great transportation models also have universal/single-payer health care for their people, so the people actually get to KEEP a lot more of what they earn, and can save some money.

and

SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-24-11 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. My head explodes when "tv experts" go on and on about how LUCKY we are

to have "cheap gas", compared to those dastardly "Yurapeuns" who charge an arm and a leg for gas...but they NEVER EVER point out that taxation on that gasoline..er..petrol.. goes into the kitty and that kitty helps feed the needs of the people...all the people..not just the "drivers" or the oil-purveyors.

They do the same when it's talk about taxes.. "they" pay higher taxes than WE do.. well..they GET more from their taxes too..

If you knew that the 25-50% tax totally took care of your medical expenses, your education through college, your old age pension, your 5-6 weeks of vacation time, your unemployment for as long as you needed it (without congressional dithering), and supplemental help for housing if you were poor, maybe you could manage just fine on what was left over..and you would not be up nights worrying about how you were going to survive..