 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / May 2008Diesel 9,5$/gl in Norway
Hey you Americans talking about expensive fuel. Ceep calm, it will surely reach you as well. RD Trust me, armed revolution will happen and the citizens will demand that all the domestically produced diesel the oil companies now export stay onshore long before diesel hits $9.50/gal. As spread out as the US is and the critical impact of fuel prices have on our economy I predict a lot of things will change here before prices get much higher. CAFE standards will get much more aggressive which could easily reduce our consumption by 30%. Property values in the suburbs will drop like a rock as people start moving closer to work (this is already happening) and we're going to finally start getting serious about mass transit like Europe is. Tax breaks for buying stupidly wasteful SUV's will go away no matter how loud Detroit cries. $9.50/gal will NEVER happen here. JD > Hey you Americans talking about expensive fuel. > Ceep calm, it will surely reach you as well. > RD > Trust me, armed revolution will happen and the citizens will demand that > all the domestically produced diesel the oil companies now export stay [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Property values in the suburbs will drop like a rock as people start moving > closer to work (this is already happening) I hardly think commuters moving to places like central NJ and paying $700K for houses are going to be all that concerned about paying a few bucks a gallon more for fuel. The average car gets driven about 15K miles a year. At 20MPG, that amounts to 750 gallons of fuel a year. An extra $3 a gallon amounts to $2250. Will that be a hardhip for some people living in the US? Yes. But here, for people commuting to work in NYC, that's a drop in the bucket compared to income taxes, real estate taxes, health insuracne and all the other high costs of living that they manage to live with. And what would moving to the big city solve? The cost of living differential there will make the extra few bucks a gallon gas look cheap. and we're going to finally start > getting serious about mass transit like Europe is. Tax breaks for buying > stupidly wasteful SUV's will go away no matter how loud Detroit cries. And exactly what tax breaks are those? > $9.50/gal will NEVER happen here. It could, if we don't do some common sense things to increase supply. > JD > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Trust Me.....Don't ever say NEVER. I have seen oil rise from about 20 US cents per barrel to about US $120.00 per barrel during my 40 year professional career. When I started driving, regular gasoline was about 19 US cents per gallon. EJ in NJ > Trust me, armed revolution will happen and the citizens will demand that > all the domestically produced diesel the oil companies now export stay [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> Ceep calm, it will surely reach you as well. >> RD OK, it MAY happen but I don't think any of us want to see the sociological and political repercussions that are going to go with it. JD > Trust Me.....Don't ever say NEVER. I have seen oil rise from about 20 US > cents per barrel to about US $120.00 per barrel during my 40 year [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>> Ceep calm, it will surely reach you as well. >>> RD We're half way there - $4.60/gallon tonight - S.F. Bay Area.  Signature© 2008 T.G.Lambach. Publication in any form requires prior written permission. >Hey you Americans talking about expensive fuel. >Ceep calm, it will surely reach you as well. >RD they reason for your high fuel costs has nothing to do with the price of oil, it is because your government chooses to put high taxes on motor fuel in order to fund it's womb to tomb socialist programs. your $9.50 a gallon gas funds your free health care, free schools and funds the masses of people on the dole __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Personally, I'd prefer to see higher prices due to taxes that benefit society than high prices that benefit already rich oil companies and investors. > >Hey you Americans talking about expensive fuel. > >Ceep calm, it will surely reach you as well. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Never argue with an idiot. > They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. > Personally, I'd prefer to see higher prices due to taxes that benefit > society than high prices that benefit already rich oil companies and > investors. That's just the kind of voter the politicans love. The kind that thinks the more money the govt has, the better off we all will be. How successful have many of the govt programs been? LBJ declared war on poverty in the 60's and 4 decades and trillions of dollars later, the poverty rate is about the same. They did create lots of single parent welfare families with lots of kids though. The govt already gets half of the oil company profits. What's left, a lot returned as dividends to investors, which include many retirement plans that provide income and pension benefits to Americans of modest means. And a lot of it gets invested back in exploring for new oil. All of that is better than sending off to a rat hole in DC. > > >Hey you Americans talking about expensive fuel. > > >Ceep calm, it will surely reach you as well. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Where do you get that at the government gets half of the profits? On May 9, 9:04 am, "Commuter" <t12...@pacifier.com> wrote: > Personally, I'd prefer to see higher prices due to taxes that benefit > society than high prices that benefit already rich oil companies and > investors. That's just the kind of voter the politicans love. The kind that thinks the more money the govt has, the better off we all will be. How successful have many of the govt programs been? LBJ declared war on poverty in the 60's and 4 decades and trillions of dollars later, the poverty rate is about the same. They did create lots of single parent welfare families with lots of kids though. The govt already gets half of the oil company profits. What's left, a lot returned as dividends to investors, which include many retirement plans that provide income and pension benefits to Americans of modest means. And a lot of it gets invested back in exploring for new oil. All of that is better than sending off to a rat hole in DC. > "jdoe" <j...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >Where do you get that at the government gets half of the profits? so your clueless also, the government makes more money per gallon sold than the oil companies do __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. > >Where do you get that at the government gets half of the profits? It's a well known fact that the top corporate tax rate is 50%. With record profits, the major oil companies are paying at the top rate. And even with that rate, income tax is less than half of the total taxes paid. Here's Exxon for example: "On May 1, Exxon Mobil announced first-quarter 2008 earnings of $10.9 billion—a figure that marks the second-largest U.S. quarterly profit ever, even if it slightly missed Wall Street's expectations. Perhaps more surprising was this figure buried in the Exxon (XOM) report: $9.3 billion. That's how much Exxon paid in worldwide income taxes in the first quarter of 2008, representing a 49% tax rate on its gross income of $20.2 billion. Blogger and economist Mark Pery generated a lively discussion when he pointed to Exxon's "all-time high" income-tax figure, noting it was a small portion of the company's overall $29.3 billion total tax payments in the quarter. " Now, isn't it a funny thing how you just about never hear any of that reported by the popular news media? > so your clueless also, the government makes more money per gallon sold > than the oil companies do I leave it for others to judge who's clueless here. But you are correct that the govt actually receives more money per gallon sold than Exxon keeps as profits. > __________________________________________ > Never argue with an idiot. > They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. trader4@optonline.net schrieb: >>> Where do you get that at the government gets half of the profits? > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > correct that the govt actually receives more money per gallon sold > than Exxon keeps as profits. That of course nonsense. Profit is only the rest companies cannot hide from local authorities by investments worldwide. The gas price speculation surge hit the oil companies all of a sudden and they had no time and target to reinvest their speculation profits during the finance market breakdown. In Europe in the mean of the last decades the production and distribution of fuel only generates losses. The profits arise somewhere in the taxfree world between oil sources and Rotterdam and the money made there rotates freely in the internet orbit. Seems to have been speeding up to escape velocity now. SignatureRoland Franzius > trad...@optonline.net schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > That of course nonsense. What exactly is it that you're claiming is nonsense? A reference to back it up would be most welcome. I gave you Business Week, which most reasonable people would find credible. You can also pull up Exxon's 10K, yearly financial statements, etc. which will show they pay about half their profits as income tax. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2008/db2008051_596535.htm ?chan=rss_topEmailedStories_ssi_5 "On May 1, Exxon Mobil announced first-quarter 2008 earnings of $10.9 billion—a figure that marks the second-largest U.S. quarterly profit ever, even if it slightly missed Wall Street's expectations. Perhaps more surprising was this figure buried in the Exxon (XOM) report: $9.3 billion. That's how much Exxon paid in worldwide income taxes in the first quarter of 2008, representing a 49% tax rate on its gross income of $20.2 billion." Profit is only the rest companies cannot hide > from local authorities by investments worldwide. Try taking a course in accounting. Investment and profit are two different things. > The gas price speculation surge hit the oil companies all of a sudden > and they had no time and target to reinvest their speculation profits > during the finance market breakdown. Sure, and your source for this is? > In Europe in the mean of the last decades the production and > distribution of fuel only generates losses. If that's the case, it's a sad reflection on a socialist economy. But of course it ain't true or no one would be drilling and pumping vast amounts of oil out of places like the North Sea. How do you expect businesses to exist without profits? Who will invest and where will the money come from for new exploration, refineries, etc? The profits arise somewhere > in the taxfree world between oil sources and Rotterdam and the money > made there rotates freely in the internet orbit. The USA is hardly a "tax free" world, and as I showed you, the oil companies here are paying huge amounts, about 50% of profits as income tax. And that is just one part of the total taxes they pay. Who do you think payes these taxes in the end? Answer: consumers > Seems to have been speeding up to escape velocity now. Only thing spinning here is tall tales. > -- > > Roland Franzius- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > Perhaps more surprising was this figure buried in the Exxon (XOM) > report: $9.3 billion. That's how much Exxon paid in worldwide income > taxes in the first quarter of 2008, representing a 49% tax rate on its > gross income of $20.2 billion." I'm not going to continue this right wing nonsense, except to point out one thing. You insist oil companies pay 50% USA income taxes. Read the article it says 49% WORLDWIDE income taxes. BIG difference. Also BTW- Corporate Income Tax Rates--2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2000 Taxable income over Not over Tax rate $ 0 $ 50,000 15% 50,000 75,000 25% 75,000 100,000 34% 100,000 335,000 39% 335,000 10,000,000 34% 10,000,000 15,000,000 35% 15,000,000 18,333,333 38% 18,333,333 .......... 35% And most BIG corps never come close to the above or pay nothing at all in taxes, but accept gov largess, subsidies, oil depletion allowance, etc with both greedy hands. They don't pay those lobbyists (and often Senators, Representatives, and VP's) the HUGE bucks for nothing. Chip > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > > Perhaps more surprising was this figure buried in the Exxon (XOM) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm not going to continue this right wing nonsense, I see, so it suddenly becomes "right wing nonsense", when the facts prove you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You started this discussion with this outrageous and totally false statement: "It's a rare day in hell when the subsidized, oil depletion allowance, oil corps return any profit in taxes. The individual welfare checks are peanuts compared to the corp welfare that Bush and his buddies give them. " The truth is they paid a total income tax burden of 49%, amounting to $9.3Bil on an income of $20 bil. except to point out > one thing. You insist oil companies pay 50% USA income taxes. Read the > article it says 49% WORLDWIDE income taxes. BIG difference. And that has what to do with your statement, that it's a rare day in hell when the oil companies return ANY profit in taxes? Sure, being a worldwide company, they pay taxes in a variety of countries. So what? You want to tax them twice, once in the foreign country and once again here? And if you want to bring that into the discussion, then let's look not only at income taxes paid, but TOTAL taxes paid, which is far higher. Exactly how much of their profits do you want? All of it? And who in the end pays these taxes? From basic economics we know in the end, it's the consumer, because taxes, like any other cost, is passed on. So, tell us, why do you want to raise the price of gasoline that a poor working stiff has to buy even more? > Also BTW- > Corporate Income Tax Rates--2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2000 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > etc with both greedy hands. They don't pay those lobbyists (and often > Senators, Representatives, and VP's) the HUGE bucks for nothing. Yes, you are correct on one point, and that is the top corp tax rate is 35, not 50%. I was wrong on that. But now you want to argue 35 vs 50, to try to wiggle out of your silly statement that oil companies pay no tax at all on profits? The above statement that most BIG corporations don't come close or pay nothing at all is more hogwash. Let's look at some Fortune 50 companies that aren't even in the oil business: Intel $9.2 bil income, $2.2 bil income tax, rate 24% Microsoft $20bil income, $6Bil income tax, rate 30% Boeing $5.9bil income, $$2bil income tax, rate 34% Pepsico $7Bil income, $$2bil income tax, rate 28% Obviously they are paying taxes at a substantial rate. A rate that is certainly closer to the top rate, than it is to "nothing at all". Call that a right wing rant if you wish. I call it the simple truth available to anyone who cares to look. > Chip I don't want to just raise their taxes, I want to nationalize the industry, including coal so there is no profit incentive to stay with the energy and transportation system we have now because it is unsustainable environmentally. Is Halliburton paying their fair share of taxes now that they have moved their headquarters to Dubai or wherever they are now? > I don't want to just raise their taxes, I want to nationalize the > industry, including coal so there is no profit incentive to stay with > the energy and transportation system we have now because it is > unsustainable environmentally. Yep, great idea. Trust government to be able to make the right decisions and produce fuels economically instead of private industry. With the track record the govt has, I'm sure they will be real efficient at producing the right fuels. BTW, how much oil did they produce from the shale oil project that they started in the 70's to fix our energy problems then and sank billions into? Answer: not a drop But, at least you're honest about what it is that you want to do. > Is Halliburton paying their fair share of taxes now that they have > moved their headquarters to Dubai or wherever they are now? Why don't you check it out and get back to us when you have some actual facts? Haliburton is not an oil producer, they are an oil field services company. Want to nationalize them too? And if you don't like companies moving abroad, what do you think is going to happen when you start nationalizing them? When you start running a country like Cuba, you get the results that go with it. The worldwide interest in investing in your country goes in the tank, because they figure they will be nationalized next. > Yep, great idea. Trust government to be able to make the right > decisions and produce fuels economically instead of private > industry. I guess that's why gasoline is so much cheaper in Mexico. Unmitigated greed and market manipulation couldn't possibly be happening here in the good ol' USA, could it? JD In message news:15KdnUmp__B8QLTVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com, JD <jdblackwell2@gstringmail.com> burned some brain cells writing: >> Yep, great idea. Trust government to be able to make the right >> decisions and produce fuels economically instead of private >> industry. > > I guess that's why gasoline is so much cheaper in Mexico. Gasoline is cheaper in Mexico because Mexico permits domestic exploration and production. The US hasn't seen a new refinery built since 1976, and it outlaws exploration in 85% of offshore areas. This compares to countries considered more "environmentally sensitive" than the US such as Norway, Denmark and the UK which *DO* permit offshore drilling. Australia has had offshore drilling for FORTY YEARS with ZERO environmental impact. When Katrina and Rita hit the gulf, 1,000 oil rigs were destroyed. But NOT ONE of them leaked a drop of oil. Had Billy Bob Bubba KKKlinton not vetoed the ANWR bill 13 years ago, the US would be on its way to oil independence. But he was more interested in a different kind of drilling. > Unmitigated > greed and market manipulation couldn't possibly be happening here in > the good ol' USA, could it? It happens every day, on Capitol Hill. And it will be worse under Hitlery KKKlinton or Barry Hussein Osama. >> Yep, great idea. Trust government to be able to make the right >> decisions and produce fuels economically instead of private [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >JD gas is cheaper in mexico because the government diverts their production from the world market and then sells it at a loss, but guess what, in order to sell oil at a loss they tax the daylights out of their economy, they practically had food riots when the price of tortillas was raised, in the end it's all about what pocket the money comes out of. __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. >>> Yep, great idea. Trust government to be able to make the right >>> decisions and produce fuels economically instead of private [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > tortillas was raised, in the end it's all about what pocket the money > comes out of. Pemex does not sell domestically at a loss unless by "loss" you mean the difference between what they might get on the world market and what they net on their domestic sales. I'm fairly certain that they are not only self sustaining but contributing at least marginally to the economy. Your statement might have some credibility if you were talking about gas prices in Venezuela ($0.12/gal), Nigeria ($0.35/gal), Egypt ($0.65/gal) or Kuwait ($0.78/gal)but at $2.45/gal Mexico is hardly subsidizing fuel prices. Another interesting question might be why gas prices in Puerto Rico, an American Protectorate over which we have control of trade, are only $1.74/gal. > Pemex A fine and outstanding company that puts safety first: On June 3, 1979, PEMEX's Ixtoc I exploratory oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, about 600 miles south of Texas, suffered a blowout and became the largest unintentional oil spill in history. On November 19, 1984 a series of explosions at the PEMEX petroleum storage facility at San Juan Ixhuatepec in Mexico City ignited a major fire and killed about 500 people. On April 22, 1992, explosions in Guadalajara, Jalisco killed more than 200 people. > I'm fairly certain that they are not only self > sustaining but contributing at least marginally to the economy. I'm fairly sure you haven't written anything that did not originate in your a.shole: PEMEX, despite its current $77 billion in revenue, pays high taxes that contribute a large portion of the budget of the federal government. Indeed, in recent years the company has only been able to make ends meet through massive borrowing, so that it now owes a staggering $42.5 billion, including $24 billion in off-balance-sheet debt because the Mexican government treats the company as a major source of revenue. (Pemex revenues) have been used to pay salaries of bureaucrats and current costs, instead of being invested in projects of exploration and production. Fox and Calderon have both floated the idea of partial privatization of Pemex, 180 degrees counter to the nationalization scheme you commies support. >>>> Yep, great idea. Trust government to be able to make the right >>>> decisions and produce fuels economically instead of private [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Rico, an American Protectorate over which we have control of trade, are >only $1.74/gal. those countries you listed are all producers and they "give away" the product domestically, the CNN chart you saw is misleading in PR gas is sold by the liter not gallon, that 1.74 is probably the per liter price __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. > >>> trad...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > sold by the liter not gallon, that 1.74 is probably the per liter > price I saw the same thing happen with comparing gasoline prices in Canada. A caller to a talk show claimed gas was a lot cheaper in Canada and the talk show host immediately attributed it to the fact that Canada produces oil from shale. Two things obviously wrong with that. First, gas is NOT cheaper in Canada. I took a snowboarding trip up there in January and distinctly remember that it was higher, so we only put in enough to get us back to the US, where we could fill up cheaper. Second, extracting oil from shale is far more expensive than pumping oil out of the ground. As for Puerto Rico gasoline being cheaper this should smash that myth: "By MA Miranda Sierra Caribbean Net News Puerto Rico Correspondent Email: miranda@caribbeannetnews.com SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico: As gasoline prices have increased in the US, gas prices in Puerto Rico have also dramatically escalated in the past year. In Puerto Rico gasoline is sold by the liter rather than by the gallon as it’s sold in the mainland and, within the next few weeks, consumers will find themselves paying a dollar per liter each time they need to pump gas into their car tanks, Puerto Rico Gasoline Retailers Association's Carlos Crespo announced Thursday. > __________________________________________ > Never argue with an idiot. > They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - >>>>> Yep, great idea. Trust government to be able to make the right >>>>> decisions and produce fuels economically instead of private [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > sold by the liter not gallon, that 1.74 is probably the per liter > price $1.74/liter? I think not. That would translate to around $7.00/GALLON. Todays price in San Juan is $0.75/l which is about $3.00/g. That's still well below the mainland average. Is it a case of the companies charging only what the market will bear? JD > $1.74/liter? I think not. That would translate to around $7.00/GALLON. > Todays price in San Juan is $0.75/l which is about $3.00/g. That's still > well below the mainland average. Is it a case of the companies charging > only what the market will bear? No. It's lower taxes. >> $1.74/liter? I think not. That would translate to around $7.00/GALLON. >> Todays price in San Juan is $0.75/l which is about $3.00/g. That's still >> well below the mainland average. Is it a case of the companies charging >> only what the market will bear? > > No. It's lower taxes. Cite? In message news:pIudnVyjOZDQvLbVnZ2dnUVZ_rXinZ2d@comcast.com, JD <jdblackwell2@gstringmail.com> burned some brain cells writing: >>> $1.74/liter? I think not. That would translate to around >>> $7.00/GALLON. Todays price in San Juan is $0.75/l which is about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cite? http://www.api.org/policy/tax/stateexcise/index.cfm The average total tax (federal + state + local) is .47. Of that, .184 is federal, leaving .286 as the average state/local tax. I have found NO reference to ANY gasoline tax in Puerto Rico. Can you? >$1.74/liter? I think not. That would translate to around $7.00/GALLON. >Todays price in San Juan is $0.75/l which is about $3.00/g. That's still >well below the mainland average. Is it a case of the companies charging >only what the market will bear? not my number, on a chart on the cnn web site they said gas was 1.74 a gallon in PR, which is unlikely, from what I understand gas is around 90 cents a liter there, nonetheless I didn't say it was 1.74 a litre, I said gas was sold by the liter in PR __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Signature<trader4@optonline.net> The truth is they paid a total income tax burden of 49%, amounting to $9.3Bil on an income of $20 bil. Well actually they paid that tax on $20 billion of net income or profit if you will. Their total income or revenue to be more accurate was about 116 billion. Paul Hoffman Burlington ON phoffman@cogeco.ca or hoffmanp@mcmaster.ca 1980 300D 281,000 + km >> Personally, I'd prefer to see higher prices due to taxes that benefit >> society than high prices that benefit already rich oil companies and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of modest means. And a lot of it gets invested back in exploring for > new oil. All of that is better than sending off to a rat hole in DC. Spend a lot of time listening to Rush, huh? It's a rare day in hell when the subsidized, oil depletion allowance, oil corps return any profit in taxes. The individual welfare checks are peanuts compared to the corp welfare that Bush and his buddies give them. Chip > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > >> Personally, I'd prefer to see higher prices due to taxes that benefit [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > when the subsidized, oil depletion allowance, oil corps return any > profit in taxes. LOL. If you spent 2 mins trying to learn something, you'd avoid making an a.s out of yourself. Take a look at Exxon as an example. They paid $9.3Bil in income tax in the first quarter, which amounts to 49% of their profits. In total taxes, they paid a whopping $29.3 bil. But it's never enough for guys l like you, who obviously don't even know the most basic facts. And if you took an entry level economics class, you'd learn that just like any other cost, taxes get passed along and paid by consumers in the end. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2008/db2008051_596535.htm ?chan=rss_topEmailedStories_ssi_5 "On May 1, Exxon Mobil announced first-quarter 2008 earnings of $10.9 billion—a figure that marks the second-largest U.S. quarterly profit ever, even if it slightly missed Wall Street's expectations. Perhaps more surprising was this figure buried in the Exxon (XOM) report: $9.3 billion. That's how much Exxon paid in worldwide income taxes in the first quarter of 2008, representing a 49% tax rate on its gross income of $20.2 billion. Blogger and economist Mark Pery generated a lively discussion when he pointed to Exxon's "all-time high" income-tax figure, noting it was a small portion of the company's overall $29.3 billion total tax payments in the quarter. " The individual welfare checks are peanuts compared to > the corp welfare that Bush and his buddies give them. > > Chip- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.