Gas Prices

[NDak 0]

So I am curious what prices are for our members...

 

 

Right now in Morgantown, WV gas is 3.15. At my parents an hour south, it's 3.26.

[will_marx 0]

So I am curious what prices are for our members...

Right now in Morgantown, WV gas is 3.15. At my parents an hour south, it's 3.26.

 

$2.95 in Cresskill, NJ; over $3 half an hour south, and about $2.85 down by AC.

[Tachyon 0]

It's about CAD $1.22/L here, so that's about $4.30 USD per gallon. Toronto has decided to gut all of us up here in NW Ontario. :/

[STSF Seiben 0]

It's about CAD $1.22/L here, so that's about $4.30 USD per gallon. Toronto has decided to gut all of us up here in NW Ontario. :/

 

 

Heh.. sorry Tach. Gas prices in Toronto range from 105.8 cents/litre to 110.9. It's 110.8 cents/litre at my local Petro Canada station two minutes away from my house, which equals to about $3.84 US a gallon

[will_marx 0]

Heh.. sorry Tach. Gas prices in Toronto range from 105.8 cents/litre to 110.9. It's 110.8 cents/litre at my local Petro Canada station two minutes away from my house, which equals to about $3.84 US a gallon

 

When I was in London on leave, two years ago, they were paying 99 pence (about a $1.89 at the time) a liter for regular. On Mindanao, last April, gas was 40 pesos (around $.85) a liter for regular.

[B. Socom 0]

it is anywhere from $3.00 (rare) to $3.50 (mostly in the middle or higher than it).

Edited May 19, 2007 by cdt. socom

[Nicolas Lepage 0]

Hmm...let me see...1.4 Euros/litre...that's about $1.90 USD/litre...that's about $7.20 USD/gallon. You guys are not complaining, are you? :lol:

Edited May 20, 2007 by Nicolas Lepage

[Cptn Corizon 0]

Given I can remember when gas cost 99 cents...YES.

[will_marx 0]

Given I can remember when gas cost 99 cents...YES.

 

So can I. And add in the fact that most of your prices across the include the insane taxes on gas (which I do hope goes to road improvements, etc.) while our prices seem to be just motivated by greed...

[Nicolas Lepage 0]

Well, taxes or not, we do have to pay that much.

 

Besides, it does have a positive effect. We pay high taxes on gas in order to make people buy cars that use less gas. It actually works. It's very rare that you see vans, pickups and SUVs over here. (I've always wondered why a person would want to drive an SUV in town but well...) People go for the smalles and most cost effective cars possible. Given that most families don't have more than 2 children anyway people don't need vans and the like. I think in the end that's a positive development. Seeing as we already have to deal with some effects of global warming it's not really a bad idea to force the industrie to develop new technologies. (And it's not just something made up to scare people. We've had nine of the ten warmest winters in history during the past 10 years. Last winter we've had only two or three nights where it had been freezing. Usually we get temperatures below 0°C for at least a month. Temperatures have been about 3°C above average. That's just one example...I could give many more.)

 

Since I usually walk or take my bike to get to places I don't care much about gas prices. Of course, I know that I have to pay more for my bus pass than I would if gas was cheaper but it's not all that bad. I don't even have a car and I save a lot of money (no gas, no taxes, no maintenace etc.) nerves and probably time, too. (I don't spend half an hour to find a parking space, I don't get tickets and I don't get stuck in traffic jams.)

 

Unfortunately, for most people it's impossible not to have a car especially when you're not living in urban areas or when you have children.

[STSF NDak 0]

The gas tax here is something like (according to my latest research) 6.5 cpg

[will_marx 0]

What's really outrageous is that on military bases in the States, virtually everything for sale at the Exchange is exempt from state sales tax--Except gas. West Point has regular at 3.13 a gallon. It's bad enough that some military families are on WIC and Food Stamps, because the salaries aren't the greatest (We're actually excited about a 3.8% raise next fiscal year), and some bases require personnel in base housing to pay utilities. But to charge exorbitant amounts for fuel on a military base? Talk about greed.

Edited May 21, 2007 by will_marx

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

Quite a few years ago, I remember petrol prices dropping to the point here in South Florida that they were at $0.98 USD per gallon. At the time, the issue came up about how it would be virtually impossible for them to drop any further due to Federal taxes, State taxes, County Taxes and in some cases City taxes. Several of these taxes are percentage based.

 

For example, today there is approximately an 0.18 cent per gallon tax by the United States government on every gallon sold. In the state of Florida, there is then a 0.136 per gallon excise tax, 0.022 tax for environmental inspection and plus approximately 0.05 in other taxes. Furthermore, there is range of 0.099 to 0.178 tax local cities can use. Adding it all up, state and local taxes in Florida come to anywhere from 0.45 per gallon to as high as 0.53 per gallon.

 

Adding it all up...in Florida alone...your $3.00 per gallon of gas can actually be $0.71 per gallon in taxes meaning (in reality) gas is actually only costing $2.29. Two good sites in case you are curious about your state.....Gas Price Watch.COM: Gasoline Tax Rates by State and State of California Energy Commission: Gasoline Taxes by State 2002.

 

This also explains why, here in South Florida were a good portion of the stuff comes in, prices are higher than several hours north where they are not (local tax level is lower). In addition, it makes me laugh when I hear politicians state they are concerned. If they were that worried, you could drop fifty cents off the price overnight. However, can never take money away from the government. They love to spend it on $400 toilet seats. :lol:

[STSF NDak 0]

Not that simple. You cut out that gas tex, people save some immediate money...but then it costs them more money when the state can't supply them with the needed services they're used too :lol:

[FredM 0]

Not that simple. You cut out that gas tex, people save some immediate money...but then it costs them more money when the state can't supply them with the needed services they're used too :lol:

 

Hey there,

 

Given the waste of the Federal government in the way of transportation services, I'm almost positive they could find a way to survive. After all, when a private company can build a highway in six months for less but the same project take one year for the government, one has to ask...

[STSF NDak 0]

I am not going to get into the whole tax funding argument on this thread, but cutting taxes is generally a bad idea

[Dumbass 0]

What's really outrageous is that on military bases in the States, virtually everything for sale at the Exchange is exempt from state sales tax.

 

Why is that outrageous? First of all, it is federal land. Second, you have to remember that civilians can relocate to different states with tax codes more to their liking. Those in the military don't have that option, they go where they are told to go.

[Dumbass 0]

I am not going to get into the whole tax funding argument on this thread, but cutting taxes is generally a bad idea

Not necessarily. In economics there is something known as the Laffer Curve (named by some guy named Laffer). The way the Laffer curve works is this:

 

If the government has a 0% income tax rate the government will receive no revenue. If the government has a 100% income tax rate no one will choose to work since everything they earn will go to the government. Because no one works to pay taxes again the government receives no revenue.

 

At some point between these extremes is a point where the government's revenue is maximized. That being the case if the tax rate is above this point then lowering the tax rate will result in more income to the government. (The opposite is true too. If you are below this point and raise the tax rate this will also result in more revenue to the government. For some reason this is never used as an argument to increase taxes but I don't know why.)

[will_marx 0]

Why is that outrageous? First of all, it is federal land. Second, you have to remember that civilians can relocate to different states with tax codes more to their liking. Those in the military don't have that option, they go where they are told to go.

It's not outrageous. I should know. It's a case of poor grammar. That has since been fixed.

[Guest STSF_Hawser]

when i left new york to come to work in houston this month (i am now sitting in baton rouge...), gas was 3.23 a gallon..... 31.8 cents per gallon tax plus, in my county an 8.5% SALES tax....

 

and yes, we do spend too much on federal and state programs..... congress only worked 97 days in 2006..... i won't even take 97 days OFF this year. we need to force the house and the senate to sit in a room somewhere and for 130 days, evaluate every program and determine if it works or not. if it does not work, cut the program. simple as that. i think we can cut spending by an alarming rate. also, caps on the amount of profits an oil company can rake in need to be put in place. we may have several companies "competing" but when they work together, its considered a monopoly that harms the people. as fuel prices increase, ironically, so does the cost to transport the crude oil and refined oils byproducts (gas/diesel). (take it from me, I work on towboats moving this stuff around the gulf). and as the cost to move the product increases, oil companies increase prices at the pump to offset the cost and maintain their record profits......

 

but what do i know? i just do it for a living.....

[will_marx 0]

we need to force the house and the senate to sit in a room somewhere and for 130 days, evaluate every program and determine if it works or not. if it does not work, cut the program. simple as that.

 

Never gonna happen. After all, Congress has become synonymous with "Pork"

[FredM 0]

At some point between these extremes is a point where the government's revenue is maximized.

 

Hey there,

 

And in the event someone can ever find it, much less maintain the correct balance in a rapidly changing economy most countries have today, they would be hailed as a hero of economics. :P

 

It does to go theory honestly...and both have (in the past) worked, just political parties try to forget when it doesn't suit them.

 

One theory, the FDR approach: Maintain taxes, giving the government revenue to start projects and thus employ people. Pulls standard of living up with people having jobs, boosts the private sector and therefore revenue from corporate taxes. Issue is eventual burnout, as you can only have so many projects. Also can result in a loss of value. Some countries in Europe are dealing with this at present, with taxes in some places taking 0.78 of every doll in return for many social programs. Issue is people don't see the value in working: why work when it is all free regardless?

 

Second theory, JFK/Reagan approach: Lower taxes, increasing available money to many...including the upper 10% bracket which (in the US) pays over 50% of the taxes. Given their position, theory is they will invest in business...causing business growth, R&D, etc. Creates jobs, etc. In the long run, Federal $ ends up ahead due to rapidly increasing corporate taxes (due to increased spending and corporate business). Issue is that it can take longer, some can decide not to invest (though if one does in an industry, normally means competition will demand others do), much more sensitive to external economic factors. Can back fire if industry doesn't adjust quick enough, also if corporate governance is not in check/monitored.

 

Both, to a point will sustain an economy. There are extremes on both ends, and too much of either is a bad thing. However, having taken more economics and accounting courses than I wish to remember, I think it is a little extreme to say that lowering taxes on anything is a bad idea. Most governments (globally I find) have an inflated system for projects. A private company could get a bid on a project and it cost $100. That same project could be requested by a government and the bid be $500,000. Problem is, the government will pay it...and it defeats either system from being able to function properly. :lol:

 

Petrol prices are in the same boat. For decades, economists have stated that having the price be near something like $3.50 is dangerous for oil companies. At that level, R&D costs for aggressive alternative fuel/transportation options becomes economical. It isn't if the stuff costs $2.00. Case and point, technology exists to get fuel from coal shale. Process is almost 99% clean and by the time you are done, have almost completely refined industry fuel. JetBlue is actually investing in the technology. Problem is, it isn't economical if oil drops below $40 per barrel USD. People are still scared to invest because they fear the oil "countries" will crash prices if they see serious competition. Okay, I have a headache now...need to get out of teacher mode...

[Dumbass 0]

And in the event someone can ever find it, much less maintain the correct balance in a rapidly changing economy most countries have today, they would be hailed as a hero of economics. :lol:

 

Like you said, supply and demand shocks will have a way of adjusting where this balance will be.

 

By the way, it isn't a "balance" per se. A balance is an equilibrium that can maintain itself without government intervention. But isn't taxation a government intervention?

[Dox Maturin 0]

Texas wants to temporarily cut the gas tax with a surplus it has. Its ridiculous. As soon as they cut the tax, the gas prices will be slightly lower for a few weeks and then adjust back up to market level prices, leaving more profit in the hands of the companies distributing it down the line.

 

I prefer just to lower my consumption, which is why I commute by motorcycle (70mpg). Except today since it's raining :P

 

What I am looking forward to is a possible mileage war between the auto manufacturers. The hybrids are, in my opinion, a joke because any savings you see thanks to its semi-electric drive is eaten up by higher costs. On the other hand, we're finally seeing more economic hatchbacks like the Toyota Yaris and Suzuki Reno. The Smartcar is coming in 2008, with a 4-door version likely arriving a year after. All entry-level autos that start at $12k, and depending on popularity may depreciate enough to get used bargains.

 

Then again, you could always pick up a older hatchback that was getting about the same mileage as a Prius 20 years ago...I know someone who owns a Prius and with regular driving, they will achieve 40-50mpg. The EPA numbers are vastly overrated.

 

Oh, and it's around $3.05 here......so far :lol:

[Kansas_Jones 0]

Perhaps we should all invest in a horse and ride to work. ;-)

 

Regular gas around my way (spitting distance of Philly) is $2.95