Can anyone name one good argument for why Gasoline isn't being taxed like Tobacco on a percentage basis?
https://www.budget.ny.gov/images/eb1011/fy1011littlebook/HealthyNY_CigarettePrice.jpg
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Can anyone name one good argument for why Gasoline isn't being taxed like Tobacco on a percentage basis?
https://www.budget.ny.gov/images/eb1011/fy1011littlebook/HealthyNY_CigarettePrice.jpg
chickensevil
Active Member
Sure... you don't NEED to smoke... that is a luxury... (and a terrible one for your health to boot). While it is also terrible for our health to continue to burn gasoline, it is not really a luxury. Most people would not be able to maintain their jobs without their vehicles. Especially the poorer people. A higher tax on gasoline as the prices go up would cause even more stress on their households in which they are not likely to abate by spending less on fuel. In fact, their fuel consumption would remain the same, they would lose more money to the cost, be able to save money less (or have it to spend on other things), leading to them stuck with their cars practically forever because they can't afford to save up for that expensive hybrid or BEV... 35k is way out of their range... new cars are not something these people buy... and you would drive them to the poor houses. Unfortunately, I fear any carbon tax is likely to affect the poor equally bad, because higher electricity costs, transportation costs, heating costs (for those who use gas) is all going to lead to a rough time for these people. Why? Because the fat cats are not likely to let any of this eat into their profits... they are just going to shift the burden onto the little guy further driving wage gap disparity.
This is why I am conflicted about some kind of carbon tax... It just isn't in the same category at all as smoking. One in a necessity... the other... a luxury.
Low prices increase tax revenues. Gasoline tax is a flat cents-per-gallon, not a percentage. With lower prices, people drive more. More sales --> higher tax revenues.
Gas stations don't make much money on gasoline sales; their profits mostly come from the cigarette/snack/lottery trade.
No surprises here, but we shall see once again tonight who wants to raise taxes and who doesn't in national politics.
jhm
Well-Known Member
US oil rig count falls from a high of 1609 to 1366. My hunch is that the rig count needs to fall below 1200 before the price of oil stabilizes.
It's worth noting hear that the number of rigs had been stable at around 1400 for several year. And over this time the price of oil stayed nicely between $80 and $100. Then early last year the count jumped up to 1600 without provocation of higher oil prices. A glut ensued and the Saudis were not inclined simply to lose marketshare. So I think stability can be had at 1400 rigs, but now OPEC needs to be sure that the lesson has been learned. That's why I think US rigs need to fall below 1200, but perhaps even more punishment may be required.
Lowest US rig count since November 2010 - Market Realist
It's worth noting hear that the number of rigs had been stable at around 1400 for several year. And over this time the price of oil stayed nicely between $80 and $100. Then early last year the count jumped up to 1600 without provocation of higher oil prices. A glut ensued and the Saudis were not inclined simply to lose marketshare. So I think stability can be had at 1400 rigs, but now OPEC needs to be sure that the lesson has been learned. That's why I think US rigs need to fall below 1200, but perhaps even more punishment may be required.
Lowest US rig count since November 2010 - Market Realist
Last edited:
jhm
Well-Known Member
jhm
Well-Known Member
It seems that oil isn't the only fossil fuel glut right now. Coal is also in a global glut. I'm not sure what this means for Tesla specifically, but this is what happens when the world gets a choice. Mines Shut as China Burns Less Coal - WSJ
chickensevil
Active Member
I know it is cliche at this point... The world didn't leave the stone age for lack of stones... I'm all for mining... But why are you just going to light a fire to the chemical that you just spent good money digging up... That's like bringing home your hard earned cash to literally stick it in your furnace to keep the place warm... Why would you do that?
jhm
Well-Known Member
What's really nuts is all of the pollution that results from burning coal. People walk around with respirators in Chinese cities because the air quality is so bad. That is a huge health cost that is not included in the price of coal. There's a very good reason for China to reduce demand for coal. So I guess herein lies one connection with EVs: healthy, breathable air.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Wow, that's really great. I suspect there will be a substantial lag before retail electricity prices reflect this, but it does help with the longer-term concern about life cheap gas. So perhaps in 2018 it will still be 3 times as expensive to power your car with gas than electricity.
Of course, the cost of energy embedded in the manufacture of EVs has always put Tesla in the position of benefiting from cheap oil.
Of course, the cost of energy embedded in the manufacture of EVs has always put Tesla in the position of benefiting from cheap oil.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Steel.
They usually put new aluminum foundries near hydropower plants. Very cheap overnight rates.
BTW Gasoline tax is highly regressive. It hits the rural poor disproportionately. I do support raising the gasoline tax slowly over time to give people at the bottom time to adjust.
Would should be raised yesterday is the gas guzzler tax. A BMW M6 has about a $1300 gas guzzler tax vs ~$200k in Norway.
It should be at least $10k and more like $20k. Same deal on SUVs. Should encourage switch to much more fuel efficient CUVs.
Last edited:
chickensevil
Active Member
They should slowly adjust gas guzzler tax up with the CAFE requirements If you want auto manufacturers to be averaging say 39MPG for the 2015 MY and for the small segment of cars (CAFE breaks it into two classes for passenger cars, small and large), than anything below that level should get hit with a tax. Make it a fixed dollar amount based on how many points away from the target it is (Or a fixed percentage? This way cheaper cars are hit less so thereby impacting the poor and low middle class less). Say 1% for every MPG it is off. This would make a 20MPG small car have a 19% tax on it. In this way CAFE is hitting both the manufacturers to provide efficient cars and hitting the general public to buy efficient cars.
It would only impact new cars (hrmmm maybe they should extend it to used cars too? Just a random thought) and because it is percentage based it should impact poorer people less since those who do buy new cars flock to the cheap end of the spectrum... so like 30k or less. So a 19% tax on a 20MPG car that is 20k would cost the individual an extra 3,800. But say a 20MPG sports car with a 19% tax that costs 100k would hit the purchaser at 19k added on top.
Anyway, they need to do something to get more people to flock to the efficient cars as they become more affordable to their income level, and those who willingly choose to buy a less efficient sports car or whatever should eat that as an added cost for impact to the environment. I am not saying you can't pollute... you are just going to pay for it. And in this way, you don't hit taxes on gas prices, since I have a feeling that those who make 20k or less a year are going to be the LAST ones to get with the EV program... unfortunately.
As Rob wrote, steel....but also, relative to just about everything. There is a very good reason that a nickname for aluminum is "canned electricity". The ore for aluminum is - universally - aluminum oxide, Al2O3 (we can neglect the negligibly unimportant cryolite and nepheline syenite). And the only way to prise those Al2's away from those O3's is to throw ungodly massive amounts of electrons at 'em.
Ain't-a-no other way. Fortunately, aluminum likewise is extremely easy, and inexpensive, to recycle - one of the easiest commodities of all to remanufacture as a high-quality product; much easier than iron, paper and virtually all 'plastics'. So once you've gone the first round of creating metallic aluminum, it's quite likely to remain in human circulation longer than almost any other material.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
The poor do not buy new cars. They buy used.
I do not consider a young person who lives with his parents that can buy a new car despite a low income because he pays no rent/mortgage to be poor.
Which new car you buy is completely a choice. The middle class is not being forced to buy gas guzzlers. There should be a big fat penalty for gas guzzlers regardless of MSRP.
I would figure out a calculation for a Dodge Hellcat to cost at least $100k.
The working poor do not have a God given right to a Hemi. Not even a used one.
I would not be against some sort of deduction/credit for tradesman that have a real need for a 3/4 ton pickup or van.
Not a guy who owns a small retail store and wants to purchase an Excursion for his business.
I do not consider a young person who lives with his parents that can buy a new car despite a low income because he pays no rent/mortgage to be poor.
Which new car you buy is completely a choice. The middle class is not being forced to buy gas guzzlers. There should be a big fat penalty for gas guzzlers regardless of MSRP.
I would figure out a calculation for a Dodge Hellcat to cost at least $100k.
The working poor do not have a God given right to a Hemi. Not even a used one.
I would not be against some sort of deduction/credit for tradesman that have a real need for a 3/4 ton pickup or van.
Not a guy who owns a small retail store and wants to purchase an Excursion for his business.
Downward pressure on a cost component.......relative to earlier (and later) comments from others.
jhm
Well-Known Member
How many Gigafactories does it take to crash oil?
I've been puzzling over the recent oil price crash and calls for upwards of $10 trillion investment in oil development to maintain oil supplies with modest growth in demand over the next 15 years. This is a huge investment for 200billion barrels of oil just tl continue the energy status quo.
So I wonder what it would take for Tesla to crash oil prices. How many Gigafactories would it take over the next 15 years? To put this into perspective, the recent oil crash was based on a surplus of about 2 million barrels per day (mbd). So Tesla needs to knock off about 2 mbd of oil demand to have impact.
Let's see how many vehicles Tesla needs to produce just to offset 1 mbd of oil demand. Suppose 42 gallons per barrel, 25 mpg for the average vehicle and 35 miles driven per day per vehicle. This amount to 30,000,000 vehicles ( = 1,000,000 * 42 * 25 / 35 ). Don't despair, one GF will support building 500,000 vehicles per year. So we need only 60 GF-years to produce a 1 mbd offset. To build 30M cars in 15 years we need and average of 4 GF. Ramping up linearly starting with 0 now and 8 in 2030 will get the job done.
I think 8 GF in 15 years is quite doable, but how does this square with Tesla's ambition to grow by 50% per year well into the mid-2020s? Growing at this rate for 15 years and starting with 33,000 in 2014 gets us to 14,450,000 in 2029. This will require 29 GF capacity and offset about 0.48 mby with a single year production.
A 0.48 mbd reduction might not be enough to crash oil in a single year, but the cumulative effect leading upto that point will also have a lasting impact. Moreover, the next year 2030 knocks out 0.72 mby, 2031 does another 1.08 mbd, then 1.63 mbd, 2.44 mbd, and so on. Inexorably, the oil industry will reach a tipping point where the price crashes and will never again be able to recover. It will take the industry a little more than a year to recover from a 2 mbd surplus, but demand was strong 8 months ago and will likely remain reasonably strong in coming years. But the situation will be relentless in the early 2030s. Demand will keep shifting to EVs and supply will not be able to curtail in an orderly fashion. The key forcing agent will be Tesla. Tesla needs only to grow by 50% per year, and it can do this one year at a time.
Oh, yes, and how much will 29 Gigafactories cost? About $145 billion. That is a far cry from the $10 trillion the oil industry needs to sustain itself.
I've been puzzling over the recent oil price crash and calls for upwards of $10 trillion investment in oil development to maintain oil supplies with modest growth in demand over the next 15 years. This is a huge investment for 200billion barrels of oil just tl continue the energy status quo.
So I wonder what it would take for Tesla to crash oil prices. How many Gigafactories would it take over the next 15 years? To put this into perspective, the recent oil crash was based on a surplus of about 2 million barrels per day (mbd). So Tesla needs to knock off about 2 mbd of oil demand to have impact.
Let's see how many vehicles Tesla needs to produce just to offset 1 mbd of oil demand. Suppose 42 gallons per barrel, 25 mpg for the average vehicle and 35 miles driven per day per vehicle. This amount to 30,000,000 vehicles ( = 1,000,000 * 42 * 25 / 35 ). Don't despair, one GF will support building 500,000 vehicles per year. So we need only 60 GF-years to produce a 1 mbd offset. To build 30M cars in 15 years we need and average of 4 GF. Ramping up linearly starting with 0 now and 8 in 2030 will get the job done.
I think 8 GF in 15 years is quite doable, but how does this square with Tesla's ambition to grow by 50% per year well into the mid-2020s? Growing at this rate for 15 years and starting with 33,000 in 2014 gets us to 14,450,000 in 2029. This will require 29 GF capacity and offset about 0.48 mby with a single year production.
A 0.48 mbd reduction might not be enough to crash oil in a single year, but the cumulative effect leading upto that point will also have a lasting impact. Moreover, the next year 2030 knocks out 0.72 mby, 2031 does another 1.08 mbd, then 1.63 mbd, 2.44 mbd, and so on. Inexorably, the oil industry will reach a tipping point where the price crashes and will never again be able to recover. It will take the industry a little more than a year to recover from a 2 mbd surplus, but demand was strong 8 months ago and will likely remain reasonably strong in coming years. But the situation will be relentless in the early 2030s. Demand will keep shifting to EVs and supply will not be able to curtail in an orderly fashion. The key forcing agent will be Tesla. Tesla needs only to grow by 50% per year, and it can do this one year at a time.
Oh, yes, and how much will 29 Gigafactories cost? About $145 billion. That is a far cry from the $10 trillion the oil industry needs to sustain itself.
Similar threads
