TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Obama to propose $10 per barrel oil tax

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by Jeff N, Feb 4, 2016.

  1. Jeff N

    Jeff N Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,119
    New oil tax would fund additional green transportation spending.

    Obama to propose $10-a-barrel oil tax

     
  2. Tyl

    Tyl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    Messages:
    743
    Location:
    Phoenix East Valley
    It's all about 2°C! (global average temperature) To my understanding we were at 1.84 and rising in 2015. If the $10-a-barrel oil tax passed, I sure hope much of it is directed to Hyperloop development (other transportation approaches designed to reduce carbon emissions and congestion.) Clean, 21st century means of transportation... along with very badly needed upkeep of our current crumbling infrastructure.
     
  3. Merrill

    Merrill Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,096
    Location:
    Sonoma, California
    Good luck getting that passed the petroleum lobby!
     
  4. drinkerofkoolaid

    drinkerofkoolaid Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,624
    Location:
    F
    #4 drinkerofkoolaid, Feb 4, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2016
    It's a fee, not a tax! Please correct the name of the thread.

    I can't think of any reason it won't happen. In theory, even Republicans should be thrilled to support this since it isn't a tax.

    Most people probably wouldn't notice an increase of 25 cents a falling at the tank, at a time when gasoline is between $1.50 and $2.00 a gallon. This is also the only way for the USA to pay for to replace our crumbling infrastructure. It would also create millions of jobs.

    Heck, this might provide the USA with a way to meaningfully reduce the Federal debt. I recommend everyone watch this video.

    Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Infrastructure (HBO) - YouTube

    In 2014, the United States consumed a total of 6.97 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.11 million barrels per day.

    With this new fee, that would give the Federal Government $69 billion every year to invest in infrastructure projects.
     
    • Dislike x 1
  5. Evbwcaer

    Evbwcaer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2014
    Messages:
    469
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Actually, its not a fee either, it is a subsidy reduction.
     
  6. rxlawdude

    rxlawdude Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2015
    Messages:
    408
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    In practice, any proposal of Obama's will be reflexively rejected by the Republican'ts, just because...
     
  7. drinkerofkoolaid

    drinkerofkoolaid Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,624
    Location:
    F
    Good point! I don't see how any sensible Republican could oppose this.
    1) It's not a tax.
    2) It's a subsidy reduction. Every sane economist who hasn't been paid off agrees oil subsidies are a major drain on the economy.
    3) Does Obama need approval to implement this fee/subsidy reduction?
    4) The tax on gasoline is absurdely low.
    5) It is impossible for Gasoline prices to go lower.
    6) Every state would benefit.
    7) Most consumers wouldn't notice the difference. Those who do would support it. Do people like paved roads, sidewalks, reliable access to energy, reliable bridges, reliable trains/buses/public transportation, snow removal, etc?
    8) This will prevent deflation from occurring.
    9) This will reduce the federal defect and will give states enough cash to invest in essential projects, upgrade infrastructure, and create millions of jobs.
     
  8. Rockster

    Rockster Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    Messages:
    1,005
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    Yes, but would the money actually go to its intended infrastructure projects? No matter which party is in power, money earmarked for one thing often finds its way misdirected to some pork project or another.
     
  9. Jeff N

    Jeff N Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,119
    If not now, when?
     
  10. drinkerofkoolaid

    drinkerofkoolaid Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,624
    Location:
    F
    Why should anyone care if some of the money is used for unintended projects as long as the projects are USA based projects? Hundreds of billions of dollars that can be invested or spent in the USA without needing to add to the Federal deficit, that will likely reduce the federal defecit, would benefit everyone.

    As Jeff says, if not now, when?
     
  11. RubberToe

    RubberToe Supporting the greater good

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    830
    Location:
    Pasadena, Ca
    drinkerofkoolaid: You don't follow politics very closely, eh?

    Republicans savage Obama's oil tax plan:
    Republicans savage Obamas oil tax plan - POLITICO

    Unless the definition of "savage" has changed since I last looked it up, there is nothing to be seen here. Please move along...

    RT

    - - - Updated - - -

    The very first day that:
    1) There is a Democratic president and...
    2) There are 218 Democratic members of the House and
    3) There are 51 Democratic members of the Senate

    RT
     
  12. pchilds

    pchilds Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2016
    Messages:
    80
    Location:
    SoCal
    How about $20 or $30? The higher the better.
     
  13. Canuck

    Canuck Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,931
    Location:
    South Surrey, BC
    Yes, really. Can you imagine if he tried to do it when gas was at was $140 a barrel in 2008. Now it would barely makes a dent.
     
  14. jerry33

    jerry33 S85 - VIN:P05130 - 3/2/13

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    12,752
    Location:
    Texas
    Well, $50 would go a long way to pay for the military to protect the Middle East. Actually, shouldn't the oil companies be paying that bill as they're the primary beneficiaries?
     
  15. Raffy.Roma

    Raffy.Roma Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,209
    Location:
    Rome (Italy)
    well done President Obama!
     
  16. Bangor Bob

    Bangor Bob Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    484
    Location:
    Bangor, ME
    "Sensible" Republicans (and Dems) will want to continue to raise campaign funds. How many astroturf groups will Charles & David Koch create to shout down anyone who supports this?

    (I think it's a bloody good idea, I just don't see most politicians having the character to stand up to pissing off some of their biggest contributors.)
     
  17. flankspeed8

    flankspeed8 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    Vermillion, MN
    Yeah, not so sure of that. Doubt that the North Dakota and Alaska (D) Senators would vote for this. Energy policy is often a regional issue over a political issue. Same reason why the Senator from Wall Street is having such a hard time right now in the Democratic debate. You protect the interest of those who elect you. period.
     
  18. Lex

    Lex Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    658
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    From what I understand of American politics, President Obama just needs to recommend a massive gas discount but just for black people, and the Republicans will do the rest :tongue:
     
  19. deonb

    deonb Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,020
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    FTFY

    Half of 100 is 60, didn't you know?
     
  20. nwdiver

    nwdiver Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,398
    Location:
    United States

Share This Page