America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by gummy jones. 39 replies replies.
Tax Oil while it's down... Thanks Obama..!!
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
DrafterX Offline
#1 Posted: Thu, Feb 4 2016, 5:37 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
Mad
President Obama will propose a $10 fee for every barrel of oil to be paid by oil companies in order to fund clean energy transport system, the White House announced Thursday -- although Republicans were quick to declare the plan "dead on arrival" in Congress.

The fee would be phased in over five years and would provide $20 billion per year for traffic reduction, investment in transit systems and other modes of transport such as high-speed rail, the White House said. It would also offer $10 billion to encourage investment in clean transport at the regional level.

Obama is expected to formalize the proposal Tuesday when he releases his final budget request to Congress. However, the proposal immediately faced resistance from Republicans.

"Once again, the president expects hardworking consumers to pay for his out of touch climate agenda,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement, arguing it would lead to higher energy prices and hurt poor Americans.

Ryan went on to describe Obama’s plan as “dead on arrival” in Congress.

“The good news is this plan is little more than an election-year distraction. As this lame-duck president knows, it's dead on arrival in Congress, because House Republicans are committed to affordable American energy and a strong U.S. economy," Ryan said.

The White House claims the added cost of gasoline would incentivize the private sector to reduce the reliance on oil and to increase investment in clean energy technology.

The plan also saw opposition from advocates for the oil industry, who warned it would only harm consumers.

“The White House thinks Americans are not paying enough for gasoline, so they have proposed a new tax that could raise the cost of gasoline by 25 cents a gallon, harm consumers that are enjoying low energy prices, destroy American jobs and reverse America’s emergence as a global energy leader,” API President and CEO Jack Gerard:

“On his way out of office, President Obama has now proposed making the United States less competitive.” Gerard said

Film at 11.... Not talking Not talking
Buckwheat Offline
#2 Posted: Thu, Feb 4 2016, 6:17 PM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
Yeah.... because "advocates for the oil industry" and API (American Petroleum Institute) have the best interest of the public in mind. I don't agree with raising taxes on oil but listening to those clowns is like talking to a junky about where to store your pain meds.
DrafterX Offline
#3 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 8:21 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
I think 'API' approval and certification is a good thing.. There might be more to them you think... Mellow
jjanecka Offline
#4 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 10:11 AM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Buckwheat, I don't think you realise how many folks who work or worked for big oil support big tobacco too. If they go down cigar companies feel it. I'm completely for a tax reduction whether it be at the pump or somewhere else. I'd be paying right at a dollar a gallon if the big ole honkin' gubment wouldn't be taxing it.
cacman Offline
#5 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 11:02 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
My small town apparently relies on the local gas tax collected, especially from the regional airport. Due to the drop in gas prices and the loss of tax revenue, our town is proposing a 3% sales tax increase "until further notice". If the tax increase is passed, our local sales tax will be close to 11%.
DrafterX Offline
#6 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 11:05 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
"until further notice' Laugh


reminds me when they built the first Turnpike here Oklahoma.. the fee was suppose to be temporary until the highway paid for itself... guess what, we now have like a dozen or so with no plans to ever stop charging to drive on them... d'oh!
teddyballgame Offline
#7 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 11:06 AM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
I feel for you cacman. Often a "temporary" tax or fee or investment or whatever playful wording the government likes to use will become permanent as they like that extra money, all the time.
cacman Offline
#8 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 11:18 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
teddyballgame wrote:
I feel for you cacman. Often a "temporary" tax or fee or investment or whatever playful wording the government likes to use will become permanent as they like that extra money, all the time.

No kidding!!! Pittsburgh, PA (my home town) for example is still charging an additional 1% sales tax to cover the Johnstown flood. A flood that happened over 100yrs ago, and in a county that is 2 counties away - not even adjacent! So the sales tax in Pittsburgh is higher than in Johnstown where the flood actually happened. Go figure!
ShanaC@CigarBid Offline
#9 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 12:15 PM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 1,090
cacman wrote:
No kidding!!! Pittsburgh, PA (my home town) for example is still charging an additional 1% sales tax to cover the Johnstown flood. A flood that happened over 100yrs ago, and in a county that is 2 counties away - not even adjacent! So the sales tax in Pittsburgh is higher than in Johnstown where the flood actually happened. Go figure!


Wow, that is ridiculous. I decided to look up on this and I found on http://www.johnstownfloodtax.com/

Where does the tax revenue go?
The $200+ million collected annually no longer goes to flood victims. Instead, it goes into the general fund for discretionary use by lawmakers.

Makes you wonder...
DrafterX Offline
#10 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 12:22 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
And I wonder,
I wa wa wa wa wonder
Why
a why why why why why..... Mellow
cacman Offline
#11 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 1:18 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
ShanaC@CigarBid wrote:
Wow, that is ridiculous. I decided to look up on this and I found on http://www.johnstownfloodtax.com/

Where does the tax revenue go?
The $200+ million collected annually no longer goes to flood victims. Instead, it goes into the general fund for discretionary use by lawmakers.

Makes you wonder...

Just one of the many reasons it made me leave!
frankj1 Offline
#12 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 1:34 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,252
yeah, well it followed you Carl!
MACS Offline
#13 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 2:09 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,881
http://watchdog.org/232083/california-gas-taxes/

CA taxes its taxes... and everything else. Which is why when gas is only $1.50 in other places it's $2.50 here (at the cheap end).

http://www.gasbuddy.com/GasPriceMap?z=4&lng=-86.6160020625&lat=38.6166739228102
teddyballgame Offline
#14 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 2:25 PM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
I love California, but I LOATHE the politicians here.
victor809 Offline
#15 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 2:25 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
There is some logic to the idea of taxing oil at a low rate. Taxing it when it's low to keep the price somewhat stable will avoid businesses getting "used to" cheap oil. We all know that the oil prices will go back up... if companies build up infrastructure or machinery around the lower price, we're just going to have to bail them out later when the oil prices go up.

Now, a smart person would say "let them fail"... but we know that doesn't happen in the US...
Another smart person would ask "so the tax would go away when the price increases"... and we know that doesn't happen in the US.


It's an interesting idea, and there's some logic to it... but we're gonna take it up the butt either way.
WoodyFRMC Offline
#16 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 2:33 PM EST
Joined: 02-03-2016
Posts: 4
Never get passed in the republican controlled congress. $10/barrel right now is almost a 50% tax on Bakken Crude and a 33% tax on west Texas crude. $10 a barrel would kill the oil business.
DrafterX Offline
#17 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 3:48 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
victor809 wrote:

It's an interesting idea, and there's some logic to it... but we're gonna take it up the butt either way.



logic being the people will forget about or not even hear about the tax and blame the greedy bassards of Big Oil for the price increase... Mellow
tonygraz Offline
#18 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 4:23 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,318
WoodyFRMC wrote:
Never get passed in the republican controlled congress. $10/barrel right now is almost a 50% tax on Bakken Crude and a 33% tax on west Texas crude. $10 a barrel would kill the oil business.


Faulty logic, the tax increase would just be passed on.
DrafterX Offline
#19 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 4:27 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
it won't be passed on if they can't afford to pull it out of the ground... Mellow
Speyside Offline
#20 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 4:51 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Is this a political move? If a budget fails due to the Republicans saying no to this tax the Democrats can say there go the bad Republicans. With this being an election year the Democrats could use that.
MACS Offline
#21 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 5:36 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,881
teddyballgame wrote:
I love California, but I LOATHE the politicians here.


I like a few things about the state (weather, fishing, mountains, beaches). But the politics and politicians here are why I HATE the place... and will be leaving as soon as I am done taking their money.
WoodyFRMC Offline
#22 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 5:54 PM EST
Joined: 02-03-2016
Posts: 4
I sit in the seat everyday and see how these low prices already impact oil companies. Layoffs like crazy and barely making even on wells. A lot are losing money. $10 per barrel would hurt. Now if it was a percentage based tax then maybe something could be worked out with a reasonable percentage based on current market prices. But Obama has agenda to take out big oil. Always has.
tonygraz Offline
#23 Posted: Fri, Feb 5 2016, 9:44 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,318
DrafterX wrote:
it won't be passed on if they can't afford to pull it out of the ground... Mellow


If they can't afford to pull it out of the ground, they wouldn't (or shouldn't).
cigarlover22 Offline
#24 Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2016, 12:24 AM EST
Joined: 06-29-2015
Posts: 490
ShanaC@CigarBid wrote:
Wow, that is ridiculous. I decided to look up on this and I found on http://www.johnstownfloodtax.com/

Where does the tax revenue go?
The $200+ million collected annually no longer goes to flood victims. Instead, it goes into the general fund for discretionary use by lawmakers.

Makes you wonder...


I bet those lawmakers have that cigarbid platinum membership were not supposed to speak of.... Glare
cigarlover22 Offline
#25 Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2016, 12:33 AM EST
Joined: 06-29-2015
Posts: 490
WoodyFRMC wrote:
I sit in the seat everyday and see how these low prices already impact oil companies. Layoffs like crazy and barely making even on wells. A lot are losing money. $10 per barrel would hurt. Now if it was a percentage based tax then maybe something could be worked out with a reasonable percentage based on current market prices. But Obama has agenda to take out big oil. Always has.


While I am no Obama fan, I dislike people that speak about something that they are not at least semi educated on. While yes, Obama is a fan for renewable energy, he has done little to back it besides mentioning it.

A tax on Oil would be stupid, as all it will do is hurt the everyday consumer.

The Oil industry caused this themselves. They were greedy and continued drilling which caused reserves to fill up to levels that couldn't substantiate prices in the $80-125 range. Which in turn caused Saudi to say F u to the world and discount there barrel which started the downturn in the oil price back in June 2014. US companies and many others can't make money drilling under $50ish a barrel, while the Saudi's are rumored to drill a barrel around $7 a barrel... The price will go back up in time as these other locations stop drilling. and reserves dry up.
teddyballgame Offline
#26 Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2016, 10:10 AM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
tonygraz wrote:
If they can't afford to pull it out of the ground, they wouldn't (or shouldn't).




That is my take on green energy. If you can't afford to make it profitable on your own, then it shouldn't be done through subsidies.
tonygraz Offline
#27 Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2016, 12:21 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,318
That should be applied to corporations and not things that improve the environment.
DrafterX Offline
#28 Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2016, 1:21 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
Improve the environment..?? Why do you hate eagles..?? Huh
frankj1 Offline
#29 Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2016, 2:18 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,252
I heard eagles catch drones. Gotta be good for the environment.
teddyballgame Offline
#30 Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2016, 3:50 PM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
tonygraz wrote:
That should be applied to corporations and not things that improve the environment.



To Drafter's point:


http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/

According to a study in the Wildlife Society Bulletin, every year 573,000 birds (including 83,000 raptors) and 888,000 bats are killed by wind turbines — 30 percent higher than the federal government estimated in 2009, due mainly to increasing wind power capacity across the nation.[i] This is likely an underestimate because these estimates were based on 51,630 megawatts of installed wind capacity in the United States in 2012 and wind capacity has grown since then to 65,879 megawatts. And, at one solar power plant in California, an estimated 3,500 birds died in just the plant’s first year of operation.[ii]



http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/08/18/birds-bursting-into-flames-above-solar-farm-stirs-calls-to-slow-expansion-streamer-solar-field-central-valley-heat-streamer-fire-burn/

"Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant’s concentrated sun rays — “streamers,” for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair."


and then there is this cherub:

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html

The Obama administration is issuing 30-year permits for “taking” (killing) bald and golden eagles. The great birds will be legally slaughtered “unintentionally” by lethal wind turbines installed in their breeding territories, and in “dispersion areas” where their young congregate (e.g. Altamont Pass).
Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s 2004 study, spanning four years, estimated that California’s Altamont Pass wind “farm” killed an average of 116 Golden Eagles annually (2). This adds up to 2,900 dead “goldies” since it was built 25 years ago.


But all for "climate change" right komrad?
tonygraz Offline
#31 Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2016, 4:57 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,318
Old republican propaganda. How many birds are killed by electrical lines, airplanes and cars - perhaps we should get rid of them instead.




59
DrafterX Offline
#32 Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2016, 6:26 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
man, you really do hate eagles... Not talking
DrafterX Offline
#33 Posted: Sat, Feb 6 2016, 6:27 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
Obama, meanwhile, defended his controversial proposal for a $10-per-barrel tax on oil companies in order to fund clean transport technology.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has called the forthcoming budget proposal part of an "out of touch" agenda and warned the proposed tax would raise energy prices, "hurting poor Americans the most."

Obama countered that with gas prices so low, the impact would be minimal.

“It’s right to do it now when gas prices are really low," he said.

Critics claim the levy would be passed on to consumers, something White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest effectively conceded on Friday. He said he“would not be surprised if they did pass that along” to consumers.

Film at 11... Mellow
tonygraz Offline
#34 Posted: Sun, Feb 7 2016, 11:06 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,318
Of course the levy would be passed on to consumers, regardless of whether big oil could afford it or not. Conceivably, the amount the consumer price would rise would probably be at least twice the levy and when that levy expired, the consumer price would not change (just like the airlines and fuel costs).
Speyside Offline
#35 Posted: Sun, Feb 7 2016, 11:19 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I think this would hurt the economy and the industry.
gummy jones Offline
#36 Posted: Sun, Feb 7 2016, 11:58 AM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
a dem proposing a new tax!?!?!

this is my shocked face Boo hoo!
gummy jones Offline
#37 Posted: Mon, Feb 8 2016, 9:25 AM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
makes sense to tax and regulate cheap fuel rather than using the boom to propel manufacturing

but

I'm sure the money will be used for transportation as proposed
im also sure the gov will remove the tax after the price of oil climbs in the next 1-3 years

glad big brother is watching out for us little guys
DrafterX Offline
#38 Posted: Mon, Feb 8 2016, 10:07 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,583
I heard he's gonna use the money to take our guns...Mad
gummy jones Offline
#39 Posted: Sat, Feb 13 2016, 9:06 AM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
https://youtu.be/EZXx9YpcjiA
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top