Over here in the UK, we pay for a litre what you pay for a gallon. Our greedy government steal about 70% tax form us on fuel. The price per barrel has fallen, but here at the pumps it has not changed. When the price per barrel goes up again, the cost at the pumps will rise, it never drops. I just don't use my car any more, it has been in the garage for over a year. I am not giving the thieving bastards any more of my money.

Daniel.

Is the tax you pay a fixed price per liter or is it tied to the price per gallon?
Is it that the government wishes to discourage consumption or that it wishes to make money off of drivers. If you were king what would your policy on fuel taxes and pricing be?

 

Mmmm.

If I were in charge, I would put road tax on fuel as well, but reduce the fuel tax. Some of our larger cars (people carriers, 4x4's) carry road tax of up to 800 GBP per year. If road tax was added to the cost of the fuel, at least you don't have to pay so much if you do not use the vehicle often. People with two or more cars IE: those who have show cars and kit cars that are garaged for long periods, would not have to pay road tax for the whole year.

Our government waste so much money, they have to get it some how, so they penalize the motorist. They know that people cannot do without the car.

Daniel.

 

This is, to a large degree, right in line with what I have been saying -- and getting slammed for -- for years, including on this forum.

The price of oil and the price of gas are highly volatile largely because it is a very competitive and free market despite government and consortium policies and goals. Oil is fungible and there are just too many players with too widely differing goals and interests for it to be otherwise. The people that are always claiming that there is widespread price fixing in the oil market to keep prices high never seem to be able to explain how all of these evil players that a colluding to hike prices have been unable to even keep gasoline prices on par with inflation over any period of time.

Every year -- and this year wasn't much of an exception -- we see gas prices spike, usually in the spring/summer time frame, and we start hearing all the news stories from all the same analysts telling us how gas prices will be at $5 or $6 a gallon by the end of the year. But generally toward the end of the year we see prices drop and they usually hit their annual lows sometime shortly after the first of the year. I said last year in mid year after reports that $3/gal gasoline was a thing of the past that I expected prices to drop below $3/gal by the end of the year and, when they did, people pointed out that the average price was still above $3/gal. Then when the average price dropped below $3/gal those same people pointed out that there were still people somewhere paying more than $3/gal. I've also maintained all along that I would not be surprised to see gas below $2/gal at some, but that I also wouldn't be too surprised not to. Now we are seeing prices below $2/gal in a few places and it is expected to spread quite a bit more before they bottom.

Will they go up again? Sure. Will they spike? Sure. Will they drop again? Sure. Will they crash again? Sure. And each will happen many times and most will happen at least once in any given year.

 

Mmmm.

If I were in charge, I would put road tax on fuel as well, but reduce the fuel tax. Some of our larger cars (people carriers, 4x4's) carry road tax of up to 800 GBP per year. If road tax was added to the cost of the fuel, at least you don't have to pay so much if you do not use the vehicle often. People with two or more cars IE: those who have show cars and kit cars that are garaged for long periods, would not have to pay road tax for the whole year.

Our government waste so much money, they have to get it some how, so they penalize the motorist. They know that people cannot do without the car.

Daniel.

I'm in favor of funding most of the auto-related infrastructure maintenance costs via fuel taxes on a per-gallon basis with annual adjustments for inflation and usage changes. But only if the funds are required to be used for the intended purpose and can't be diverted (and I don't know how to actually prevent that from happening). This gives people the ability to have some control over the taxes they pay by choosing to drive less and/or drive smaller and more efficient vehicles. In doing so, they reduce the amount of taxes collected but also reduce the amount of damage and infrastructure expenses that the government has to pay. It also more tightly ties the revenue to the place where the expenses are incurred since fuel is purchased, by and large, near where it is consumed. It also encourages people to make reasoned decisions about owning additional vehicles to meet their needs while controlling their costs if owning, for instance, a truck for occasional heavy use and a small car for everyday use doesn't eat you up with ridiculously high registration fees. If you have a truck that only gets driven 100 miles a year, why should it cost you $200 a year just to register it? That's where the real gouge is -- we have to register vehicles even if they are parked in the garage on blocks and aren't driven at all. Yet when you ask why, you are told that the money covers the costs associated with driving the vehicle on the roads and bridges. Huh?

 

@WBahn -- I certainly have no problem with such well reasoned arguments.

 

I wouldn't bet on the political leaders of ND to be particularly visionary or adept at predicting the future if the past history of state leaders is any indication of that ability. Reactive with a time lag is the best you can hope for. Enjoy it while you can, but don't get blind-sided. You might want to switch to bottled water unless of course you're worried about BPA.

I am not to concerned about what our state leaders have planned. I mean how many other states managed to put a billion plus dollars in their state savings accounts without even having a oil industry to work with and a population of under 650,000 people as well?

As far as visionary goes I would dare say we are ahead of the curve not behind it as seen here.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/28/north-dakota-oil-money/2715203/
There aren't many other states banking a billion plus a year just into legacy funds and the like let alone anything else just for future what ifs.

Relating to what goes into who ground you are aware that I am working for an actual fraccing company and spend the better part of 12 hours every day on actual oil well sites working with the very equipment and chemicals that get used plus have a pretty solid training and hands on experience with what they are and what they do and on top of that my job has me in direct contact with the very engineers and people who deal with this type of work every single day?

I know more about what goes in the ground and where it goes once its down there and how its tracked and monitored to make sure it went where it was supposed to than likely anyone else on this forum. It's my job and I take a fair amount of satisfaction in keeping on top of knowing as much as possible about every aspect of what goes on in it.

 

But only if the funds are required to be used for the intended purpose and can't be diverted (and I don't know how to actually prevent that from happening).

I once attended a chamber of commerce meeting with a state DOT guest speaker, and they stated that 60 percent of the funds that they receive, goes to their department labor costs, leaving 40% to do the actual road maintenance and construction. They did not receive 100 percent of the state gasoline tax as it goes directly into the "general fund".

Some believe the gasoline tax should be indexed to inflation and indexed to the average fuel economy of the vehicles; taxes go up as the fuel economy increases. Then the problem becomes the politico's earmarking the money for other than transportation infrastructure. Portions of the most recent federal tax increase was diverted to deficit reduction. Indexing to inflation doesn't work very well as pay raises aren't indexed to inflation.

 

I once attended a chamber of commerce meeting with a state DOT guest speaker, and they stated that 60 percent of the funds that they receive, goes to their department labor costs, leaving 40% to do the actual road maintenance and construction. They did not receive 100 percent of the state gasoline tax as it goes directly into the "general fund".

Some believe the gasoline tax should be indexed to inflation and indexed to the average fuel economy of the vehicles; taxes go up as the fuel economy increases. Then the problem becomes the politico's earmarking the money for other than transportation infrastructure. Portions of the most recent federal tax increase was diverted to deficit reduction. Indexing to inflation doesn't work very well as pay raises aren't indexed to inflation.

This is roughly consistent with stuff I have heard from time to time.

We currently have a problem here (and it is similar to problems all around the country) where we have stormwater drainage issues that have been being neglected for decades because the local government was collecting the money, largely from developers fees, to do the work but then spending it on other things. So now they want to create a new "enterprise district" with a new tax in order to do the work. It was soundly rejected by the voters because I think people are finally starting to get the idea that just because government is given money to do a job and they refuse to use that money for that job is not grounds to create a new tax to collect even more money to do that same job. Instead -- and here's a novel concept -- maybe government should prioritize it's expenditures and use the money for the things that the government is supposed to use it for first. But, instead, government spends the money on all the things they want to spend money on and fails to fund the things that they are supposed to be doing, so that then they can ask the voters for more money to fund police and firefighters and road maintenance and bridge repair. Well, why weren't those things funded first and then, when that ran out, the government going to the voters and asking for more money for the flowers in front of city hall and the renovation on the mayor's office and the decorations on the lampposts and all the other things that they had no problem finding money for all year long?

 

You don't know cheap gas. When I was a wee lad, my buddy and I would get up a quarter between us, ride down to the gas station and fill the massive 1 gallon tank on his mini bike and ride all day.

 

When I was a wee lad, my buddy and I would get up a quarter between us, ride down to the gas station and fill the massive 1 gallon tank on his mini bike and ride all day.

And what is that quarter worth today? That would give us an idea if our gas is "cheap".

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

 

When I was young and foolish $2.00 would fill my tank for an evening of cruzin' Woodward Blvd.

 

You don't know cheap gas. When I was a wee lad, my buddy and I would get up a quarter between us, ride down to the gas station and fill the massive 1 gallon tank on his mini bike and ride all day.

But how cheap was that, really? Would that quarter have bought more or less of other things than $2.50 would today? I think, at least in terms of national average, that gasoline prices rose above $0.25/gal sometime around 1960. Is that roughly the time frame you are talking about? If so, then using CPI for 1960, that would have made it right at $2.00/gal. The cheapest gas I think I ever bought was $0.77/gal in 1998, which adjusted for inflation would be $1.11/gal today. The lowest actual price I can remember paying was $0.47/gal in about 1973 (I recall walking to the corner gas station with a two-gallon gas can for the lawn mower and getting enough change to buy a 5-cent piece of candy and have a penny left over to get a gumball from the machine), but that would be $2.43/gal, which is exactly what I paid yesterday for gas (well, $2.429/gal).

 

It use to take me about $10 to fill my 59 Cadillac and my 63 Chevy in 1970. I don't recall the size of those two tanks.

 

It use to take me about $10 to fill my 59 Cadillac and my 63 Chevy in 1970. I don't recall the size of those two tanks.

Most cars of that era seemed to have 20 gal tanks, so that would be $0.40/gal which is right about the national average price for gas in 1970.

 

I had a huge 40 gal tank in my old 3/4 ton Suburban. That thing was a beast that got 10 mpg empty or fully loaded. Used it mainly for camping or hunting trips. Didn't need a tent, with the third seat out and the middle flat you could put a small house in it.

 

But how cheap was that, really? Would that quarter have bought more or less of other things than $2.50 would today? I think, at least in terms of national average, that gasoline prices rose above $0.25/gal sometime around 1960. Is that roughly the time frame you are talking about? If so, then using CPI for 1960, that would have made it right at $2.00/gal. The cheapest gas I think I ever bought was $0.77/gal in 1998, which adjusted for inflation would be $1.11/gal today. The lowest actual price I can remember paying was $0.47/gal in about 1973 (I recall walking to the corner gas station with a two-gallon gas can for the lawn mower and getting enough change to buy a 5-cent piece of candy and have a penny left over to get a gumball from the machine), but that would be $2.43/gal, which is exactly what I paid yesterday for gas (well, $2.429/gal).

Don't remember but 6 cents would buy me a bottle of soda. 4 cents if I drank it in the store.

This was really about 1967-67. Maybe gas was 30 cents then.

 

I had a huge 40 gal tank in my old 3/4 ton Suburban. That thing was a beast that got 10 mpg empty or fully loaded. Used it mainly for camping or hunting trips. Didn't need a tent, with the third seat out and the middle flat you could put a small house in it.

It seemed like nearly everything, big or small, got a reliable 10 mpg back then. Our '65 Falcon, '67 F-100, '67 Galaxy 500, '71 Country Squire, '75 Bronco, '75 Galaxy 500, and '79 Bronco -- all got right at 10 mpg.

 

Obligatory passionate emotional response with poorly veiled undertones of extreme political bias!

 

Nothing like a big recession, better mileage and increased production.

 

With a huge dollop of nostalgia for the mythical "good ol' days". It's all we old men have left -- heavy sigh.
'66 Pontiac, '73 TransAm, '78 Corolla, 87 Civic, '91 LeBaron, '08 Civic, '10 Ranger
I drive 'em till they drop.