Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-02-2008, 11:58 AM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by ex_CFO_now_RVer View Post
An additional $3 tax on fuel will hurt the poor who are having it tough making ends meet. I don't think that is your goal? At $4 per gallon of diesel, my wife and I will spend about $8,500 on fuel for our 40' motorhome this year. With an additional $3, we would be at $15,000. We bought a MH to drive. BTW we also drive a SUV.

At what point will you drive considerably less. As long as fuel is available ie...long gas lines, the price is irrelevant to many, many people.

Dave
If you are concerned about the poor, would you support a $3 per gallon tax if it were directly tied to an FIT credit? $3 per gallon of crude converts to a $3,000 per person credit on your FIT return. Most poor people would make a profit on that.

I've got nothing against you driving a motorhome or me driving a car, but I do think we should pay all the national security, economic security, and environmental costs of the oil we use. American foreign policy for 50 years has been impacted by our desire to assure a reliable flow of cheap oil so gas is plentiful and cheap in the US. That foreign policy has cost both dollars and lives. We've also put the US economy at risk to spikes in prices or dips in supply.

I'm not sure if $3 is the right price to offset that, but I'm sure that $0 is too low.
__________________

__________________
Independent is online now   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 04-02-2008, 01:17 PM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wags View Post
The answers to some of the U.S's fuel problems are
-HEMP as an alternate fuel
Hey at least we'll be mellow in the traffic jams.

Ha
__________________

__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2008, 01:35 PM   #23
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
If you are concerned about the poor, would you support a $3 per gallon tax if it were directly tied to an FIT credit? $3 per gallon of crude converts to a $3,000 per person credit on your FIT return. Most poor people would make a profit on that.

I've got nothing against you driving a motorhome or me driving a car, but I do think we should pay all the national security, economic security, and environmental costs of the oil we use. American foreign policy for 50 years has been impacted by our desire to assure a reliable flow of cheap oil so gas is plentiful and cheap in the US. That foreign policy has cost both dollars and lives. We've also put the US economy at risk to spikes in prices or dips in supply.

I'm not sure if $3 is the right price to offset that, but I'm sure that $0 is too low.
I'll make it easier........show me ONE time the US govt got involved in the private sector and made a meaningful effect? I love Congress parading all the oil CEOs on the Hill yesterday? Do you think that was productive, or just grandstanding?? And bottom line, it's NOT going to change the price of gas........
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2008, 02:48 PM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinanceDude View Post
I'll make it easier........show me ONE time the US govt got involved in the private sector and made a meaningful effect? I love Congress parading all the oil CEOs on the Hill yesterday? Do you think that was productive, or just grandstanding?? And bottom line, it's NOT going to change the price of gas........
I'm not sure what you mean by "involved in the private sector". I'd say that we have cleaner air and water today than we would have if the gov't weren't involved.

OTOH, there are proposals to tax oil (or carbon) and have the gov't use the proceeds to fund alternate fuels and conservation. I think that would be extremely inefficient. The gov't doesn't do a good job of picking winners (think ethanol).

But a tax that reflects a negative externality, and that's rebated by decreasing some other tax, that makes a lot of sense to me.
__________________
Independent is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 12:00 AM   #25
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 839
zz...
__________________
mh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 09:10 AM   #26
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by mh View Post
zz...
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 09:40 AM   #27
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
saluki9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy888 View Post
In a 4 cyl camry 5 speed 36 mpg. Less fuel than a plane? Right?

Wrong, your car would need to get 50mpg or greater to be more efficient than a modern jet airliner.
__________________
saluki9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 11:34 AM   #28
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by saluki9 View Post
Wrong, your car would need to get 50mpg or greater to be more efficient than a modern jet airliner.
I am getting on a plane using the 1200 dollars the govmint is sending me in may and enjoying two weeks in the california wine country.
__________________
newguy88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 01:58 PM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy888 View Post
I am getting on a plane using the 1200 dollars the govmint is sending me in may and enjoying two weeks in the california wine country.
Thats the spirit Newguy! Make sure you take the Napa Valley wine train. Pretty fun experience.
__________________
Notmuchlonger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 02:41 PM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
saluki9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy888 View Post
I am getting on a plane using the 1200 dollars the govmint is sending me in may and enjoying two weeks in the california wine country.
You'll have a great time. And you aren't going to have to put up with any annoying conservatives there. Heck, in Northern California you're like Barry Goldwater.
__________________
saluki9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 02:46 PM   #31
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by saluki9 View Post
You'll have a great time. And you aren't going to have to put up with any annoying conservatives there. Heck, in Northern California you're like Barry Goldwater.
Dont remind me im in Hell..
__________________
Notmuchlonger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 04:15 PM   #32
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
lazygood4nothinbum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,895
churches used to build the largest, tallest structures. then finance towered over the steeples, each time business building a little higher to outdo the rest.

if built, this outdo seems built to last, for a long time to look down upon the rest. this monument to a fossil.
__________________
"off with their heads"~~dr. joseph-ignace guillotin

"life should begin with age and its privileges and accumulations, and end with youth and its capacity to splendidly enjoy such advantages."~~mark twain - letter to edward kimmitt 1901
lazygood4nothinbum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 05:57 PM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by saluki9 View Post
Wrong, your car would need to get 50mpg or greater to be more efficient than a modern jet airliner.

Not generally true. The airline industry averages about 50 SEAT miles per gallon. A 35 MPG Camry with 4 people in it get 140 seat MPG, even just a husband and wife going together is 70 seat MPG. It is actually more fuel efficient for a family of 4 or 5 to travel in a SUV than hop a plane.

In essence traveling at 540 MPH requires a lot more energy than traveling at 65 MPH.
__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 08:59 PM   #34
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
saluki9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post

In essence traveling at 540 MPH requires a lot more energy than traveling at 65 MPH.
That has nothing to do with it (until you can fit 100+ people in your camry)

also, once you put 2,3, or 4 people in your camry, it no longer gets 35 mpg
__________________
saluki9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 03:42 AM   #35
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,072
OK. let me guess.

It is either:

Is it a huge inter-planetary nuclear missile that presents a threat to the US. WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). Looks kinda like a missile in the chart.

or is it

The manifestation of the huge drain on our economy that is ruining us oil WMD (Weapons of Monetary Destruction)

or

I suppose a third option could be that this guy has some sort of complex and is comparing size.


__________________
chinaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 05:03 AM   #36
Full time employment: Posting here.
jambo101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 940
Quote:
Originally Posted by saluki9 View Post
Wrong, your car would need to get 50mpg or greater to be more efficient than a modern jet airliner.
Whether you go by fuel efficient car or plane train or bus or try to buy non oil based products those Arabian oil cartels are laughing all the way to the bank on the worlds dependence on oil and from what i see there's very few people trying do anything to turn that trend around,Eg try telling some one to slow down to save fuel or buy a more fuel efficient car or live closer to where they work and all you will get is some interesting rationals as to why that wont work.
__________________
"Second star to the right and straight on till morning"
jambo101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 06:19 AM   #37
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by saluki9 View Post
That has nothing to do with it (until you can fit 100+ people in your camry)

also, once you put 2,3, or 4 people in your camry, it no longer gets 35 mpg
Yes the speed that you travel directly impacts how much energy you consume moving from A to B. If you double the speed something travels the drag increases by a factor of 4, which is why you get better gas mileage at 45 than 65.

Obviously it is more fuel efficient to put a couple hundred people in a vehicle than one, but slower is better.

If we want to save energy as country we need to encourage people to travel more energy efficiently. People make a big deal about SUVs vs Prius, while ignoring the #2 use of oil for transportation, airlines. For <500 mile trips airlines are an oil intensive way of moving people especially when you add in the typical 4 trips to the airport @20 miles each way.

The most efficient ways are
1. Ship*
2. Train
3. Bus
4. Multi passenger car
5. Airline
6. Single passenger car

*I could be wrong about ships vs trains.

So if newguy is traveling with a family he is supporting our Arab "friend" a bit less by driving than flying, which is opposite of what you said.
__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 05:20 PM   #38
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
The most efficient ways are
1. Ship*
2. Train
3. Bus
4. Multi passenger car
5. Airline
6. Single passenger car

*I could be wrong about ships vs trains.
Barges are more fuel efficient per ton/mile than trains (so if you include them as "ships" your order is correct).
Motorcycles would be about tied with airlines for fuel efficiency. General aviation aircraft burn more fuel than cars (again, largely due to the velocity^2 = drag), but a small plane with four people aboard can be more fuel efficient than a car with one person. Corporate-style jets (approx 8 pax) are fuel hogs and would be at the very bottom.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2008, 04:33 AM   #39
Full time employment: Posting here.
jambo101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 940
It would be environmentally and financially advantageous to just try to maximize the the economy of the vehicle we are driving at the moment as some people just dont have an option right now to drive a more fuel efficient vehicle,or have the money to spend on upgrading their house to be more energy efficient.
However when i'm out on the interstates it seems like no one cares as the average speed is 80 to 90mph and the average auto is a cross between a mini van,pick up and Suv.:confused:
__________________

__________________
"Second star to the right and straight on till morning"
jambo101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Keep 403(b) in American Funds, or move to Fidelity? lhamo FIRE and Money 5 02-17-2008 08:54 PM
American Funds - Share class R5 Disappointed FIRE and Money 2 09-23-2007 11:22 AM
Would you invest in the American Funds? packrat44 FIRE and Money 17 09-22-2007 02:59 PM
American Funds (without 5.75% sales load) vs. Vanguard? drb111 FIRE and Money 7 09-14-2007 09:46 AM
American Funds dm FIRE and Money 20 05-02-2007 10:25 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:34 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.