Midas [No, the other one]Apr 25, 2006 6:02:26 pm [NT]
the biggest concern is what effect it will have on the price of fun dip...
Dermottâ„¢ [Capitalist Pig]Apr 25, 2006 6:09:32 pm
...
REDUCING or DITCHING gas taxes that are 30-50 cents per gallon.
REDUCING or DITCHING gas taxes that are 30-50 cents per gallon.
Enyao[GRBYP]Apr 25, 2006 6:31:54 pm
Old fashioned war spoils. To the victor go the spoils. Split the oil production in Iraq between the countries that took out the regime. That's what all the nay sayers claim we're there for anyway.
Can this troll be any more obvious? :)
Can this troll be any more obvious? :)
QarikApr 25, 2006 6:27:40 pm [NT]
Eck (Linkin Park isa Rollah Coasta)Apr 25, 2006 6:29:43 pm [NT]
PnbApr 25, 2006 6:41:13 pm
Or another option might be for the said oil companys to tie the cost of gas to the cost of the commodity. You notice how the price goes up real fast but takes a bit longer to come back down.
Llotnarf [bun-length]Apr 25, 2006 8:11:28 pm
i think it goes up so quickly because 1) the gas stations have razor thin margins and 2) if they see their wholesale prices going up in the market place, they need to protect themselves by rapidy setting the price in anticipation of the increase.
and it takes forever to go down because there is less urgency. it's not like "hey fuck we better SLASH those prices before the others do!" i guess that is sort of like unspoken collusion, but what can you do about it? force prices down artificially? then when prices go up again the gas stations have to react even more dramatically because they no longer have that "buffer" they subsist on when prices fall.
and it takes forever to go down because there is less urgency. it's not like "hey fuck we better SLASH those prices before the others do!" i guess that is sort of like unspoken collusion, but what can you do about it? force prices down artificially? then when prices go up again the gas stations have to react even more dramatically because they no longer have that "buffer" they subsist on when prices fall.
Llotnarf [bun-length]Apr 25, 2006 7:57:04 pm
if it's infrastructure then i dont see why an extra tax is necessary. if it's going back into the services and infrastructure of the company, then that is serving the greater good.
However, when you see guys like that Exxon guy get a 11 million retirement gift (or however much it was), then why the hell not place a punitive tax on them? that's money right out of the pockets of consumers into some fat-necked dude who has been laughing his way to the bank for his entire career and is now retiring. that isnt going back into the company--it is leaving the company. that is money they are just throwing away because they obviously have too fucking much of it, and if that's not a measure of gouging customers, i dont know what is.
However, when you see guys like that Exxon guy get a 11 million retirement gift (or however much it was), then why the hell not place a punitive tax on them? that's money right out of the pockets of consumers into some fat-necked dude who has been laughing his way to the bank for his entire career and is now retiring. that isnt going back into the company--it is leaving the company. that is money they are just throwing away because they obviously have too fucking much of it, and if that's not a measure of gouging customers, i dont know what is.
Midas [No, the other one]Apr 25, 2006 8:43:45 pm [NT]
Post Reply