BoB Lutz just on MSNBC saying we should pay $7.50 gal for gas.

[ssump29]

Originally Posted by kbui

I don't know how you do your business, but everyone else I have worked with or my own business, I have to include my fed income tax, business tax, alternate tax into my costs of doing business and pass on to the next person on my supply chain. There are fed taxes INCOME, BUSINESS or otherwise will have to be passed on other wise I will be losing money just to stay in business. The point I am making is there are FED taxes and others along the supply chain that the consumer will have to pay. It might not show up as "taxes" on the tabulated spread sheet, but I am sure they're there in other columns as added costs, expenses, fees....If this is getting too difficult to understand, blame it on the tax structure we have today. At the end of the day, it's still a fed (and other) tax regardless how accountants like to label them.

Wow really you literally took tax from one product to applying all taxes ad sayingits a tax on a product. Sorry but federal income tax is only paid if you have "profits" so there's no way you account for that in your cost since its not a cost. Listen sir, you are mixing in things that have no bearing on what we are discussing. You can only account and sale your product based on the market. Your discussing business with a assistant controller buddy with a masters in accounting with a cpa, s trust me when I tell you are wrong on how it works. Income taxes are not an expense and don't go into the cost of doing business, the taxes you are referring to are an adjusted gross income tax and is taken as a percentage on the gross profits if there are any. And all taxes are a seperate line and most identified as manudated by government, otherwise have fun trying to explain that hidden tax cost when they come audit you.

Also like I said as far as "gas taxes" that's the rate of taxes that are paid and no hidden taxes. The price at the rack is based of the NYEX closing and used as a guide as what to price the going rate before taxes. And since all those taxes are refunded you have to show them being passed on, only people that don't is te retailer since they can't apply for the federal excise, or state excise, motor fuel refunds.

[Caliman93230]

Bob lutz is a retard if he believes in raising taxes

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by truth411

A. Of course diesel gets more mileage than its petrol counter parts, But USA emission standards + diesel engines being more expensive than there gas counter parts means you won't be saving any money whatsoever. You just pay alot more upfront.

I disagree... and I'll use a point to prove it..

2012 Jetta SEL - 21k - 31mpg (combined consumption)
2012 Jetta TDI - 22k - 42mpg (combined consumption)

2012 Passat TDI - 26k - 43mpg (combined consumption)
2012 Passat V6 - 29k - 28mpg (combined consumption)

Where's the extra money? 10 years ago I'd take your side of the argument and agree. Now? Not so much. An average of 10-14mpg better....for roughly the same price. Most people would LOVE that kind of option. For some people, that extra 10-14mpg would save a lot of money..

Originally Posted by truth411

B. What Midsize truck gets 16mpg??? I think you made that up.

I owned a 2000 Dodge Dakota V6 Sport and a 2001 Dodge Dakota V8. Both were LUCKY to get 16mpg on the highway. In town, I was usually getting about 13-14mpg. The new Dakotas are getting close to 20mpg on highway, but in city is still like 14-16mpg.

The point is that if you could double, or even say make it 23-24mpg in city driving, it would be a huge leap. I've seen plenty of forum frankensteins who have dropped in a diesel into a Ford Ranger or a Chevy S10/Colorado and are seeing 30mpgs....

Originally Posted by truth411

C. The Ecoboost in the F150 is a good motor but not cheap, IMVHO GM's Gen V v8 with 8spd auto will probaly have it beat.

It's cheaper than their V8 with relatively the same power/better mpg. That's all I was saying..

Originally Posted by truth411

D. The problem is not regulations, Regulations don't dictated consumer demands!! It is no coincidence that demand for SUV's Drop off a cliff when Gas prices shot up in 2008. When they went back down SUV sales shot back up. As Bob Lutz says " You can't get the american people to loose weight by regulating cloth manufactuers to only make small cloths with a 30" waist seam." (something like that.) Since gas prices is only going to go Higher, Demand for fuel efficent vehicles will higher with it, thats undisputable. I'm Just saying there is no need to artificaly inflate it with taxes, its going to go up no matter what.

I think you are sadly mistaken. Regulations are what has kept a lot of vehicles from making it to the US period. Emissions standards, crash tests, etc....those are all regulations. These things have hampered a lot of vehicles from being introduced here while still being produced EVERYwhere else.

There are a lot of people who do drive a truck because they can, not because it's the smart choice to do. I won't argue that. However, there are tons of people who need a truck because that's what they need for the work they do. Your telling me NONE of those people wouldnt be interested in a vehicle that offered similar power/performance with better MPG? YOUR NUTS!!!!!

That would be like me saying I'll sell a 2012 Camaro with a diesel that gets 40mpg and produces 450 hp.....no one would buy that at all right?

People like SUVS and trucks. I myself loved my truck because it was comfy and I never had to worry about sight issues while driving it. Gas prices are what prompted me to toss it. If not for the poor gas mileage, I'd still have it. Give me that same truck with fuel economy in the mid 20's.... and I'd buy it again...

[2ndgenz28]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

I owned a 2000 Dodge Dakota V6 Sport and a 2001 Dodge Dakota V8. Both were LUCKY to get 16mpg on the highway. In town, I was usually getting about 13-14mpg.

And funny part is, thats the same mileage of 70-80s V8s with a carb,
all the fancy electronice and emmsion stuff didn't do anything but cost money.

[derklug]

Ford actually had a diesel Ranger, we had one for a shop truck. Great little truck, we ran it untill the cab fell off. 40 MPG and performance better than a 2.3 truck. I honestly believe that the government is more interested in limiting private auto ownership than in clean air. The EPA set emission standards higher and higher and the auto makers complied untill we reached the point where exhaust emissions are damn near zero. Since that tactic hasn't worked, now they are going after CO2. By limiting CO2, they can run the internal combustion engine out of production once and for all.

[Sevn86]

Story on the evening news said prices for a barrel of crude oil is now at $93.00. The lowest since feb. 2011

[2ndgenz28]

and being the weekend, the price of gas still goes up 20cents

since the corp station set the price and everyone else just matches it, or goes 1 cent cheaper.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by ssump29

You are also wrong. A severance tax is NOT a federal tax. It's a tax placed by your state to extract natural resources from that state's land that can be used in other states. So, Alaska I believe is the only state in the union that actually imposes this tax. And maybe Cali if I recall correctly.

Who said that I thought it was a federal tax? My comment was only supposed to to allude to the fact that there are others taxes in existence besides taxes directly imposed on the consumer. Also, just Alaska has severance taxes? "You are wrong."

Originally Posted by ssump29

Yes you are right it should, but since its a open free market, they hold most contracts and trade them based on what they percieve will affect supply and demand even when most of their reasoning never come true and never happen. But they use their data to screw the prices and basically control the market. They like to cause false positives on stockpiles as well by buying at important trading hubs and storing the product and not releasing it to the market to create the image of tight supply with high demand thus sending the panic out to buy low(which forces prices up) before prices shoot up. It's a method thats really frowned upon but proving it is too hard to do so there isn't much one can do about it unless parties conspired together.

I would love to hear you definition of what constitutes a free market.

Originally Posted by ssump29

Correction crude never hit 180 a barrel in 2008 highest it got was 147. Although you are correct that they used that excuse back then for why gas prices were high. As of today at this moment crude is at 93 a barrel, but gas is still being traded higher then it should be.

The problem is that the speculators and hedge fund managers are trading and creating false bubbles not based on the fundamentals and instead doing the bidding based on economic news which is a false way of setting the price. Until the rope is pulled in on how and what reports can be used to affect trading prices they will continue to do so to keep portfolios in the black and prices within a certain trading range. Nevermind that our gasoline stockpiles have risen each week for the past 6 weeks soon to be 7 after this week is over with. Yet prices aren't falling when they should if the laws of fundamentals were being followed.

I fight this fight to stop this everyday, but until enough people actually stand behind change , nothing is going to change.

The speculation you are referring to never happened in our most recent oil crisis.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

It's not a mystery, guys. Every car maker, including Lutz, wants government to stop screwing with them via CAFE standards, and this is their counter-proposal.

Politicians won't raise gas taxes because it would be political suicide. The car makers know that, this is just their way of "getting back" at the politicos.

And for the high price/low price crowd, cheap energy is why we are where we are today. We need to increase production from all energy sources so as to lower the cost of energy across the board, not artificially increase prices. Artificially increased energy prices - serfdom.

[truth411]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

I disagree... and I'll use a point to prove it..

2012 Jetta SEL - 21k - 31mpg (combined consumption)
2012 Jetta TDI - 22k - 42mpg (combined consumption)

2012 Passat TDI - 26k - 43mpg (combined consumption)
2012 Passat V6 - 29k - 28mpg (combined consumption)

Where's the extra money? 10 years ago I'd take your side of the argument and agree. Now? Not so much. An average of 10-14mpg better....for roughly the same price. Most people would LOVE that kind of option. For some people, that extra 10-14mpg would save a lot of money..



I owned a 2000 Dodge Dakota V6 Sport and a 2001 Dodge Dakota V8. Both were LUCKY to get 16mpg on the highway. In town, I was usually getting about 13-14mpg. The new Dakotas are getting close to 20mpg on highway, but in city is still like 14-16mpg.

The point is that if you could double, or even say make it 23-24mpg in city driving, it would be a huge leap. I've seen plenty of forum frankensteins who have dropped in a diesel into a Ford Ranger or a Chevy S10/Colorado and are seeing 30mpgs....



It's cheaper than their V8 with relatively the same power/better mpg. That's all I was saying..



I think you are sadly mistaken. Regulations are what has kept a lot of vehicles from making it to the US period. Emissions standards, crash tests, etc....those are all regulations. These things have hampered a lot of vehicles from being introduced here while still being produced EVERYwhere else.

There are a lot of people who do drive a truck because they can, not because it's the smart choice to do. I won't argue that. However, there are tons of people who need a truck because that's what they need for the work they do. Your telling me NONE of those people wouldnt be interested in a vehicle that offered similar power/performance with better MPG? YOUR NUTS!!!!!

That would be like me saying I'll sell a 2012 Camaro with a diesel that gets 40mpg and produces 450 hp.....no one would buy that at all right?

People like SUVS and trucks. I myself loved my truck because it was comfy and I never had to worry about sight issues while driving it. Gas prices are what prompted me to toss it. If not for the poor gas mileage, I'd still have it. Give me that same truck with fuel economy in the mid 20's.... and I'd buy it again...

I think I need to correct myself here:

A. What I was trying to say is that Cafe is Flawed (so yes regulations in that since is a problem) and Regulating Car manufacters to make expeinsive fuel efficent cars is flawed, we are not talking about your personal niche. I thought we were talking about the industry as a whole.

B. Sounds like your a diesel guy , and no a camaro diesel would not sell enough to Justify offering it to the public, not the right type of vehicle. Because it would handle like a turd since diesels engines are heavy.

C. Now that gas prices are going higher and not cheap any more DEMAND for more fuel efficient SUV/CUV will go up to. again the link between gas prices and what type of vehicles the industry sells is undisputable.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

It's not a mystery, guys. Every car maker, including Lutz, wants government to stop screwing with them via CAFE standards, and this is their counter-proposal.

Politicians won't raise gas taxes because it would be political suicide. The car makers know that, this is just their way of "getting back" at the politicos.

And for the high price/low price crowd, cheap energy is why we are where we are today. We need to increase production from all energy sources so as to lower the cost of energy across the board, not artificially increase prices. Artificially increased energy prices - serfdom.

Yeah, GM execs should really get back at the politicians. What have they done for GM lately?

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Yeah, GM execs should really get back at the politicians. What have they done for GM lately?

Fired them, last I heard.

[Number 3]

This is always an interesting discussion. Everybody lights up over gas tax discussion, very few get excited over CAFE, even though it will cost you just about as much over the life of a new car. For example, if the technologies required to get from 35 MPG to 62 MPG (2016 CAFE vs 2025 proposal) cost you $5,000 in your new car purchase (and some estimates are even higher) and you drive 10,000 miles per year........it will take you 10 years to pay off the technology in fuel savings. Everyone poo poos hybrids today because they take 6 to 7 years to pay off.

So you will be paying one way or the other. I just wish people would be just as upset at CAFE because it also will cost you serous money.

What is missing here, for me, is the REASON for gas taxes or CAFE. Is it stop importing oil all together? Then develop shale oil and create some good American jobs. Oooooops have to fight the Sierra Club to dig in the Rocky Mountains.

Is it for the environment? Cars are 15% of the problem 20% if you consider surface transportation of goods. Where is the "CAFE" for the other 85% of the problem?

Is it simply to use less energy?

What happens to the world when and if we don't need oil from Middle East and the money dries up?

How will we be taxed when we all have Electric Vehicles that no longer require gasoline. A very good chunk of gas in Michigan is already TAX. So who and how will you be taxed to make up that difference? Some countries are already talking about a "use fee" for the roads. $xx per mile driven.

This is simply a "we have to do something" but no politician can really articulate what or why. So the easiest thing is pass laws impacting a single industry, pat themselves on the back and assume "they'll just figure it out between now and then".

I'll say it again, CAFE is the equivalent of the government passing a law that no drug company can sell it's products unless it comes up with a cure for Cancer by 2016.

2016 is going to be nasty, but you may not see a huge difference in the choices of car or truck you can choose from. GM is already 4 cylinder only in the Regal, a mid size sedan. But a nice 270 HP 4 cylinder turbo should make that a very entertaining vehicle.

But 2025 and the 62 MPG standard will have a HUGE impact on what you can choose. 2025 may make the Volt look inexpensive. LOL

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by Number 3

This is always an interesting discussion. Everybody lights up over gas tax discussion, very few get excited over CAFE, even though it will cost you just about as much over the life of a new car. For example, if the technologies required to get from 35 MPG to 62 MPG (2016 CAFE vs 2025 proposal) cost you $5,000 in your new car purchase (and some estimates are even higher) and you drive 10,000 miles per year........it will take you 10 years to pay off the technology in fuel savings. Everyone poo poos hybrids today because they take 6 to 7 years to pay off.

So you will be paying one way or the other. I just wish people would be just as upset at CAFE because it also will cost you serous money.

What is missing here, for me, is the REASON for gas taxes or CAFE. Is it stop importing oil all together? Then develop shale oil and create some good American jobs. Oooooops have to fight the Sierra Club to dig in the Rocky Mountains.

Is it for the environment? Cars are 15% of the problem 20% if you consider surface transportation of goods. Where is the "CAFE" for the other 85% of the problem?

Is it simply to use less energy?

What happens to the world when and if we don't need oil from Middle East and the money dries up?

How will we be taxed when we all have Electric Vehicles that no longer require gasoline. A very good chunk of gas in Michigan is already TAX. So who and how will you be taxed to make up that difference? Some countries are already talking about a "use fee" for the roads. $xx per mile driven.

This is simply a "we have to do something" but no politician can really articulate what or why. So the easiest thing is pass laws impacting a single industry, pat themselves on the back and assume "they'll just figure it out between now and then".

I'll say it again, CAFE is the equivalent of the government passing a law that no drug company can sell it's products unless it comes up with a cure for Cancer by 2016.

2016 is going to be nasty, but you may not see a huge difference in the choices of car or truck you can choose from. GM is already 4 cylinder only in the Regal, a mid size sedan. But a nice 270 HP 4 cylinder turbo should make that a very entertaining vehicle.

But 2025 and the 62 MPG standard will have a HUGE impact on what you can choose. 2025 may make the Volt look inexpensive. LOL

+1 to all that. And while we're complaining about CAFE, let's not forget the safety issues CAFE laws have.