Slashdot Mirror
2012 Set Record For Most Expensive Gas In US
An anonymous reader writes "According to data from the American Automobile Association, the average price for a gallon of gas in the U.S. was higher in 2012 than in any year before it. Nationwide, gas averaged $3.60/gallon, up from $3.51/gallon in 2011. 'The states with the most expensive annual averages for 2012 included Hawaii ($4.31), Alaska ($4.09), California ($4.03), New York ($3.90) and Connecticut ($3.90). The states with the least-expensive annual averages included South Carolina ($3.35), Missouri ($3.38), Mississippi ($3.39), Tennessee ($3.40) and Oklahoma ($3.41). The highest daily statewide average of the year was $4.67 in Calif. on Oct. 9, while the lowest daily statewide average was $2.91 a gallon in South Carolina on July 3.' Bloomberg reports that fuel consumption is down 3.6% compared to last year, while U.S. oil production reached almost 7 million barrels a day recently, a level that hasn't been reached since 1993. AAA predicts gas prices will be cheaper in 2013."
Still cheaper than my country (Colombia) We extract oil in our land, and yet we have quite high prices. On average ~4.65 US for low octane fuel (81 ~ 84!!!) and the high octane fuel (which is really a joke by international standards) is ~5.50 US for 87~90 in octane scale
In real dollars, i.e. corrected for inflation, it's about the same as in 1979-1980.
It's interesting, without shortages and lines at the pump, how much less threatening it seems. I remember visiting my aunt that Christmas and being quite concerned because our tank wasn't big enough to hold gas for the whole round trip, and in addition to lines, many, many gas stations had short hours--there was no certainty of being able to find a gas station open on Christmas day.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Psst buddy: here's a new year's resolution for you:
Starting in 2013, I will no longer use the made-up word "sheeple" which instantly brands me as an underemployed political talk radio addict.
Gas prices before taxes are fairly consistent throughout most of the developed world. My understanding is that the difference between Europe and the United States has arisen primarily because Europe taxes as a percentage of the price, while the United States taxes on the amount of gasoline. Hence, if the base price doubles, the taxes also double in Europe, but stay the same in the United States. Over time, the difference in price has risen, and should be expected to grow even larger.
Stop it.
There is no sympathy from the rest of the world. Here in Canada "cheap" gas is 4.50USD/Gallon, in Europe its way worse then that, no one wants to hear about it any more. Pick some other non-issue to cry about like how expensive starbucks coffee is or how horrible it is that the millionaire hockey players aren't playing.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
And they will be used, because it's been the stated goal of the Obama Administration and others to keep fossil fuel costs high in order to "persuade" people to switch to alternatives, like mass transit (powered by windmills, no doubt).
Someone need to remind you WHY WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT.
You seem to think that our society runs "on automatic" and that government interference is "bad"
The NEWS for you is that the entire reason we have a petroleum infrastructure and gas stations and roads and cars is because the GOVERNMENT "persuaded" people to adopt them.
Oh but YOU seem to think that the government gets in the way of civilization when in fact government is the DIFFERENCE between prosperity and despair.
Why don't you TRY to speculate on what the price of gasoline would be if the government were not interfering. Trust me you won't like the answer.
The gas tax has been declining due to inflation to the point where it doesn't even pay for highway construction/maintenance anymore. The Highway Trust Fund has been running a deficit since 2008, and has to grab general tax revenues to pay for it. I think it's fair to raise the gas tax to a level where it covers the cost of maintaining highways, instead of subsidizing them out of general taxes.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'm disappointed that someone who feels that the free market will provide is using roads that are provided by the tax payers. We should cut this budget cost and move it to the road users.
It would cost about another $4 or so per gallon to cover the cost of the road system in the US (or you could come up with some other solution. Technology would allow most roads to be toll roads). Of course, if this huge tax payer subsidy is removed then other forms of transportation would immediately become viable. In other words, trains and buses would become cost effective and the US would get an environmentally friendly transport network.
So, I support you totally in your efforts to tell your socialist representatives to stop subsidizing roads with tax dollars. Please feel free to post copies of the letters you send to them here (or elsewhere).
"the average price for a gallon of gas in the U.S. was higher in 2012 than in any year before it"
Huh? The average price for just about anything in the U.S. was higher in 2012 than in any year before it...
Try moving to Sweden! You pay $3.51 a gallon we pay on average $7.65 a gallon! All because of your wars!
And it has nothing to do with your government soaking you for $4 a gallon in taxes.
It is curious that you are comparing the increase in the price of gas with the increase in the price of things including gas, but labeling one inflation and the other simply a price increase.
"His name was James Damore."
Given that the price of gas keeps going up, isn't every year a record year for gas prices?
I'm disappointed that someone who feels that the free market will provide is using roads that are provided by the tax payers. We should cut this budget cost and move it to the road users.
Great! Because in the US, cars are a net revenue producer for the highway system. I guess we need to seriously bump up the costs of planes, buses, and trains however to make them also pay for the costs of using the systems provided by the tax payers...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It's not cars that cause the deficit, it's subsidies for buses and trains that are depleting the Highway Trust Fund. Congress authorized spending from that pot of money for mass transit - and it's a massive drain on the system. Conversely, cars actually generate net revenue for the system.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The UK does both: there is a fixed tax (a "duty"), and a percentage (VAT). The VAT applies to the duty as well as the base price.
The current rate is 58p per litre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbon_oil_duty
The petrol station opposite my house is selling fuel for £1.39/L, so the cost is (58p fuel + 58p duty) * 1.20 VAT = £1.39.
I think it's the same mechanism in the rest of the EU.
In the US all public non-toll roads are maintained by the government. The fun part is figuring out at what level of government.
Most/all of the maintenance is done by the local governments and individual states. Not only do individual states tax gasoline sales, they also receive money from the federal government. This is how the US government forces the individual states to do things which would otherwise be unconstitutional.
For example, the US constitution gives individual states the right to set a minimum drinking age. However, if the states wish to receive federal highway funds they must set the minimum above 21. Basically, the federal government implements taxes that should be on the state level, then extorts/bribes the states to pass laws that the federal government constitutionally can not pass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States
So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
Sounds very sensible to me. Raising gas taxes gradually will:
- Minimise disruption to life and allow people to gradually convert to more efficient vehicles;
- Encourage R&D into alternative technologies, which WILL be needed sooner or later, as well as potentially resulting in a new industry America can dominate in;
- Lead to higher tax revenues, hopefully doing at least a tiny bit to help with the obscene debt the nation is in.
Seriously what's the problem here? The US currently has some of the lowest gas prices (i.e. lowest gasoline taxation rates) of any OECD nation and has ample scope to benefit from raising them gradually, without things becoming too disruptive for the population.
Wouldn't mass transit reduce wear and tear on the roads and ultimately reduce costs?
Actually, no. Damage to roads goes as the fourth power of weight (you can find lots of other sources with the same conclusions). A typical city bus weighs around 12000 kg; a typical car weighs around 1600 kg. Thus a bus does around 3100 times more road damage that a car. Assume that the car carries one person, and the bus carries a full load (seated and standing) of 96; you end up with ~33 times more damage per passenger mile in a bus as a single person in that car.
Weight is what destroys roads, and heavy vehicles really tear it up. A move to more mass transit would not only greatly increase the subsidies required, but seriously accelerate the damage done to the roads.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It has very little to do with a "green agenda". It has to do with the fact that there are six million people in the DC metro area and a HUGE amount of those people live in the suburbs and commute into the city. This certainly won't come as a shock to you if you've ever driven your car inside the beltway during commute time, but you are not the only one who would like to use their own car to commute into the city.
What's the alternative? Seriously, what is a more efficient alternative to moving that many people over that distance on a regular basis? It sure isn't automobiles. Try driving around LA or Houston during rush hour if you think that a city that size designed around automobile travel is more efficient.
The fact is that if you live in a major metro area like DC and want to maintain the suburban Midwestern lifestyle you're used to while regularly visiting the city center for work and play, you're going to have to pay for it in time and money. There's just no way around it. I mean, how far are you commuting? West of Fairfax into DC? That's a pretty damn long commute. You can't really complain that the service is poor when you live that far away.