Who Makes the Most From the Sale of Gasoline?

[adios]

Given that the profit magins of oil companies is something like 10% plus or minus 3% if memory serves, it's not the oil comapines [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. The government makes the most off of gasoline sales and it's not even close, something like 23% of gasoline sales is taxes in the USA:

Breakdown on the Cost of Gasoline

These taxes are regressive. How come the folks including the politicians that support a windfall tax on oil company profits aren't screaming for a reduction in the taxes paid on gasoline sales?

No, it's the Saudis. 47% of the cost is crude oil that is pumped from the ground at $3/barrel and sold for $60.

[cardcounter0]

Hmmm... Let's try a little math:

Big oil companies get 47% from the pumping and sale of the crude oil.
Then big oil companies get 18% refining the crude into gasoline.
Then big oil compaines get 12% thru distribution and marketing of their product (hard to find a mom & pop gas station anymore, they all have become corporate-owned outlets).

The Govt. get 23% in taxes.

So ....

47% + 18% + 12% > 23%

and thanks to the ever vigilant George Bush, who might actually use a veto for the first time since he has been in office, Boy George will make sure your taxes aren't reduced at the expense of the oil companies.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's the Saudis. 47% of the cost is crude oil that is pumped from the ground at $3/barrel and sold for $60.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's great!!!!!! Let's have Congress pass a windfall profits tax on Saudi oil profits (Aramco). Think they'll pay? While we're talking about non U.S. companies being taxed by the U.S. let's tax em all and see who pays. Nothing like a classic non sequiter.

[cardcounter0]

I guess if they wanted continued access to the world's largest market for their product, then yes, they would pay.
Besides why should we worry about Aramco when we have all that cheap Iraqi oil?
[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[mmbt0ne]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm... Let's try a little math:

Big oil companies get 47% from the pumping and sale of the crude oil.
Then big oil companies get 18% refining the crude into gasoline.
Then big oil compaines get 12% thru distribution and marketing of their product (hard to find a mom & pop gas station anymore, they all have become corporate-owned outlets).

The Govt. get 23% in taxes.

So ....

47% + 18% + 12% > 23%

and thanks to the ever vigilant George Bush, who might actually use a veto for the first time since he has been in office, Boy George will make sure your taxes aren't reduced at the expense of the oil companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to your percentages, 47+12+18+23=100.

I guess CC companies taking 7 cents per dollar charged aren't really getting anything. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
These taxes are regressive. How come the folks including the politicians that support a windfall tax on oil company profits aren't screaming for a reduction in the taxes paid on gasoline sales?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't support the windfall tax, but I don't understand this comparison either. Sure, gas taxes are somewhat regressive, but as taxes they - in theory at least - are simply providing revenue for the financing of public goods. An argument for cutting taxes to ease the burden on consumers is thus entirely different than an argument for somehow regulating windfall profits.

Isn't the comparison of profitability just kind of a no-brainer? Most consumption or value-added taxes in most countries are big enough so that, when comparing how consumption at the point of sale is divided up, governments will always seem to be more "profitable" because they don't have costs.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, gas taxes are somewhat regressive, but as taxes they - in theory at least - are simply providing revenue for the financing of public goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which taxes in theory aren't for the public good?

[ QUOTE ]
An argument for cutting taxes to ease the burden on consumers is thus entirely different than an argument for somehow regulating windfall profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

The theory regarding taxes on "windfall" profits seems to be that the price of a gallon of gas will be reduced. If that's not the theory then what is the rationale for the tax? If the price of a gallon of gas is reduced because there are less taxes then the effect is the same.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that a winfall tax on oil companies is totally irrational and will not reduce the price of a gallon of gas [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the comparison of profitability just kind of a no-brainer? Most consumption or value-added taxes in most countries are big enough so that, when comparing how consumption at the point of sale is divided up, governments will always seem to be more "profitable" because they don't have costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the point is that when such a tax is regressive and it's a tax on something most people require more or less, then government could ease the burden on consummers by cutting back on the tax. I just wonder why people don't get up in arms about the biggest profiteers (the government) that drive up consummer prices.

[microbet]

Does 'not progressive' mean the same thing as regressive?

Do poor people use more gas?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Does 'not progressive' mean the same thing as regressive?

Do poor people use more gas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Relative to their income, of course.