Paris Hilton's energy plan. It makes at least as much sense as anything McCain and Obama have said:
Cheap gas and energy independence are mutually exclusive. U.S. energy policy up till now has mainly been to keep gas prices low and consumers content. Artificially reducing gas prices would reverse trends that are actually helping to break our dependence on foreign oil.
Energy has become the top campaign topic, so they think they need to address it, even if it sounds like they're making stuff up as they go along. Yeah, yeah, that's what I do here. But I ain't runnin' for national office, unless Paris really does need a Veep candidate.
Comments
I'd like a position in Paris's cabinet. Let your mind wander.
Paris Hilton needs to go back to making sex videos ...which are much more entertaining than her mind. When we pay $4.00 per gallon, our European friends are paying $8.70/gallon ...and they have far less energy independence than we do.
The difference between the $3.61 for unleaded at Costco Lancaster or $3.71 at the BP in Waynedale and the higher price in Europe isn't the gas, it's the gas taxes that the government charges.
Does it make a difference if you pay the taxes on gasoline rather than as an annual tax on your home? Well, yes, in a minor way; people in rural areas have to buy more gas, and spend less for their homes, so it's a rural/city issue. But in the end, if you pay more taxes for living in a rural area, it's still no bargain living in a city.
If you're not growing your gasoline in the garden out back, you're not energy-independent. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference whether the money goes to someone named Lloyd in Oklahome, someone named Herb in Alberta, or someone named Jose in Columbia, it's someone else's pocket.
Otherwise, we could achieve energy independence simply by getting Mexico to invade, and surrendering, then getting Canada to attack and surrender to them as well. Most of our petroleum comes from North America.
"Does it make a difference if you pay the taxes on gasoline rather than as an annual tax on your home?"
No, but it makes a difference if government taxes the corporation directly and we have to pay our own taxes directly applied to the purchase plus an inflated price to cover the income tax paid by the oil company.
It is indeed interesting that Exxon-Mobil will pay more income tax than the bottom 50% of all US taxpayers this year.
http://herdgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-needs-windfall-profitstax.html
It is indeed interesting that Exxon-Mobil will pay more income tax than the bottom 50% of all US taxpayers this year.
It's interesting only if you have something to compare it to. Exxon-Mobil obviously should pay more tax than Don Hall's Restaurants, because it's so much bigger.
Exxon Mobil turned $200 billion of crude oil into $400 billion in sales, which is $200 billion in gross profits. Their tax of $40 billion would be 20% - a lower rate than charged to the individuals who pay 42% of all individual income taxes.
Yes, there are other costs to Exxon-Mobil, but families have costs, too. Exxon-Mobil gets to deduct 100% of those costs, while the exemption for a individual doesn't begin to cover the costs of the commuting, work clothes, lunches, etc., much less the costs of the college education needed to qualify for a job saying "Yew wunt fries wit dat?"
The bottom 65% of all taxpayers have an average annual gross income of $17,292. It's pretty tough slogging, trying to raise a family on $17K. Hell, it's hard for an *individual* to live on that.
I can't find stats on the number of dependents per return by tax rate. Generally, people with high incomes have effective birth control, and those with low income do not, so if anything, these would be larger than average families. Overall, the country has 2.24 people per tax return.