Crude Oil Over $90 per Barrel

[zeus3925]

Income Tax = 2% 0f total income, SS maxed out @ $37?, they were called service stations, car cost $2400 (Mercury Comet SW cruised comfortably @ 80, 28 MPG). I could go on but hopefully you get the point. What has increased in cost & scope is government, & immensely so. I have the slips so can verify what's printed.

Hopefully gas goes up enough that my oil stock splits again & I can harvest some more profit .

Mercury Comets were nerd cars!

2% of income? Marv I thought kite designers made more than that. You could have used the benefits of a union back then.

[Buzz]

That may sound great on paper but unfortunately there are NO efficient alternative power sources here now. Yes we should be striving towards that but manipulation by the administration(or those this administration put in power) to raise gas prices is a great case for getting government out of the business of oil. Alternative energy isn't a reality no matter what libs would like us to think.

Someone should explain this to the Chinese.

[Buzz]

Income Tax = 2% 0f total income, SS maxed out @ $37?, they were called service stations, car cost $2400 (Mercury Comet SW cruised comfortably @ 80, 28 MPG). I could go on but hopefully you get the point. What has increased in cost & scope is government, & immensely so. I have the slips so can verify what's printed.

Hopefully gas goes up enough that my oil stock splits again & I can harvest some more profit .

I don't know where a 2% tax rate comes from, but here is a memory refresher about rates in 1965:

[mjh345]

They should also explain it to Brazil, France etc

[Roger Perry]

that's it? that's all you got?

where is your standard foaming at the mouth attack in the same manner as if it was a republican?

Ho Hum. Wake me up when gasoline hits $5.00 a gallon

[road kill]

Mercury Comets were nerd cars!

2% of income? Marv I thought kite designers made more than that. You could have used the benefits of a union back then.

How would you rate a Prius??

I asked a guy if there was a test you had to fail to get one of those.
He said "oh, no, anyone can get one!!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!


RK

[mjh345]

I don't know where a 2% tax rate comes from, but here is a memory refresher about rates in 1965:

You only have to go back a few years more and tax rates actually exceeded 90% at the top level. OUCH!!!

[Buzz]

You only have to go back a few years more and tax rates actually exceeded 90% at the top level. OUCH!!!

You can get all the tax rate information you need right in this nifty publication!

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-20101220.pdf


When I get some free time, I was going to use consumer price index information to translate those tax brackets in 1965 into today's dollars. It should be interesting, at least to me.

CPI info here:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CPIAUCSL.txt

I know conservatives want to take us back in time, the question is, do they want to go back to the 1920's or back to pre 1916 levels?

[depittydawg]

[QUOTE=Franco;721800]

I see. So I guess my job and my paycheck that I cash every to weeks isn't real then? Alternative energy isn't the answer today. But it is under way. And it will become more of an alternative as time marches on. Meanwhile, it isn't the government that controls the price of oil / gas. It is the oil industry. There is plenty of oil out there available. There is plenty of refining capacity. Why are they running at 50%?[/quote]

When the government restricts oil production, they do have an impact of the cost. OPEC just raised prices last week because they know that domestic production in the USA is down and we have increased our demand for imported oil.

Our two biggest oil producing areas are Alaska and the GOM. The Feds stopped issuing new drilling permits in the gulf 8 months ago making us more dependent on imported oil and OPEC!!!

That's why prices will continue to increase.

Sorry Franco, much as I respect your opinions I'm seeing a lot of evidence that Drilling isn't the answer to America's energy needs.

http://www.ensec.org/index.php?optio...r08&Itemid=334
In fact, many drilling advocates implicitly assume that the energy gained from increased drilling will be roughly linear: that is, doubling drilling effort is expected to eventually bring something like double the energy resources to market. In reality, the historical data give overwhelming and unequivocal evidence that the energy return on drilling in the United States will certainly be far less than this. For generations now, the energy return on increased drilling has been a quantitative relationship of sharply diminishing returns with increased drilling effort. In fact, for the last several decades, the relationship of drilling effort and energy return has been so unfavorable that there is little evidence that even vastly increased drilling will significantly increase U.S. domestic energy production. This stark fact must be incorporated into any strategic energy planning. To do otherwise is to put hope entirely before experience.

Conclusions



The macro relationship of drilling and energy production is quite clear, and can be summarized in three main points:

1. There is very little chance that even a great increase in drilling will significantly increase US domestic oil production. Given the extraordinary strategic and economic importance of oil, this a critically important point.

2. There is more hope for natural gas, with production likely to continue increasing for some time. However, unless you are a true believer that we are in a completely "new era", the statistical relationship of diminishing returns on increased drilling activity is likely to also sharply constrain the gains possible in the domestic production of gas. Whatever your optimism level regarding drilling, it is a robust conclusion that any significant increase in domestic energy supplies from drilling—or perhaps, more realistically, any deceleration of the rate of decline of domestic energy supplies from oil and gas that we have seen for nearly four decades—is likely to be dominated by the production of natural gas, far more than oil.

3. The reason for the diminishing returns on drilling effort is that the geologists know their business. Historically, the overall energy we gain from domestic drilling has shown essentially no response to increased drilling effort. This is because periods of high drilling activity generally open only marginal resources that do surprisingly little to increase overall national production.



These three points, which follow from a macroscopic look at drilling and production data, are important to keep in mind—for government policy makers, corporations, and investors—when deciding how to allocate capital for future energy needs.

The Optimist’s View - Could We Be In a New Era?



From the historical data, there is essentially zero evidence to suggest that even a very large increase in domestic drilling will bring substantially increased energy returns. The United States is unlikely to ever gain enough new domestic energy supplies from ramping up drilling to significantly change its dependence on imported energy; not at current rates of consumption.

The Technology Gambit - my words

But there is an optimistic view that, to play devil’s advocate, is at least worth characterizing. This optimistic view does, however, depend on the usually unjustified assumption that we are in a new era, where previous constraints no longer apply. This "new era" argument rests on the notion that technological advances like widespread horizontal (and other directional) drilling, deepwater gas production techniques, and other advances in oil and gas recovery—all of which can make formerly uneconomic gas reserves profitably recoverable—have substantially changed the rules of the game. There is a cultural element to this putative "new era" in the oil patch.

[mjh345]

I know conservatives want to take us back in time, the question is, do they want to go back to the 1920's or back to pre 1916 levels?

If I get a vote then by all means I vote lets go pre 1916!!!

I say this not all tongue in cheek. Let's eliminate the IRS, and go to a VAT, consuption tax, flat tax or something simpler and more efficient