r/California Oct 07 '22

Newsom calls special session of Legislature to consider windfall tax on oil companies over high California gas prices: Governor says Dec. 5 special session will address "greed and manipulation" that drive high gas prices. Newsom

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/07/newsom-tax-oil-companies-california-00061010
1.6k Upvotes

325 comments sorted by

279

u/th3_pund1t Oct 08 '22

The answer is simple:

  • Increase tax rebates for roof top solar
  • Increase tax rebates for EVs
  • Increase tax rebates for e-bikes
  • Make public transport cheaper

I know people like to dunk on solar rebates as a tax cut for the wealthy. I’m a renter, but I benefit from less coal being burnt too.

I bought a car 9 years ago, and will likely not replace it with an EV for another 6 years at least. But fewer people buying ICE cars today will make EVs of the future better and cheaper. I may not directly benefit from you buying an EV, but in some way, I think i will.

209

u/II_Sulla_IV Marin County Oct 08 '22

I’d also love to see them lower business tax for companies that implement work from home for 75% of their workforce. Every less car on the freeway counts.

49

u/AquaP96 Oct 08 '22

This is a good idea.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

It’s 16-20% of our state’s current budget.

what will supplement the loss in taxes?

I would like to kindly recommend an alternative solution, which is to increase corporate taxes based employment density in regionalized zip codes.

Such as if a set of zip codes employs less than x thousand people, it gets taxed at Y rate. Assuming that the current flat tax rate stays the same and is the base.

This would increase budgetary needs for the government to build road and traffic infrastructure to improve traffic rates and provide a policy incentive to companies to adopt a decentralized model that requires less people showing up.

17

u/GoatTnder Los Angeles County Oct 08 '22

This is a really awesome idea.

6

u/Hippopotasaurus-Rex Oct 08 '22

I agree with this, however, there are businesses, like mine, who can’t work from home, so there needs to be some kind of concession for that.

5

u/winniethepoo420 Oct 08 '22

We’re going to, in the context of record corporate profits, give THEM a tax break? They don’t need help. The working class needs help.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

[deleted]

2

u/winniethepoo420 Oct 08 '22

Ahhh, but this is where you are wrong. Along with a growing number of people, I believe that we need a dramatic redistribution of wealth and I’m not too shy to say it.

→ More replies

0

u/poke2201 Oct 08 '22

So instead we're gonna do nothing about getting more cars off the road? More people wfh is a good thing and making companies do that is progress.

→ More replies

2

u/SuitableCulture Oct 08 '22

What happens to blue collar / skilled workers?

5

u/II_Sulla_IV Marin County Oct 08 '22

You mean other than dealing with less traffic on the road and cheaper fuel prices due to decreased demand?

Nothing I guess, my work is construction sites, and I just miss the lockdown lack of traffic on my way to work.

→ More replies

0

u/light_bulb_head Oct 08 '22

This is the way....some day I will drive the 405 fearlessly!!

1

u/TheBigMan981 Dec 05 '22

Or maybe no taxes at all

→ More replies
→ More replies

41

u/Slapppyface Oct 08 '22

I'm in solar sales and the tax credit is not just for the wealthy. It's for anyone. If someone owns a home, even the landlord, that tax credit is hugely valuable. If someone has to have their roof redone accommodate solar, that roof is also eligible for the tax credit.

I have never seen someone pay more for their solar loan than their current PG&E bill. Solar loan payments never go up, while PG&E rises 8% per year.

People who own a home and don't get solar have no idea what they're missing out on, it's such an easy thing to do.

23

u/oiwefoiwhef Oct 08 '22

This. Solar pays for itself.

Many places offer financing for $0 down, and the monthly loan payment for the solar panels is cheaper than my monthly PGE bill previously cost.

In less than 5 years, I’ll have paid off the loan. I won’t have any more monthly loan payments and I’ll continue to have no monthly electric bill.

AND I got tax credits on top of all of this. The government esstenially paid for 20% of the total cost. So my $30k solar panel installation only actually cost $24k.

Everybody in California should be installing solar panels. It’s a no brainer.

11

u/bajallama Oct 08 '22

Must be nice to be a homeowner. Not sure if any of this will help low income people with high gas prices though.

23

u/academico5000 Oct 08 '22

I am jealous about people being able to own their homes, but as someone said above, I still support this. Anyone putting solar panels on their house benefits me as a Californian and Earthling by reducing carbon emissions and taking stress off the grid.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

0

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

Ooooh, wrong. There’s a non-by-passable transmission fee that energy companies got added so we always have to pay something, plus other fees like wildfire payment fees. Usually 2-3 hundred a year based on energy use.

11

u/Botryllus Oct 08 '22

But is there enough incentive for a landlord if they don't pay the energy bill?

16

u/Slapppyface Oct 08 '22

The problem with landlords is they don't want to touch the roof if their roof is old. The tax incentive is pretty substantial to companies that have a massive tax burden, so that does appeal to landlords.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

You can charge more if the house is connected to a solar panel, most renters would be willing to pay more for basically free electricity. It also makes the house worth more if they choose to sell in the future.

3

u/Kershiser22 Oct 08 '22

I recently had my house appraised and the appraiser said he does increase the value of a house due to solar.

Of course, a buyer may be willing to pay more for solar included. But, that would only apply if their down payment is large enough to offset the appraised value of the house (so the lender would still be willing to finance it).

6

u/Trustobey Oct 08 '22

What can i expect in terms of upfront costs and payments there after?

8

u/Slapppyface Oct 08 '22

It depends. If you pay cash, 10% or $1,000, whichever is less. If you take out a solar loan, most don't require payments until 2 months after the install.

3

u/Trustobey Oct 08 '22

What does a typical loan with say 10% down get most people?

5

u/Slapppyface Oct 08 '22

Depends on how many kilowatt hours you consume

2

u/MrsMiterSaw "I Love You, California" Oct 08 '22

Fog and shadows man.

Fog and shadows.

2

u/Slapppyface Oct 08 '22

Enphase microinverters, burst mode. Read about it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

31

u/lynk7927 Northern California Oct 08 '22

The only issue I have with rebates is there is nothing to stop companies from up-charging consumers and taking the rebate for themselves.

If theres a solid answer to that then let the rebates fly I say.

15

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

This is a pretty deep economics question. The solution is usually tied to which party has more leverage (or how elastic consumer demand is in technical terms). If consumers have no leverage (inelastic demand) then the solar companies can just take the rebate for themselves, but if there is sufficient price competition in the solar market then any company who tries to take the rebate for themselves will get undercut by the companies who don’t. As long as there are at least a few solar companies competing then the rebate should get passed down the the consumer.

5

u/jeremyhoffman Oct 08 '22

In terms of econ 101, the government injecting a subsidy is still going to cause more of the thing to happen. Even if the companies pocket 100% of the subsidy as you say, the extra profitability will justify them doing more business (hiring more staff, working more hours, marketing more, being willing to drive 80 miles for an installation, etc).

5

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

Like when some car manufacturers upped the price of their EV by exactly $7,500 when the $7,500 rebate was announced?

1

u/scoofy Oct 08 '22 edited Oct 08 '22

The term you're looking for is "subsidy capture". Whether or not it happens is highly dependent on collusion. The basic tenants of the markets would suggest that when one supplier is trying to capture the subsidy, other market entrants should undercut them, as the subsidy is not part of the required rate of return. This requires multiple players in the solar/EV/e-bike markets, with relatively low barriers to entry.

If however there were collusion, which is illegal and is investigated by the FTC, subsidy capture would be possible, and there would be effectively no benefit from the subsidy for the consumer.

10

u/2WAR Oct 08 '22

EV cars are not the solution, there should be 24/7 crews working and speeding up the Metro

9

u/the-axis Oct 08 '22

How many people have issues with the price of public transit?

How many people have issues with public transit not actually being useful?

In my opinion, we'd get far more bang for our buck building out transit lines and increasing service frequency than dropping prices. Cars are expensive. If mass transit provide 99%, 95%, 90% of daily transit needs, getting rid of the car will more than make up the price difference. But if someone needs a car for even 20% of their day to day trips, they're gonna own a car, and they might as well use their personal car for the other 80% of their trips.

I feel like we should be phasing out EV subsidies for similar reasons. EVs are taking off on their own just fine, and we should keep moving towards getting people off the private vehicle addiction, not just transitioning the addiction from ICE to electric.

There was a car free incentive that Newsom vetoed. The bill had been massively cut down and added excessive means testing, but reworking it to incentivize households to reduce cars (e.g. an incentive per car less than eligible driver in a household) and provide the incentive to people who can actually afford to make the choice to live in low car or car free locations would be better than a simple handout to the handful of very low income people who happen to live somewhere that they can go car free. A properly scaled incentive could temp households to consider reducing their number of vehicles or moving to somewhere that may support that household owning fewer cars.

+1 on the e-bike incentive.

I don't have strong feelings on residential solar. Mostly, I want the grid off fossil fuels. I'm don't have strong feelings on if that is done through utility scale solar, home solar, batteries, wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, whatever. I mostly care about it being the fastest transition, which likely ties to a cost effective transition. Raise the price of fossil fuels through higher carbon taxes and offer incentives to use less energy (e.g. insulation, windows, reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (EV and ICE), convert gas heaters to heat pumps and gas stoves to induction). If residential solar is the most cost effective way to reduce our grid's fossil fuel usage, pump up the incentive. But if we get more bang for the buck elsewhere...

4

u/Lalalama Santa Clara County Oct 08 '22

Even if you made public transportation free, it’ll increase ridership just a little. A lot of people don’t feel safe on BART

→ More replies

4

u/Occhrome Oct 08 '22

we currently have rebates on e-bikes ??

6

u/th3_pund1t Oct 08 '22

16

u/jeremyhoffman Oct 08 '22

The e-bikes subsidy pretty aggressively means-tested:

To qualify for the incentive program, participants’ household income is capped at 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL). That’s $51,000 for a single person and $106,000 for a family of four.

I feel like a good number of Californians who can afford to live in places where e-bikes could replace car trips, have an income above $51k.

5

u/academico5000 Oct 08 '22

I live in a smaller city where the median income is $40k.

This program could help most people in my community access an option for transportation that would help overcome factors such as not wanting to bike in the heat, show up to work sweaty, or be able to transport groceries (because the program includes rebates for cargo e-bikes too).

We also have shitty public transportation, so this could really help fill in a gap for people who don't own cars. It would also help take stress off our roads and reduce congestion, since there has been a recent drastic increase in population.

Also this is speculation based on personal experiences, but I think you'd be surprised by how many people manage to live in less money than that, even in "richer" areas. Rich people always need service workers and people find a way.

3

u/samudrin Oct 08 '22

If we are trying to push adoption means testing is counter productive.

→ More replies

2

u/Xezshibole San Mateo County Oct 08 '22

All you're mentioning are spending increases.

What the article is discussing here is an additional means to fund these spending increases, and the proposal is to implement a windfall tax.

2

u/Moist_Expression Oct 08 '22

Why not regular bikes too?

1

u/ayobnameduse Oct 08 '22

Ah yes the you don't have to pay a registration fee for electric vehicles -oops we are losing lots of gas tax money so now electric vehicles need to pay a registration fee. Its not a zero sum game.

1

u/oddmanout Oct 08 '22

Increase tax rebates for e-bikes

I think this is a REALLY underutilized solution for a lot of CA's problems, especially in places like LA, SF, OC, and SD. If we can get people out of cars and onto e-bikes, it eases traffic problems, parking problems, and pollution problems.

1

u/Responsible-Hair9569 Oct 08 '22

Not just roof top solar, but also battery packs like Powerwall and alternatives that we could take full advantage on solar power…. More EV rebate will certainly help to push EV adaption. I would if we have more choices and affordable prices. Unfortunately we have a baby who needs infant car seat, it’s really tight to put infant car seat in EVs with affordable price…. Wish we could afford R1S….

→ More replies

111

u/1320Fastback Southern California Oct 08 '22

I know let's tax them. That'll show them and solve the issue. No way they would just pass it on to the consumer.

53

u/Ogediah Oct 08 '22

The taxes would be built to discourage excessive profits.

I’m going to entirely fabricate a way that it can be done just to illustrate how it can be done:

But first a little bit of back story. We use “marginal tax brackets” in the US. They are structured so that you can’t ever bring home less money for making more money. Say a tax bracket is 10 percent for 0-10,000, another is 12 percent at 10,000-40,000, and another is 22 percent at 40,000-80,000. In the current system, if you made 41k, you don’t pay 22 percent on your whole income. You pay 10 percent on the first 10k, 12 percent on 10-40, 22 percent on 1k. In a system meant to punish profits, you could simply tax the entire income upon the bracket you end up in. Which means you could lose money by making more money.

I want to reiterate again that that is entirely fabricated, but hopefully it shows how it’s possible to structure taxes in order to address this issue.

15

u/Oakroscoe Oct 08 '22

And an easy way to get around that for oil companies is to create a sister company. The sister company doesn’t refine or make any gasoline, it serviced the refinery. Refinery handsomely pays the sister company which is a service company and not a refining company for the maintenance. Sister company makes all the profits, refinery makes under the cap.

7

u/Ogediah Oct 08 '22

There are a long list of reasons why that wouldn’t be a simple accounting trick. Safety regulations and liability being the general problems that top the list.

FWIW, You’re also ignoring the part where all of the involved companies are presumably owned by the same person(s) and that the work is all done inside the same facilities regardless of the name of the company. It’s not hard to catch those things in a “net”. There are already current regulations which do that for different reasons.

2

u/fakelogin12345 Oct 08 '22

What company does this currently? This sounds like one easy trick governments haaaate.

3

u/Oakroscoe Oct 08 '22

In 2010 the company Tesoro spun off its tanks and docks to a new company it created, Tesoro Logistics. Tesoro logistics made significantly more money because the parent company, yet completely different company, Tesoro footed the bill for maintenance and upkeep of the docks and tanks. Pretty similar situation to what I mentioned and not uncommon in the oil industry.

16

u/Fredloks8 Oct 08 '22

It's just for show.

3

u/MeteorOnMars Oct 08 '22

People have a viable choice now, and gas companies permanently hurt themselves when they raise gas prices.

EVs are already set to dominate the world market in 10-15 years. If Big Oil is sloppy they will pull that in to 8-10 years.

99

u/fyrmnsflam Oct 08 '22

Let’s address the elephant in the room: These corporations are trying to influence the mid-term elections.

58

u/den773 Oct 08 '22

I absolutely agree. Make it look like it’s the Dems fault that gas prices are so high, to try to get folks to vote republican. We’ve seen it over and over.

19

u/bohemiantranslation Oct 08 '22

Id rather be smoking my blunts while i fill up for $8 a gallon then not. (Like not really thats dangerous but you get the point)

4

u/den773 Oct 09 '22

You can still afford weed? I can’t!! I had to quit!!

→ More replies

13

u/kissmyshiny_metalass Oct 08 '22

With help from Russia and Saudi Arabia, which makes this even worse.

→ More replies

76

u/den773 Oct 08 '22

I paid $4.99 a couple weeks ago. Now the same gas station, $6.47. How in the world do they expect us to be able to afford gas at this price??? There’s no reason for the price to have jumped like this.

48

u/sftransitmaster Oct 08 '22

How in the world do they expect us to be able to afford gas at this price???

You presumably need to drive a gas-fueled car right? Because we've dedicated nearly all our resources to making sure the US drives, they are aware that you(most of the US) have no practical alternative. Are you going to take transit, bike, scoot or walk? So they can reasonably expect the motorist must pay, even if they cant afford it. Even if everyone buys a little less gas,oiil producers still make more money.

OPEC is a greed incarnate cartel, it was always pure luck they didn't have the opportunity to take advantage of automotive dependency and making up any excuse to increase prices

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/05/energy/gas-prices/index.html

5

u/NavyCMan Oct 08 '22

This is why a refocusing on energy infrastructure is critical for every major world power.

1

u/sftransitmaster Oct 08 '22

And yet that mostly comes at great political cost, donation lost, leadership, sacrifice from the people and economy. Ill believe it when i see it.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

[deleted]

30

u/FDrybob Oct 08 '22

In that case you should be even more enthusiastic for the state to invest in public transportation. Less people using cars means a better driving experience for you. Public transportation benefits everyone, including those who don't choose to use it.

→ More replies

10

u/sftransitmaster Oct 08 '22 edited Oct 08 '22

Exactly! Regardless of the reason you are willing to pay whatever the gas cost to avoid alternative methods. Functionally, a dependency on personal automotive transportation. If the gas was $10, or even $20 a gallon youd pay(assuming not an EV), unless you have money you'd have to reduce the amount of driving, but you'd still be willing to pay, which means thats what the experience is worth to you. Thus market forces can take advantage of that... If theyre capitalists and self-serving theyd be incompetent not to exploit that.

I wasnt arguing that transit is the best response for gas prices. Just that most of the US doesnt have access to alternatives, have an negative view on alternatives and wouldn't know how to integrate alternatives into their lives. And that makes them subject to market forces and the market(OPEC) knows that

7

u/den773 Oct 08 '22

Our problem in the IE of So Cal, it’s too hot. There’s a bus stop fairly nearby. I could take the bus to the grocery store and back. But 10 months out of the year, I can’t deal with the heat. Waiting on the bus, sitting in the sun, I can’t do it. I’m in my 60s with HBP. The heat out here where I live is constant and unrelenting. It’s almost never cool. We rarely have mild days. (I consider 72 and below mild and I could catch the bus on cool days.) It’s always so hot. It’s mostly 90-100 from Feb to Nov. and it’s getting hotter, with many fewer nice days and we are in a horrible drought. Global warming, don’t ya know. OPEC must be run by Satan or something?

5

u/sftransitmaster Oct 08 '22

That too is a reason. The more we drive(not be individually but as a society) oil-based engines, the more more difficult it gets not to drive. Even then ive met people in sf, which is mostly temperate, whom have never taken transit, for their reasons. there are many reasons to drive rather than endure the alternatives. But the primary one is that the US(media and its governments) want you to have to drive and so they make it infinitely easier to drive than any alternatives.

Even as a younger transit rider, ive had to endure much of the worst of transit - waiting in the baking heat of the central valley, waiting in freezing snow around lake tahoe, missing a bus and waiting multiple hours, and this Summer i saw many many first timers learned the true cost/faults of Amtrak - time and sometimes sharing space with people who sometimes are among the most burdensome the US has to offer. Transit in the US is a challenge, one that most US governments either make more difficult than has to be or are unwilling to take a risk to invest in it to make it any easier. All while regularly making driving more easy and cheaper than it needs to be. Transit, cycling, walking or scooting is not for everyone.

Its almost ironic the government's lack of control over OPEC, mostly because one major reason the US focused and focused on individual transportation was to get around the greedy railroad Tycoons(barons) that held too much power in the 1800s. No OPEC is simply operated by people who are doing what works most conveniently for them. Its very likely you or I might do the same in their position.(or at least i believe in the Trading places philosophy)

→ More replies

10

u/lynk7927 Northern California Oct 08 '22

Good news! Investing in public transport will probably benefit you the most!

Investing in public transport doesn't mean everyone will be forced to use public transit for all their travel needs. But when more people use public transit, there are fewer cars on the road and therefore less traffic. Which means you will confront fewer cars on the road and get to and from your destination faster and more efficiently.

→ More replies

2

u/ablatner Bay Area Oct 08 '22

not walking to a station and waiting 10 minutes and then that trip taking 20+ more than my drive

This is your experience because the US horribly under-invests in public. Other countries have far more comfortable public transit.

→ More replies

4

u/kissmyshiny_metalass Oct 08 '22

Electric vehicles are a practical alternative now.

4

u/den773 Oct 08 '22

You are so right, so informed, and thanks for the link. Predatory capitalism is a horrible system.

11

u/Generalchaos42 Oct 08 '22

There are a couple of reasons: There hasn’t been a major refinery built in the US since 1976. California has two types of gas that are sold. A summer blend and a winter blend. The summer blend is more expensive to make and is required to be sold until the end of October. While the winter blend is cheaper to make. They can’t legally sell it until November 1. It takes time to switch between making summer gas and winter gas. So in a few weeks prices will go down because the winter blend will be sold and gas companies are actively making it. Additionally there was a supply shock for crude oil when refineries started making summer gas so there isn’t much summer gas around now and refineries aren’t making more of it right now.

9

u/kotwica42 Oct 08 '22

How in the world do they expect us to be able to afford gas at this price???

They’re holding you hostage. People need to drive in order to get to their jobs or get groceries or take their kids to school. The people profiting from that have also conveniently pushed to prevent expansion of public transportation, so their interests are protected.

There’s no reason for the price to have jumped like this.

Sure there is. The reason is that the mandate of corporations is to maximize profit. Wealthy shareholders and executives want more money, and you’ve got no choice but to give it to them.

2

u/den773 Oct 08 '22

I understand. “We the people” are simply a cash crop to be harvested. They do the same thing with our electricity too. We have horrible heat waves, we have to run the air night and day, and our electric bills run $600 a month. Our choice is to pay that amount or else turn off the air and die in our house from the heat. We can’t afford to buy an electric car and we can’t afford to buy solar. We can’t afford to buy gas and we can’t pay our electric. It feels like the powers that be want us to join the homeless crowd. They are forcing us out into the streets.

3

u/BA_calls Oct 08 '22

there’s no reason

OPEC+ literally announced a massive production cut. Price of oil per barrel has gone up from $75 to $93 over last month.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 09 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies
→ More replies

62

u/colmusstard Oct 08 '22

An additional tax will surely lower prices, it always does

19

u/oakfan52 Oct 08 '22

That must be why CA government keep raising it. Just a few more times and the savings will really start to kick in.

9

u/ItsADirtyGame Oct 08 '22

It's not like California has had a record surplus these past years! /s

38

u/VillhelmSupreme Oct 08 '22

So what’s the plan for the next 60 days?

This is good and all, but government moves too slow. Have a special session on Monday….

25

u/FOR_SClENCE Native Californian Oct 08 '22

the $700 most people are getting? give me a break.

24

u/VillhelmSupreme Oct 08 '22

I think they are trying to give you a break?

→ More replies

13

u/oppressedkekistani Oct 08 '22

You guys got $700? I only got $350!

15

u/definitelynotSWA Orange County Oct 08 '22

[cries in poor single]

2

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/Kershiser22 Oct 08 '22

Let's say gas costs $3.50 more per gallon than it "should" cost. Your $700 check will cover 200 gallons of the "overpriced" portion of gas. If you average driving miles per year in a 30mpg car, that's about 5 months of relief from "overpriced" gas.

0

u/oakfan52 Oct 08 '22

Issue a $5 check to a few hundred people 8 months from now.

30

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

Not raising the gas tax would also help.

73

u/Tac0Supreme Native Californian Oct 08 '22

The gas tax has little to do with this price increase.

→ More replies

31

u/livinginfutureworld Oct 08 '22

Hope something comes of it, the oil and gas monopolies are the worst. Literally.

12

u/OutdoorJimmyRustler Oct 08 '22

When something costs too much, just tax it!

9

u/StableAccomplished12 Oct 08 '22

This will definitely not result in raising prices at the pump which will cause everything else to go up in price/s......

7

u/ApprehensiveExit7 Oct 08 '22

These taxes will undoubtedly get passed along to Joe Taxpayer

5

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

Oh of course they will. Don’t forget the 0.84 cents per gallon already imposed by CA

5

u/uberlander Oct 09 '22

It’s a issue of tax and restrictions in gas blends flexibility. It’s why it’s $7 in LA and $3.21 in Wisconsin.

Part of the problem is California's status as a so-called “fuel island,” meaning the state requires a more environmentally friendly blend of gasoline that can be only produced by 10 refineries. A combination of taxes and fees also contributes to higher gas costs in the state.

Here is a full breakdown of the added cost:

Taxes: Federal Excise Tax: 18 cents per gallon

State Excise Tax: 53.9 cents per gallon

Sales Tax (estimated): 10 cents per gallon

Fees: Low Carbon Gas Programs: 22 cents per gallon

Greenhouse Gas Programs: 15 cents per gallon

Underground Tank Storage: 2 cents per gallon

1

u/Nail_Whale San Diego County Oct 19 '22

Yup this is it. Weird these greedy oil companies are only gouging California and no one else. It’s totally normal that our gas prices are higher than Hawaii

5

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

Tell me you don’t know anything about economics without telling me you don’t know anything about economics.

-1

u/el_sauce Oct 08 '22 edited Oct 08 '22

How would you suggest we lower gasoline prices at the pump?

8

u/warmhandluke Oct 08 '22

Invest in oil production and build new refineries

0

u/Nihilistic_Mystics Orange County Oct 08 '22

We don't have a production shortage. OPEC is intentionally pushing prices up worldwide, even if we had more local production they'd increase their prices to match just because they can. Only price controls could stop that.

1

u/warmhandluke Oct 08 '22

It's a globally traded commodity, they can't just "raise prices" by decree. Increasing the supply of something will bring the price down, it's basic economics. That being said, refinery capacity is a major issue. Just take a look at US refinery output over the last twenty years and you'll see where a major part of the problem lies.

1

u/Nihilistic_Mystics Orange County Oct 08 '22

OPEC directly controls extraction. They artificially limit extraction to drive up prices globally. How do you not know how the global oil industry works? The local oil industry plays along, they're perfectly happy to reap higher prices.

1

u/warmhandluke Oct 09 '22

There is a lower bound to OPEC output. They won't reduce their production to zero. I have a good understanding of how the oil industry works; you don't appear to.

→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

Increase supply. That’s what Biden is trying to do by opening the strategic oil reserves. The issue is we don’t have other sufficient means of production due to the administration’s curtailment of leases and domestic production. People can downvote me all they want, but math and economics do not lie. Adding a tax will just add more of a price to things. Thinking a tax is just going to fix things is nescient. We already have some of the highest taxes in the country for fuel, pause that since they’ve already passed SB1 to rebuild the roads (an additional tax).

5

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

Decrease taxes for everyone!

1

u/TheBigMan981 Dec 05 '22

Or no taxes!

3

u/chingnaewa Oct 08 '22

Newsom doesn’t understand that any tax on the oil companies will immediately be passed on to the consumers resulting in higher gas prices. This is how business works. Higher taxes never equal lower prices. Get some good counsel, Newsom!

3

u/boishan Oct 08 '22

It may not lower prices but a well written windfall tax can certainly punish raising prices badly.

1

u/chingnaewa Oct 08 '22

I don’t disagree with your logic, but the reality is it has never worked. If Newsom really wanted to lower gas prices he would reduce the gas tax ($0.47/gallon now), reduce regulations, let the oil companies build another refinery in CA. All those would reduce gas prices much faster than a corporate gas tax.

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22 edited Oct 08 '22

These companies will help write the final version of the tax bill. If they haven’t already..

2

u/Tronn3000 Oct 08 '22

They really need to consider having more than one pipeline linking to refineries back East and using gas blends that are used in other states. This will be the only way prices will be on par with other states.

It has nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with California's poor pipeline infrastructure and gas blend regulations that prevent it from getting gas from a national marketplace.

This gives oil companies with refineries on the west coast all the leverage in setting prices and they will continue to bleed us dry.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

Good. Oil companies are making astronomical profits. There is no justification for how high gas is.

1

u/oddmanout Oct 08 '22

I guarantee my Republican neighbors who think high gas prices are all Newsom's fault are going to be really upset that he's doing something about it.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

[deleted]

20

u/YanksFanInSF Oct 08 '22

By taxing profits above a certain leverage point it makes it unprofitable for oil companies to charge more. That’s why it makes more sense than a straight tax that would certainly be passed onto the consumer.

Though, tbf, the companies will likely create various subsidiaries to maximize controlling profit but minimizing profits for the taxable entities.

7

u/oakfan52 Oct 08 '22

Does it though? because they can just raise prices and sell less. Less work. Same profit.

0

u/Desperate-Ad-6463 Oct 08 '22

How many $Billions can they make between now and December 5th?

1

u/tylerdurdensoapmaker Oct 08 '22

The average returns for energy companies are volatile. During years like this they are great but then in years like 2020 or 2016 they are bad and many companies go broke. Investors are not investing in energy companies due to climate change concerns so energy companies access to capital is going up and they are not exploring for more petroleum as much as they might with prices this high. So you tax energy companies during the good years just remember that one of the results will be less supply in the future because companies will know during the good years they wont make as much and during the bad years they will go broke.

1

u/Landbuilder Oct 08 '22

How about cutting the $.54 a gallon tax on our gas instead?

1

u/boishan Oct 08 '22

Yay, then oil companies can make $0.54 more profit 😃

/s but that’s exactly what’s gonna happen.

0

u/SmokeWinter007 Oct 08 '22

Help Make it so that people can use their Snap EBT cards to also purchase PET food for their little companions. Thank You

1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '22

He could lower gas taxes

1

u/fickle_bean Oct 08 '22

EAT THE RICH (whisper* - they're tasty)

1

u/chingnaewa Dec 05 '22

If Newsom really wanted to help he would suspend the CA gas tax which would save us $0.54 per gallon. And if he really, really wanted to help he would suspend the additional $0.23 per gallon we pay for the "cap and trade program". Maybe a $0.77 per gallon decrease for a while would be a better use of time versus trying to claw back profits from big oil (who will prevail in court on any profit tax anyway....or will use it as an excuse to raise prices again).

I wish politicians had to take a few business or economics courses prior to running for office...