Comments for Republicans block extra taxes on oil companies »
Posted By expursuit 1 year, 6 months ago in Business & FinanceWASHINGTON - Senate Republicans blocked a proposal Tuesday to tax the windfall profits of the largest oil companies, despite pleas by Democratic leaders to use the measure to address America's anger over $4 a gallon gasoline.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 253 of 254 Comments
-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There's a difference between knowing in advance it may not have the votes and posturing.
I've heard quite a few Republicans out here say the Democrats in Congress don't even try to do anything. Now they've tried to pass legislation to help with the cost of gas, and the Republicans blocked it.
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned48 Replies
-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The cons are going to beyatch no matter what. Remember during Clinton, they whined about BC when Clinton attacked the terrorists, then they whined about BC again when the Republicans cut the balls out of his anti-terror bill.
Reality does not faze these people for a moment, it is purely an issue of party over country for them.
Reply-
-
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Headline:
Senate GOP blocks windfall taxes on Big Oil
Truth:
Senate GOP blocks windfall taxes on All Americans
"The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits"
Define "unreasonable" profits. Is it 1% of gross sales?
1% above net? 5% above net
"of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year."
$36 billion without context, net or gross, this is a meaningless number.
"Obama, in a statement, said Republicans had "turned a blind eye to the plight of America's working families" by refusing to take up the energy legislation. Obama has supported additional taxes on the oil companies."
And who does Obama think is going to PAY additional taxes on the oil companies?
Ultimately it's you and me.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
now, perhaps if the dems had figured out a way to transfer those windfall profit taxes back to those of us who paid them, it might be helpful. Otherwise, the true effect of a "windfall profit" tax, is to further raise the price fuel.
Corporation NEVER willingly pay the taxes themselves. If at all possible, they get passed along as a cost of doing business. The oil companies have a product with a reasonably inelastic demand, so they can raise their prices with no big repercussions. We still need their oil products nearly regardless of the price.
Reply-
Neutral
lestparker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
they dont pay taxes at all. All taxes ultimately are paid by the consumer.. Taxes are simply another cost of doing business. BTW, who do the people who support a windfall tax think those profits belong to anyway? In fact they belong to the owners of the corporation.. in short, anyone who has a mutual fund, 401k, retirement plan, pension plan. Teachers, union workers, doctors, lawyers and indian chiefs. Anyone who thought this tax was a good idea is fooling themselves. Government is NOT the answer. never has been and never will be. it is the problem people!
Reply-
Neutral
stephen-johnson1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"BTW, who do the people who support a windfall tax think those profits belong to anyway? In fact they belong to the owners of the corporation.. in short, anyone who has a mutual fund, 401k, retirement plan, pension plan. Teachers, union workers, doctors, lawyers and indian chiefs. Anyone who thought this tax was a good idea is fooling themselves"
Less than 3% of Exxon stock is held by insiders. The overwhelming majority of shares are owned by the public either directly or, more commonly, indirectly via a mutual fund. Too bad the media doesn't point oil stock oswnership in retirement/savings plans out to the public.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is that the Dems are ignoring the fact that the Chinese and Indians are purchasing massive amounts of oil on the world market. Anything we conserve, additional Chinese purchases will more than offset, thereby pushing prices up. Clearly, the economic forces behind oil prices are not understood by the framers of this legislation. Perhaps placing some limits on institutional investment in oil futures would help curb speculation but even the effect of hedge fund investment has not been quantified. The problem with legislators is that they all too often draft bills to make it look like they are doing something before they understand the issues involved and the consequences of that legislation.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here are some numbers from the White house. (receipts.xls)
Windfall profit tax: 1980 thru 1986 = $78.2 billion.
Transportation fuels tax: 1991 thru 2004 = $ 48.6 billion.
Transportation fuels tax: 2005 thru 2008 = $ -9.6 billion (that means we paid it)
Here are some percentages of total reciepts:
Corporation Income Taxes: 2000 = 10.23%, 2003= 7.39%
Social Insurance Taxes and Contributions: 2000 = 32.23%, 2003 = 40.00%
Personally I do not feel that I have been passed the savings of industry.
Do you?
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It seems to me that you understood it perfectly.
40 percent of the government reciepts come from the first $100 grand of wage earners.
Yet some how, in many instances they are not counted as taxes.
Inequity Aversion: is a cool thing to google, Monkeys and economists are pouring over the data.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ask yourself about the cap on FICA contributions. Why is the ceiling, for 08, $102,000? I don't think it's fair to tax someone that earns $102,000 the same as someone that earns $102,000,000.
It doesn't seem cool to me that one guys gets taxed @ 6.2% and the higher wage earner gets taxed @ .0062%.
If I had my way I would remove the cap.
I also would tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income. In my mind it's not fair to tax passive income at a lower rate than that earned by people that go to work everyday.
Finally, I would means test social security. Why should everyone get it. I know everyone pays into it, but I pay to support my school system and I don't have kids. My taxes go to the war and I don't support the war. It's just the way things are. Let's reduce government costs where we can. We have to. Our future literally depends on it.
Employing a couple of these ideas would ensure that social security is solvent into the far future.
Reply-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Plain fact:
Folks earning between $65 and $100 grand pay out the greatest percentage of their earnings than anyone else.
Lots of tax calculater sites that can prove it easily.
6.2% for SS can be doubled and then stepped on again to get to the true contribution of folks that work by the hour.
in 2003 $713 billion bucks was collected off working folks first $100 grand, $793 billion bucks was personal income tax.
I don't get it.
Did you check out the monkey thing?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
cosmogenium1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is simply the Republican game plan. You see, they took the "over" bet on this year's Senate results, and they are just making sure the Dems get at least 60 seats total in the Senate. The Repubs will rake in the cash and laugh all the way to the banks...which will be closed...with the squad cars waiting in line to take them all away....
Reply -
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It`s the way of the Republican.
If they are clever (read connected and immoral) enough to steal those huge sums from us taxpayers and consumers, well then they have certainly earned the right to gouge us during a war while we lose homes, jobs, savings, companies, etc.
Unless you make over a several million a year, you would have to be truly self loathing to still vote Republican.
Reply-
Neutral
lestparker1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned9 Replies
-
-
-
-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user13 Replies
-
Neutral
cowboygrandpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
These clowns need a lesson.
Cut their wages and their benefits to those of the average worker.
Make them work hard for a living and try to survive.
Then if they want to say no to the taxing of nefarious and outrageous profiteering.
Put them in the mental hospitals they belong in. Of course make them pay for it.
They are quite obviously insane as they cannot see the trees for the forrest. All they see is a forrest instead of individual trees that make the forrest.
Reply-
-
Neutral
cowboygrandpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, not me clown.
But when the profts are so outrageous that it hurts the nation. Our political and financial leaders should be wise enough to see that a control on profiteering is needed.
But hey greedy one. Enjoy your reward when you get there. Money won't matter when all you want is a cool drink of water.
Capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism... all the ism's are man made political answers to mans uncaring greed. None of them work completely right. But hey you are so smart you already knew that right.
For crying out loud when the ship is heading for an iceberg keep pouring on the throttle. Don't change course and show some intelligence.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
jeffieny1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I hope we won't end up paying such taxation difference at the gas station. It's already too high to fill up the tank.
How come for once republican did something good for the everyday end user!
They get so mad when we defend our best interest!
Like we supposed to shut up and take high gas prices although it hurts our budget as they buy those old castles in Europe and mingle with Arabian royalty, auction bidding on billion dollar horses!
With the gas prices sky rocking soon we all going to need a horse to go to work just like old times.
Reply-
Neutral
thatsjustme1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I got my horse already...I'm pretty sure John McCain is gonna end up in the Driver's Seat. And we'll be in for another 4 years of Republican Torture. When it comes time to elect a president after McCain, the Chinese will own the United States. We'll all be communists.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
last year the dems intro'd a bill that would stop giving $15 BILLION in tax subsidies to the oil companies.
but the GOP threw down a filibuster and killed it.
and now the oil companies are making record profits. and they still get that $15 BILLION that belongs to the US taxpayers.
to the GOP and its supporters: time to choose. the american people or the oil companies. whose f*cking side are you on?
Reply-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
their profit margin is also high enough to not be getting handouts from the US taxpayers.
nothing you've said leads any of us to believe that the oil companies should still be getting tax subsidies.
and now we all know whose side you're on.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
thatsjustme1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republicans chose their side a long time ago. Those Americans who believe that the republican party is doing our country any good are all wealthy. If you can not feel the sting of a slap, if it doesn't hurt you, then why stop. When you are wealthy, how badly does it affect you to have to pay $4.00/gallon for gas???
Reply
-
-
Neutral
canadianrancher571 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When it comes to my business I feel that I am not a person who is the middle but a conservative and maybe even an extreme conservative and when times are good I do spend more as far a improving my business, but if I have a windfall such as what the oil industry is having right now that money usually gets diverted to something else like savings and like the oil industry I try to beat the tax man. There is one difference between you and I and the oil industry, we do not have the funds to lobby the government to receive preferencial treatment. Honestly I beleive in fair taxation but my biggest concern is why does the oil industry need government support, you would think that this industry would be able to stand on it's own two feet after all these years
Totally unrelated comment, if tax breaks to the rich help the economy, why are we seeing the economy going into a recession under the Bush tax breaks- to be expanded by McCain.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You don't think the country is in a recession? Forget about the textbook definition. I don't have confidence in the way we measure economic activity. I think unemployment and inflation are both higher than the "official" numbers.
"You don't need a weather man To know which way the wind blows."
B. Dylan
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You don't need an economist to understand the economy? If Bob Dylan is your source of economic information, I automatically win this argument. If you are hell-bent on throwing out the theories of Smith, Keynes, Friedman, and a whole legion of people more knowledgable than you, then I can't do much with you anti-intellectualism. The problem that people are perceiving is inflation, which has been unusually stable and low until recently, not a recession.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So you don't believe that we are in a recession? And that's why the government borrowed money from China to give to the American people?
I do. I believe we are facing much worse. I stopped contributing to the 401k because I have concerns about the stability of our markets. My cash is worth more to me now to use for commodities then to invest in paper assets that may or may not be there in 20 years.
How's job growth doing? The dollar? Corporate earnings? The stock market? Manufacturing? The price you pay for you basket of goods? Job creation? Housing? The availability of credit? The trade deficit? The budget deficit?
Yeah, you keep believing everything is fine. What we face is an enormous economic "shift."
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
technically speaking, although I agree that inflation is understated and the economy, in general, sucks, we are not in a recession because the definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
Although the growth of the economy is extremely sluggish, it has not yet begun to retreat (although the fuel prices might do the trick for the third quarter.)
This is very similar to the economy of the mid-late '70's during the last huge run-up in oil prices combined with Japan's emergence as a premier world economy. After a period of adjustment, we will most likely come through this, also. What does worry me somewhat, though, is that back then there was no competing economy size-wise, so, regardless of the strenghth of the yen, the dollar was destined to remain "it" as far as world currency is concerned. With the EU and the Euro, we have, for the first time in eons, a truly competiive foreign currency thrown into the mix.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
hdthehn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I get frustrated with posters on Propeller who don't understand economics and therefore reject economic principles out of hand."
Just more arrogant crap. You are so brilliant and the rest of us are soooo stupid. Real nice world you create for yourself Droppy.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jeffieny1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You know most people are working commission only jobs just for sake of having a job...
The ones who think the money they get is decent are clueless how people who used to do those jobs before them used to live!
Even if your pay check looks high, you are living a poor men's life. Would it be rude if I said that I pity you when I read your blind comments!
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
schmirt1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It might feel good get more taxes out the oil companies but guess who really pays in the end---consumers. The past show that the extra tax revenue expected never materializes when these taxes are applied.
It is tragic to see the congress pursue such economically myopic and moronic policy for political gain.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is the exact crap they said last year, you have been brainwashed by the right wing media.
The republicans killed the windfall tax last year, and the prices went right up. They killed it again, and prices will go up again.
Vote out every republican in congress. They represent the invester rich, and none other.
Vote out every Republican congressperson, every senator. Anyone who voted for this war, including Clinton. Vote out anyone taking money from AIPAC. From RJC. From Saudi Oil or oil companies.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I love it!! Not sure if it makes good economic sense, but it makes wonderful political sense. Perfect game plan to continue to paint the Republicans into the same corner as the US of A's public enemy #1 - Big Oil. As if the association between Republicans and Big Oil isn't already pounded in enough.
The Dems should start to talk about the "nuclear option" now. And all of that stoopid Republican talk from a few years ago - 'just bring it for a vote' and 'up or down'. Now that Republicans are the ones blocking legislation and filibustering the Dems should employ the "nuclear option" and change the rules.
Like these slogans -
A vote for McCain is a vote for Big Oil.
Republicans support Big Oil not the middle-class.
Republicans Big Oil FFE.
Republicans enemy of the middle-class
Republicans = record profits and record foreclosures
McCain = $7 a gallon oil
Republicans give tax breaks to ExxonMobil.
McCain supports Big Oil welfare.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Walden, the Republicans are asking for nuclear power as of today.
A question for everybody: When the oil companies were losing money, did anyone come to their rescue? Nope. They were left to work their way out of it, and they have.
Finally, of the industrialized nations, which nation has the highest corporate income tax rate? The U.S.
I think the politicians have already done enough.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
unome21 year, 6 months ago
-
-
Neutral
lestparker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I actually agree with you here. When the military has secured the resources and supply lines I absolutely think this should be charged to the oil companies (and ultimately to the consumer). This is a real and valid cost of doing business that the oil companies should be responsible for.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
lestparker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
can you name one time that control of something by the federal government has resulted in lower costs? I cant. If you think the government is the answer to anything you are absolutely fooling yourself. The government is the problem.. not the solution.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Imagine flying without the FAA coordinating the skies. Imagine what trying to listen to the radio or TV would be like without the FCC. Imagine ingesting food or drugs without some FDA oversight. Maybe the roads would be cheaper if each one was run as an private toll roll.
Want me to keep going on?
Reply-
Neutral
lestparker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
didnt answer the question. I was asking for something the federal government controlled that was made cheaper by that control. Drugs are not cheaper because of FDA oversight. Roads are not cheaper because of the federal government control. The FAA coordinating flights is not controlling airline travel.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess the inference is, what would be the cost to the economy without an FAA, FDA or FCC? Keeping the streams of commerce flowing efficiently creates a benefit. You complain about the cost, but how do you measure the benefit? Another perfect example is the courts. How effective would business be without a court system to mediate disputes and assist business in collecting debt? What would be the cost of this additional risk.
See I think without the alphabet soup govt departments more people would die from bad drugs, more kids would get sick from lead in toys, more tomatoes would go bad from salmonella. Add up the cost of all that and compare it to the cost of govt. I think it's a net benefit.
Don't get me wrong. I know that there is a lot of waste in government and many cuts could and should be made. I'd start with the DOD for one.
But a civil, orderly, capitalist society running without government. I don't see it.
Reply-
Neutral
lestparker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I dont mean to say that government does not have a function in our society. I believe it does. I am a firm believer in the role of government in protecting the rights of minorities (we are a republic, not a democracy after all), and there are many obvious benefits like many of your examples that are functions the government can perform quite well even with all of the waste and bureaucracy at the federal level. I am just firmly opposed to nationalization of private enterprise. The government is not well suited, nor should it be, to run a business. To run a business well, produce products in an efficient manner, and make profits for the people who have invested in the business requires motivation and skills that generally are not found in people who work in governement roles.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think it has to do with competition too. There is a lack of competition and high barriers to entry in the oil industry, not at the retail gas level though. Expanding supply doesn't benefit them, so they don't expand supply. They make it on margin rather than volume. Because of this virtual monopoly the players are able to dictate the market and not the other way around.
The question for me becomes are we better off with a few oil companies controlling the marketplace, not investing in new tech, limiting supply, holding down research into alternatives and using our military for corp gain or would we be better off running it as a non-profit that benefits all?
I think insurance is another example. Are we better off with competing insurance companies, that don't really compete in the economic sense, stand between providers and consumers and skim money out of the system or would we be better off with a one payer system.
Reply -
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
While there are several examples of failed nationalization projects, there are also several successful examples. The TSA arose through the nationalization of the airport security industry and seems to be doing fairly well. Several countries have nationalized their oil industry, including Libya, Kuwait, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now look at the availability of food and other consumer items in those countries. You can't drink gasoline. Venezuala has been experiencing food shortages. So what's the benefit of nationalizing everything? You still eating? Many in Venezuala aren't. Nigeria is infamous for its corruption, political instability and lawlessness. The standard of living there is pathetic. You would prefer living in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your post touches on the notion of the 'commons' or tangible and intangible infrastructure that benefits society as a whole and is therefore the appropriate domain of the government.
A common police force and fire department is far more efficient, egalitarian, and accountable than a series of private firms.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, drugs ARE cheaper because of government regulation. After a set amount of years the pharmaceutical company loses exclusivity, allowing generics to come on the market, drastically reducing cost. Do you really think Pfizer would do that on its own?
Reply -
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can give you examples of how private industry inflates costs, where government would not. HEALTH CARE. At least 50 % of profits from health care industry are inriching insurance exectutives, doctors, hospital owners and so on. Cut them out, nationalize health care, keep the profit motive out of health care. Too bad for the millionaire drug reps or the millionaire insurance execs.
Nationalize oil, increase refinery capacity, gas would go down, and all of the profit could pay for schools.
F*ck the rich. F*ck trickel down economics. F*ck the billionaires.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
National health isn't a good idea. Until recently health care was a benefit the employers provided as an incentive for you to come to work. For some reason, the left has pushed this as a requirement and recently they feel a national health plan is the best solution. I've even heard folks make claims that Cuba or Canada has the best health care in the world. When there isn't any competition and the government runs the plan like a giant HMO, no one wins. Costs will rise, services fall and in the end the patient care drops. You might want to research this before you support the forced change.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4618
You're mad that a hospital or a doctor is the reason for costs, look around. You have 15 million illegals all being born and cared for at your expense. Before you go all national health on me, build the darn wall first.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, it wasn't Venezuela's oil. Exxon like any other oil company buys the rights to the drilling. I didn't see the check from Chavez did you? Did they refund the money or just keep it claiming to be the "peoples" money... So another words, Exxon had millions or perhaps billions stolen by Chavez and you think that's a good thing? Do you often support communist dictators?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NeoCon1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is a crazy idea. Instead of trying to pass nothing but a feel good measure with no real benefit , which is what this is, lets do something sensible like do away with the federal tax on gasoline. All of these supposed profits the oils companies are ranking in are nothing but paper profits, increase in the value of holdings based on market averages, not real profits. You want to help the American people let them keep their money.
Reply-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And who owns the stock? Mostly pension plans, retirement plans, 401K's, insurance companies and the like. The common man investments. So once again, the left wants to keep the little guy down, living in "Potter's" village instead of living the middle class dream.
As to the Federal tax, I have no problem paying fuel taxes if it actually helps that area. Fuel tax should go towards road repairs and building. Not the light rail, bike trails or other non-highway type project. No ethanol plants or wind machines. Roads. The state fuel taxes should have the same restrictions.
Reply -
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, earnings are returned to the company for capital reinvestment. Dividends are a cost item on a profit statement that reduce earnings. Dividends can (and do) get paid in the absense of a profit.
But you're right. The profits aren't "paper". They're cash eventually, and usually within 120 days.
Reply -
-
-
-
ranchhandComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
thatsjustme1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Congress, specifically the republicans, are intimidated by the Oil Industry. George Bush comes from "Oil" his interests have always been in oil (um...the war in Iraq!) and anyone who supports his party, well their interests lie in oil. If the republicans P.O. the Oil Industry Execs, they will lose significant financial backing. So, they voted down likely the only recourse we as Americans had to fight them. In all honesty, instead of a Windfall Tax on unreasonable profits...impose huge fines. And huge penalties for trying to stick Americans with the bill for the fines. Make the Bast***s pay. I'm tired of getting raped at the pump. I'm tired of Rich White Men running my life. I want someone to pay, and the ones who should rightfully pay are the Oil Industry Execs!!! Sock it to 'em.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's clear you really don't know President Bush. This war isn't about oil. If it were, you wouldn't see the Iraqis progressing to self rule. That plus why would we attack Iraq with Mexico and Canada nextdoor. Both have many more times the oil that Iraq has. Logistically attacking either would be easier, not that I support that, I like them to be independent. But seriously, why not take out Chavez, most nations in South America support his downfall.
Raped at the pump, how? You mean you actually leave your mommy's basement and go out into the open. You're the one in the star trek t-shirt and foil hat aren't you.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
thatsjustme1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Walden3 you nailed it on the head...I totally agree. John McCain will do no more than to continue driving the United States into the ground. Republicans have shipped our manufacturing jobs to India and China, they've managed to start a freaking war that has no end in sight, they've succeeded in creating a monster of the oil situation. If John McCain makes it into the White House, America will be endanger of extinction. It's already to the point where our country can not support itself. It's already to the point where our smartest, strongest, healthiest are being sent to be slaughtered in Iraq. The sad part is that the republican party is feeding the beast. It is sacrificing its own arm to save its face. Someone has got to stop the republicans from destroying our country.
Reply -
Neutral
jovial1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Republican strategy in this case is plainly evident.
1) block as much legislation as possible from the Democratic side as to make them seem ineffectual.
(What they don't realize is that it's angering voters more and hurting the voters of this country)
2) To court the Republican base that they so dearly need in this upcoming election. (They think that pandering to their base will give them an advantage, though the policies that they are defending have been a direct contributor to America's woes.)
Reply -
-
Neutral
thatsjustme1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Oil Industry is Self-sustaining, completely. But, if you could get an entire politcal party to support huge tax breaks for your company...wouldn't you go for it? Well that's what happened here. George Bush and his golf buddies(Oil Company Execs), were talking one day around the clubhouse and one of the guys popped off "Hey George, you know what we need?" Next thing you know it zoomed through congress like a cat with its tail on fire.
Reply -
Neutral
thatsjustme1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As for the other comment, why is the economy failing even though the rich are receiving tax breaks. Well, that's why the economy is failing. Taxes, especially large amounts of tax income from wealthy taxpayers are meant to support the economy. Cut them down and the economy can no longer support itself. Then top it off by giving companies tax breaks for shipping our jobs to the middle east and what are we left with here in America? Higher food bills, higher utility bills, no tax income, and no jobs to pay for anything that will supply tax income into the economy...what little there is is not enough. Bring our jobs back to America, drop the tax breaks for the rich and stop supporting the traitors who ship the jobs away. That's how we fix the problem. Ooops! Sorry, you didn't ask how to fix it. But, it was well worth 2cents to get that off my chest.
Reply -
-
Neutral
thatsjustme1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To Cowboygrandpa...what if you were a business owner who was making too much money. And what if someone walked into your business one day and simply forced you to stop making that much money and told you that you could only make minimum wage from here on out? Think about how fair it would be to impose that type of law on our already downtrodden economy. No, what congress needs to do is simply creat a law that imposes fines on businesses like the oil industry whose profits can suffocate the economy.
Reply -
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow so the DNC tried to tax the profits of the big oil, to what end? You tax a large company and in the end it will cost the end user upwards of twice what that tax is. Way to go DNC. Rather than finding ways to add taxes to an already expensive product, why not find ways to help us out? It's too bad the DNC wasted their year in control of the congress and senate with political games instead of doing what we asked them to do. First, a real energy plan. Not where we're funneling money to costly "alternatives" like ethanol that actually reduce fuel efficiencies and wastes more energy than it produces. If they won't let us drill in the waste lands of Alaska then give us permission to build plants to convert coal to fuel oil, diesel and gasoline. Plants like that could be on line within 5 years if it wasn't for the Sierra Club and the EPA. Build nuke plants. One other advantage using our resources here, the jobs, profits and products all stay here in the USA.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think it makes a marvelous political statement.
Dems = support for the suffering middle class and dems "feel your pain."
Republicans = love for big business, disconnect with people who pump their own gas, blocking a vote, filibustering to support Big Oil at a time that Big Oil are making record profits.
I think it's a great and compelling contrast to draw.
It's no mistake people are using metaphors, analogies and similes by comparing filling a tank to the most violent and invasive of acts like "getting raped", "getting shafted" and "getting screwed."
People are hurting.
Dems demonstrate an understanding and empathy of that.
Repubs support the perpetrators and play the blame game and demonstrate a total lack of understanding what the Joe Six pack is going through.
I can see the ads in the Fall now. I like it.
Reply-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're trying to negotiate with a group that responds to political polls. There hasn't been any real long term plan from the DNC since Carter and he was incredibly naive when it came to dealing with just about everything. Clinton ran everything by polls. 10 years ago he stopped them from drilling in Alaska to save frozen grass lands. From what I have no idea. They polled his Sierra Club and found they didn't like oil so America is now paying.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So it's your proposition that Karl Rove doesn't look at polls? LOL!!
Yeah, how is that Republican health care plan doing since you guys killed any attempt by the Clinton to improve the system 15 years ago? That's right Republicans sided with Big Insurance 15 years ago and haven't done a thing since other than watch costs go up by 10% a year.
Yeah, how's that Republican energy plan doing after the voters gave Bush two terms? What gas is almost unaffordable? What people can't afford to commute to their jobs?
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Never said the GOP didn't take polls. I said the DNC does no long term planning. If they did, things would be much different. Clinton would have been removed and Gore would have been President. Bush wouldn't have run at all. No long term plans at all from the DNC.
On the energy plan, I've been saying that for some time but again, you rarely read my full comments before you give me a neg and a comment. The last real and I stress real balanced energy plan was from Nixon. I am not a fan of his at all. On the criminal side, he should have been charged. On the energy side, he had a rather well balanced concept of energy. Coal, natural gas, nukes, wind and water were there. Carter came out with one that pretty much destroyed the nuke options. Reagan and Bush went with the cheap gas from Saudi, not much of a plan. Clinton, he didn't have any plan at all. Bush 43, haven't figured out much of an energy plan. He's not the conservative we were looking for.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You don't make economic policy based on your gut instinct or the desire to look busy. It should be based on an understanding of the underlying economic problems and they are complex with respect to oil prices. The effects of speculation and the foreign demand for oil are not clear as we haven't isolated the impact that hedge funds have on oil prices and China's and India's demands for oil have to be continually revised upward.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dems really haven't supported the Joe Six pack guys in years. Dems are in the pockets of big unions, liberals and tree huggers. As to pumping our own gas, perhaps you haven't noticed, there are very few full service gas stations so we all pump our own gas. Big oil had record profits as did government. When you look at the amount of money paid in by Exxon last year that's 30 billion dollars. Their tax rate is around 41%. That's seems rather high for the last American oil company left. If you want raped, I think we're doing a pretty good job already to them. I think you'd be mad if 41% was the flat tax everyone had to pay.
As to the ads, I think I'd make sure the photos of Carter and Obama are every where. The "liberal" train wreck continues. "Socialists Unite". Perhaps they could get Chavez or Castro and the speaker for the convention.
Reply-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
41 percent of what?
Across the board corporations pay about 1% of their reciepts.
And I am pretty sure that it is small corps carrying the load.
I think a wage earner pays a much higher percentage of their reciepts.
I understand the logic of the conservative concept that states that the cost will just be passed on to the consumer.
Yet when I look at the history: it seems that the savings are not.
It seems that huge consumer cost increases coinside with corporate tax breaks.
I may be too dumb and liberal to figure this kind of stuff out, but I have been trying.
I do read what conservatives have to say with respect.
I like looking at numbers in shades of grey instead of red and blue.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps you'd like to read this article. I thought I posted it already but I must not have.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2...
Reply-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cool BB64:
Your words have made me think a lot.
Please fogive my skewed perspective and bad spelling.
The $30 billion number is good enough, but I think it represents all taxes paid, not just federal.
I was looking here.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual
Just for a lark pretend you are looking at the pay stub of a small buisness.
Gross Reciepts =$404 billion (worth taking into account that the industry does a lot of non cash trading). They then write off $232 billion as the cost of borrowing money from stock holders. (the value of the share is about 23 bucks but trading at aroud 90). At any rate somehow they have been able to show that their taxable income is about $70 billion.
I wish my paycheck looked like that.
As I see it I pay more than P of my gross reciepts out.
And Exxon pays out about %7.38. and I can not even deduct the cost of the crap I buy to live.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's business, accounting and finance 101 all rolled up into one sentence.
Receipts have little, if nothing, to do with profit. If receipts are all that mattered, the next time you look at your paycheck, be sure to add back the 7.65% that your employer pays on your gross, as well as your workers comp premium paid on your salary --from $0.45 /hundred earned for an office worker to about $15.00/hundred earned for a truck driver (may be categories that are higher like coal miners), keeping in mind that if anyone got hurt on the job -- or claimed that they got hurt on the job -- your employer's multiplier could be as much as 1.8% of the premium, you also should add back in the 2.5 -- 5% of the first whatever your state requires your employer to pay unemployment tax on.
Gee, the average $25/hour employee is REALLY earning about $35- $40.
Have a blast spending it!
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As far as wage earners spending a "greater percentage of their receipts", that's because 1. their employer is paying a good chunk of it and b. most employees, don't have a lot of direct costs of going to work to come out of that wage. Pretty much, you show up and work. If you must supply tools or your car, there are deductions for that.
Reply -
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Amazed: you ave taught me much in the short time that I have lurked these boards.
I do bid my work against competition, and you have made it clear to me that the numbers my employer has me use are too low (roughly a little more than double my wage).
I understand and respect the proportions, and often wonder if my efforts just support the vanity of my boss.
None the less my, guess is that you know the name and face of everyone that works for you.
Does more than half your receipts go towards paying down dept.?
I may be dumb and wrong but it seems to me that when I buy something from big industry more than half the cost is paying off the dept of borrowed money. And I do not see a direct connection to the returns from the folks with their 401k's and what not.
My profit sharing account is with Vanguard, most of their money is in XOM, my last statement lost $500.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One question, you guys are fixated at how much profit Exxon made, did anyone bother to google the taxes exxon paid? I did, it was over $ 30,000,000,000 in federal taxes. Thats more than 50% of everyone in the United States combined. If we added another tax to them as a penaty for making a profit, wouldn't they simply add that into the costs somewhere? Or worse, leave the USA and form an off shore company that wouldn't have to pay taxes to the USA anymore.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They should be taxed 99.9%. All taxes to be shunted to building railroads (high speed) and funding schools. Where is it written that the oil executive and the people who own the oil stock should benefit from billions of dollars of oil profits?
If oil were nationalized, and health care, it would benifit the people who use the service, not the owners of same. But I realize who's side your on. The rich are on the earth to be rich, and everone else serves at their pleasure, and the reason you aren't rich yourself, is you didn't work hard or smart enough. Haratio Alger 101. The religion of capatilism. Viva republicans. Viva Joel Olsteen. Viva jesus, for jesus was a conservative, drove an suv, laughed at global warming, scoffed at the poor, and did well with his oil stocks.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
President Castro, it's good to see you're up and around again. First if you want a train, national health and basically everything you work for to go to the government, then move to North Korea or Cuba. To nationalize any firm, would be to destroy the United States.
Let's take a step back and pretend to nationalize the oil industry. Then the Walmart, Starbucks, Food Lions and the like. All the way down your local mom& pops. Everyone living in so many square feet. If you have more space then you need, they add people to your home. Don't forget rationing. Food, fuel, alcohol, soda and the like. With everyone equal from the ditch digger to the doctor, minimum wage and all going towards taxes. That's communism and that failed already.
Reply -
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Anti brain,
So that makes you pro-stupid?
I forgot to mention, I pay 100% of the health insurance for all of our employees including reimbursement of the $500 deductible. So tell me how national health will benefit my firm or my employees?
Reply-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB64: I wanted to pos you for being a good employer.
could not do it on account of the insults.
I am speaking to you respectfully though (believe it or not).
Whether or not your business would benefit is based on the skill and earning potentual of your employees.
I have been talking with many of the self-employed subcontractors (I used to be one), The nut for individual health insurance is around $935 a month.
A skilled mechanic has to take that and all the other costs and losses (workmans comp.,unemployment) into account before he can quit and compete with you.
My guess is that you deliver an execelent product, Yet I do think there are occasions when the mechanics on the floor could provide the consumer a better one at a better price but can not afford to enter the market.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm actually not the employer, I'm the president of an American division of a very, very large company. World wide, we have over 150,000 employees. The one nation we're having a very difficult time justifying costs is the United States. Because of the size of company with the massive benefits paid, our actual health care costs are in excess of $1500/month.
I'm an American and I try not to bash us to much but we're having a terrible time finding skilled labor in the USA. Machinists, welders, tool & die, engineers, mechanical, electrical etc., skilled people are few and far between. I've seen my share of left wing liberal arts, English, history and other useless majors come and go. I'm now paying people to go to school.
On my name calling, anti is speaking like the communist supporters of the 60's who still praise the likes of Castro. They've never visited them but they "know" how great it is there. I guess that's why I get tired of them and go on the attack.
Reply-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sir: I am typing in the box, I should not, becuase I lost the last 2 comments that I replied to you with.
You are exactly the type of person I would like to speak with.
I may have it wrong, it cost your compny $18 Grand a year per man for health care. That is damb near 1/2 the median income.
I think this country is the third from the bottom in terms of self employed workers in OECD countries.
I know exactly what you mean when you speak of useless education, Both my parents had PHD's and taught at a fancy colleges.
I make sawdust.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB-
"So tell me how national health will benefit my firm or my employees?"
Through allowing a more efficient payment system for health care providers your costs will be reduced. You will still have the same doctor and nurses. The hospitals will be the same. All the changes will take place in the back office. National healthcare has to do with the benefits of a one payer system. The reimbursement system will change. Believe me I don't think it can be any worse than dealing with BCBS or Provident. Efficiencies of scale. I think one organization can pay providers more efficiently then an amalgam of inconsistent insurance companies.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Where is it written that the oil executive and the people who own the oil stock should benefit from billions of dollars of oil profits?"
Ummmm..... because they earned it? Because the people who own the oil stock paid for those stocks and would like to see a profitable return?
antibrain, I REFUSE to believe you're this stupid. I can only assume your posts are a joke.
They ARE a joke, aren't they?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
loosegoose11 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If oil taxes go up, prices will increase. Start drilling here, now, with American labor. Oil supplies go up, prices come down. More people are then employed, pay income taxes and spend their paychecks on their own mortgages rather than having the rest of us bail them out.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Global warming not in your equation. Burning and refining more oil or coal is not the answer. Only thing we can do at this point is reduce consumption, or watch the earth heat up about 10 degrees on average, and water levels to rise about 20 meters.
Artic ice will be GONE in 50 years or sooner, projected to melt at faster or same pace as last year or greater this year.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Guys, we've fought over global warming last winter when we had the worst snowfall in my state's history. From everyone of your computer models, that wasn't supposed to happen anymore. We were supposed to see nothing but dry, hot weather from now on. BTW, we're in the papers again with all of the flooding. Global warming doesn't exist, you're seeing weather patterns that continually change. There will be warm periods and cold periods, that's call weather.
Tell you what, show me the conclusive proof that global warming is real. Earth is 4 billion years old, your study period is less than 100 years of semi accurate records. Show me the scientific method used that proves beyond question it's actually happening. And no movies by former VP's selling carbon credits to himself. Real proof. Real tests that can be repeated.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Taxation is 400% more costly than the oil company's profit margin on a gallon of gas. If politicians want to reduce the pain at the pump, they need to work together to lower the tax bite.
The oil companies average a net profit of 10% - low for any business, but low even for a "continuous process" industry like oil refining.
The legislative attempt to fund litigation for price gouging is disingenuous. Study after study has shown that the single largest factor in the price of oil is macroeconomic supply and demand.
We had a chance to expand our supply of oil in 1998, and President Clinton vetoed it. That oil would be flowing today.
We need to immediately drill for more oil, and at the same time begin building nuclear capability. Incentivize local investment in solar, wind, and hydrodynamic energy. At the same time we all owe it to ourselves to economize in all things.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is EXACTLY what they said last year. That is exactly what they will say next year. That is what republicans are saying now. They represent the oil companies.
The only solution is to nationalize the oil. Its a national security issue. Traitors like Cheney and Bush cannot be allowed to control oil. All profits from oil should benifit citizens by building high speed trains, conservation efforts to curtail greenhouse gases (another survial issue, and education, so the populace won't be fooled by the same old crap trickel down Reaganomics trust the rich.
Reply-
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The only solution is to nationalize the oil."
"All profits from oil should benifit citizens"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Spoken like a true-blue Hugo Chavez supporter! You realize this was done in Venezuela, don't you? That's right, Chavez rounded up the oil "barons", threw them in jail and took over control of the oil companines.
How is it working out?
I don't know. Nobody is allowed to speak unless Hugo the Pig-boy sanctions it.
By the way, "antibrainwasher", I find it ironic you chose that moniker, since you seem to have taken large gulps of the Kool-Aid. Do you have a Nazi armband to go along with your Fascist ideas?
Reply -
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ABW,
Think about this way: we correctly criticized the Federal government for the way they handled Hurricane Katrina. If that's true, then why would you suggest giving the same people control over our oil industry?
Please demonstrate a governmental program that is more efficient than a similar program in the private sector.
Cheney and Bush don't control oil. The boards of the respective companies do, and they're not all American. And then there's this: Dividends from the profits from oil companies are paid out to all of their shareholders. Everyone can invest and reap these benefits. You should look into it; it's the best deal going.
Reply -
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Anti Brain~pro Communist,
Actually the reason we're not drilling here and off our shores isn't Bush, Cheney or even Reagan-Bush. It's your left wing liberals who wanted to save the planet by restricting our oil use. Their idea was we would stop driving cars and take mass transit. Of course this was in the Carter years. It didn't work then, yet we're still forced to live with their bad policies. If world demand remains high for oil and supplies remain at current levels, prices will remain high.
As to greenhouse gases, you want to build trains? If you're going back in time why not chariots? Trains are obsolete no matter how fast you claim they can go. Without billions in subsidies, none of them would run. That plus the rails can only be used by the high speed trains or light rail. Different tracks & roadbed from heavy rail. Over a million dollars a mile and it will never solve the gas costs.
Reply-
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wouldn't even be opposed to train travel coming back in vogue, if private companies could operate them and compete with each other over whose is the fastest, most comfortable, most efficient, cheapest, etc.
But no. The government has taken over that, too. Witness Amtrak, with its shoddy service, high prices, dangerously outdated tracks and cars, and its yearly bankruptcy status.
And WE pay for that. It's hard to demand more from your government when the government cares nothing about itself.
Reply
-
-
-
-
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I get so tired of being called a socialist
Ronald Reagan was President from 1981 thru 1989.
The windfall profit tax was in effect from 1980 thru 1986.
Is Reagan a socialist too?
I try to avoid partisan finger pointing, but cut me a break and get real.
I will regret this comment in the morning.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
TonyByron1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a little tidbit for the knee-jerks who want even more taxes on the oil companies.
Exxon paid $9.3 billion in taxes on $20.2 billion of gross income. How many of you could or would tolerate a nearly 50% tax rate? I'd like to see a show of hands.
Reply-
Neutral
TonyByron1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a little tidbit for the knee-jerks who want even more taxes on the oil companies.
Exxon paid $9.3 billion in taxes on $20.2 billion of gross income in FQ 2008. How many of you could or would tolerate a nearly 50% tax rate? I'd like to see a show of hands.
Reply -
-
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive4 Replies
-
-
Neutral
abntv1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governmentsÃ;¢;;including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy.
These figures do not include local property taxes, state sales and severance taxes and on-shore royalty payments
According to the Tax Foundation
Reply -
Neutral
Lazarus_Long1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you liberal/Dems aware Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried (D-NV) voted AGAIST the windfall profits tax?
Oh, that's right, NV has no oil.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/06/...
Reply -
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tony your numbers are off. Revenues for ExxonMobil in 07 were $347 Billion with profits of close to $40 Billion. It would take an accountant to figure out their effective tax rate.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune5...
But if they paid $9.3 on $40 their tax rate is lower than mine and that doesn't take into account the tax breaks, rebates and sweetheart leases they get.
Reply-
-
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"their tax rate is lower than mine"
Even if that's true waldrip, you're forgetting one very important aspect of this equation: Next to the oil companies, you're a worthless speck.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Who do you think the government is going to favor when it comes to figuring out tax breaks and exemptions? Hmmmmm.... let's see, a multi-national oil company that provides an invaluable service which literally moves and shakes the world, pays taxes, employs people who pay taxes, and creates a product that we can then put a tax on..... or little, bitty waldork, who raked in a cool $28,746 last year.
Let's see.... whom do we favor? Who's more valuable to us?
If you chose the multi-national oil company over the ornery little flyspeck - - go to the head of the class!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Reply -
Neutral
TonyByron1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Walden, read my post. $9.3 billion on $20.2 billion in FQ 08.
Second paragraph, here:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/con...
Reply
-
-
-
moneyruleComment removed: Hard Banned
-
insuranceeseComment removed: Hard Banned
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.