| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:06:44 PM | Pickme,
Oil companies like ExxonMobil already receive millions in breaks, subsidies, land concessions, and excused royalty payments, not to mention the govt blessing of their merger even though it was the government breakup of a monopoly a century ago that created the two companies. This is one reason why ExxonMobil has the highest profits ever recorded in US history.
Oil companies received somewhere between $1.4 billion and $4 billion dollars in giveraways in the 2005 energy bill. Why does a very profitable virtual monopoly deserve these giveaways? isn't this Facism? Socialism? yes of course.
Of course this is ignored until the government wants to tax the profits from it's investment. This is labeled Socialism at work even though these oil companies are enjoying the lowest corporate Tax rate this century.
These are the same oil companies who were asked by the Congress to sell low price heating oil to poor Americans a couple of years ago when we had blistering winters. All the American Oil companies declined, the only one who responded was Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
Yes it would be awful socialism if we taxed the most profitable companies in US history.
And on the Tax issue, it's not odd that you ignore Bush's ongoing stealth tax increase on the middle class which the Republican Party is fighting to keep in place right now!
The House has already vowed to eliminate Bush's Alternative Minimum Tax hike on 30 million Ameicans. The Republicans opposed and Bush has vowed to veto it!
McCain flip flopped once on Bush tax plan. He opposed the plan back in 2001.
He now supports one part of it, Keeping the tax cuts for the rich.
What about Bush's tax increase on the middle class?
Why don't republicans bring that up? Probably poorly informed as usual. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:10:22 PM | Just as bit of information for supporters of the windfall profit tax I offer the following. If you go back and read the annual reports of the large integrated oil companies, Exxon-Mobile and Conoco-Phillips for example (now that means a little research and getting reports before the mergers) you will find that in the last 25 years "big oil" has paid more in federal income taxes than they have retained in profits. So, I ask you where is the windfall.
For 30 years I've been hearing this same line from politicans over and over. We must end our dependence on foreign oil through alternative sources, renewable fuels, & consevation. I have heard for way to long we can't drill our way out of this condition. It takes years for an oil field to come on line. It is this thinking that has us where we are today. You don't like this. Then continue the ban on offshore drilling, don't go after oil shale, keep the environmental restrictions and regulations which prohibit increased refining capacity and see where we are 10 years from now.
It was misguided in the late 70's. It's even more so now. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:19:39 PM | | Erik, you failed the test and you aren't supposed to mention Bush or McCain so you didn't read the instructions either. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:21:40 PM | "Oil companies like ExxonMobil already receive millions in breaks, subsidies, land concessions, and excused royalty payments, not to mention the govt blessing of their merger even though it was the government breakup of a monopoly a century ago that created the two companies. This is one reason why ExxonMobil has the highest profits ever recorded in US history. "
And pay the highest amount of taxes ever recorded in US history. And those "excused royalty payments" are taxed when received by the members of the limited partnerships. Of course you'd know that, if you actually put your money into investing in the search for energy. But that would require you actually take the time to research and understand the enery landscape, the costs of production, and the return on investment and equity such spending actually generates. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:27:08 PM | | cpfstock.. so if the Oil companies are paying the highest amount of taxes already what purpose would there be to tax them even more? I'm trying to understand how this will lower oil prices/gas prices at the pump.. seems to me the consumer will be charged even more. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:42:18 PM | really? highest taxes in history? are you sure?
i believe there is some miscommunication out there that puts exxon's tax rate at 41%, but this is based on their global taxes, not US tax payments. their effective US tax rate is more like 15%. and i'm sure most of their oil sales are due to the US market.
do you pay 15% tax? i wish i did! not to mention the free millions they get in subsidies. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:46:46 PM | | Erik the oil companies demand curve is inelastic. Therefore, they can charge what they want to. We citizens don’t have much choice to other energy sources at the moment. Therefore, when you tax oil companies they naturally pass that tax onto everybody. Hence, taxing Big Oil is essentially a regressive tax because the poor pay the same hidden tax as the rich do at the pump. If you want to hurt Big Oil tax the individuals profiting from Big Oil it’s harder for them to pass that tax onto the rest of us. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:54:13 PM | you quoted profit in absolute dollar amounts, i did the same for taxes. have you even looked at an anual report of any integrated oil company, E&P company, refiner, or distribution company ever?
but look, it's not that big a deal. i'm already moving my investments overseas in anticipation of a great obama victory. personally i don't care if the democrat (McCain) or the socialist (Barak) wins. neither has a clue about the economics energy in general or oil in particular. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:57:07 PM | glamor
taxing anything will not lower the price of it. first the cost will be passed to you the consumer. second it will produce less of the product also casuing the price to increase. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:57:18 PM | let me see....
when the cost of your raw material goes up (oil) you have to raise your selling price in order to maintain the same level of profit.
but the oil companies have not only raised their selling price to meet the rising cost but they also used their virtual monopoly to raise their price enough to make record gross profits.
and once again, they are blessed with the lowest level of US taxes plus subsidies.
don't sound so preachy about market economics. this is not the invisible hand of the market. this is government welfare and a virtual monopoly at work.
it is not classic economics. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 6:05:19 PM | cpl,
you challenged me on the tax RATE which i said was the lowest in the century. i never said their gross taxes were the lowest.
in fact you have disproved other points on here. there is no reason for their gross profits to be the highest in history unless they're profiteering. they were NOT the most profitable before the spik in oil, why should they be the most profitable after their cost per unit goes up? industries that depend on the oil as a cost are losing money, shipping, airlines.
it's because the oil companies are profiteering, corporate welfare, and exploiting their virtual monopoly.
on the other hand, you're wise to move your investments to foregin markets.
dick cheney switched his investments 2 years ago to those based on european currencies.
doesn't that make you feel good? the guy who should be working to improve the economy here instead puts his bets on foreign currencies. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 6:13:40 PM | what subsidies? i get three years of reducing the distributions from the limited oil and gas partnerships by 70%. Meaning I only declare 30% as income. After the three years it's all ordinary income. Now if that's a subsidy then ok. I prefer to think of it as an incentive to invest so that when some of those ventures return zip, zero, nada it is still worth the risk to try and find more energy so you can complain about the price.
One fact, you fail to mention (which you probably never took the time to do any research on your own so you wouldn't know) or deliberately ignore is, for the last 25 years the large integrated oil companies like XOM or COP have paid MORE in taxes than they have retained in PROFITS. Go read some annual reports. It's called an Income Summary. Now tell me big oil is getting all these breaks. Do you even have a clue what it takes and how much it costs to bring petro products to market?
Typically, as with all socialists, all you see is profit and automatically assume a lot of profit is bad. Where do you think all that profit goes? It goes to produce more oil (and it ain't cheap) and stockholders who happen to mostly be large pension funds, 401Ks and retirement plans. Yeah, let's knock about 5% or so off the top of all those. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 6:26:29 PM | "when the cost of your raw material goes up (oil) you have to raise your selling price in order to maintain the same level of profit."
yes, that is correct sort of. in the case of XOM when the cost of production goes up you have to raise the price of the product to maintain the same return on investment and equity.
hence the reason why wind and solar don't get a lot of private investment. under the current market there is sufficient ROI to warrent capital expenditures. the classic reply is that's why gov't needs to do it. only problem is when gov't does the investing it will cost twice as much and produce half the product.
but to your point, yes. for instance, in the case of Dow Chemical who's NAT gas cost was 8 billion a year just a few years ago are now finding that's about the cost per quater, they are raising prices. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 6:32:28 PM | Exxon paid more in taxes than they made in profits ? that's a meaningless statement.
that could be true whether the tax rate was confiscatory or negligible. it's all relative. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 6:34:48 PM | | Ok whatever, besides the economics can you please explain to me Erik how a windfall profit tax will lower gas prices? | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 6:36:32 PM | | meaningless unless you are a stockholder of XOM. but, still points that the gov't is already getting a "windfall" tax by the very fact that XOM is generating more revenue. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 6:39:55 PM | "when the cost of your raw material goes up (oil) you have to raise your selling price in order to maintain the same level of profit."
yes, that is correct sort of. in the case of XOM when the cost of production goes up you have to raise the price of the product to maintain the same return on investment and equity.
=========================
my point was not only did they raise their product price to account for the rise in cost but they raised their price enough to account for the largest gross profit in history.
why weren't they the largest profiter 10 years ago? or 20 years ago? or 5 years ago?
what is diffierent now? oh, maybe now they are selling their product at a price that gouges the consumer and maybe they are using their virtual monopoly to make sure it sticks?
therefore, if they are gouging the consumer why should we be showering them with subsidies, reduced tax rates, and cheap land concessions? | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 6:52:53 PM | because there wasn't the worldwide demand for oil and the products made from oil. go back and look at a chart for COP or XOM for the last 10 - 20 years. actually fairly flat. go take a look at the business section of the Houston Chronicle from the 80's when they had the US rig count posted. you'll see exploration was way way down.
why? windfall profit tax stopped drilling. how much US refinery capacity has been added in 30 years? zip to speak of. Why? Gov't regulation (not all environmental).
Now we reap what we have sown. I see no reason to continue the path. This path will lead to a economic disaster. I am telling you, if we do not begin drilling offshore here in the US NOW, 10 years from now today will look like a great economy. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 6:57:32 PM | what cheap land consessions?? there is no drilling for oil on gov't land to speak of right now. tell me what consessions you know are being granted and to whom.
what subsidies? name them.
reduced tax rates? reduced compared to what exactly? | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 6:57:39 PM |
Question #1 on Oil
How does Obama plan to lower oil prices? and make gasoline more affordable.. and do you think his plan will work.. and how long will his plan take?
He plans to impose a 50% windfall profits tax on the oil companies, which is what I agree with. As much as folks consume gas nowadays, Exxon should easily recoup that.
Question #2 on Taxes
Is Obama proposing to raise any taxes? Has he sworn to not raise taxes? How does he feel about the previous tax cuts? Does he propose to raise taxes that you feel comfortable with?
As stated, Obama will roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy folks and cut them for the middle class folk. Why would he swear not to raise taxes if he's gonna hike them up on wealthy? Besides, it's been known that Obama disagrees with the tax cuts, as they obviously benefit the rich. And finally, Obama has proposed some necessary tax increases (don't know every last one as I haven't had time to read up on them), and AFAIK, those are taxes that help people like Obama(in the wealthy 1% bracket). To know that he plans to raise taxes on people like himself says enough right there.
Montigue... you are the winner.. you followed my instructions, gave the most thorough interpretation in your own words... thank you   | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 7:01:11 PM | This an obvious framed baiting thread
is this what you are really asking
what will Obama do AS PRESIDENT to lower gas prices and not raise taxes.
If the 3 branches of government get restored to proper working order only then will
they be able to react to pass laws to change the tax structure where everyone pays their fair share.roll back all tax exemptions for the rich that will affect the oil barons
and the CEO's.
As president can also work with congress to write better foreign policy with regards to the ME and( use of military )not just the ones we protect AIPAC or the ones we invaded .
If that doesn't come to pass we should all be prepared to be annexed by China,
look what just happened out of the blue that N.Korea (pressure from China)is taken off the"axis of evil" list
they have nuclear capablities WMD, while there is no irrefutable proof Iran does | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 7:05:51 PM |
Now we reap what we have sown. I see no reason to continue the path. This path will lead to a economic disaster. I am telling you, if we do not begin drilling offshore here in the US NOW, 10 years from now today will look like a great economy. .. that's what I've been afraid of.. drilling now is so important to our future.. it's going to take decades to come up with an affordable alternative to fuel.. an alternative that we all can afford ..not just the rich Hollywood green elities environmentalists who can afford to buy hybrid cars. | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 7:06:00 PM | "while there is no irrefutable proof Iran does"
so then the plan would be to wait until there is irrefutable proof before acting. do you think that is a wise policy. and what would constitute that proof? would a nuclear detonation in Tel Aviv or San Fancisco do it for ya? | |
|
| Test #1 for Obama Supporters
Posted: 6/28/2008 7:11:14 PM |
This an obvious framed baiting thread
is this what you are really asking
what will Obama do AS PRESIDENT to lower gas prices and not raise taxes. No it isn't baiting at all.. I was asking people to think and give their interpretation on where Obama stands on 2 questions.. the more we know where candidates stand on issues the better empowered we become as voters. And if the candidate doesn't deliver.. we'll remember that at re-election. | |
|
| |
Home
login 
