PDA

View Full Version : Economics Exxon:Biggest profit in U.S. history. McCain wants to give them your tax $'s.


BigRedChief
10-30-2008, 06:54 AM
Largest U.S. oil company surges past analyst estimates to post net income of $14.83 billion.

By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: October 30, 2008: 8:39 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. set a quarterly profit record for a U.S. company Thursday, surging past analyst estimates.
Exxon Mobil (XOM (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=XOM&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/snapshots/387.html?source=story_f500_link)), the leading U.S. oil company, said its third-quarter net profit was $14.83 billion, or $2.86 per share, up from $9.41 billion, or $1.70, a year earlier. That profit included $1.45 billion in special items.

Exxon's prior record (http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/companies/exxon_profits/index.htm?postversion=2008073112) was $11.68 billion in the second quarter of 2008.
The company said its revenue totaled $137.7 billion in the third quarter.
Analysts had expected Exxon to report a 40% jump in earnings to $2.38 per share, or net income of $12.2 billion, and a 28% surge in revenues to $131.13 billion, according to a consensus of estimates compiled by Thomson FirstCall.

The company's earnings were buoyed by oil prices, which reached record highs in the quarter before declining. Oil prices were trading at $140.97 a barrel at the beginning of the third quarter, and had fallen to $100.64 at the end.

Compare that to 2007, when prices traded at $71.09 a barrel at the beginning of the third quarter, and rose to $81.66 by the end.
Exxon's special charges include the gain of $1.62 billion from the sale of a German natural gas company. It also includes the $170 million charge in interest related to punitive damages from the Valdez oil spill off the Alaskan coast in 1989.

The company said it lost $50 million, before taxes, in oil revenues because of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. The company expects damages related to these hurricanes to reduce fourth-quarter earnings by $500 million.
Earlier Thursday, Europe's leading oil company, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=RDSA&source=story_quote_link)), reported a 22% gain in net profit for the third quarter, to $8.45 billion. The company said sales rose 45% to $132 billion.

Exxon is the second-largest company in the Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/) in terms of annual sales, behind Wal-Mart

First Published: October 30, 2008: 8:17 AM ET

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=font-cn></TD></TR><TR><TD class=font-cn>Find this article at:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/30/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm?cnn=yes


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

jiveturkey
10-30-2008, 06:55 AM
Wouldn't that be socialist? If we take my tax dollars and give it to these guys?

BigRedChief
10-30-2008, 06:56 AM
Wouldn't that be socialist? If we take my tax dollars and give it to these guys?
No, that would be the immoral part.

HonestChieffan
10-30-2008, 07:02 AM
will you bitch when they make less?

BigRedChief
10-30-2008, 07:10 AM
will you bitch when they make less?
They can make all they want to make but that means your not entitled to take additional money out of my pocket via tax dollars.

I need to give more money to a company that is making $14.83 billion in profit in 4 months?

Can someone explain why McCain sees the need to give millions in tax $'s to Exxon?

HonestChieffan
10-30-2008, 07:17 AM
No one is taking a dime from your pocket. The move is to get your hand in their pocket. So why is it ok for you to take their earnings?

Ultra Peanut
10-30-2008, 07:18 AM
http://www.planet-science.com/about_sy/news/ps_151-175/172/treacle.jpg

BigRedChief
10-30-2008, 07:33 AM
No one is taking a dime from your pocket. The move is to get your hand in their pocket. So why is it ok for you to take their earnings?
I guess thats true because McCain isn't getting elected but if he was he would be giving them millions

mlyonsd
10-30-2008, 07:37 AM
I guess thats true because McCain isn't getting elected but if he was he would be giving them millions

Would you be ok with giving all other corporations tax breaks and leave oil companies out?

petegz28
10-30-2008, 07:40 AM
newsflash....oil companies already get billions in tax payer $'s in the form of subsidies and yes, yes even the democrats support it.

back to your misconceptions now.....

HonestChieffan
10-30-2008, 07:45 AM
I guess thats true because McCain isn't getting elected but if he was he would be giving them millions

actually not true at all. He would allow them to keep what they earned. Far different than giving them millions.

BigRedChief
10-30-2008, 08:00 AM
actually not true at all. He would allow them to keep what they earned. Far different than giving them millions.
pure semetics.

You owe us money but you can keep it.

Heres some money for you.

tiptap
10-30-2008, 08:02 AM
No one is taking a dime from your pocket. The move is to get your hand in their pocket. So why is it ok for you to take their earnings?

Because they utilized resources, legally protected, by the laws of the US. I believe you will find their incorporation is under US rules. And we do so to give them every opportunity to manage those resources to their own and the general public's well being. They do not divorce themselves on the profit end from the health of the nation. They do get limited liability against lost.

Chiefnj2
10-30-2008, 08:06 AM
No one is taking a dime from your pocket. The move is to get your hand in their pocket. So why is it ok for you to take their earnings?


Good question. You should ask your VP candidate why she supported the spreading of wealth from oil companies to Alaskans? Her ACES program. She's a socialist

donkhater
10-30-2008, 08:22 AM
I don't agree with the US government subsidizing oil companies (or any companies for that matter), but I have absolutely no problem with any bill that wishes to minimize the tax burden on any US company. Last I looked my 401K contained a lot of mutual funds, some I'm sure contain shares in big oil.

It's pretty hypocritical to criticize the profits of any company while b!tching about the state of the economy and the status of one's retirement accounts.

FishingRod
10-30-2008, 08:26 AM
No sure what they paid in taxes this 1/4 but

"On May 1, Exxon Mobil announced first-quarter 2008 earnings of $10.9 billion—a figure that marks the second-largest U.S. quarterly profit ever, even if it slightly missed Wall Street's expectations.

Perhaps more surprising was this figure buried in the Exxon (XOM) report: $9.3 billion. That's how much Exxon paid in worldwide income taxes in the first quarter of 2008, representing a 49% tax rate on its gross income of $20.2 billion."

So essentially the Government and Exxon made almost the same amount of money. Who provided more goods , services and Jobs to the US with that money. Actually that is probably not a fair question in that Exxon really didn't pay the taxes.

Their customers did.

HonestChieffan
10-30-2008, 08:30 AM
pure semetics.

You owe us money but you can keep it.

Heres some money for you.

If you see that as semantics, you miss the point. Why do we feel we can take taxes from individuals or corpoations with reckless abandon and somehow feel that the money earned by someone is naturally just there for the government to take?

Chief Henry
10-30-2008, 08:31 AM
What is an acceptable amount of profit for a corporation ?

BigRedChief
10-30-2008, 08:33 AM
If you see that as semantics, you miss the point. Why do we feel we can take taxes from individuals or corpoations with reckless abandon and somehow feel that the money earned by someone is naturally just there for the government to take?
the oil companies are making that money on U.S. soil. They are using our natural resources. We should have a share of those profits like.......

Palin does in Alaska. Talk about socialism. Take a look at that system in alaska.

donkhater
10-30-2008, 08:34 AM
What is an acceptable amount of profit for a corporation ?

That that question even enters the mind of anyone should tells us that we no longer operate a free market in the US.

FishingRod
10-30-2008, 08:34 AM
Well a person could buy stock if the thought a company was making too much money.

I would like to make too much money , what ever that is.

penchief
10-30-2008, 08:36 AM
I wonder why the oil companies don't take those tax breaks which are being justified in the name of energy exploration and job creation and actually explore on that 60 million acres that they already have instead of spending it to lobby for more tax breaks and control of more land. Especially at a time when they are registering record profits and the American people are being gouged.

It's amazing how so many people are willing to overlook the obvious for politically partisan reasons.

donkhater
10-30-2008, 08:38 AM
the oil companies are making that money on U.S. soil. They are using our natural resources. We should have a share of those profits like.......

Palin does in Alaska. Talk about socialism. Take a look at that system in alaska.

If I strike oil on my little parcel of land tommorrow, you feel you are entilited to share in that wealth? Last I looked I OWNED that piece of land. It is not US property. How about any crops I grow on that land? OR goods that I make on that property? See the slippery slope we're going down?

If the oil companies own or lease that property, then they are entitled to what the property provides. If they are leasing it from the government, then the government can decide the conditions of that lease. Other than that, they aren't entitled to sh!t.

If you want a share of the profits, I suggest you buy some of their stock.

HonestChieffan
10-30-2008, 08:44 AM
I wonder why the oil companies don't take those tax breaks which are being justified in the name of energy exploration and job creation and actually explore on that 60 million acres that they already have instead of spending it to lobby for more tax breaks and control of more land. Especially at a time when they are registering record profits and the American people are being gouged.

It's amazing how so many people are willing to overlook the obvious for politically partisan reasons.

They are. As fast as they can. The oil services business is backlogged to the gils. You are a toal dumbass if you dont realize what goes into finding oil, developing the find, and commecialization of the well. People like you who spout this crap about why they dont explore is just more stupidity from uniformed screamers who care not about facts.

tiptap
10-30-2008, 08:44 AM
The slipperiness of your argument is the notion that your ownership isn't backed by the US and its laws. If you were in a monarchy, say Saudi Arabia, then all lands are subject to the crown. Similarly, the US Government is the arbiter of ownership. As a country we have sought to allow individuals and corporations to manage and own as much as they can for their own and for society's benefit. We prefer a market that is opened to buyers and sellers, on equal footing, but we reserve the right to interfere when the Market is badly tilted by counter productive activities to BOTH objectives.

Chiefnj2
10-30-2008, 08:46 AM
They are. As fast as they can. The oil services business is backlogged to the gils. You are a toal dumbass if you dont realize what goes into finding oil, developing the find, and commecialization of the well. People like you who spout this crap about why they dont explore is just more stupidity from uniformed screamers who care not about facts.

No opinion on how Palin took $ from oil companies in Alaska and spread the wealth?

Chief Henry
10-30-2008, 08:50 AM
That that question even enters the mind of anyone should tells us that we no longer operate a free market in the US.


They will argue that the free market system needs change :spock:

penchief
10-30-2008, 08:55 AM
They are. As fast as they can. The oil services business is backlogged to the gils. You are a toal dumbass if you dont realize what goes into finding oil, developing the find, and commecialization of the well. People like you who spout this crap about why they dont explore is just more stupidity from uniformed screamers who care not about facts.

I see that it's time to rewrite the last 30 years of history.

HonestChieffan
10-30-2008, 08:56 AM
I see that it's time to rewrite the last 30 years of history.

None to be re written. You dont understand the today, why would you grasp the past?

donkhater
10-30-2008, 08:58 AM
The slipperiness of your argument is the notion that your ownership isn't backed by the US and its laws.

The only laws that should govern my ownership are those laws that protect my ownership rights

If you were in a monarchy, say Saudi Arabia, then all lands are subject to the crown. Similarly, the US Government is the arbiter of ownership. As a country we have sought to allow individuals and corporations to manage and own as much as they can for their own and for society's benefit. We prefer a market that is opened to buyers and sellers, on equal footing, but we reserve the right to interfere when the Market is badly tilted by counter productive activities to BOTH objectives.

Sadly this is true, but it shouldn't be. The government shouldn't interfer with any transactions or contract between individuals or buyers and sellers---UNLESS criminal actions are taking place (fraud, insider trading, etc)

FishingRod
10-30-2008, 09:12 AM
It's amazing how so many people are willing to overlook the obvious for politically partisan reasons.[/QUOTE]

Amazing

I am going to take a wild guess that the oil companies are trying to make as much money as possible for the least amount of work. That is what I would do.

To cut through the semantics, if a corporation no longer gets a tax break or if a new tax is imposed the result is the same. The cost goes up or the profit goes down
(which again is the same thing). Unless the corporate Executives are willing to take a pay cut, (not likely), cut dividends to the stockholders ( not bright), or lay off workers( not good for the little guys) they will continue to do what they have always done in the past. Pass the cost along to the consumer.

Oil is for lack of a better term is the engine that runs our economy. When the price goes up the price of everything goes up.

Rant to follow...
People are by nature shallow beings. The don't like to see someone else be too successful. And if they are they must have somehow cheated and we need to bring them down a peg. Nothing makes people more happy than Roger Clemmons getting a good swift kick in the nuts. He cheated and we caught him Yippee. I could have played Pro ball to if I had cheated. We need to Tax BIG companies, We need to Tax people making more money than us at a higher rate because everyone should be equal. Kids shouldn't keep score in games anymore because everyone is a winner. What a load of crap. Every child is special. WTF? Well ok at what age are you no longer special. I was special yesterday but now I'm just an adult. Maybe someone needs to tell Jimmy that he is not special and in reality he sucks at football and he should go try something else.

Alphaman
10-30-2008, 09:18 AM
actually not true at all. He would allow them to keep what they earned. Far different than giving them millions.

I'm sorry, are we purposely ignoring McCain's plan to give oil companies an ADDITIONAL $4B in tax breaks?

donkhater
10-30-2008, 09:22 AM
I'm sorry, are we purposely ignoring McCain's plan to give oil companies an ADDITIONAL $4B in tax breaks?

I'm not. I'm certainly not opposed to it. But I don't think we ought to be subsidizing oil companies.

BigRedChief
10-30-2008, 09:23 AM
If I strike oil on my little parcel of land tommorrow, you feel you are entilited to share in that wealth? .
No, but the oil companies are drilling mainly on public land.

donkhater
10-30-2008, 09:27 AM
No, but the oil companies are drilling mainly on public land.

Is there no lease with the governments? If the state or federal governments wrote into the conditions of the lease the amount they will be taxed relative to the oil they find, I have nothing against that. There shouldn't be any rights beyond that contract.


I doubt the oil companies just rolled onto federal or state property and just started drilling.

whoman69
10-30-2008, 11:29 AM
I don't agree with the US government subsidizing oil companies (or any companies for that matter), but I have absolutely no problem with any bill that wishes to minimize the tax burden on any US company. Last I looked my 401K contained a lot of mutual funds, some I'm sure contain shares in big oil.

It's pretty hypocritical to criticize the profits of any company while b!tching about the state of the economy and the status of one's retirement accounts.

What about when those companies suck the profits out of other companies? The big profits from the oil companies meant less profit for the trucking companies and anyone who has to ship goods, which is just about everyone. Having a few companies making huge profits while the rest of the economy is flounding might make it seem overall that the economy is healthy, which might explain a few statements from the Bush and McBush camps earlier this year.

Dave Lane
10-30-2008, 11:40 AM
Socialist!! Spread the wealther!!

donkhater
10-30-2008, 12:18 PM
What about when those companies suck the profits out of other companies? The big profits from the oil companies meant less profit for the trucking companies and anyone who has to ship goods, which is just about everyone. Having a few companies making huge profits while the rest of the economy is flounding might make it seem overall that the economy is healthy, which might explain a few statements from the Bush and McBush camps earlier this year.

So now we're off taxing profits and on to price controls?

Has this f^&& up with the housing market taught anyone about the dangers of the government setting prices for goods?

What good would it be for the oil companies to price their product out of the market? I suspect you would argue that the world runs on oil so they have everyone by the balls, but if they were to increase their prices based on anything other than demand, then competition from other energy sources would begin to emerge and shrink their customer base. Why would they want to do that?

High gas prices intitiated a LOT of talk about alternative fuels and energy sources. Why would big oil want that to happen?

Silock
10-30-2008, 01:22 PM
So, they had a great quarter? BIG FUCKING DEAL.

Their profit margins aren't even the highest in the industry.

Hint: When everyone uses your product, THEY MAKE A PROFIT. It's not a difficult concept.

Well, apparently, it is. I take that back.

BigRedChief
10-30-2008, 01:48 PM
So, they had a great quarter? BIG ****ING DEAL.

Their profit margins aren't even the highest in the industry.

Hint: When everyone uses your product, THEY MAKE A PROFIT. It's not a difficult concept.

Well, apparently, it is. I take that back.

Thas all fine and dandy as long as our tax dollars don't go to support those profits.

Alphaman
10-30-2008, 02:09 PM
So, they had a great quarter? BIG ****ING DEAL.

Their profit margins aren't even the highest in the industry.

Hint: When everyone uses your product, THEY MAKE A PROFIT. It's not a difficult concept.

Well, apparently, it is. I take that back.

Valid point, but should we give them an ADDITIONAL $4B in tax breaks?

mlyonsd
10-30-2008, 02:16 PM
Valid point, but should we give them an ADDITIONAL $4B in tax breaks?

Are you against corporate tax cuts for non-oil companies? Or are just against tax breaks for oil companies?

donkhater
10-30-2008, 02:33 PM
The part that is wholly wrong and illogical about all of this is the subsidies that government gives oil companies. Why tax them at a high rate then turn around and give them subsidies? Why not just cut their tax rate and give them no subsidies?

1. Because the subsidies can be built into a larger budget. If they give a tax cut, the budget shrinks and no one in congress wants that. They'd rather keep the revenue and print more money to pay the subsidy rather than lower the budget.

2. By providing subsidies they can dictate what the company spends it on. We'll give you X amount of dollars if you use it to fund research into alternative fuels, but we won't give you a tax break. Basically it forces the company to spend some of its revenues on government projects that have no market. Brilliant.

whoman69
10-30-2008, 02:57 PM
So now we're off taxing profits and on to price controls?

Has this f^&& up with the housing market taught anyone about the dangers of the government setting prices for goods?

What good would it be for the oil companies to price their product out of the market? I suspect you would argue that the world runs on oil so they have everyone by the balls, but if they were to increase their prices based on anything other than demand, then competition from other energy sources would begin to emerge and shrink their customer base. Why would they want to do that?

High gas prices intitiated a LOT of talk about alternative fuels and energy sources. Why would big oil want that to happen?

I didn't mention price controls once.:)

Silock
10-30-2008, 03:17 PM
Are you against corporate tax cuts for non-oil companies? Or are just against tax breaks for oil companies?

Exactly. We give tax breaks to companies that have even higher profit margins than the oil companies. Why haven't they been bitching about those?

Alphaman
10-30-2008, 04:00 PM
Are you against corporate tax cuts for non-oil companies? Or are just against tax breaks for oil companies?

I'm not against corporate tax cuts if there is a repayment in kind to the community or country. For example, if a company wants to build a plant or office in Kansas City and KC, Jackson County and the State of Missouri want to give them tax credits based on the number of new jobs they create in KC, I'm all for it.

However, if we are giving tax credits with the thought of "trickle down economics" I'm steadfastly against it. My problem with it is that those with the money want as much money as they can get and will cut off the flow downward as much as they can.

Silock
10-30-2008, 08:06 PM
I'm not against corporate tax cuts if there is a repayment in kind to the community or country. For example, if a company wants to build a plant or office in Kansas City and KC, Jackson County and the State of Missouri want to give them tax credits based on the number of new jobs they create in KC, I'm all for it.

However, if we are giving tax credits with the thought of "trickle down economics" I'm steadfastly against it. My problem with it is that those with the money want as much money as they can get and will cut off the flow downward as much as they can.

So, why limit it to just oil? Most of the corporations that get tax breaks don't "give back to the community."

donkhater
10-30-2008, 08:55 PM
I didn't mention price controls once.:)

I could see that's where your liberal logic was heading. I thought I'd just fast forward a bit. If you had another solution to your complaint, give it.

Logical
10-30-2008, 11:37 PM
So how about we try a little Sarah Palin socialism, all oil profits diviied up and given to the taxpayears, we can call it an economic stimulus plan.

penchief
10-31-2008, 06:32 AM
So, why limit it to just oil? Most of the corporations that get tax breaks don't "give back to the community."

It should apply to all corporations. If you are going to live in this country and thrive off its resources, benefit from it's laws, and employ its infrastructure as the means to wealth, you have a moral and patriotic duty to reciprocate back to the system in direct proportion to how much you have reaped through its employment.

Fundamentally, it boils down to either destroying the system by bleeding it dry (see currrent events) or perpetuating the system by investing back into the system as a means of maintaining its viability for future generations. Taxes, labor, and regulations are all vital ingredients to maintaining the balance that will keep the system working for all Americans.

FishingRod
10-31-2008, 08:38 AM
It should apply to all corporations. If you are going to live in this country and thrive off its resources, benefit from it's laws, and employ its infrastructure as the means to wealth, you have a moral and patriotic duty to reciprocate back to the system in direct proportion to how much you have reaped through its employment.

Fundamentally, it boils down to either destroying the system by bleeding it dry (see currrent events) or perpetuating the system by investing back into the system as a means of maintaining its viability for future generations. Taxes, labor, and regulations are all vital ingredients to maintaining the balance that will keep the system working for all Americans.


What % do you think is fair that all corporations should pay?

Alphaman
10-31-2008, 08:49 AM
So, why limit it to just oil? Most of the corporations that get tax breaks don't "give back to the community."

Obama's criticism of McCain's plan doesn't stop at oil companies. The $4B to oil companies is just an example. My statement was not tied to just oil companies. I'm not looking necessarily a "give back to the community" but a return on investment from the community for tax breaks. The jobs example I gave is reflective of what I'm looking for.

donkhater
10-31-2008, 09:16 AM
Disscussions like these were my biggest fear when this election cycle started and the economy started to turn south. People's perceptions over what is a free market and conservative priciples are mal-adjusted.

The critics of free-market capitalism are on the prowl citing how it has failed the American people when this country hasn't really been close to free-market capitalism since the early 20th century.

The value of our currency is based on a private bank's whims rather than tied to a hard asset. The tax code and subsidies create an enviroment of lobbists and cronyism in Washington to get the government to tweak the rules favoring their clients. McCain is no better. Just more muted.

Meanwhile we have a 'Republican' in office who has been one of the most financially liberal presidents in US history and his critics jump all up and down with glee saying that his conservative principles don't work, we have to try something else. Well, most of what is being proposed by people like Obama is "more of the same" only ratcheted up another notch.

Alphaman
10-31-2008, 09:24 AM
Disscussions like these were my biggest fear when this election cycle started and the economy started to turn south. People's perceptions over what is a free market and conservative priciples are mal-adjusted.

The critics of free-market capitalism are on the prowl citing how it has failed the American people when this country hasn't really been close to free-market capitalism since the early 20th century.

The value of our currency is based on a private bank's whims rather than tied to a hard asset. The tax code and subsidies create an enviroment of lobbists and cronyism in Washington to get the government to tweak the rules favoring their clients. McCain is no better. Just more muted.

Meanwhile we have a 'Republican' in office who has been one of the most financially liberal presidents in US history and his critics jump all up and down with glee saying that his conservative principles don't work, we have to try something else. Well, most of what is being proposed by people like Obama is "more of the same" only ratcheted up another notch.

i would argue that much of what we've seen from the "Republican" in office is based on incompetent principles rather than strictly conservative principles (for example borrowing huge amounts of money from China).

Obama's proposals are the opposite of the "trickle down economics" that Bush has implented. I don't see Obama's proposals as being anything like Bush's.

ROYC75
10-31-2008, 09:25 AM
Can someone explain why McCain sees the need to give millions in tax $'s to Exxon?

I don't recall McCain ever singling out that Exxon will receive it ? I do recall a speech by Palin that mentioned she would be in charge of the energy department and would impose a windfall tax like she did in Alaska where needed.

BigRedChief
10-31-2008, 09:34 AM
I don't recall McCain ever singling out that Exxon will receive it ? I do recall a speech by Palin that mentioned she would be in charge of the energy department and would impose a windfall tax like she did in Alaska where needed.
google it.

ABC, CBS etc all reported it.

ROYC75
10-31-2008, 09:51 AM
google it.

ABC, CBS etc all reported it.

Reported, What ? That McCain thinks Exxon deserves a tax break ?

Please post it , if so . The comments from McCain, not what some liberal press or liberal opinion .