PDA

View Full Version : General Politics US Senate stalls attempt to cut off oil subsidies.


Direckshun
05-17-2011, 11:14 PM
Hm.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/17/senate.oil.subsidies/index.html

Democratic bill to end oil subsidies is defeated in the Senate
By Ted Barrett and Rachel Streitfeld, CNN
May 17, 2011 10:25 p.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) -- On a mostly party-line vote, the Senate on Tuesday defeated a Democratic measure to strip major oil companies of about $20 billion in tax subsidies over the next 10 years and use the savings to pay down the deficit.

Three Democrats and two Republicans crossed sides in the 52-48 vote, preventing the bill from reaching a required 60-vote threshold for passage.

Republicans opposed the measure, arguing the big five oil companies would pass any tax increases to consumers in the form of higher gas prices.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said the Democratic bill would "raise the price of gasoline at the pump, export American jobs and make us more dependent on people like (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez because the amount of oil we'll have to import will go up."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, accused Republicans of preferring to "continue subsidizing these wealthy oil executives and oil companies" rather than pay for health and education programs and reduce the debt.

A White House statement called Tuesday's vote "disappointing" and said efforts to end the subsidies would continue.

"The bottom line is that there are more responsible ways to spend tens of billions of federal dollars, including investments that will help protect American consumers from high gas prices," said the statement by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. "The vote today -- with support from over half the U.S. Senate -- is an important step towards repealing these unwarranted subsidies for the oil and gas industry."

The vote was largely symbolic because Democrats knew they had no chance of passing the measure without support from at least seven Republicans.

In the end, Democrats from oil-producing states, including Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Begich of Alaska, opposed the bill, along with Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

A handful of Republicans -- including conservative Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Mark Kirk of Illinois -- previously expressed openness to the bill but ended up opposing it. The two Republicans who supported the measure were Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

Snowe, who is up for re-election in 2012, said in a statement that it was "difficult to justify oil development incentives given the current level of crude oil prices, and the fact that the U.S. government has to borrow money to pay for these incentives."

If Snowe had joined most of her GOP colleagues in opposing the measure, Democrats were prepared to accuse her of protecting big oil companies while consumers are feeling pain at the pump.

Collins, who also supported the measure, said she had concerns that Democrats pushed the proposal for political reasons.

"I do think that the Democrats are being disingenuous in implying that this is somehow going to have an impact on prices at the pump, because it won't," Collins said. "But it might be good tax policy to reduce the subsidies and use the money for deficit reductions."

Despite the legislative defeat, Reid vowed Tuesday to get the measure included in any debt reduction package Congress is expected to consider in the weeks ahead.

The Senate will vote Wednesday on a Republican proposal to increase the domestic oil supply through new exploration and drilling. It is not expected to get the 60 votes needed to pass, aides from both parties predicted.

KC native
05-17-2011, 11:16 PM
Abominable. One of the most profitable industries doesn't need tax breaks to generate enormous profits.

Donger
05-18-2011, 06:23 AM
Abominable. One of the most profitable industries doesn't need tax breaks to generate enormous profits.

While I'm not in favor of tax breaks for the energy companies, I do have to question your use of "enormous profits" above. Are you referring to "enormous profits" in terms of sheer dollar amount or by profit margin?

BucEyedPea
05-18-2011, 07:27 AM
Calling a tax break a subsidy is typical socialist Newspeak. Not being taxed on something merely keeping one's own earnings. It is not getting anything from govt that was taken from someone else. So it is never a subsidy. I had this argument with two self-professed commies at two different times. That's where this Newspeak originates. We really do live in a 1984 world when the left if in power.

FishingRod
05-18-2011, 09:04 AM
Are they going to eliminate these same “breaks” from all the other companies that are allowed to take them? If so this a poke in the eye for the economy if not, why should oil companies be penalized above and beyond everyone else? I generally try to avoid pointing fingers at one Party over the other because I think they both have done a poor job in representing us but, this is either a case of the Democratic leadership being completely ignorant about how companies operate under are current tax laws or a huge blatant bunch of lies that count on their followers to act out of jealousy and ignorance and in doing so sacrificing our country’s economy for short term political gain.

ROYC75
05-18-2011, 09:31 AM
Taxes, taxes, taxes, it's all the D's know. Tax and spend. ( this is a mini rant )

FTR, we need to cut certain taxes, raise certain taxes and major cuts in the spending to get this all under control ( deficit ). Getting the House, Senate, and POTUS is more than just an act of Congress, It's a prayer to God.

mlyonsd
05-18-2011, 09:36 AM
Dog and pony show, nothing more.

BucEyedPea
05-18-2011, 09:37 AM
Dog and pony show, nothing more.

Yup!

go bowe
05-18-2011, 09:39 AM
Dog and pony show, nothing more.but it's such a cute doggie...

Frazod
05-18-2011, 09:55 AM
You will embrace this rebellion. Support it from our lands in the north. I will gain English favor by condemning it and ordering opposed from our lands in the south.

ROYC75
05-18-2011, 10:58 AM
Dog and pony show, nothing more.

Here all this time I thought it was elephants and jackass's. :rolleyes:

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 11:51 AM
The Democratically controlled senate can't manage to pass a bill that they claim saves us from the boogie man of the most evil and filthy of the evil, filthy rich.

Is it possible they don't believe their own shit and they're just saying those things to stir up their base?

Direckshun
05-18-2011, 11:53 AM
Dog and pony show, nothing more.

Do you support, or oppose, billions in subsidies to oil companies?

Direckshun
05-18-2011, 11:54 AM
The Democratically controlled senate can't manage to pass a bill that they claim saves us from the boogie man of the most evil and filthy of the evil, filthy rich.

Is it possible they don't believe their own shit and they're just saying those things to stir up their base?

There's no doubt this was a political vote, but the Democrats can't defeat the filibuster unilaterally.

If there's no filibuster, this bill passes easy.

mlyonsd
05-18-2011, 12:16 PM
Do you support, or oppose, billions in subsidies to oil companies?
I don't support singling out one industry for political gain.

I don't support BP being allowed to write off the gulf disaster on the backs of taxpayers like they did last quarter. So much for Obama saying he'd make them pay.

I do support tax breaks for exploration.

So I guess my answer is yes and no.

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 12:28 PM
There's no doubt this was a political vote, but the Democrats can't defeat the filibuster unilaterally.

If there's no filibuster, this bill passes easy.

Which is exactly why they brought it up for a vote. They knew they wouldn't have to actually pass it.

mlyonsd
05-18-2011, 12:50 PM
Minerals Mined on Federal Land Spared Taxes, Aided by Senator Reid

By William Lajeunesse (http://www.foxnews.com/author/william-lajeunesse/index.html)
Published May 18, 2011
| FoxNews.com

While Democrats rip into oil and gas companies for failing to pay their "fair share" because of tax breaks Congress gave them, another special interest break they're not talking about is the billions of dollars worth of gold, silver, uranium and other minerals that mining companies take off federal lands for which they pay nothing.

"They don't pay a dime, not a penny for the gold and uranium they remove from public lands," says Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "Virtually every other country in world charges a royalty on hard rock minerals. It is absurd that we don't do this."

Both mining and oil companies pay corporate taxes, and both get generous write-offs in the tax code.

But mining companies get two huge subsidies oil companies do not: leases and royalties.

Mining entities pay no more than $5 an acre for land from which they extract billions of dollars worth of minerals. By contrast, multinational oil and gas firms are required to competitively bid against one another just for the right to drill on specific leases. Those bids typically pay taxpayers from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on how much oil a company believes is in the field.

A royalty or fee represents an annual percentage the federal government charges based on the value of the resource extracted from public lands. For oil and other fuel sources, the numbers are in the double-digits.
The government receives 12.5 percent in royalties for onshore oil and gas while the royalties for offshore drilling amount to18.75 percent. For coal, that number is 8 percent for underground mining and 12.5 percent for surface mining.

For gold, silver, uranium and copper mining: 0 percent
Reformers in Congress tried to raise the last figure but failed.
In 1993, the House passed a bill imposing an 8 percent royalty, but Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., helped kill an agreement in the Senate. In 2007, West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/rep.-nick-rahall.htm#r_src=ramp) helped pass a bill in the House that imposed a 4 percent royalty on gross revenue on existing operations and 8 percent on new operations. Again Reid stepped in, saying the House bill "won't stand over here."

"When you talk about collecting a royalty off the top, irrespective of production costs, that is an unsustainable situation," said Carol Raulston of the National Mining Association.

In 2008, according to the National Mining Association, about $20 billion worth of metals were sold in the U.S. from mines here covered by existing law. With a 4 percent royalty, that translates into at least a $4 billion in payments for minerals owned by U.S. taxpayers.

"This is a pirate story with the public lands profiteers robbing the American people blind," Rahall said in November 2007. "The robbery of American gold and silver must stop."

But it hasn't.

Since taking office, Reid has received $750,000 in campaign contributions from the mining industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

That number includes $127,000 from Nevada's two largest gold producers in the 2010 election. Together, those two companies had profits of $5 billion last year yet they paid taxpayers nothing for minerals taken off public lands.

"Senator Reid through the years has aligned himself with those interests to thwart mining law reforms time and time again," Ellis said.

While Ellis and others blame Reid, the mining association is happy to have him in their corner.

"Senator Reid is one among many who don't want to see domestic mining killed off in this country," Raulston said.

According to Yahoo Finance, three of the 10 most profitable industries in the U.S. right now are in mining, including copper, gold and silver, which enjoy a 47 percent net-profit margin. Oil and gas exploration, by contrast, ranks 50th with a net margin of 11 percent.

Yet oil and gas are singled out, particularly by Reid.

"We should all agree, in the interest of fairness, common sense and saving taxpayer money that we can cut out corporate welfare to those big oil firms who need it the least," Reid said last week.

"Senator Reid has always been open to reasonable hardrock mining reform that protects jobs while ensuring the industry pays its fair share," a Reid spokesman said. "However, I’d want to change the subject too if I had to defend billions in government giveaways to big oil corporations with gas prices so high in Nevada and across the country.”

President Obama (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/barack-obama.htm#r_src=ramp) weighed in on Saturday, noting that the "American people shouldn't be subsidizing oil companies at a time when they're making near-record profits."

Gold and silver both closed last week near record highs.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/18/minerals-mined-federal-land-spared-taxes-aided-senator-reid/

I know, I know, this story probably would evenually have come up on one of those other fair and balanced networks.

FishingRod
05-18-2011, 12:52 PM
Do you support, or oppose, billions in subsidies to oil companies?

"Brian Johnson :
Let's at least keep the rhetoric honest - these are not subsidies. There are no credits. They are deductions and timing with respect to cost recovery. Uncle Sam is not taking money from you and giving it to oil and gas (like some other industries) - it just isn't happening, period."

FD
05-18-2011, 02:02 PM
"Brian Johnson :
Let's at least keep the rhetoric honest - these are not subsidies. There are no credits. They are deductions and timing with respect to cost recovery. Uncle Sam is not taking money from you and giving it to oil and gas (like some other industries) - it just isn't happening, period."

Calling it a deduction doesn't change the fact that its a subsidy, its a change in wording with no economic distinction.

Donger
05-18-2011, 02:08 PM
Do you support, or oppose, billions in subsidies to oil companies?

I'll oppose the tax breaks that the energy companies get as long as they stop giving tax breaks to all others.

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 02:10 PM
Calling it a deduction doesn't change the fact that its a subsidy, its a change in wording with no economic distinction.

Call it whatever you want, it's financial assistance.

WV
05-18-2011, 02:13 PM
How about this idea.....let the government eliminate the 37 1/2 cents they tack onto every gallon of gas??

BucEyedPea
05-18-2011, 02:19 PM
Calling it a deduction doesn't change the fact that its a subsidy, its a change in wording with no economic distinction.

Yes there is an economic distinction something left-wing Newspeak tries to obsfuscate. Calling it a subsidy blurs the lines as to whose money it is from the outset. That's the whole idea behind re-labeling it. Therefore, the idea of income being collectively owned is fostered. That's nothing but a LIE!

Calcountry
05-18-2011, 02:31 PM
While I'm not in favor of tax breaks for the energy companies, I do have to question your use of "enormous profits" above. Are you referring to "enormous profits" in terms of sheer dollar amount or by profit margin?enormous profits are any profits that have been deemed excessive by chairman Obama.

"Now is not the time for profits".

Donger
05-18-2011, 02:41 PM
enormous profits are any profits that have been deemed excessive by chairman Obama.

"Now is not the time for profits".

Well, Obama is either ignorant or being intentionally disingenuous. The total profit in dollars means nothing. People get all upset when they hear "record profits" but only the profit margin matters.

mikey23545
05-18-2011, 02:45 PM
Well, Obama is either ignorant or being intentionally disingenuous. The total profit in dollars means nothing. People get all upset when they hear "record profits" but only the profit margin matters.

debbil talk.

orange
05-18-2011, 02:50 PM
<object width="560" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/Rah5JA2k160?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/Rah5JA2k160?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

FishingRod
05-18-2011, 03:01 PM
Calling it a deduction doesn't change the fact that its a subsidy, its a change in wording with no economic distinction.

“A subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector”


Let’s put it this way. When you file… assuming you file… your Income tax return. Do consider the deductions you take for owing a home and having children subsidies from the Government?

Now if you get back more than you pay I would argue that they are. Otherwise they are allowing you do deduct SOME of your operating expenses from those monies considered to be taxable.

FD
05-18-2011, 03:08 PM
“A subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector”


Let’s put it this way. When you file… assuming you file… your Income tax return. Do consider the deductions you take for owing a home and having children subsidies from the Government?

Now if you get back more than you pay I would argue that they are. Otherwise they are allowing you do deduct SOME of your operating expenses from those monies considered to be taxable.

You really don't think the home mortgage interest deduction subsidizes home ownership? I'm pretty sure every economist would disagree with you there. Of course its a subsidy, just going by another name, there is no economic distinction.

BucEyedPea
05-18-2011, 03:41 PM
You really don't think the home mortgage interest deduction subsidizes home ownership? I'm pretty sure every economist would disagree with you there. Of course its a subsidy, just going by another name, there is no economic distinction.

Appealing to authority or to common practice is a logical fallacy. It does not prove your point. Either way, if you want to insist, or rely on a group-think error just because it's that way with a group, I know of plenty of economists that would agree with him and disagree with you. They're not collectivists who I am sure you are referring here for your source of authority.

Looking at what a subsidy really is and being able to keep something of one's own is clear by definition alone. But not Ivestopedia's politically correct glossary. They also have inflation wrong too.

sub·si·dy
a grant or gift of money: as

c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy

orange
05-18-2011, 03:47 PM
Let’s put it this way. When you file… assuming you file… your Income tax return. Do consider the deductions you take for owing a home and having children subsidies from the Government?

Let's put it this way. If you own a business and you get to deduct 30% of a particular type of expense but a different business gets to deduct 50% of the same type of expense, is that a subsidy?

And when you go looking for investors and they tell you they can get a higher return from that other business because of their tax advantages, are you beginning to think it might just be a subsidy after all?

Donger
05-18-2011, 03:50 PM
Let's put it this way. If you own a business and you get to deduct 30% of a particular type of expense but a different business gets to deduct 50% of the same type of expense, is that a subsidy?

Are you suggesting that the energy companies get that?

orange
05-18-2011, 03:56 PM
Are you suggesting that the energy companies get that?

Since - according to the article - this vote was about measures specific to the oil industry, I would have to say yes.

Donger
05-18-2011, 04:00 PM
Since - according to the article - this vote was about measures specific to the oil industry, I would have to say yes.

I see nothing in the article that would lead you to the conclusion that the energy companies receive greater deductions of specific expenses than do other industries.

I take it you don't either.

orange
05-18-2011, 04:01 PM
Since - according to the article - this vote was about measures specific to the oil industry, I would have to say yes.

While I can't find what this particular vote specifically targetted, here's some general info:

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

orange
05-18-2011, 04:02 PM
I see nothing in the article that would lead you to the conclusion that the energy companies receive greater deductions of specific expenses than do other industries.

I take it you don't either.

I take absolutely NO blame for the writer of that article not being specific. It doesn't mean the information isn't out there, as I just demonstrated.

Donger
05-18-2011, 04:03 PM
While I can't find what this particular vote specifically targetted, here's some general info:

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

Okay, that's fine. And what is the total, effective tax rate that the energy companies pay? And, how does that compare to other industry rates?

Donger
05-18-2011, 04:04 PM
I take absolutely NO blame for the writer of that article not being specific. It doesn't mean the information isn't out there, as I just demonstrated.

You specifically mentioned the article. Hence my question.

orange
05-18-2011, 04:05 PM
Now if you get back more than you pay I would argue that they are. Otherwise they are allowing you do deduct SOME of your operating expenses from those monies considered to be taxable.

p.s.

And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

BucEyedPea
05-18-2011, 04:06 PM
I take absolutely NO blame for the writer of that article not being specific. It doesn't mean the information isn't out there, as I just demonstrated.
These are the same write-offs that other corporations and businesses get:


Just one problem. Those “subsidies” are not subsidies. They are tax breaks. Of the $4 billion in alleged subsidies to Big Oil, $1.7 billion derives from a domestic manufacturing tax deduction intended to keep factories in the U.S. It is available to every company, not just oil companies. Another $850 million comes from another tax provision, also available to every U.S. corporation, that gives a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries—just as you can deduct your state taxes from your federal income taxes. Yet another $1 billion comes from tax rules that let oil companies treat oil in the ground as capital equipment for write-down purposes, and the rest comes from rules that let oil companies write off certain business costs immediately.

Maybe these are dumb rules. Maybe they need changing. But in no sense can they be called subsidies—i.e., money taken from Smith and given to Jones. The failure to tax Exxon more does not increase your payment to the IRS by one red cent.

BucEyedPea
05-18-2011, 04:06 PM
p.s.

And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

From the socialist NYTimes that runs on envy and promotes kleptocracy.

orange
05-18-2011, 04:12 PM
From the socialist NYTimes that runs on envy and promotes kleptocracy.

:hmmm:

Oh pluhease, the projection is nauseating. This is a NYT/CBS poll for chrissakes!

LMAO

http://www.mooresvillearts.com/theatre-masks1.png

BucEyedPea
05-18-2011, 04:15 PM
Let's put it this way. If you own a business and you get to deduct 30% of a particular type of expense but a different business gets to deduct 50% of the same type of expense, is that a subsidy?
No it isn't.

It's just a better tax advantage. It's NO different than someone paying less income taxes due to being in a lower bracket than some one in a higher bracket who pays more. The alleged claim is that this makes the tax system fair....although it runs counter to equality under the law.

And when you go looking for investors and they tell you they can get a higher return from that other business because of their tax advantages, are you beginning to think it might just be a subsidy after all?

No it's not. It's having a better tax advantage but it's not a subsidy.


How are any of the two examples different than a start-up being exempt from some regulations because it's a small company when a bigger company must comply and pay the additional costs of that regulation? It is no different.

BucEyedPea
05-18-2011, 04:17 PM
:hmmm:



LMAO

http://www.mooresvillearts.com/theatre-masks1.png

I see you have nothing. Tell me how unbiased and objective the NY Times on on economics now.


BTW how am I projecting by saying the left wing Times promotes left wing economics? I am the complete opposite.

orange
05-18-2011, 04:21 PM
I see you have nothing.

You have nothing every time you say "socialist." You use the word as a substitute for anything substantial - because you have nothing substantial.

You're a big fan of words - what does "ad hominem" mean?

BucEyedPea
05-18-2011, 04:23 PM
You have nothing every time you say "socialist."

Nope. That's just your opinion. It's loaded with meaning and is far from nothing. You just don't like it.

orange
05-18-2011, 04:26 PM
It's loaded

Finally you've said something completely true. It's definitely loaded, which is the only reason you resort to it.


You have nothing every time you say "socialist." You use the word as a substitute for anything substantial - because you have nothing substantial.

You're a big fan of words - what does "ad hominem" mean?

Also,

"According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office,"

More "socialists," right?

LMAOLMAOLMAO

BucEyedPea
05-18-2011, 04:27 PM
You have nothing every time you say "socialist." You use the word as a substitute for anything substantial - because you have nothing substantial.

You're a big fan of words - what does "ad hominem" mean?

I see you edited. Yes, I am a HUGE fan of words and that words are not empty but have meanings. This is what makes communication where there is a meeting of the minds possible. Otherwise we're not arguing about the same thing. That's being rational.

In fact words have precise meanings in most cases. Knowing the meanings of words is the basis of literacy. When discussing economics they are vital for economic literacy. Otherwise, politicians can pull the wool over the people's eyes as well as those with agendas. The key to foiling them is stating what the word means. Ignorance is what slavemasters are counting on.

ad hominem just means to the person. Discussing the person instead of the points. When it comes to news sources though, it's important in some arguments to point out the slant of a source. I won't mind if you call Lew's site libertarian or Human Events conservative. In this case though, the NYTimes is going to make a case for tax breaks to be called subsidies and use economists from that side of the argument. I was just pointing out, even earlier, how that is where this false idea originates from—the left—which is factually socialist or socialist-leaning. Even Orwell said altering words, and abusing language, is a method to changing a society.

I will concede that even Friedman, a monetarist, made some unfortunate concessions to the socialists though.

BucEyedPea
05-18-2011, 04:32 PM
Finally you've said something completely true. It's definitely loaded, which is the only reason you resort to it.




Also,

"According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office,"

More "socialists," right?

LMAOLMAOLMAO

Let me see it and look at who did the study. I can tell if it's socialist from reading it though without even knowing the source. T'is the era we live in.

orange
05-18-2011, 04:34 PM
Okay, that's fine. And what is the total, effective tax rate that the energy companies pay? And, how does that compare to other industry rates?

Exxon Mobil Corp.'s robust balance sheets have become a poster child for what The New York Times dubs the “paradox of the United States tax code.”

The company’s large 2010 profits allowed them to lead Fortune 500’s annual ranking of the nations’ most profitable firms for the eighth time in a row. But the oil giant’s average effective tax rates are roughly half the 35 percent tax rate that currently stands as the high-water mark for American corporations. Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and other big oil companies continue to exploit tax loopholes for nearly $4 billion in subsidies each year. These subsidies include write-offs for drilling costs and a deduction for domestic production that was intended for manufacturers, not big oil producers.

Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate on its annual earnings in the three years spanning 2008 to 2010. Its average domestic profits exceeded $6.8 billion. And as a 2011 Citizens for Tax Justice report points out:

Over the past two years, ExxonMobil reported $9,910 million in pretax U.S. profits. But it enjoyed so many tax subsidies that its federal income tax bill was only $39 million—a tax rate of only 0.4 percent.

much more: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/tax_man.html


A new study commissioned by the Business Roundtable dives into the deep question of how much tax big U.S. companies pay. A lot, it concludes.

The study, by PwC, finds that among companies on the Forbes Global 2000 list for 2010, U.S.-headquartered companies had an average effective tax rate of 27.7% over the 2006-2009 period, compared with an average rate of 19.5% for their foreign-headquartered counterparts. That’s another reason for the U.S. to revamp its corporate tax system, the BRT said.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/14/business-roundtable-we-pay-enough-taxes-thank-you/

BucEyedPea
05-18-2011, 04:40 PM
Over the past two years, ExxonMobil reported $9,910 million in pretax U.S. profits. But it enjoyed so many tax subsidies that its federal income tax bill was only $39 million—a tax rate of only 0.4 percent.

much more: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/tax_man.html

American Progress?

Synonym for American Socialist.

Other Synonyms for socialist or socialism:
Progressive ( as in Progress)
welfare statist ( just indirect socialism controlling the peeps through the tax code)
Euro-socialist
Fabian socialist
National Socialist
Mixed-Economy
Interventionism for the public good or equality or to make capitalism work by using "socialism" ( to some it's called Third Way Socialism)
syndicalism
guild socialism
anti-Misean ( usually)
collectivist
state-controlled using the tax code
Marxist
communist
progressive income tax

orange
05-18-2011, 04:42 PM
Socialist

You've got nothing, I see.

Is the WSJ article quoting the Business Roundtable also Socialist?

LMAO

Wyndex
05-18-2011, 04:44 PM
JFC the tax that would be passed on would amount to .04 cents on every gallon

I can't stand you stupid fucking Republicans

orange
05-18-2011, 04:47 PM
anti-Misean

LMAO I have to laugh again specifically about this.

You only wish! Probably less than 1% of Americans have ever even heard of Mises.

"Mises? Isn't that some new gluten-free grain they came up with?"

Simplex3
05-18-2011, 04:48 PM
JFC the tax that would be passed on would amount to .04 cents on every gallon

I can't stand you stupid ****ing Republicans

Remove all the other embedded taxes I pay, all the corporate taxes I pay, all the income taxes I pay, all the tariffs I pay, all the property taxes I pay, all the license and registration fees I pay, and we'll talk about how something is "only" four cents per gallon.

BucEyedPea
05-18-2011, 04:49 PM
You've got nothing, I see.

Is the WSJ article quoting the Business Roundtable also Socialist?

LMAO

Nope that is something unless you don't know what the words mean. Someone sounds defensive, I take it you don't know the meanings? I note the nervous laughing.

I don't know about this Roundtable but I do know there are plenty of businessmen, particularly from big business and especially Wall Stree, that love socialism because it prevents accumulation of capital whereby individuals can build businesses to compete against them. Plenty of these guys are in bed with govt to create captive markets for them. Like Nafta etc. Like Kelo on eminent domain. In fact part of Trump's empire, his casinos, were built using eminent domain abuse. Let's not forget the bank bailouts, GM bailout and Goldman Sachs other earlier bailouts even. Like the Mexican Peso crisis.

In fact there's a book about how they force small countries to let them in or give those countries loans they can't pay back bankrupting them. It's in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. What do you think is going on in Libya and guess who has their hands of the oil? It's on my list once I graduate my daughter at the end of June.

National Socialism or Corporatism. I don't care what you wanna call it but there is socialism for big business too. That doesn't make a tax credit a subsidy though. That's like saying writes offs for families and individuals are subsidies AS IF the govt owns everything and they get to decide what we can keep. That is a collectivist viewpoint.

Donger
05-18-2011, 05:02 PM
American Progress, eh? I'll see your American Progress and raise you ExxonMobil:

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2010/12/14/exxonmobil-is-a-leading-u-s-taxpayer/

Donger
05-18-2011, 05:06 PM
Or, Business Week:

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.

orange
05-18-2011, 05:14 PM
American Progress, eh? I'll see your American Progress and raise you ExxonMobil:

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2010/12/14/exxonmobil-is-a-leading-u-s-taxpayer/

I'll raise you Forbes - and the absence of ExxonMobil responding to their further questions (unless you can find it).


Exxon Says It Does Pay U.S. Income Taxes
Apr. 7 2010 - 3:44 pm | 17,886 views | 0 recommendations | 11 comments
Posted by Christopher Helman

Recently we published the story “What the Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes,” and a related blog post, “Big Oil’s Tax Bill.” What’s received the most attention from readers and bloggers was our assertion that ExxonMobil, despite recording more than $15 billion in income taxes, “paid none of its 2009 income taxes in the U.S.”

Although I came up with that by reading the company’s annual 10-k filing with the SEC, ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers assures me that this is wrong, that Exxon did indeed pay substantial income taxes to the U.S. Treasury in 2009, and that it overpaid taxes in 2008. How much? Well, Jeffers says so far he’s not at liberty to disclose that information. “That’s not something we’re required to disclose, nor do we.”

So what gives? Jeffers explains that what ExxonMobil reports in its annual consolidated financial statements is just accounting, that the numbers reflect expenses or credits recorded throughout the year and “do not represent our tax bill,” which has not yet been filed, let alone settled. The financial results listed in the 10-k “is an accurate reflection of what it is, but not what you thought it was,” says Jeffers.

What the financial statement says is that ExxonMobil, in 2009, after a handful of deferrals, recorded a total U.S. income tax benefit (i.e., a refund) of $46 million. Next to this, it shows total non-U.S. income taxes of $15.165 billion.

My mistake was in thinking that these figures somehow reflected actual tax benefits and liabilities. So what we should have written was that ExxonMobil “recorded” no U.S. income taxes for 2009 instead of “paid.” All you re-bloggers out there, please note the clarification. Mea culpa.

And for all you commenters outraged that Exxon isn’t paying taxes in the U.S., don’t worry, it is. Our article only focused on income taxes, but it’s worth noting that the 10-k also records $7.7 billion in other taxes in the U.S. (like sales taxes - note PASSED ON TO CONSUMERS) and more than $50 billion of other taxes and duties paid (I mean recorded) overseas.

There’s a lingering issue here. If Exxon’s income tax line items don’t mean what they say, then what does that imply about other important stuff? Are “earnings after income taxes,” really $19.28 billion? Are earnings per share really $3.99? Does it all wash out? We’ve asked Exxon to explain and will let you know what they say.

http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes/

orange
05-18-2011, 05:17 PM
Or, Business Week:

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.

... $50 billion of other taxes and duties paid (I mean recorded) overseas ...

To which I don't give a shit.

And let's say it again...

There’s a lingering issue here. If Exxon’s income tax line items don’t mean what they say, then what does that imply about other important stuff? Are “earnings after income taxes,” really $19.28 billion? Are earnings per share really $3.99? Does it all wash out? We’ve asked Exxon to explain and will let you know what they say.

vailpass
05-18-2011, 05:19 PM
Remove all the other embedded taxes I pay, all the corporate taxes I pay, all the income taxes I pay, all the tariffs I pay, all the property taxes I pay, all the license and registration fees I pay, and we'll talk about how something is "only" four cents per gallon.

X2

orange
05-18-2011, 05:28 PM
American Progress, eh? I'll see your American Progress and raise you ExxonMobil:

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2010/12/14/exxonmobil-is-a-leading-u-s-taxpayer/

p.s. From THAT very article:

"Simply stated, for every dollar of net earnings in the U.S. between 2005 and 2009, we paid almost $1.50 in taxes to federal, state and local governments."

NET - that means AFTER all the deductions we're talking about eliminating.

FishingRod
05-18-2011, 05:58 PM
p.s.

And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

I read this but just don't understand, perhaps somone better at math can. It says they have a reduced rate of tax on some things. How can paying "less" taxes leave more money than paying no taxes? It soinds like my x-wife that woulsdrop $200 and then another$200 and then $100 more at the boat then win a $250 jackpot and think she won $250. I couldn't understand that either.

I will check back Thurs , night all

Donger
05-18-2011, 09:03 PM
It's okay, orange. They pay a ton of taxes. Nowhere near what your American Progress link states they do (or more accurately don't). I realize that bothers liberals (for some reason) but it's a simple fact.

Donger
05-18-2011, 09:07 PM
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1321.html

When the federal statutory corporate income tax rate of 35 percent is added to the weighted average of state corporate income taxes, the resulting rate of 39.3 percent means that corporations in the United States are currently at an international competitive disadvantage. In fact, as recent research has indicated, the top combined state and federal statutory corporate income tax in the U.S. is higher than any other country in the OECD.

Furthermore, the average effective tax rate on the major integrated oil and gas industry is estimated to equal 38.3 percent. This exceeds the estimated average effective tax rate of 32.3 percent for the market as a whole.

Donger
05-18-2011, 09:10 PM
And this:

http://www.api.org/statistics/earnings/upload/earnings_perspective.pdf

Jenson71
05-18-2011, 09:26 PM
Appealing to authority or to common practice is a logical fallacy. It does not prove your point.

Appealing to authority is not always, and not even usually, a logical fallacy. Saying "historians believe this was the cause of WWII" is not illogical. That is completely rational. So in an argument about economics, appealing to economic authorities is actually pretty persuasive.

Where an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy is when the argument lies outside of the specialized expertise of the authority, or when it is claimed that the argument is finalized simply because of the authority on even the topic in question.

orange
05-18-2011, 09:41 PM
How much tax does Exxon pay?
Steven Mufson Steven Mufson – Wed May 11, 9:06 pm ET
Just how much do big oil companies pay in taxes?

Exxon Mobil says it pays plenty — more in U.S. taxes than it earned in the United States last year.

Not so, say critics of the oil industry; the Center for American Progress says the oil giant’s effective federal income tax rate is about half the 35 percent standard for U.S. companies. The liberal-leaning think tank, citing Exxon Mobil’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, says the corporation didn’t pay any federal income tax in 2009.

It all depends on how you count.

Exxon Mobil counts everything — not just federal income taxes, but also local property taxes, state taxes, gasoline taxes and payroll taxes. The Center for American Progress (CAP) and other analysts count only the company’s federal corporate income taxes.


“We pay our fair share of taxes,” said Kenneth Cohen, Exxon Mobil’s vice president for public affairs, who in a conference call recently lumped more than $6 of sales, state and local taxes together with every $1 of federal income tax paid in 2010.

But Exxon Mobil’s tax rate is “lower than the average American’s,” Daniel Weiss, an energy expert at CAP, countered in an analysis that put the company’s U.S. federal income tax rate in 2010 at just 17.2 percent.

The tax debate may turn into the most combustible issue when top executives from five oil giants appear before a congressional committee on Thursday.

Most congressional Democrats and the Obama administration want to end or limit tax benefits — or tax breaks — for oil companies.

The provisions targeted include the industry’s use of a tax break that since 2004 has trimmed the corporate tax rate for manufacturers; oil-depletion allowances that all but the biggest firms use to recover drilling costs, sometimes more than 100 percent of those costs; and the expensing of “intangible” drilling costs at a rate higher than that used by most non-oil companies to recover investment costs.

Those investment incentives have helped make the oil industry one of the most profitable, when measured by cash flow and return on investment. Soaring gasoline prices — as of Wednesday, $3.96 a gallon for regular nationwide — have revved up the issue.

“The oil companies charging these exorbitant prices are picking through New Yorkers’ pockets through the tax code, collecting billions of dollars every year in unnecessary taxpayer subsidies,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday. “This is completely unacceptable, and those big oil companies should know that the jig is up.”

But those tax incentives have survived previous political onslaughts. The expensing of intangible drilling costs — including exploration and development — dates to 1916. The oil-depletion allowance dates to 1926.

The idea of eliminating these tax breaks isn’t new. In 1984, the Reagan Treasury Department’s original tax reform blueprint got rid of the provisions, but it was never passed into law. Some breaks were later limited. The biggest firms, such as Exxon Mobil, have not qualified for the depletion allowance since the 1970s, but other large oil firms known as independents still do.

Deciphering how it all affects the bottom line isn’t easy. Oil companies get credits in the United States for taxes and royalties paid to foreign nations where they produce crude oil. Exxon spokesman Alan T. Jeffers said there are 35 IRS agents who work full time auditing the company’s books.

Rhetoric aside, Exxon and CAP agree on many figures. Jeffers conceded that the company had a net federal income tax credit of $156 million in 2009, but he says that was the result of favorable audits of returns dating back a decade or more.

Cohen highlighted “total taxes and duties to the U.S. government” of $9.8 billion in 2010. But only $1.3 billion of that went to federal income taxes, the company said in SEC disclosures used by CAP. While that’s a big figure, worldwide income before taxes was $57 billion that year, and U.S. income was $7.7 billion.

Whether it’s a good idea to get rid of the tax breaks has little to do with property taxes or how much companies collect and pass on to the government in gasoline, sales and payroll taxes, says Eric Toder, a tax expert at the Urban Institute.

“All corporations are big tax collectors,” Toder said. “That’s not really the issue.”

Oil companies complain, and Toder agrees, that when it comes to the manufacturers’ tax break, they are being unfairly targeted over something other businesses enjoy (although Toder questions whether any companies should get it).

“We don’t characterize them as subsidies,” said Kurt Glaubitz, a Chevron spokesman. “They’re available to all companies in the oil industry and are similar to those in other industries.” He said the manufacturers’ tax allowance effectively cuts Chevron’s corporate tax rate by two percentage points.

But Toder sees other tax incentives as unnecessary because they are designed to reward investments that are already richly rewarded, especially given high oil prices.

Exxon says that its profits are in line with what other companies make and that it earns just 9 cents on every dollar of sales. That, Cohen said, is a “number you won’t hear in Washington.”

“That’s about half (or less) of what companies in pharmaceuticals or computers make, just to name a few,” Cohen said on a company blog. “But strangely, there’s not much talk about reducing their tax deductions.”

But Wall Street analysts don’t generally pay attention to that — and when Exxon talks to investors, it says they shouldn’t, either. It tells them to watch the company’s “return on capital employed,” or ROCE. Those returns are huge — as high as 34 percent in 2008.

“The Corporation has consistently applied its ROCE definition for many years and views it as the best measure of historical capital productivity in our capital-intensive, long-term industry, both to evaluate management’s performance and to demonstrate to shareholders that capital has been used wisely over the long term,” Exxon said in an SEC filing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20110512/pl_washpost/howmuchtaxdoesexxonpay

BEP - "Washington Post (and Forbes, the Bible of Capitalism) are Socialists. And even Reagan fell into their trap briefly."
Donger - "Wait, here's another post from an industry mouthpiece."

orange
05-18-2011, 09:48 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/05/12/Business/Images/oiltax12-g.jpg

18%. Just about what American Progress said.

BEP and Donger - "SOURCE: Exxon Mobil are a bunch of lying Socialists."

BucEyedPea
05-18-2011, 09:51 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/05/12/Business/Images/oiltax12-g.jpg

18%. Just about what American Progress said.

BEP and Donger - "SOURCE: Exxon Mobil are a bunch of lying Socialists."

I wasn't referencing what they said about ExxonMobil's income or taxes. I was citing the socialist idea that tax credits were a subsidy. Please read. Now if you put up your link for this data here, I didn't click on it assuming you were using your link for the idea that a tax credit was as subsidy.

orange
05-18-2011, 09:56 PM
I wasn't referencing what they said about ExxonMobil's income or taxes. I was citing the socialist idea that tax credits were a subsidy. Please read. Now if you put up your link for this data here, I didn't click on it assuming you were using your link for the idea that a tax credit was as subsidy.

And I posted that oil (Exxon specifically) enjoyed a tax rate of 18% compared to an average tax rate of 28% for all U.S. businesses - a direct answer to a Donger question - as demonstrating that they're getting special breaks that other industries don't.

Okay, that's fine. And what is the total, effective tax rate that the energy companies pay? And, how does that compare to other industry rates?

orange
05-18-2011, 10:06 PM
I read this but just don't understand, perhaps somone better at math can. It says they have a reduced rate of tax on some things. How can paying "less" taxes leave more money than paying no taxes? It soinds like my x-wife that woulsdrop $200 and then another$200 and then $100 more at the boat then win a $250 jackpot and think she won $250. I couldn't understand that either.

I will check back Thurs , night all

p.s. This is easy, no math involved. You have to file your taxes to claim the credits.

Donger
05-18-2011, 10:12 PM
The liberal-leaning think tank, citing Exxon Mobil’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, says the corporation didn’t pay any federal income tax in 2009.

It all depends on how you count.

Exxon Mobil counts everything — not just federal income taxes, but also local property taxes, state taxes, gasoline taxes and payroll taxes. The Center for American Progress (CAP) and other analysts count only the company’s federal corporate income taxes.


So, the liberal-leaning think tank doesn't take into account local property taxes, state taxes, gasoline taxes and payroll taxes?

LMAO

Yes, I'm sure that the energy companies pay those with pixie dust or Monopoly money.

What else you got, orange?

Donger
05-18-2011, 10:12 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/05/12/Business/Images/oiltax12-g.jpg

18%. Just about what American Progress said.

BEP and Donger - "SOURCE: Exxon Mobil are a bunch of lying Socialists."

Source?

Donger
05-18-2011, 10:15 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/05/12/Business/Images/oiltax12-g.jpg

18%. Just about what American Progress said.

BEP and Donger - "SOURCE: Exxon Mobil are a bunch of lying Socialists."

I thought American Progress said this: "But it enjoyed so many tax subsidies that its federal income tax bill was only $39 million—a tax rate of only 0.4 percent"

No?

.4% does not equal 18%

orange
05-18-2011, 10:32 PM
I thought American Progress said this: "But it enjoyed so many tax subsidies that its federal income tax bill was only $39 million—a tax rate of only 0.4 percent"

No?


No. American Progress said THIS:

Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate on its annual earnings in the three years spanning 2008 to 2010. Its average domestic profits exceeded $6.8 billion.

The other number you mentioned is from some other source. If you want to attack them, go right ahead. But don't blame me for your misreading.

As for the picture, the source is the very same Washington Post article - but on their actual website, not yahoonews or whatever the link I posted was. Your implying that they're liars has been duely noted, however - just as I predicted.

Donger
05-18-2011, 10:39 PM
No. American Progress said THIS:

Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate on its annual earnings in the three years spanning 2008 to 2010. Its average domestic profits exceeded $6.8 billion.

The other number you mentioned is from some other source. If you want to attack them, go right ahead. But don't blame me for your misreading.

As for the picture, the source is the very same Washington Post article - but on their actual website, not yahoonews or whatever the link I posted was. Your implying that they're liars has been duely noted, however - just as I predicted.

Okay, but it was embedded in the American Progress link you posted, right? If so, you acknowledge that the .4% number is grossly inaccurate, right?

Donger
05-18-2011, 10:39 PM
And, no response to #73?

Donger
05-18-2011, 10:42 PM
No. American Progress said THIS:

Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate on its annual earnings in the three years spanning 2008 to 2010. Its average domestic profits exceeded $6.8 billion.

The other number you mentioned is from some other source. If you want to attack them, go right ahead. But don't blame me for your misreading.

As for the picture, the source is the very same Washington Post article - but on their actual website, not yahoonews or whatever the link I posted was. Your implying that they're liars has been duely noted, however - just as I predicted.

And, no, I'm stating that they are not taking into account the total amount of taxes they pay, not just the federal. In other words, their total effective tax rate.

It's very convenient to just exclude the other taxes they pay in order to justify your point, isn't it?

orange
05-18-2011, 10:56 PM
Okay, but it was embedded in the American Progress link you posted, right? If so, you acknowledge that the .4% number is grossly inaccurate, right?

Wrong.

Different years, different numbers. I'm sure it's quite accurate - they're getting their numbers from ExxonMobil.

Here's some more Socialists on the topic (CNNMoney):

Tax bills for 5 corporate giants
2 of 5
Exxon Mobil: $15.1 billion
U.S. federal: -$156 million
U.S. state and local: $110 million
International: $15.2 billion

Exxon paid the most taxes last year of any U.S. company, by far -- but not a cent went to the IRS for income taxes. That's because the oil giant does business in some of the mostly highly taxed countries in the world. Want to extract petroleum in Nigeria? Be prepared to fork over up to 85% of your profit in tax payments.

Exxon doled out more than $15 billion in income tax payments to foreign countries last year. U.S. tax codes allow companies to take massive deductions in light of those international charges, which knocked Exxon's federal income-tax bill down into negative territory.

That said, Uncle Sam gets his money in other ways. Including sales taxes and duties, Exxon recorded $7.7 billion in U.S. tax costs last year, and paid even more overseas.

Its grand total in global taxes for the year? A whopping $78.6 billion. The company's effective income tax rate was a hefty 47%, its highest in three years.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/2.html

The bottom line is probably around what American Progress and Washington Post reported. Oh, and SOURCE: Exxon Mobil.

patteeu
05-18-2011, 11:00 PM
Why are oil company tax breaks being singled out here? I sense that someone needs a boogieman.

orange
05-18-2011, 11:00 PM
And, no response to #73?

#73:

So, the liberal-leaning think tank doesn't take into account local property taxes, state taxes, gasoline taxes and payroll taxes?




None of which has SHIT to do with Federal Income Tax...

... EXCEPT...

... that's it's all DEDUCTIBLE from Federal Income Tax.


It's very convenient to just exclude the other taxes they pay in order to justify your point, isn't it?

I'm not excluding it at all... YOU are very conveniently excluding that EVERYONE ELSE pays those taxes, too.

And they have NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread - which is what Congress is doing and not doing about Federal Income Tax.

orange
05-18-2011, 11:05 PM
Why are oil company tax breaks being singled out here? I sense that someone needs a boogieman.

:titus:

And I posted that oil (Exxon specifically) enjoyed a tax rate of 18% compared to an average tax rate of 28% for all U.S. businesses - a direct answer to a Donger question - as demonstrating that they're getting special breaks that other industries don't.

Donger
05-19-2011, 06:38 AM
Its grand total in global taxes for the year? A whopping $78.6 billion. The company's effective income tax rate was a hefty 47%, its highest in three years.

LMAO

Donger
05-19-2011, 06:40 AM
#73:





None of which has SHIT to do with Federal Income Tax...

... EXCEPT...

... that's it's all DEDUCTIBLE from Federal Income Tax.



I'm not excluding it at all... YOU are very conveniently excluding that EVERYONE ELSE pays those taxes, too.

And they have NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread - which is what Congress is doing and not doing about Federal Income Tax.

That's because I only care about the total amount of taxes they pay. Because, you know, that's the only true measure of how much actual tax they pay. Hence my question, which was about their effective tax rate.

Dave Lane
05-19-2011, 07:02 AM
Taxes, taxes, taxes, it's all the D's know. Tax and spend. ( this is a mini rant )

FTR, we need to cut certain taxes, raise certain taxes and major cuts in the spending to get this all under control ( deficit ). Getting the House, Senate, and POTUS is more than just an act of Congress, It's a prayer to God.

You really are slow aren't you? Did you read the 57 words and then post this or just saw democrats and posted this or was this just a total lack of comprehension?

patteeu
05-19-2011, 07:22 AM
JFC the tax that would be passed on would amount to .04 cents on every gallon

I can't stand you stupid ****ing Republicans

When you're ready for a major tax reform that simplifies and flattens the tax code (so that different businesses/groups don't have specially targeted tax breaks like this and so that poor people don't continue to get these tax handouts in the form of lower rates) we can talk.

mlyonsd
05-19-2011, 07:22 AM
Why are oil company tax breaks being singled out here? I sense that someone needs a boogieman.

Of course they are the boogieman. Nevermind they're doing business just like any other industry. Democrats have to figure out some way to make sure they don't get blamed for high gas prices.

patteeu
05-19-2011, 07:27 AM
Appealing to authority is not always, and not even usually, a logical fallacy. Saying "historians believe this was the cause of WWII" is not illogical. That is completely rational. So in an argument about economics, appealing to economic authorities is actually pretty persuasive.

Where an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy is when the argument lies outside of the specialized expertise of the authority, or when it is claimed that the argument is finalized simply because of the authority on even the topic in question.

This is not correct. While it might be rational to trust experts in their field, it's still a logical fallacy to base an argument on what those experts say. It's not a logical fallacy if you're just telling someone what the experts say because in that case you're not presenting an argument. But if you're telling them what the experts say in order to bolster your argument it's always a logical fallacy even if what they say is 100% correct.

patteeu
05-19-2011, 07:29 AM
Of course they are the boogieman. Nevermind they're doing business just like any other industry. Democrats have to figure out some way to make sure they don't get blamed for high gas prices.

The thing that gets me in this discussion is that lately, at least, it's the democrats and Barack Obama who prefer targeted tax breaks over broad-based tax reductions. Targeted tax breaks of today become the special subsidies/loopholes for a boogieman industry tomorrow.

Jenson71
05-19-2011, 07:49 AM
But if you're telling them what the experts say in order to bolster your argument it's always a logical fallacy even if what they say is 100% correct.

No, it's not. That should strike you as intuitively stupid. Experts are brought into lawsuits everyday in order to bolster arguments, and they are persuasive.

Logical fallacy:
"Stephen Hawking says there is no God, thus, there is no God."

Not a logical fallacy:
"99% of all economists say raising interest rates would be a good thing now, thus, it probably is the case that raising interest rates would be a good thing."

They are inductive arguments, and they are not illogical.

mlyonsd
05-19-2011, 07:59 AM
The thing that gets me in this discussion is that lately, at least, it's the democrats and Barack Obama who prefer targeted tax breaks over broad-based tax reductions. Targeted tax breaks of today become the special subsidies/loopholes for a boogieman industry tomorrow.

Hey having a boogeyman can be a good thing.

Enter stage left - oil companies.

Everybody look, never mind we don't have a coherent energy policy because what we campaigned on is just plain foolishness but we don't dare do the right thing and go against our green thumbed wacky doped up base, THERE'S THE BOOGEYMAN!

patteeu
05-19-2011, 08:09 AM
No, it's not. That should strike you as intuitively stupid. Experts are brought into lawsuits everyday in order to bolster arguments, and they are persuasive.

Logical fallacy:
"Stephen Hawking says there is no God, thus, there is no God."

Not a logical fallacy:
"99% of all economists say raising interest rates would be a good thing now, thus, it probably is the case that raising interest rates would be a good thing."

They are inductive arguments, and they are not illogical.

I didn't say they were illogical. I said they were logical fallacies and they are. Citing an expert can certainly be persuasive, but it doesn't carry the argument logically. Experts can be wrong even within their own area of expertise.

Speaking of intuitively stupid, doesn't it strike you as idiotic to believe that the "appeal to authority" fallacy is only a fallacy when you're appealing to someone who isn't really an authority.

Edit: I probably shouldn't have used the word "bolster" in my previous post. I should have said:

But if you're telling them what the experts say in order to bolster prove your argument it's always a logical fallacy even if what they say is 100% correct.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2011, 08:21 AM
Not a logical fallacy:
"99% of all economists say raising interest rates would be a good thing now, thus, it probably is the case that raising interest rates would be a good thing."

They are inductive arguments, and they are not illogical.

Yet, look how many of the alleged experts, who run our Federal Reserve, were for keeping interest rates so low, it led to the financial crisis because of all the cheaply available credit. This created a false boom. These things are always followed by busts which we're in now.

No, the point is experts are not always right and they can be wrong and they can be proven wrong. I mean even in a court of law, one side has their expert and then the other side has their expert who disagrees with the other expert.

There are areas, where one must rely on experts, but not for knowing what a subsidy versus a tax credit is. That's easy and simple unless one can't confront truth. Those calling one way people or businesses can keep what is already theirs first, a subsidy are mis-assigning ownership of funds. They do so because they are trained as ideologues that have a sense of property that is communistic. I.E it belongs to the people or the govt first. It is definitely a case of socialist Newspeak.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2011, 08:23 AM
And I posted that oil (Exxon specifically) enjoyed a tax rate of 18% compared to an average tax rate of 28% for all U.S. businesses - a direct answer to a Donger question - as demonstrating that they're getting special breaks that other industries don't.

I haven't gone back to check to be exact because I just got here, but I believe you responded to me when I was responding to something else.

Calling it a special break I think is fair....but not a subsidy. Then again, maybe they get it because of the great need by the public, especially the govt which is using lots of fuel in it's perpetual wars. ( which also drives the cost up as it creates uncertainty in markets)
How is that special break, any different than there being a special break in copyright law for education?
I am sure there are plenty of other special breaks for other industries.

FishingRod
05-19-2011, 08:26 AM
p.s. This is easy, no math involved. You have to file your taxes to claim the credits.

So what you and this article are saying is that if they have $100 and the pay a reduced amount of taxes, let’s say an incredibly reduced amount of only $2.00 that $100.00 - $2.00 > $100.00? I still don’t get it.

Oil companies like every other competently run business take every single deduction they can get away with. It is their obligation to the shareholders to do just that,. If you have a stock mutual fund of any kind you most likely are one and benefit from it. The idea that they are somehow different has perpetuated since at least the Carter years and his attempt to slap them with a “windfall” profit tax. I do believe that eliminating most deductions for all business in conjunction with lowering and simplifying our Tax code would be a net gain for the country. If nothing else by reducing the need to hire so many people to collect the taxes in the first place. Now if the real goal is to increase revenue going from the private sector and redirect it into the federal Governments pocket, oil companies are probably one of the more fair ways to do so. Virtually every single item in our economy is affected by the price of fuel, so the increased monies flowing into the Federal coffers would be shared by every man woman and child in the country as these increased expenses are passed along to the consumer. It is just an extremely dishonest attempt to make people think the Government is going to stick it to the “other” guy and “we” going to get something for nothing. S.O.P.

orange
05-19-2011, 10:42 AM
That's because I only care about the total amount of taxes they pay.

And I only care about what they pay IN AMERICA TO AMERICA.

I really, REALLY don't give a shit what they pay in Nigeria. Nor should America's Congress.

orange
05-19-2011, 10:46 AM
And I only care about what they pay IN AMERICA TO AMERICA.

I really, REALLY don't give a shit what they pay in Nigeria. Nor should America's Congress.

-- but not a cent went to the IRS for income taxes. That's because the oil giant does business in some of the mostly highly taxed countries in the world. Want to extract petroleum in Nigeria? Be prepared to fork over up to 85% of your profit in tax payments.


I don't know why you can't understand that. It seems fundamental to me. Should we not charge sales tax on imports because those poor companies have payed VAT etc. in their countries of origin?

orange
05-19-2011, 10:50 AM
Hence my question, which was about their effective tax rate.

And their EFFECTIVE TAX RATE is over one third less than the average for American businesses. I don't know why you can't understand that, either. 17.6% vx. 27.7%. From their own numbers that they themselves publish.

The Mad Crapper
05-19-2011, 11:05 AM
Hey having a boogeyman can be a good thing.

Enter stage left - oil companies.

Everybody look, never mind we don't have a coherent energy policy because what we campaigned on is just plain foolishness but we don't dare do the right thing and go against our green thumbed wacky doped up base, THERE'S THE BOOGEYMAN!

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/LightBulbs_ForChange.gif

Donger
05-19-2011, 11:07 AM
And their EFFECTIVE TAX RATE is over one third less than the average for American businesses. I don't know why you can't understand that, either. 17.6% vx. 27.7%. From their own numbers that they themselves publish.

I'm not sure where you are getting that, honestly.

Here:

And for those who still say oil and natural gas companies “don’t pay their fair share” compared to other companies, consider this: ExxonMobil’s effective tax rate for 2009 was about 47 percent; a recent study found that the tax rate for U.S. oil and gas companies is about 20 points higher than the rest of the S&P Industrials. I’d consider that more than our fair share.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2010/12/14/exxonmobil-is-a-leading-u-s-taxpayer/

orange
05-19-2011, 11:09 AM
So what you and this article are saying is that if they have $100 and the pay a reduced amount of taxes, let’s say an incredibly reduced amount of only $2.00 that $100.00 - $2.00 > $100.00? I still don’t get it.

You seem to have selective blindness. You don't see the word "CREDITS." That means money from the government to the company. That means "if they have $100 and they pay a reduced amount of taxes, let's say an incredibly reduced amount of only $2.00" and they receive a $5.00 CREDIT from the government that $100.00 - $2.00 + $5.00 > $100.00. Yes, it is.

...

Exxon made $30 billion profit last year, after all their taxes and expenses (next highest American company was AT&T at $19 billion). That's according to Fortune 500, but who believes them.They've made $11 billion profit in the first quarter of 2011. Poor, poor big oil.

orange
05-19-2011, 11:14 AM
I'm not sure where you are getting that, honestly.

Here:

And for those who still say oil and natural gas companies “don’t pay their fair share” compared to other companies, consider this: ExxonMobil’s effective tax rate for 2009 was about 47 percent; a recent study found that the tax rate for U.S. oil and gas companies is about 20 points higher than the rest of the S&P Industrials. I’d consider that more than our fair share.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2010/12/14/exxonmobil-is-a-leading-u-s-taxpayer/

How many times do I have to keep posting this?

Wrong.

Different years, different numbers. I'm sure it's quite accurate - they're getting their numbers from ExxonMobil.

Here's some more Socialists on the topic (CNNMoney):

Tax bills for 5 corporate giants
2 of 5
Exxon Mobil: $15.1 billion
U.S. federal: -$156 million
U.S. state and local: $110 million
International: $15.2 billion

Exxon paid the most taxes last year of any U.S. company, by far -- but not a cent went to the IRS for income taxes. That's because the oil giant does business in some of the mostly highly taxed countries in the world. Want to extract petroleum in Nigeria? Be prepared to fork over up to 85% of your profit in tax payments.

Exxon doled out more than $15 billion in income tax payments to foreign countries last year. U.S. tax codes allow companies to take massive deductions in light of those international charges, which knocked Exxon's federal income-tax bill down into negative territory.
That said, Uncle Sam gets his money in other ways. Including sales taxes and duties, Exxon recorded $7.7 billion in U.S. tax costs last year, and paid even more overseas.

Its grand total in GLOBAL taxes for the year? A whopping $78.6 billion. The company's effective income tax rate was a hefty 47%, its highest in three years.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/2.html

The bottom line is probably around what American Progress and Washington Post reported. Oh, and SOURCE: Exxon Mobil.

There's the 47% your company mouthpiece is talking about. The exact same number. It's almost as if CNNMoney knows what the hell they're talking about.

Donger
05-19-2011, 11:28 AM
How many times do I have to keep posting this?

[/SIZE]

There's the 47% your company mouthpiece is talking about. The exact same number. It's almost as if CNNMoney knows what the hell they're talking about.

Oh, I see now where you are getting hung up. You are taking issue with the tax code that lets Exxon recoup some of the exorbitant taxation overseas? 85% taxation in Nigeria for a product that you must have?

You wouldn't want to pay that directly, right? You'd prefer to have Exxon not get the deductions and pay $6.00/gallon?

I think the "real" numbers are probably somewhere between Exxon's and American Progress. Can we agree on that?

FishingRod
05-19-2011, 11:29 AM
Orange and the rest,

I think for the most part we are arguing about the pissants and ignoring the Elephants. Call it a Tax, a subsidy, a deduction whatever one wants, the net result is that our congressmen want more money. To get to the very core, lets ignore the argument as to if they operate under less or more favorable rules than the average company. Do we want the Oil companies to take large sums of monies from the private sector and transfer it to the Federal Government? If the answer is yes, do you mind everyone paying higher prices for virtually everything as a result of these same companies charging higher prices to make up for this happening and thus impacting the price of every item made with petroleum products or anything that has to be transported in the United States?

The Mad Crapper
05-19-2011, 11:33 AM
American Progress.

LMAO at commie orange.

orange
05-19-2011, 11:40 AM
I think the "real" numbers are probably somewhere between Exxon's and American Progress. Can we agree on that?

No, we can't agree on that. That's fundamentally dishonest. American Progress' numbers ARE Exxon's numbers. They are the SAME numbers the Washington Post, Forbes, CNNMoney, Fortune, et al., use. They are the numbers EXXON reports to its stock holders and the SEC, which are public record and circulated in the financial press. No amount of misdirection by Exxon/Oil Industry mouthpieces can change that.

The REAL (no quotes) numbers ARE American Progress' numbers. Can we agree on that?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/05/12/Business/Images/oiltax12-g.jpg

The Mad Crapper
05-19-2011, 11:41 AM
No, we can't agree on that. That's fundamentally dishonest. American Progress' numbers ARE Exxon's numbers. They are the SAME numbers the Washington Post, Forbes, CNNMoney, et al., use. They are the numbers EXXON reports to its stock holders and the SEC, which are public record and circulated in the financial press.

The REAL (no quotes) numbers ARE American Progress' numbers. Can we agree on that?

http://www.moonbattery.com/Stanley-Thornton.jpg

Donger
05-19-2011, 11:42 AM
No, we can't agree on that. That's fundamentally dishonest. American Progress' numbers ARE Exxon's numbers. They are the SAME numbers the Washington Post, Forbes, CNNMoney, et al., use. They are the numbers EXXON reports to its stock holders and the SEC, which are public record and circulated in the financial press.

The REAL (no quotes) numbers ARE American Progress' numbers. Can we agree on that?

No, I think that American Progress numbers are horribly flawed. Let's just agree that you don't like "Big Oil" and wish that they paid more taxes (that they'd just pass along to you, since I presume you use their product). That's like a junkie bitching about the dealer.

I see you added that cute chart again. Did you notice that the 18% excludes state taxes by chance? And, didn't you post something earlier that stated that EM didn't pay any federal income taxes? If so, perhaps you should pick the data you want to hang your hat on?

orange
05-19-2011, 11:53 AM
No, I think that American Progress numbers are horribly flawed. Let's just agree that you don't like "Big Oil" and wish that they paid more taxes (that they'd just pass along to you, since I presume you use their product). That's like a junkie bitching about the dealer.

I see you added that cute chart again. Did you notice that the 18% excludes state taxes by chance? And, didn't you post something earlier that stated that EM didn't pay any federal income taxes? If so, perhaps you should pick the data you want to hang your hat on?

You are so far out of whack I'm not going any farther around this circle with you.

- American Progress: "Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate on its annual earnings in the three years spanning 2008 to 2010. Its average domestic profits exceeded $6.8 billion."
- Washington Post chart: 18% excluding state taxes.

Those are THE SAME NUMBER. FEDERAL excludes state taxes.

- American Progress/Washington Post/Source: Exxon Mobil number: "three years spanning 2008 to 2010"
- CNNMoney number (the very same numbers your Exxon source cites): one year, 2010

....

Done.

patteeu or mlyonsd - educate him.

Donger
05-19-2011, 11:54 AM
You are so far out of whack I'm not going any farther around this circle with you.

American Progress: "Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate on its annual earnings in the three years spanning 2008 to 2010. Its average domestic profits exceeded $6.8 billion."
Washington Post chart: 18% excluding state taxes.

Those are THE SAME NUMBER.

American Progress/Washington Post/Source: Exxon Mobil number: "three years spanning 2008 to 2010"
CNNMoney number: one year, 2010


....

Done.

patteeu or mlyonsd - educate him.

Yeah, I get that. But what is their effective tax rate if state taxes are included?

orange
05-19-2011, 12:01 PM
Yeah, I get that. But what is their effective tax rate if state taxes are included?

It's not germane to this conversation, but I bet you can figure it out from numbers on this very page.

I get 20.8%. Still far under the 27.7% average for American businesses (unless, of course, WSJ/Business Roundtable - Socialists all - were lying about that).

orange
05-19-2011, 12:07 PM
Orange and the rest,

I think for the most part we are arguing about the pissants and ignoring the Elephants. Call it a Tax, a subsidy, a deduction whatever one wants, the net result is that our congressmen want more money. To get to the very core, lets ignore the argument as to if they operate under less or more favorable rules than the average company. Do we want the Oil companies to take large sums of monies from the private sector and transfer it to the Federal Government? If the answer is yes, do you mind everyone paying higher prices for virtually everything as a result of these same companies charging higher prices to make up for this happening and thus impacting the price of every item made with petroleum products or anything that has to be transported in the United States?

Are you serious about getting rid of the deficit or not? If you're serious, you're going to have to raise taxes. If you're going to raise taxes, why not start by evening out taxes that are out of alignment? And as I said to you way back, if you had a company competing with other companies for investments, wouldn't you like to be on a level playing field with those other companies?

Donger
05-19-2011, 12:17 PM
It's not germane to this conversation, but I bet you can figure it out from numbers on this very page.

I get 20.8%. Still far under the 27.7% average for American businesses (unless, of course, WSJ/Business Roundtable - Socialists all - were lying about that).

Meh. So, would you or would you not be okay with EM raising the price of your gasoline to cover the removal of their tax deductions that they have to cover the exorbitant overseas taxes they have to pay?

patteeu
05-19-2011, 01:07 PM
And I only care about what they pay IN AMERICA TO AMERICA.

I really, REALLY don't give a shit what they pay in Nigeria. Nor should America's Congress.

America's Congress should care because it affects whether businesses choose to operate in the US or move overseas. If an American business is subject to this kind of double taxation but a Spanish business isn't, why would you choose to be an American business, all else being equal?

FishingRod
05-19-2011, 01:30 PM
Are you serious about getting rid of the deficit or not? If you're serious, you're going to have to raise taxes. If you're going to raise taxes, why not start by evening out taxes that are out of alignment? And as I said to you way back, if you had a company competing with other companies for investments, wouldn't you like to be on a level playing field with those other companies?

Of course everyone wants to compete on a level playing field. They certainly don’t but everyone would like to. If you don’t think the 85% of the cost of buying oil that is Taxes in another country should count as part of the expense, you are not very serious about a level or fair playing field. Again, I want to just boil it down to the very basic truth that congress wants more money. The last projected numbers for the United States for 2011 are that we should have a GNP of about 13.5 Trillion dollars, and estimated Federal Tax revenue of about 2.2 trillion. Along with that we had a Federal spending request from the Obama administration of about 3.7 Trillion dollars leaving more or less a deficit of about 1.5 Trillion. These are rough numbers but they will work fine for this discussion. Ok, the 2.2 trillion that the federal government collects if it were its own country, would make it the 4th or 5th largest economy in the world. Since that is not enough money we add 1.5 Trillion more. This 1.5 is roughly equal to the entire GNP of Russia or India. If a person were very wealthy and wanted to pay back the deficit for just this one year and started throwing $1.00 bills at an IRS agent dressed up like a stripper and say you gave one every second. Day and night, night and day 7 days a week with no breaks, it would take 47,304 years to pay that back assuming no interest were charged. This does not include State and Local. We have a spending problem and giving these idiots even more money is not going to fix it. Let me see just one time that their budget is actually not any larger than the year before (and I don’t count smaller increases as cuts) then I entertain the idea that the new monies might actually go into reducing the deficit.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2011, 01:32 PM
Call it a Tax, a subsidy, a deduction whatever one wants, the net result is that our congressmen want more money.

Exactly....and that's what the problem is—spending. Until we are completly owned.

Only thing is whenever there are tax increases spending increases more. The politicians are dishonest about it. I, for one, am sick of 'em on both sides of the aisle.

orange
05-19-2011, 01:34 PM
America's Congress should care because it affects whether businesses choose to operate in the US or move overseas. If an American business is subject to this kind of double taxation but a Spanish business isn't, why would you choose to be an American business, all else being equal?

I think a business doing business in America should be taxed by America for the business they do in America - wherever they happen to be based. BP - they're a British company, right? They still pay taxes in America (arguably, when they're not losing money), don't they?

I find it highly unlikely that America - the world's biggest consumer of oil by far - is not the oil companies' biggest source of revenue. And I find it equally highly unlikely that they will take their ball and go home.

mnchiefsguy
05-19-2011, 01:36 PM
I think a business doing business in America should be taxed by America for the business they do in America.

I find it highly unlikely that America - the world's biggest biggest consumer of oil by far - is not the oil companies' biggest source of revenue. And I find it equally highly unlikely that they will take their ball and go home.

They won't take their ball and go home, but they will charge a lot more for the ball, so in the end the consumer is the one who will pay the higher tax you advocate.

orange
05-19-2011, 01:43 PM
Ok, the 2.2 trillion that the federal government collects if it were its own country, would make it the 4th or 5th largest economy in the world. Since that is not enough money we add 1.5 Trillion more. This 1.5 is roughly equal to the entire GNP of Russia or India.

Then I guess we must dwarf those other economies. GOOD!!! Then we can afford to treat our workers and retirees better, and provide health coverage, et al. Hallelujah!

orange
05-19-2011, 01:46 PM
They won't take their ball and go home, but they will charge a lot more for the ball, so in the end the consumer is the one who will pay the higher tax you advocate.

They charge what the market will bear. Now and always. If you think they're holding down prices you're delusional.

mnchiefsguy
05-19-2011, 01:54 PM
They charge what the market will bear. Now and always. If you think they're holding down prices you're delusional.

I do not think they are holding down prices, but I have no doubt that if you charge them more in taxes, that they will immediately pass those taxes on to their customers. Big Oil will still get rich, but we will be paying significantly more in gasoline prices.

patteeu
05-19-2011, 02:36 PM
I think a business doing business in America should be taxed by America for the business they do in America - wherever they happen to be based. BP - they're a British company, right? They still pay taxes in America (arguably, when they're not losing money), don't they?

I find it highly unlikely that America - the world's biggest consumer of oil by far - is not the oil companies' biggest source of revenue. And I find it equally highly unlikely that they will take their ball and go home.

That's the kind of "we've got them by the balls" attitude that's slowly transforming our country into a non-competitive, slothful consumer nation instead of the lean production-focused global competitor we need to be, IMO. We aren't always going to be the biggest consumer in the world. Our share of global consumption drops every year.

It reminds me of the people who think they're getting something for nothing when they finance a downtown arena with hotel and rental car taxes instead of paying for it more directly.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2011, 02:38 PM
They charge what the market will bear. Now and always. If you think they're holding down prices you're delusional.

The market will always have the last say....even in a socialism. That's the lines they create to get a product because govt set prices.

FishingRod
05-19-2011, 02:41 PM
Then I guess we must dwarf those other economies. GOOD!!! Then we can afford to treat our workers and retirees better, and provide health coverage, et al. Hallelujah!

Yes one would think that by spending close to $12,000 per every man woman and child not including State and local Taxes, the Government could provide all of those things but they are not. They must need more funding. If all those things we should be able to do, could be done, what percent of “your” income would you be willing to give up? 30% 50% 80%, more? I'm at about the limit I'm willing to kick in for the overall wellfare and common defense.

orange
05-19-2011, 02:55 PM
That's the kind of "we've got them by the balls" attitude that's slowly transforming our country into a non-competitive, slothful consumer nation instead of the lean production-focused global competitor we need to be, IMO. We aren't always going to be the biggest consumer in the world. Our share of global consumption drops every year.


I think our future has a lot more to do with the high tech industries than with the mature/nearly moribund oil industry. The high tech industries which have effective tax rates in the single digits (not heretofore mentioned in this thread). Where our tax breaks are and should be concentrated.

And it will also help when a tax break specifically intended to encourage domestic manufacturing is not exploited by oil companies that don't manufacture domestically. And when tax breaks passed in 1916 to jumpstart risky drilling are not exploited long, long after any risk has passed. And that perhaps the most profitable industry in the country is not given favorable tax treatment in general.

Chocolate Hog
05-19-2011, 03:14 PM
Good. Gas is too fucking expensive right now and any government intervention toward oil companies will be passed onto the consumer.

Jenson71
05-19-2011, 03:22 PM
I didn't say they were illogical. I said they were logical fallacies and they are. Citing an expert can certainly be persuasive, but it doesn't carry the argument logically. Experts can be wrong even within their own area of expertise.

Speaking of intuitively stupid, doesn't it strike you as idiotic to believe that the "appeal to authority" fallacy is only a fallacy when you're appealing to someone who isn't really an authority.

Edit: I probably shouldn't have used the word "bolster" in my previous post. I should have said:

In other words, you are agreeing to everything I've said and just wanted to argue. Great.

orange
05-19-2011, 03:47 PM
On a mostly party-line vote, the Senate on Tuesday defeated a Democratic measure to strip major oil companies of about $20 billion in tax subsidies over the next 10 years and use the savings to pay down the deficit.

$20 billion over 10 years. :hmmm:

If that was entirely tacked on to American gasoline prices, what would that be?

U.S. gasoline consumption uses 9 million barrels of oil per day. Each barrel produces 19.15 gallons of gasoline.
http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=442

So:

19.15 gallons/barrel * 9 million barrels/day = 172.35 million gallons/day
That's gallons of gasoline used each day in the U.S.

172.35 million gallons/day * 365 days/year * 10 years = 629,078 million gallons = 629 billion gallons
That's the total gasoline we will burn in 10 years.

$20 billion / 629 billion gallons = 3.2 cents/gallon

3.2 cents/gallon. LMAO

Donger
05-19-2011, 03:49 PM
$20 billion over 10 years. :hmmm:

If that was entirely tacked on to American gasoline prices, what would that be?

U.S. gasoline consumption uses 9 billion barrels of oil per day. Each barrel produces 19.15 gallons of gasoline.
http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=442

So:

19.15 gallons/barrel * 9 billion barrels/day = 172.35 billion gallons/day
That's gallons of gasoline used each day in the U.S.

172.35 billion gallons/day * 365 days/year * 10 years = 629,078 billion gallons
That's the total gasoline we will burn in 10 years.

$20 billion / 629,078 billion gallons = .0032 cents/gallon

.0032 cents/gallon. LMAO

We don't use 9 billion barrels per day.

mnchiefsguy
05-19-2011, 03:50 PM
$20 billion over 10 years. :hmmm:

If that was entirely tacked on to American gasoline prices, what would that be?

U.S. gasoline consumption uses 9 billion barrels of oil per day. Each barrel produces 19.15 gallons of gasoline.
http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=442

So:

19.15 gallons/barrel * 9 billion barrels/day = 172.35 billion gallons/day
That's gallons of gasoline used each day in the U.S.

172.35 billion gallons/day * 365 days/year * 10 years = 629,078 billion gallons
That's the total gasoline we will burn in 10 years.

$20 billion / 629,078 billion gallons = .0032 cents/gallon

.0032 cents/gallon. LMAO

Now, you know that once Big Oil has an excuse to raise prices, that they will raise them more than necessary to make more profit. Common sense dictates that the rate increase would be much more significant than .0032 cents a gallon, especially when Big Oil can blame Congress and the President and make them into the bad guy.

orange
05-19-2011, 03:51 PM
We don't use 9 billion barrels per day.

Take it up with www.project.org... or find me a better number. (They claim they got the number from the Department of Energy - more Socialist liars, or perhaps they just misread; good place to start looking, though).

"The national yearly average motor gasoline fuel consumption in the millions of barrels per day"
http://www.project.org/images/graphs/Gasoline_Consumption.jpg

[edit] Maybe I need an eye check. Calculation above corrected.

Donger
05-19-2011, 03:56 PM
Take it up with www.project.org... or find me a better number. (They claim they got the number from the Department of Energy - more Socialist liars, or perhaps they just misread; good place to start looking, though).

I don't need to take it up with them. You either read their data wrong or they are wrong. Our crude consumption in total is ~20 million barrels/day.

Donger
05-19-2011, 03:57 PM
Take it up with www.project.org... or find me a better number. (They claim they got the number from the Department of Energy - more Socialist liars, or perhaps they just misread; good place to start looking, though).

"The national yearly average motor gasoline fuel consumption in the millions of barrels per day"
http://www.project.org/images/graphs/Gasoline_Consumption.jpg

Like I said, we don't use 9 billion barrels/day.

Radar Chief
05-19-2011, 04:02 PM
So an M looks like a B and 9 is close to 20. ROFL

orange
05-19-2011, 04:04 PM
Now, you know that once Big Oil has an excuse to raise prices, that they will raise them more than necessary to make more profit. Common sense dictates that the rate increase would be much more significant than .0032 cents a gallon, especially when Big Oil can blame Congress and the President and make them into the bad guy.

Again, you imagine they need a pretext to raise prices. What's the pretext for the current price rise?

Donger
05-19-2011, 04:05 PM
Again, you imagine they need a pretext to raise prices. What's the pretext for the current price rise?

The price of crude is going up, so the price of gasoline is going up accordingly.

orange
05-19-2011, 04:08 PM
And the price of crude is/was going up why?

Forget I even asked that, it just doesn't matter. The point is 3.2 cents/gallon. That's what this bill would add to gasoline prices - that's IF the whole tax is added directly to just U.S. gasoline prices and nothing else.

Donger
05-19-2011, 04:10 PM
And the price of crude is/was going up why?

You are welcome, by the way.

Various reasons: speculation, lost supply from Libya, falling dollar, etc.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2011, 04:21 PM
And the price of crude is/was going up why?

Forget I even asked that, it just doesn't matter. The point is 3.2 cents/gallon. That's what this bill would add to gasoline prices - that's IF the whole tax is added directly to just U.S. gasoline prices and nothing else.

War for one reason. It shakes up markets. You have to use an aggregate in this case as the supply is threatened even if we mainly buy from Canada. In order to curb demand to ensure supplies, you raise prices even if it means a big profit then. It's a wise move to preserve your inventory. Have you ever run a business? Doesn't sound like it.

Another reason is the falling dollar which will make imports expensive.

orange
05-19-2011, 04:25 PM
Various reasons: speculation, lost supply from Libya, falling dollar, etc.

War for one reason. It shakes up markets. You have to use an aggregate in this case as the supply is threatened even if we mainly buy from Canada. In order to curb demand to ensure supplies, you raise prices even if it means a big profit then. It's a wise move to preserve your inventory. Have you ever run a business? Doesn't sound like it.


I backed off that question because there are already threads devoted to it; no reason to derail this one.

You are welcome, by the way.


... And thank you.

Donger
05-19-2011, 04:29 PM
I backed off that question because there are already threads devoted to it; no reason to derail this one.



... And thank you.

:thumb:

patteeu
05-19-2011, 05:37 PM
In other words, you are agreeing to everything I've said and just wanted to argue. Great.

If what you said was "I was wrong in post 67", then I'm agreeing with you.