Subby failed to read the entire article. Funny how much criticism of Obama comes from only listening to 1 out of every 3 words he says.

Atillathepun: Subby failed to read the entire article. Funny how much criticism of Obama comes from only listening to 1 out of every 3 words he says.

It's all they have.

Obama proposes oil companies be taxed on windfall profits from oil sold at or above 80 dollars a barrel, and the revenue be used to help relieve the burden of rising prices on working people,

that is not only unworkable, it is supremely stupid. I am dumber for having read that.

Why is it unworkable?

The only thing more stupid than this proposal is anyone who supports it. By all means, tie a major fiscal policy to the price of a commodity largely driven by a cartel foreign producers.

Nabb1: o the price of a commodity largely driven by a cartel foreign producers.

Uh, no, the change in oil price and a gallon of gas is almost entirely thanks to the falling dollar, and somewhat thanks to the increased consumption in India and China.

// And thanks to the Fed, which is privately owned and partly foreign owned. This particular mess isn't OPECs doing.

Nabb1: The only thing more stupid than this proposal is anyone who supports it. By all means, tie a major fiscal policy to the price of a commodity largely driven by a cartel foreign producers.

Isn't that exactly what we have now?

Well, living in California and paying $4+ a gallon, I'd rather just have the Federal government standardized gas additives to increase competition and not leave us with shiatty gas at high prices.

This great bit of strategic thinking has led to California only having 6 refineries service the state and allowing them to charge whatever they want. At this time it is about .50 more than most other states. 10 years ago this must have sounded like a great idea, hey, gas was $1.19. I still remember complaining when gas jumped to $1.59 and never went back down.

Now I care less, higher gas prices mean less assholes on the road and less SUVs. I drive a civic to work and am close enough to walk to almost everything I need. I actually find it funny how the price of SUVs has devalued over the past year as they try to unload it for anything they can ($50,000 hummers going for $25,000). No one is buying them. This all adds up to the same thing the gas formulation rules were trying to accomplish: reduced emissions.

Time to open up the farking market.

Croooow!: Why is it unworkable?

Because the tax that is "paid" by the oil companies will actually be paid by the dude gassing up his car. Then, the feds will give him his money back thru some wacky rebate or something. Absolutely farking brilliant.

slobarnuts
Ramen, brother.

/ramen is not in teh Firefox default dictionary
//I'm getting the red lines under it

dj_bigbird: Because the tax that is "paid" by the oil companies will actually be paid by the dude gassing up his car. Then, the feds will give him his money back thru some wacky rebate or something. Absolutely farking brilliant.

By that logic, taxes paid by consumers raises taxes on corporations because consumers can't buy as much of the corporations' product.

So is your answer to tax no one?

How come the canned economics arguments always only come from the point of view of the top down?

illathepun: How come the canned economics arguments always only come from the point of view of the top down?

Do you know what the term loaded cost means?

Taxes are considered part of the loaded cost that we incorporate into the price of our products.

Oh, and if the taxes are so high that it effects our ability to sell our products we look to cut costs elsewhere. Can you say wages, benefits and jobs?

Tunk87: Do you know what the term loaded cost means?

Taxes are considered part of the loaded cost that we incorporate into the price of our products.

Oh, and if the taxes are so high that it effects our ability to sell our products we look to cut costs elsewhere. Can you say wages, benefits and jobs?

Here's a hint: A tax on ANYONE is a "hidden tax" on someone else. . .so why do people only focus on the top-down "hidden tax"? Understand my point yet? You're indulging in a BS and dishonest argument by ONLY bringing up "hidden tax" when it comes to producers.

um... let's see...

oil company record profits: check.
oil company tax cuts for the past few years: check
...

record oil prices: check

got it.

Atillathepun: Tunk87: Do you know what the term loaded cost means?

Taxes are considered part of the loaded cost that we incorporate into the price of our products.

Oh, and if the taxes are so high that it effects our ability to sell our products we look to cut costs elsewhere. Can you say wages, benefits and jobs?

Here's a hint: A tax on ANYONE is a "hidden tax" on someone else. . .so why do people only focus on the top-down "hidden tax"? Understand my point yet? You're indulging in a BS and dishonest argument by ONLY bringing up "hidden tax" when it comes to producers.

Do me a favor and run a business before you try and call BS on something that happens everyday.

Tunk87: Atillathepun: Tunk87: Do you know what the term loaded cost means?

Taxes are considered part of the loaded cost that we incorporate into the price of our products.

Oh, and if the taxes are so high that it effects our ability to sell our products we look to cut costs elsewhere. Can you say wages, benefits and jobs?

Here's a hint: A tax on ANYONE is a "hidden tax" on someone else. . .so why do people only focus on the top-down "hidden tax"? Understand my point yet? You're indulging in a BS and dishonest argument by ONLY bringing up "hidden tax" when it comes to producers.

Do me a favor and run a business before you try and call BS on something that happens everyday.

Can you read? Seriously. How the HELL are you missing my point?

Atillathepun: Can you read? Seriously. How the HELL are you missing my point?

Dude. It's not even worth it...

Yes, by all means, let us pass the wages of our sins unto our children, and upon their children, and upon their children, and upon their children's children. That's the American way.

burndtdan: um... let's see...
oil company record profits: check.
oil company tax cuts for the past few years: check
...record oil prices: check
got it.

Nope... I don't believe you do. Large profits don't necessarily mean large profit margins. An if thats the real crime of "obscene" profits then you had better look elsewhere to get your pound of flesh first.



In short, they make more every year because they sell more every year.

dj_bigbird: Because the tax that is "paid" by the oil companies will actually be paid by the dude gassing up his car. Then, the feds will give him his money back thru some wacky rebate or something. Absolutely farking brilliant.

Wouldn't this argument work for every single tax on anyone who sells anything?

dj_bigbird: Because the tax that is "paid" by the oil companies will actually be paid by the dude gassing up his car. Then, the feds will give him his money back thru some wacky rebate or something. Absolutely farking brilliant.

Except companies pass the price to the consumer as the last possible resort, because it lowers your profits.

I hate people who don't understand this simple-ass principle.

DamnYankees: Wouldn't this argument work for every single tax on anyone who sells or buys anything?

FTFY

maybe, but the could then use that revenue to reduce the tax on gas, and pass THAT on to the customer.

That would do a lot of good for the american public, thats for damn sure.

Obdicut: dj_bigbird: Because the tax that is "paid" by the oil companies will actually be paid by the dude gassing up his car. Then, the feds will give him his money back thru some wacky rebate or something. Absolutely farking brilliant.

Except companies pass the price to the consumer as the last possible resort, because it lowers your profits.

I hate people who don't understand this simple-ass principle.

Maybe they realize that it doesn't necessarily apply to goods the consumer MUST buy, as opposed to discretionary products?

Nabb1: The only thing more stupid than this proposal is anyone who supports it. By all means, tie a major fiscal policy to the price of a commodity largely driven by a cartel foreign producers.

By all means, let the dumbass that thinks we should attack Iran tell us what's best for the American consumer vis a vis oil prices.

Where the hell did Sloth_DC and the other intelligent conservatives Farkers go?

"Obama's answer to rising gas prices is to raise taxes on oil companies, because they would never do anything like pass a tax increase on to their customers"

Of course, if he were to lower taxes for the oil companies they would automatically lower prices so the tax cuts would not increase their profits, right?

conservatives Farkers

Meh.

BravadoGT: Maybe they realize that it doesn't necessarily apply to goods the consumer MUST buy, as opposed to discretionary products?


Maybe they don't realize that oil is not such a product, in any way, shape, or form?

The world market can absorb X oil at Y price. It's a continuum. Like everything else. Oil prices are rising because they keep production artificially low, and demand is ever-growing.

A tax is just a cost like any other cost. Companies don't treat it any differently than any other tax-per-unit.

Jon Snow: Where the hell did Sloth_DC and the other intelligent conservatives Farkers go?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know where sloth_dc is, and you might be able to guess as well.

Jon Snow: By all means, let the dumbass that thinks we should attack Iran tell us what's best for the American consumer vis a vis oil prices.

Where the hell did Sloth_DC and the other intelligent conservatives Farkers go?

Indeed, I miss people that I can actually have a debate with, rather than the current bunch of trolls.

I'm not an economist by any means but since the infrastructure is limited and aging doesn't it follow that giving tax breaks to companies that build modernized and clean refineries could be a good way to lower gas prices?

I generally like Obama, but this doesn't sound like such a good idea...

Right now the price of oil is as high as it is purely because of speculators. That's it.

Also increased taxes lower post tax revenues, so if you increase prices, you also increse pretax revenues. Sure you eventually get your post tax revenues to where they were before, but you've also increase your tax liability more.

Atillathepun: Tunk87: Do you know what the term loaded cost means?

Taxes are considered part of the loaded cost that we incorporate into the price of our products.

Oh, and if the taxes are so high that it effects our ability to sell our products we look to cut costs elsewhere. Can you say wages, benefits and jobs?

Here's a hint: A tax on ANYONE is a "hidden tax" on someone else. . .so why do people only focus on the top-down "hidden tax"? Understand my point yet? You're indulging in a BS and dishonest argument by ONLY bringing up "hidden tax" when it comes to producers.

Agreed. Anyone who can't figure this out is too dumb to understand economics.

For the sake of the slow and the conservative (but I repeat myself), here's an example.

I buy video games. So, I buy about $400 worth of video game-related stuff (consoles, controllers, the games themselves) a year.
If you raise my taxes, you make it so that I only buy $300 worth of video games. Congratulations, you just established an indirect tax on Nintendo, Sony, etc.
I have passed on that tax burden to Nintendo by reducing their profit by a certain amount.

It's the exact same argument as "raising taxes on [company X] is an indirect tax on their customers".

TheCid: I buy video games. So, I buy about $400 worth of video game-related stuff (consoles, controllers, the games themselves) a year.
If you raise my taxes, you make it so that I only buy $300 worth of video games. Congratulations, you just established an indirect tax on Nintendo, Sony, etc.
I have passed on that tax burden to Nintendo by reducing their profit by a certain amount.

Except that Nintendo can reduce operations and keep the same profit margin.

Atillathepun:

How come the canned economics arguments always only come from the point of view of the top down?

There's no failure like Supply-Side economics failure.

/too bad idiots still think it's a good way to run an economy

And to avoid any confusion, Atilla, I was just adding on to your comment. I wasn't trying to suggest that you were the one making the "supply-side Jesus will save our economy" argument.

slobarnuts: TheCid: I buy video games. So, I buy about $400 worth of video game-related stuff (consoles, controllers, the games themselves) a year.
If you raise my taxes, you make it so that I only buy $300 worth of video games. Congratulations, you just established an indirect tax on Nintendo, Sony, etc.
I have passed on that tax burden to Nintendo by reducing their profit by a certain amount.

Except that Nintendo can reduce operations and keep the same profit margin.

Which means that it's even better to tax the companies than it is to tax the individuals.

I pay $X for raw materials for my product.
I sell the finished good for $Y.

Y-X is my profit.

I pay 30% on Y-X.

Where does this get passed on to the consumer?

Shaggy_C: I pay $X for raw materials for my product.
I sell the finished good for $Y.

Y-X is my profit.

I pay 30% on Y-X.

Where does this get passed on to the consumer?

Leave logic out of this, we're talking about economics.

So Obama wants to raise the gas tax, driving consumption down and forcing people to look at cheaper alternatives, fostering new economic growth in the green manufacturing sector, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and Middle Eastern despots, and reducing gases that lead to global warming?

Can I vote for him, like today?

/I might want to cuddle afterwards.

Shaggy_C: I pay $X for raw materials for my product.
I sell the finished good for $Y.

Y-X is my profit.

I pay 30% on Y-X.

Where does this get passed on to the consumer?

You choose what Y is

Shaggy_C: I pay $X for raw materials for my product.
I sell the finished good for $Y.

Y-X is my profit.

I pay 30% on Y-X.

Where does this get passed on to the consumer?

The assumption is that you will raise the value of Y so that it would result in the same net profit as you would make when you didn't have to pay the taxes.

damn the profit margins, punish the oil companies

Croooow!:

You choose what Y is

Not really; diminishing returns and all. Increasing tax rates as Y increases would also kill that strategy.

Atillathepun: dj_bigbird: Because the tax that is "paid" by the oil companies will actually be paid by the dude gassing up his car. Then, the feds will give him his money back thru some wacky rebate or something. Absolutely farking brilliant.

By that logic, taxes paid by consumers raises taxes on corporations because consumers can't buy as much of the corporations' product.

So is your answer to tax no one?

How come the canned economics arguments always only come from the point of view of the top down?

Taxes instituted at any level, against anyone are always finally paid by the consumer at the final point of sale.

Think about it.

If you raised taxes to curb consumption then reimbursed the money from taxes back to the people, wouldn't that in effect cause people to use less gas while not putting an economic strain on them?

WhyteRaven74: Right now the price of oil is as high as it is purely because of speculators. That's it.

If the oil market clears, then the price is correct. Its that simple.

TheCid: The assumption is that you will raise the value of Y so that it would result in the same net profit as you would make when you didn't have to pay the taxes.

The goal is profit maximization. Raising prices will allow competitors to undercut you, decreasing revenues. Fact of the matter is that raising prices is not going to keep your net profit the same. You're confusing profit margin (%) with net profit ($) which are two completely different principles. Want to know my opinion? The most effective way to skirt taxes is by overvaluing inventory. FIFO/LIFO depending on market conditions, baby!

I like Obama, but I don't see this as a long-term solution.

I'm no economist, but I don't understand why you would trade energy on any type of market. It is the corner stone of every other industry in America. Supply and demand cannot apply to an industry where demand is damn near static. What are your alternatives to driving to work? You going to bike and take a french shower in the bathroom? IMHO, the answer to our energy crisis is regulating the profits at every step, from the point it is pumped out of the ground until it is used. Step two, and this step is critical, pull the soldiers out of Iraq and as they hit land, deploy them domestically... Have them actively begin assisting (and performing when possible) in the constructing Nuclear power plants. Have them actively begin building alternative energy power plants, to supplement the nuclear. These are the only viable long term options we have. We damn well better start moving...and quickly... Or our economy is going to tank worse than we could ever imagine.

/But hell, what do I know?

We need to end corporate welfare for oil companies.

They're getting $18 BILLION dollars!!!

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/04/oil_hearing.html

If they didn't get these massive benefits, they'd have to pass the price along to consumers. And guess what?

CONSUMERS WOULD BUY MORE FUEL EFFICIENT VEHICLES!

That's right, our government is propping up inefficient industries and that stifles innovation because consumers feel like things aren't so bad. Well, they are bad now. Cut them off the corporate teat and let's see how WEL they FARE.