If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   In a bid to ensure $4-per-gallon gas, House okays $18 billion in new taxes on big oil companies   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 479
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

6356 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2008 at 7:47 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



479 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-02-28 08:10:52 AM
inntheory: Why is corporate welfare OK?

Because the people who benefit are the same ones that vote and, more importantly, fund to political campaigns.
 
2008-02-28 08:10:53 AM
EatHam: MorrisBird: We're paying at least $4 per gallon for gas through our subsidies of these thieves in tax dollars. Why don't people understand that?

Because that is so far from reality, you might as well ask why people don't understand that there are aliens living in each one of our colons.



Actual cost per gallon of gasoline and deisel type fuels to the US taxpayer/consumer is around $18 per gallon. Direct subsidies, military support costs such as the Iraq war in our efforts to control the resource, cleanup for spills and petroleum related superfund sites, health costs related to the exposure of petroleum-based chemicals. All that adds up pretty quickly. Oil companies have been able to write off every penny of their expenses plus a huge percentage for decades. Their profits are guaranteed by the US Government.

Your tax dollars at work.

The individuals on the corporate boards of these companies literally make as much in a day as most Americans make in a year. And they still go to Congress and the President with hat in hand with sob stories about how poor and helpless they are, asking for (and always receiving) direct tax deferments that add up to exceed the GNP of most European countries. Deferments that have mysteriously never had to be repaid, ever. Back in the 1920's, they even convinced the legislatures of several States to pay all their extraction and processing costs, so every drop they pumped out of State lands was pure profit.

Its about time Congress at least tried to pretend they were doing something. It is an election year after all.
 
2008-02-28 08:10:54 AM
People pay taxes, not corporations. That's a tax increase on everyone.
 
2008-02-28 08:11:23 AM
Dancin_In_Anson: Marla Singer's Laundry: That's NET profit. Profit, BWT= margin...in case you really didn't know

One more time. What was the profit margin of Exxon Mobil? Do I need to simplify it more? I will be glad to give a lesson in remedial accounting if you like...


Give it up Dancin - I tried to teach the difference between a profit and a profit margin yesterday. It's no use.
 
2008-02-28 08:11:40 AM
Hey, you know those little "" buttons are pretty cool. Coulda saved me a hell of a lot of time. {sigh} Why am i always to last to know?
 
2008-02-28 08:12:01 AM
Stop building highways and suburban developments, focus on mass transit, community infrastructure. Tax the oil companies to build this infrastructure.
 
2008-02-28 08:12:10 AM
DancinInAnson is politely trying to call your attention to the fact that while a yearly profit of $40B is stunning, it's fairly unimpressive when you consider that it's on sales of, and I am estimating here, roughly $400 brazillion dollars.

The profit is huge, but oil companies are even bigger. And someone keeps buying more and more of their product.

In almost any other industry, oil company profit margins would be cause for CEOs to lose their jobs.
 
2008-02-28 08:12:34 AM
Phil Herup: Maybe we should get rid of 29 different formulations that each state regulates.

Make just one kind of gas. High octane and that is it. Really does the octane add much cost?


My car (an Acura TL) requires high octane fuel and runs like crap without it. That's because the engine is higher compression and regular unleaded detontates (aka spark knock) without the additional iso-octane. It also makes the gasoline burn hotter and thereby makes the engine more efficient.
 
2008-02-28 08:12:51 AM
NPR had a story on this this morning. In it, those who were not in favor of removing the tax breaks said that it would make it harder for US oil companies to compete worldwide.

Somehow, I think they'll be able to survive. Exxon may have to do with only 30 Billion in profit next year. Their big investors can eat beans and weenies a couple times a week to make up for it. They're high in fiber, don'tcha know.
 
2008-02-28 08:13:27 AM
Well, in 2006, the USA used about 138 billion gallons of gasoline (not any other fuels). Okay, let's see, 138 b times let's say 3 bucks... welll, fark, that's only 414 billion for the gas making portions of the oil men. How are they supposed to live?
 
2008-02-28 08:13:34 AM
And, yes, I'm fully aware that you and I will be paying the difference.
 
2008-02-28 08:13:43 AM
FlashHarry: looks like it was 10.89% last year

That's not really to bad for a company.

Look at the pizza you buy, probably a 400% profit margin.
 
2008-02-28 08:14:08 AM
dead: Even though I'm on both sides of the fence on the
/wishes there was a 'none of the above' on ballots


There is Ralph Nader is running for President on a Independent ticket.
 
2008-02-28 08:14:10 AM
Dancin_In_Anson: Marla Singer's Laundry: That's NET profit. Profit, BWT= margin...in case you really didn't know

One more time. What was the profit margin of Exxon Mobil? Do I need to simplify it more? I will be glad to give a lesson in remedial accounting if you like...


Jesus... Anson is asking what about this:
Profit margin, Net Margin or Net Profit Ratio all refer to a measure of profitability. It is calculated using a formula and written as a percentage or a number.

Profit Margin = Net Income/Net Sales Revenue
 
2008-02-28 08:14:23 AM
Dancin_In_Anson: Marla Singer's Laundry: That's NET profit. Profit, BWT= margin...in case you really didn't know

One more time. What was the profit margin of Exxon Mobil? Do I need to simplify it more? I will be glad to give a lesson in remedial accounting if you like...


Idiot. Profit is margin. God damn.
 
2008-02-28 08:14:53 AM
MugzyBrown: Some people just don't understand it's counter-productive to tax a business because every business's pricing includes the taxes they have to pay.

/full of win
 
2008-02-28 08:15:22 AM
Expect $10 gallons when Obama takes over, assuming the Dems remain control of the Houses.
 
2008-02-28 08:15:37 AM
MugzyBrown: FlashHarry: looks like it was 10.89% last year

That's not really to bad for a company.

Look at the pizza you buy, probably a 400% profit margin.


let me know the next time a pizza company makes $40 bn in profits in a year!

/yes, it's expensive to operate an oil company
//it's also extremely profitable
 
2008-02-28 08:16:34 AM
cowsaregoodeating: No, our representatives can't raise taxes and give us a rebate at the same time so they'll just raise taxes through a proxy. That proxy is the oil companies. The oil companies don't care, they already have the public image of a crack dealer. They have the crack though so we're going to pay the tax, biatch about it and do nothing.

If you think people are doing nothing, you obviously having been in the market for a used subcompact. There were two cases where the car I wanted was sold a couple days after being listed.

\My parents 2001 Prius with 100,000 miles on it is STILL worth $14,000
 
2008-02-28 08:18:00 AM
FlashHarry: let me know the next time a pizza company makes $40 bn in profits in a year!

As soon as pizza becomes vital to the life blood of the economy and not the life blood of the dorm room.
 
2008-02-28 08:18:02 AM
Marla Singer's Laundry: Dancin_In_Anson: Marla Singer's Laundry: That's NET profit. Profit, BWT= margin...in case you really didn't know

One more time. What was the profit margin of Exxon Mobil? Do I need to simplify it more? I will be glad to give a lesson in remedial accounting if you like...

Idiot. Profit is margin. God damn.


And there you have it. The collective financial wisdom of the Fark crack team of accounting experts.
 
2008-02-28 08:18:10 AM
In a perfectly capitalist economy, no company makes any profit. The reason is that if a company is making a profit, they can be undercut by someone selling for less and only making half the profit. Repeat ad infinitum.

No market is perfect, but gluttonous profits are usually a good sign that the market is not working correctly.
 
2008-02-28 08:18:10 AM
US1
A little confused, on the one hand GOpers say that the oil companies are not fixing prices. They say that cost of a barrel of oil is set by the market. If that is true then taking away their tax breaks will not affect demand and thus prices will not change. If on the other hand, the oil companies are influencing the price of oil, then prices will rise. But what do I know I am a simple libtard. Please any smart Goper, please explain.

The price of the source materials will not be affected, no price fixing there. They will, however, still aim for the same profit margin they've had for the last 30 years. Those margins haven't changed much. Let's say that margin is 5%. If their sales in 1980 were $300b, profit would have been $15b. If sales last year were $800b, it would give us the $40b profit. The margin is the same, but more demand means a larger profit. Make sense? Now, if they pay $18b in taxes, they'll still want to get that 5% margin, and ta-da, higher prices at the pump ensue.

*I pulled those numbers out of the ether for the sake of an example, but the gist of the point is correct.
 
2008-02-28 08:18:50 AM
I Fark: simply put we need to make gasoline a utility. Price caps, regulation or government run.

IF it was OUR oil, that might help. Since it's not OUR oil, we're fooked. The global climate is like this about oil energy, it's like a pack of hungry wolves and one carcass to feed off of.

There's gonna be a fight. That's what happens when humans get hungry. In time immortal, it's the human condition.

www.brightlightsfilm.com
 
2008-02-28 08:19:13 AM
Amazes me how stupid liberals are. tax corporations more, they simply pass that cost along to you, and the company is less willing to invest and expand.

You idiots still think money just comes from magic out of the sky huh? Douchebags. But heh, pay more for gas if it satisfies your infantile need to cry about evil corporations. How about you pony up your hard earned money for research into alternative fuels? No reason corporations should, since you want to steal from them.
 
2008-02-28 08:19:49 AM
diesel3: Silly pea-brained liberals. The oil companies will still make their profits. Who do the liberals think will pay these extra taxes? It's the consumers you farkwads.

Congratulations. You fail this thread as the first retard to assign a political leaning to everything. Hand in your membership and walk in front of a bus.
 
2008-02-28 08:20:30 AM
FlashHarry: looks like it was 10.89% last year

Very good!

How does that compare with other segments?
 
2008-02-28 08:21:13 AM
Alright here's the deal as I understand it.

Refining, transport, and packaging (gas stations) are only a part of the crude oil process, and the part that oil companies have control over.

As for the price of crude only, see the following link that has the best and most realistic explanation I've read so far. The caveat to this is that there are no sources cited.

Link (new window)

Also, as I understand it, the reason prices are so high is due in part to the lack of refining capacity. Oil companies have a decent supply of crude oil from OPEC, and the futures traders play a part in selling it. Once the crude is sold, it has to be refined and that is the problem.

Oil companies have not invested in refinery capacity and a percentage was destroyed in the wake of Katrina. Refineries can't be upgraded as they need to be running full time to produce enough gasoline. New refineries are in the works, but they take time to build. So as I see it the price of oil is the result of high prices due to fears regarding supply and the oil companies refusing to invest in refienery capacity.

Leading to my position that if the farkers are making 40 B in profits because of the lack of capital investment, tax them until that changes.
 
2008-02-28 08:21:25 AM
ClarkstonCracker:lol at democrats.

This is as stupid as raising minimum wages. Why can't some people grasp that this actually hurts the people they claim to care about?

If they raise taxes on oil, oil will simply go up in cost, effecting the people who can't afford gas now. On the otherhand, this will give nice discounts and rebates to people purchasing $100,000 windmills and $30,000 solar system setups! I'm sure theres a lot of democrats with $30,000 laying around, AHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


This isn't raising taxes on the oil companies but removing tax breaks they received, which is corporate welfare.

The only difference this will make on Oil companies is the profit they make, which in this case is just our tax dollars going to their shareholders, as the ability for them to pass on these costs is tougher the higher the price of oil goes.

So your argument is that we should pay these corporations to develop alternative fuels, with little control to actually ensure they are going to do more than what they already would have given it is in the best interest of their company to do so anyway, but not give incentives to people?

Yeah those silly democrats.
 
2008-02-28 08:21:47 AM
The Oil companies have become accustomed to making record profits year after year. I don't see them giving that up any time soon.
 
2008-02-28 08:22:07 AM
labman: FlashHarry: however shall they survive!!!

Simple... They'll charge us more per gallon to make sure they make 40 Billion dollars this year, too.


THIS.



broomballwilson: In other news, people don't know how our government works.

He's called the President and he's from an oil state...you tell me how this will end.


And THIS...



Schoolhouse Rock: (sing with me...)

"We the People, in order to line the pockets of politicians..."
 
2008-02-28 08:23:05 AM
bicentennialman: Remember, citizens:
The corporations are evil, so we must tax them.
They won't pass their tax burden on in the form of higher prices, since their gains are from somewhere else.


They won't pass the tax burden on in the form of higher prices, because if they can raise the price they would do so anyway.
 
2008-02-28 08:23:20 AM
Also, I live just north of the American border in southern Ontario, Canada, and after conversion, we're already paying about $4/gal.

Every time our gas prices go up, they claim it's because our dollar has slipped a bit against the USD (usually measured in tenths of a cent as our currency is currently worth MORE than the greenback), but did we see MASSIVE savings in gas since our dollar went from ~$.65 USD to > $1.00? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Lying sacks of shiat.

/bought a new car yesterday.
//40mpg ftw.
 
2008-02-28 08:23:49 AM
GaryPDX: IF it was OUR oil,

We're not allowed to use our own oil.
 
2008-02-28 08:24:05 AM
inntheory: So your argument is that we should pay these corporations to develop alternative fuels, with little control to actually ensure they are going to do more than what they already would have given it is in the best interest of their company to do so anyway, but not give incentives to people?

I've got an even better idea: How about we raise the price of gasoline to trigger investment in alternative fuels?

\So crazy it might just work.
 
2008-02-28 08:24:07 AM
Oh wow, is it really fair to make them pay for their own wars?
 
2008-02-28 08:24:21 AM
US1


A little confused, on the one hand GOpers say that the oil companies are not fixing prices. They say that cost of a barrel of oil is set by the market. If that is true then taking away their tax breaks will not affect demand and thus prices will not change. If on the other hand, the oil companies are influencing the price of oil, then prices will rise. But what do I know I am a simple libtard. Please any smart Goper, please explain.


Im not a GOPer, but I will explain anyway (actually, I guess technically I am, for now, I registered as an R in order to vote for Paul in the primary, but Im an LP member).

There are two sides to price, supply and demand. You are correct that the demand curve does not change with the tax. However, the supply curve shifts. This is covered day three of Econ 1001 (GT had (has?) 4 digit class numbers, we are that much better than everyone else). When the supply curve shifts, the new equilibrium point shifts. Part of the new tax will be paid by the consumer, part will be paid in lost profits. How much each ways depends on the slope of the demand curve. If higher prices have no effect on consumption then all of the tax will be passed on to the consumer, that is close to what will happen.

/Basic economics are not affected by political party
//The fact that you think it matters makes you economical
ly .... ummm ... whats a nice way to say this ..... a frickin moran.
///As nice as I could be
 
2008-02-28 08:24:46 AM
Drunk Astronaut: Phil Herup: Maybe we should get rid of 29 different formulations that each state regulates.

Make just one kind of gas. High octane and that is it. Really does the octane add much cost?

My car (an Acura TL) requires high octane fuel and runs like crap without it. That's because the engine is higher compression and regular unleaded detontates (aka spark knock) without the additional iso-octane. It also makes the gasoline burn hotter and thereby makes the engine more efficient.



so are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?

I said we should only have High octane and diesel. As for the 29 different fuel standards, that has nothing to do with octane. It has to do with additives that each state THINKS is neccessary. It is just BS laws that add to the cost of refining that is passed on to the consumer.

I know all about octane, high compression and all that. I have four cars and 7 motorcycles. All, except a old Jeep, are high performance machines.

Modern cars like your TL should have anti-knock sensors that retard the timing to prevent engine damage. This is a feature to protect your car in the event that regular is your only option. If there was no regular, then you would never have to worry. Of course engines that do not require the higher octane level would just use it anyway. Because the manufacturing costs would be a lot lower no one would complain.

Simplify.
 
2008-02-28 08:25:55 AM
FTFADuring debate, Rep Jim McDermott, D-Wash., urged lawmakers to "stop the madness of subsidizing oil companies" when the industry earned $123 billion last year.

This.

With the way our economy and way of life is structured, fuel truly needs to be viewed as a "utility" instead of a "commodity". Since the popularization of motor vehicles, we've spread out from the small city/town structure of times before.

If the electric companies hiked rates by 50%, citing that it cost more to generate the power, or maintain the lines, or whatever, and then posted a 50% profit, they wouldn't make it 24 hours without death threats, a media blitz, and huge public outcry over the disgusting greed of the power companies.

So how are the oil companies any different?
 
2008-02-28 08:26:00 AM
im sure that that guy filling up that Bugatti Veyron in pic 3 is feeling that $4.19/gal haha
 
2008-02-28 08:26:30 AM
This is what happens when you allow your tax system to become anything beyond a means to raise revenue. Tax law as a tool of social engineering will be the death of us yet. But, yes, we have spent ourselves into a pit of debt, and now we are going to have to raise everybody's taxes to pay for it. And all of the schemes to try to focus the tax burden on those who "should pay" (in somebody's opinion) will fail, as they always do. A tax burden in an economy is like water in an ecology. It will flow around until it has distributed itself evenly - all the laws in the world can't change that.
 
2008-02-28 08:26:47 AM
Thunderpipes: Amazes me how stupid liberals are. tax corporations more, they simply pass that cost along to you, and the company is less willing to invest and expand.

Do you think a 0% tax rate for the oil companies would translate in to cheaper gas for us?
 
2008-02-28 08:26:47 AM
FTA Hoyer acknowledged "this legislation alone will not bring down gas prices."

What's that you say, Congressman? A bill designed to make energy more expensive won't make it cheaper? What an amazing insight. Jesus, this guy is a turd. Maybe he should be congratulated for not being 100% divorced from reality, though.

As to the bill itself, I have less of a problem with it. These subsidies should never have been enacted. OTOH, the subsidies shouldn't be going to other energy companies either.
 
2008-02-28 08:27:01 AM
drunkennewfiemidget: /bought a new car yesterday.
//40mpg ftw.


Good job.

Now wait for the douchebags to say "LOL U DRIVE A CLOWN CAR. I LIKE MY BIG CAR CUZ IT MAKES ME FEEL GUD."
 
2008-02-28 08:27:08 AM
Dancin_In_Anson: GaryPDX: IF it was OUR oil,

We're not allowed to use our own oil.


I don't have a problem with that right now. Let's use up the rest of it and when the whole planet is living by candlelight, we're gonna have lights!!

USA USA USA
/grin
 
2008-02-28 08:27:20 AM
In 2007, the same year it recorded record profits, Exxon-Mobil generated a record $30 billion in taxes; an amount equal to that paid by the bottom 50% of *all* U.S. individual taxpayers (65 million people).
 
2008-02-28 08:28:05 AM
I've got an even better idea: How about we raise the price of gasoline to trigger investment in alternative fuels?

Or how about we let it happen naturally. When the market price of gasoline stabalizes high enough, lots of alternative development will happen.

Since someone mentioned school house rock above...

Mother Necessity, where would we be?

/Favor getting rid of all corporate welfare
//Im looking at you too, Iowa farmers
 
2008-02-28 08:28:56 AM
FlashHarry: then again, my brother in the UK pays about $8/gallon, so who am i to complain?

Your brother in the UK also has access, on average, to MUCH better public transportation than most of his peers in the US.


And you can drive across the entire country on one tank.

Gotta pay for the $600 rebate we're all getting somehow.

Hey. There's an idea. Exxon bilks us for 40 billion. Tax the crap out of it and give it right back to us.
 
2008-02-28 08:29:45 AM
GaryPDX: I don't have a problem with that right now. Let's use up the rest of it and when the whole planet is living by candlelight, we're gonna have lights!!

Except for a lot of Western Europe, who have made significant investments into renewable energy and will still have the lights on when the oil runs out. Plus they've got good public transit and walkable communities, so they'll even be able to go places!
 
2008-02-28 08:29:46 AM
GaryPDX: I don't have a problem with that right now. Let's use up the rest of it and when the whole planet is living by candlelight, we're gonna have lights!!

Had someone tell me that they thought this to really be the "plan"...

Seems a little tinfoilish to me.
 
Displayed 50 of 479 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report