Exxon Mobil reported a quarterly profit of nearly

[TC]

"4 billion for XOM only? No that is 4 billion for the entire industry. How much taxes does XOM and XOM employee's pay the federal government every year? The DOD can spend 4 billion pretty easily."

Yes, it's $4 billion for the entire oil industry, as I stated. Off-hand I don't know how much in taxes XOM's employees pay, or how long the DOD would require to spend $4 billion, since neither was relevant to the topic at hand. I'm unclear of the justification, "Yes, Big Oil gets $4 billion per year in taxpayer subsidies, but that's OK because their employees pay taxes, and the DOD spends a lot of money." Huh? Basically ALL employees pay taxes at some point, all while the DOD spends a lot of money. And that clearly translates into the need to shower Exxon with money....or something...donuts are good.

 

[dave1251]

4 billion is a drop in the bucket, for the federal budget. Why are you so concerned about the federal budget and XOM? Should you not be more concerned that dispite having the 8th largest economy in the world your state is nearly bankrupt and it is not because the state of California is not paying a subsidy. Yet California has a higher state tax burden than most of the union.

 

[demarpaint]

Funny how their increased profits ties in so nicely with higher gasoline prices. Better hide,

I mean how could that be so?

 

[AlienBug]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Funny how their increased profits ties in so nicely with higher gasoline prices. Better hide,

I mean how could that be so?


Except that its profits decreased.

 

[TC]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
4 billion is a drop in the bucket, for the federal budget. Why are you so concerned about the federal budget and XOM? Should you not be more concerned that dispite having the 8th largest economy in the world your state is nearly bankrupt and it is not because the state of California is not paying a subsidy. Yet California has a higher state tax burden than most of the union.


So taxpayers should continue paying Big Oil $4 billion in subsidies each year because “it’s a drop in the federal budget?” $600 toilet seats for U.S. Air Force planes isn’t even a rounding error in the federal budget, and yet people rightfully blew gaskets when that was made public in the late 1980s. That’d be $600 versus $4 billion.

“Why are you so concerned about the federal budget and XOM?” Actually, I never mentioned the federal budget. And I’m concerned about XOM because they’re in the title of this thread.

“California…” This particular thread is not about California, nor puppies, nor Hot Pockets or Snooki. It’s about XOM’s otherwordly profits. And the fact that WE PAY that industry $4 billion on top of that for reasons no one can seem to logically explain.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: AlienBug
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Funny how their increased profits ties in so nicely with higher gasoline prices. Better hide,

I mean how could that be so?


Except that its profits decreased.


The title says highest profits ever for a US corp. Maybe they dipped a little? Wait till gas goes back over $4 a gallon lets see if they break another record then or not.

 

[AlienBug]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: AlienBug
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Funny how their increased profits ties in so nicely with higher gasoline prices. Better hide,

I mean how could that be so?


Except that its profits decreased.


The title says highest profits ever for a US corp. Maybe they dipped a little? Wait till gas goes back over $4 a gallon lets see if they break another record then or not.


Quote:
But this quarter's massive number includes $7.5 billion from "divestments and tax-related items," partly from the sale of refining and chemical operations in Japan.
Excluding that special credit, the company made $8.4 billion, down 21% from the $10.7 billion Exxon made in the same period last year as falling oil and natural gas prices cut into earnings.


http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/26/news/companies/exxon-profit/

21% decline in profits from petroleum sales

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: TC
So taxpayers should continue paying Big Oil $4 billion in subsidies each year because “it’s a drop in the federal budget?” $600 toilet seats for U.S. Air Force planes isn’t even a rounding error in the federal budget, and yet people rightfully blew gaskets when that was made public in the late 1980s. That’d be $600 versus $4 billion.

“Why are you so concerned about the federal budget and XOM?” Actually, I never mentioned the federal budget. And I’m concerned about XOM because they’re in the title of this thread.

“California…” This particular thread is not about California, nor puppies, nor Hot Pockets or Snooki. It’s about XOM’s otherwordly profits. And the fact that WE PAY that industry $4 billion on top of that for reasons no one can seem to logically explain.


XOM paid $8.5 billion in the form of income taxes this quarter. If XOM pays another $8.5 billion in income taxes for the remainder of the the year who cares.
Chevron paid $17 billion in 2011 and the former ConoccoPhillips paid $10.6 billion.

For the whole $4 billion dollar tax break for the entire oil industry you want the government to cut a incentive that is paid out to every corporation in the country? You are talking about is setting different business tax rules for oil companies versus other corporations.
So you want to penalize a industry that paid over $40 billion in taxes for a $4 billion tax break?
You know what after the whole GM fiasco I am tired of picking and choosing which company survives and which one does not.
But you do not care about that you just see a company making a profit and for some reason that angers you. I do not understand why?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: AlienBug

21% decline in profits from petroleum sales


I'm not seeing the 21% decrease is 100% attributed to a decline in oil sales. My other question is why did they title the article, "Exxon reports record profit of nearly $16 billion". It was either a record of it wasn't? Here's what is said:

Excluding that special credit, the company made $8.4 billion, down 21% from the $10.7 billion Exxon made in the same period last year as falling oil and natural gas prices cut into earnings.
Exxon said its combined production of oil and gas decreased 5.6% from year-earlier levels -- also a worrying trend for investors.


----------------------------------------

Maybe they hit a record profit in a declining market? A record producing 5.6% less gas and oil, that would mean they're working on a higher margin now, wouldn't it? BTW I'm asking questions.

 

[ottotheclown]

Thanks for this thread. I find it interesting how each point is being delivered these days. Distortion or omission. Either way for the most part you have to look into it yourself finding out what is really said.The ammount of panic or level of is the first clue. Facts really hard to find. I can remember long ago same distortions etc. It seems this point never changes. You sit there seeing this baloney and wish you could answer but you cannot. Not healthy I am a big in closing

.
Originally Posted By: TC
Originally Posted By: meangreen01
"They didn't build that". Remember that.

XOM didn't build those refineries. They didn't explore those fields or build those wells.

The push for massive confiscation of wealth emanates from that dog-whistle.


XOM did NOT build: The maritime transport industry to ship the oil, our nationwide pipeline infrastructure to transport that oil, the national railway system to also transport it, the national highways to deliver the oil to market, the U.S. Navy to help protect XOM’s tankers from piracy and terrorism on the open seas, the U.S. Coast Guard to supervise the inevitable spill cleanups, the police and fire departments to help protect their oil storage and processing facilities, the federal lands/leases much of that oil and gas originated from, and the futures markets where oil and gas contracts are traded, just to name a few.

One thing XOM most certainly did build: Their expensive lobbying contracts to preserve the $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies their industry currently receives from the wallets of you and I. Sorry, I am not an apologist or propagandist for ExxonMobil like some folks.

Oh, what the heck. XOM did it all themselves! They’re like demigods…

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: TC
So taxpayers should continue paying Big Oil $4 billion in subsidies each year because “it’s a drop in the federal budget?” $600 toilet seats for U.S. Air Force planes isn’t even a rounding error in the federal budget, and yet people rightfully blew gaskets when that was made public in the late 1980s. That’d be $600 versus $4 billion.

“Why are you so concerned about the federal budget and XOM?” Actually, I never mentioned the federal budget. And I’m concerned about XOM because they’re in the title of this thread.

“California…” This particular thread is not about California, nor puppies, nor Hot Pockets or Snooki. It’s about XOM’s otherwordly profits. And the fact that WE PAY that industry $4 billion on top of that for reasons no one can seem to logically explain.


XOM paid $8.5 billion in the form of income taxes this quarter. If XOM pays another $8.5 billion in income taxes for the remainder of the the year who cares.
Chevron paid $17 billion in 2011 and the former ConoccoPhillips paid $10.6 billion.

For the whole $4 billion dollar tax break for the entire oil industry you want the government to cut a incentive that is paid out to every corporation in the country? You are talking about is setting different business tax rules for oil companies versus other corporations.
So you want to penalize a industry that paid over $40 billion in taxes for a $4 billion tax break?
You know what after the whole GM fiasco I am tired of picking and choosing which company survives and which one does not.
But you do not care about that you just see a company making a profit and for some reason that angers you. I do not understand why?


So true, Dave, Thanks for that. These companies are NOT the bad guy. The CONGRESS is the bad guy. 4 billion across the entire petroleum industry isn't the problem either, although I do not support Government involvement in private biz.

Between their corporate income taxes and matching payroll tax contributions and other taxes I imagine they pay a LOT more than you showed.

And someone needs to explain why a profitable tax paying business is a bad thing.

 

[AlienBug]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: AlienBug

21% decline in profits from petroleum sales


I'm not seeing the 21% decrease is 100% attributed to a decline in oil sales. My other question is why did they title the article, "Exxon reports record profit of nearly $16 billion". It was either a record of it wasn't? Here's what is said:

Excluding that special credit, the company made $8.4 billion, down 21% from the $10.7 billion Exxon made in the same period last year as falling oil and natural gas prices cut into earnings.
Exxon said its combined production of oil and gas decreased 5.6% from year-earlier levels -- also a worrying trend for investors.


----------------------------------------

Maybe they hit a record profit in a declining market? A record producing 5.6% less gas and oil, that would mean they're working on a higher margin now, wouldn't it? BTW I'm asking questions.


Couple of things:

1) Gas is cheaper than it was last year. So if they sold the same amount, their profits would STILL be less. According to GasBuddy.com (which everyone should be using BTW) gas was $3.40 average nationally last month. A year ago it was $3.70, which is a 9.2% decrease.

2) They sold less gas than a year ago.

So 9.2% lower price x 5.6% lower volume = lower profit than a year ago.

But XOM also sold some assets, mostly production plants in Japan, according to the article.

XOM is in the oil selling business, not the refinery selling business. This sale of a refinery propped up its profit line, but it is a one-time boost of an asset that the company no longer has.

Consider this hypothetical situation:

You worked 40 years and accumulated $1 million in stock, but last year you lost your job. This year, you sold your portfolio to make the mortgage payment.

You would pay tax on the capital gain from the $1 million stock sale. Would you agree that this year you had "record income?"

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^Thanks for the perspective. As stated earlier, the 'spin' is hot and heavy in here...

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: AlienBug
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: AlienBug

21% decline in profits from petroleum sales


I'm not seeing the 21% decrease is 100% attributed to a decline in oil sales. My other question is why did they title the article, "Exxon reports record profit of nearly $16 billion". It was either a record of it wasn't? Here's what is said:

Excluding that special credit, the company made $8.4 billion, down 21% from the $10.7 billion Exxon made in the same period last year as falling oil and natural gas prices cut into earnings.
Exxon said its combined production of oil and gas decreased 5.6% from year-earlier levels -- also a worrying trend for investors.


----------------------------------------

Maybe they hit a record profit in a declining market? A record producing 5.6% less gas and oil, that would mean they're working on a higher margin now, wouldn't it? BTW I'm asking questions.


Couple of things:

1) Gas is cheaper than it was last year. So if they sold the same amount, their profits would STILL be less. According to GasBuddy.com (which everyone should be using BTW) gas was $3.40 average nationally last month. A year ago it was $3.70, which is a 9.2% decrease.

2) They sold less gas than a year ago.

So 9.2% lower price x 5.6% lower volume = lower profit than a year ago.

But XOM also sold some assets, mostly production plants in Japan, according to the article.

XOM is in the oil selling business, not the refinery selling business. This sale of a refinery propped up its profit line, but it is a one-time boost of an asset that the company no longer has.

Consider this hypothetical situation:

You worked 40 years and accumulated $1 million in stock, but last year you lost your job. This year, you sold your portfolio to make the mortgage payment.

You would pay tax on the capital gain from the $1 million stock sale. Would you agree that this year you had "record income?"


Makes sense, only in your example wouldn't it be called unearned income and taxed at a different rate? I'm not a CPA, just asking.

 

[AlienBug]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: AlienBug
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: AlienBug

21% decline in profits from petroleum sales


I'm not seeing the 21% decrease is 100% attributed to a decline in oil sales. My other question is why did they title the article, "Exxon reports record profit of nearly $16 billion". It was either a record of it wasn't? Here's what is said:

Excluding that special credit, the company made $8.4 billion, down 21% from the $10.7 billion Exxon made in the same period last year as falling oil and natural gas prices cut into earnings.
Exxon said its combined production of oil and gas decreased 5.6% from year-earlier levels -- also a worrying trend for investors.


----------------------------------------

Maybe they hit a record profit in a declining market? A record producing 5.6% less gas and oil, that would mean they're working on a higher margin now, wouldn't it? BTW I'm asking questions.


Couple of things:

1) Gas is cheaper than it was last year. So if they sold the same amount, their profits would STILL be less. According to GasBuddy.com (which everyone should be using BTW) gas was $3.40 average nationally last month. A year ago it was $3.70, which is a 9.2% decrease.

2) They sold less gas than a year ago.

So 9.2% lower price x 5.6% lower volume = lower profit than a year ago.

But XOM also sold some assets, mostly production plants in Japan, according to the article.

XOM is in the oil selling business, not the refinery selling business. This sale of a refinery propped up its profit line, but it is a one-time boost of an asset that the company no longer has.

Consider this hypothetical situation:

You worked 40 years and accumulated $1 million in stock, but last year you lost your job. This year, you sold your portfolio to make the mortgage payment.

You would pay tax on the capital gain from the $1 million stock sale. Would you agree that this year you had "record income?"


Makes sense, only in your example wouldn't it be called unearned income and taxed at a different rate? I'm not a CPA, just asking.


Yes it would, which is why Warren Buffet can plausibly claim that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Technically true, but misleading because he has enormous investment income whereas his secretary earns a salary.

My quick and dirty parable was merely to illustrate that it is entirely possible for XOM to have record profit despite a substantial drop in year-to-year sales.

 

[demarpaint]

LOL ^^I'm pretty sure XOM is playing the same creative accounting and tax stunts or even better stunts than Mr.Buffet. I wouldn't be surprised if they set records selling less gas and oil too, by improving profit margins. But that's just a guess.

 

[TC]

"These companies are NOT the bad guy. The CONGRESS is the bad guy."

WOW. XOM's sole allegiance is to their shareholders, and they've acted accordingly. In spite of its frequent dysfunction, the U.S. Congress constitutes the elected representatives of the citizenry, as well as their interests. How XOM can somehow be a saint in all this, while Congress is "the bad guy," is completely beyond me, but that does explain certain things I've read.

 

[TC]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: TC
So taxpayers should continue paying Big Oil $4 billion in subsidies each year because “it’s a drop in the federal budget?” $600 toilet seats for U.S. Air Force planes isn’t even a rounding error in the federal budget, and yet people rightfully blew gaskets when that was made public in the late 1980s. That’d be $600 versus $4 billion.

“Why are you so concerned about the federal budget and XOM?” Actually, I never mentioned the federal budget. And I’m concerned about XOM because they’re in the title of this thread.

“California…” This particular thread is not about California, nor puppies, nor Hot Pockets or Snooki. It’s about XOM’s otherwordly profits. And the fact that WE PAY that industry $4 billion on top of that for reasons no one can seem to logically explain.


XOM paid $8.5 billion in the form of income taxes this quarter. If XOM pays another $8.5 billion in income taxes for the remainder of the the year who cares.
Chevron paid $17 billion in 2011 and the former ConoccoPhillips paid $10.6 billion.

For the whole $4 billion dollar tax break for the entire oil industry you want the government to cut a incentive that is paid out to every corporation in the country? You are talking about is setting different business tax rules for oil companies versus other corporations.
So you want to penalize a industry that paid over $40 billion in taxes for a $4 billion tax break?
You know what after the whole GM fiasco I am tired of picking and choosing which company survives and which one does not.
But you do not care about that you just see a company making a profit and for some reason that angers you. I do not understand why?



“For the whole $4 billion dollar tax break for the entire oil industry you want the government to cut a incentive that is paid out to every corporation in the country?”

No. I want an oil industry-specific tax subsidy of $4 billion that is TOTALLY UNEEDED to be eliminated. You state that “every corporation in the country” receives this subsidy. I can assure that Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, along with about a million other firms, does not receive unnecessary tax breaks for oil exploration, unless you know they’re putting crude oil in their confections that the rest of us aren’t aware of. This is about the third time I’ve been compelled to correct a patently incorrect statement here….

 

[dave1251]

I was not aware Ben and Jerry was in the oil, pharmaceutical, agricultural, manufacture, or technological sector.

Also just read Ben and Jerry's Double Dip you will see how Ben and Jerry have benefited from Tax Credits.

 

[TC]

Turns out that $4 billion number making the rounds regarding oil industry welfare is WILDLY UNDERSTATED. The preferential treatment doled out to Big Oil is MUCH bigger than that. It’s actually closer to $24 billion:

1. $20.5 billion in special deductions, special tax rates, credits, and grants
2. $3.5 billion in Dept. of Energy spending programs

Note that these are NOT “an incentive that is paid out to every corporation in the country” as stated by the previous poster. The $24 billion in Big Oil welfare is specific to “support for the development and production of fuels and energy technologies.”

Big Oil welfare is primarily intended to promote the exploration and extraction of fossil fuels. And yet the largest five oil companies actually produced 4% LESS oil in 2011 compared to 2010 despite earning 75 percent more in profits. They also axed 11,000 employees over the past 5 years, so subsidies do not lift industry employment as some have falsely claimed. XOM’s production fell 5% last year, in spite of industry welfare for them to find and extract it. Taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil have pretty much been a complete failure, so no time like the present to end them.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57406956/shell-exec.-focus-on-tax-reform-not-subsidies/