Give Oil Company profits to the people

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
Untrue Javacontour, We can chose how much tax we pay by how much we make, What state we live in, where we live such as the city or country, what we chose to buy, How many write offs we can come up with, etc.....

Your only option for fuel is to buy less or pay what the oil monopolies set prices at. They don't compete with each other. They just share market and rake in our cash!


But can't you just choose to make more money, so relative to your income you pay less of your income for energy? Or you can choose to pay for less by using less.

I cannot choose to use less government services, and therefore pay less for government.

Your argument is not valid. I cannot legally escape taxes by using less government.

You can legally escape paying so much to big oil by using less oil.

Talk about monopolies, I can't pick from a variety of governments in my town.

I can choose from any number of gas stations from which to buy my fuel.

Sorry, the biggest monopoly is the government, at all levels.

 

[LTVibe]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
A few pay offs with those billions in profit and it goes away quietly.....

And if they had to pay off every politician and journalist who accused them of gouging, the oil companies wouldn't have any money left!

ZZman, I would love it if there was an actual conspiracy regarding gas prices, and the oil companies were forced to lower the price. But the truth is they have done nothing wrong. And what a certain candidate is proposing, confiscating some of the oil company profits like they did in the late 1970's, will make the situation worse. Imagine not only having to pay high gas prices, but having occasional gas shortages as well. It happened 30 years ago and it could happen again.

 

[javacontour]

Exactly. The price controls in the 70's helped create shortages.

Extra taxes on "excess profits" are just another way to implement price controls.

Guess what, they'll just produce less to keep from making those excess profits.

And who gets to determine what constitutes excess profits? Are they going to apply this standard to ALL industries.

Oil has a very low profit margin, even if the numbers are huge.

Are we going to tax Microsoft for it's excess profits, since it's margins are far higher than ExxonMobil?

Are excess profits based on margin, or raw dollars profit. Because on a margin basis, oil doesn't return much for every dollar invested.

They simply invest a lot more dollars than almost everyone else.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
Wow you do live large. $4,000 for comm and 2800.00 for car insurance. You are killing me.

Sure it matters where it goes Gary. Instead of reducing gas prices for all of us it is probably going into the shareholders pockets.

If they put more of that profit into exploration, refining, and alternative energy projects their profit would show way lower and it would be helping out the average joe in the long run. Less profit in the short run would mean lower fuel costs.


Keep in mind even most of what we consider "public services" aren't there to break even. Even what we normally consider "non-profit" or "not for profit" organizations don't run on "good will toward humanity". The run on $$$.


..but we typically put ourselves in our own traps.... 3 cars(2 with collision and all the riders - full tort, etc) with a 19 year old driver runs that tab up a bit. The communications includes cable (no premium channels ..no digital) family plan for cell phones (the only reason I have one is due to it being acceptable, $$-wise, for my needs - the rest of the family?

) ..land line and DSL. Once FINO gets on the street, this will be reduced a good bit; since I can have television/cell/land line/internet all in one bundle.

Most people have way higher cable bills. I'm not paying $5.95 rental on a box that allows them to then offer me digital for $70/month instead of what I get for the $58/month for no frills analog. I don't have a biannual television fetish. I own no plasma/lcd/whatever big screen ..but will probably get one when the 10 year old + tube sets take a hike (again, it's where I spend my money - it's still spent somewhere by everyone). So someone with a never ending $3600 electronic habit is "wasting" more money than I am ..even if they're doing it on the cheap for the services.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
Don't compare our prices to Europe's prices. They have decided to tax their fuel to death. That is why theirs is so high. Their gas would be a similar price to ours if they taxed it the same way.

And you think taxing the US companies even more is going to lower the price of gas here?

 

[firemachine69]

I spend almost three grand a year on telecommunications products.

Then again, I sleep in my bed at home a half-dozen times a month or so...

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Don't compare our prices to Europe's prices. They have decided to tax their fuel to death. That is why theirs is so high. Their gas would be a similar price to ours if they taxed it the same way.

And you think taxing the US companies even more is going to lower the price of gas here?

Those foreign entities don't pay outside of the pump price to defend the very oil reserves that they get their fuel from. We were already paying MORE for fuel than they were ..but we were doing it through a different budget. Add up the cost of the standing forces that we have sitting in the Gulf in our military budget and that view changes. Most of the western or para-western industrial nations DO NOT secure the petroleum reserves that fuel their industrial society. They outsource it to the USA ..which we pick up the tab for ...since they allegedly are included in "our interests".

 

[Steelhead]

not a single one of these large oil corporations are American any longer
who owes them any allegence? I don't

if they expect free access to public lands oil and free blood from US soldiers to protect their overseas operations, they pay

i just love "Free Trade"

the Communist Chinese government subsidizes excessive wasteful gas and diesel use with the "Free Dollars" we send them.

look for the Russians to be the next ones to cut off the oil spigot to the world for economic and political reasons.
they have EU scared to death of freezing to death in winter when the gas is shut off.

 

[Tempest]

Not quite true Gary.
Quote:
According to Eurostat, the European Union currently imports 40% of its gas, and by 2030, it is likely to rise to 70%. At present, Russia supplies 32% of the EU’s needs. 80% of Russian gas exports are carried via the Ukrainian pipeline network, the rest of it through the construction of a pipeline linking Germany via Belarus and Poland.

The remainder of the gas imported into the European Union comes from Norway, Algeria, Nigeria and Qatar.

A number of EU states, import little or no gas from Russia at present. These are Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Denmark remains self sufficient while Norway and Holland are net gas exporters. Countries like Greece, Finland, Bulgaria and Lithuania import more than 95% of their gas consumption from Russia.

http://www.cafebabel.com/eng/article/2417/gas-opec-alarm-bells-for-europe.html
Quote:
Beyond its 120 days worth of emergency oil stockpiles, Europe had no possibility of looking inward to mitigate the latest energy crisis. Europe is the largest importer of natural gas and oil in the world, and with the depletion of the North Sea reserves, Europe has needed to look even farther for resources. It purchases 82 percent of its oil and 57 percent of its natural gas from third-party states. These numbers are projected to rise to 93 percent and 84 percent respectively over the next quarter-century.

Quote:
Europe, however, is in a bind when it comes to oil suppliers. Following the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) crises of the 1970s, Europe turned to the North Sea and Russia to diversify its oil supplies. Today, the North Sea reserves are dwindling, while Russia has shown itself to be a less-than-stable supplier. Europe might need to diversify away from Russia -- and back to OPEC, at least to some extent.

http://www.stratfor.com/global_market_brief_europes_long_term_energy_proposal
Quote:
The E.U., which is heavily dependent on Russian natural gas and oil, has almost no short-term alternatives for energy. Russia supplies about 25 percent of the union's oil and 40 percent of its natural gas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010900749.html
Europe seems to get little of it's resources from the gulf area.

 

[Gary Allan]

Whose strategic defensive umbrella has covered all of Western Europe since the last day of WWII??? How much of the money of our "armed tourists" has enabled their economies to grow and protected their resources (north sea)??

So, I suspect we'll see substantial savings since we can remove this protection from a former strategic partner ..don't you think?

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Whose strategic defensive umbrella has covered all of Western Europe since the last day of WWII??? How much of the money of our "armed tourists" has enabled their economies to grow and protected their resources (north sea)??

So, I suspect we'll see substantial savings since we can remove this protection from a former strategic partner ..don't you think?
All the above plus foreign aid.

 

[PandaBear]

As liberal as I can be, we have to be realistic. Just like Haliburton, after obtaining excessive $$ from the US's war in Iraq and Afgan due to various over budget and no bid contracts, they fled and is now relocated to Bermuda, for the fear of windfall taxes in the future.

Oil companies can do the same if we push them too hard. As much as I hate to say, they don't call it the golden rule for no reason (those who has the gold, rules).

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Whose strategic defensive umbrella has covered all of Western Europe since the last day of WWII??? How much of the money of our "armed tourists" has enabled their economies to grow and protected their resources (north sea)??

So, I suspect we'll see substantial savings since we can remove this protection from a former strategic partner ..don't you think?

Vs. dealing with a Soviet Union streached from the Atlantic to the Pacific? I think what we have spent is quite cheap, both in dollars and lives saved.
That is not the point of my post. We are not protecting much of Europe's energy supply. In fact, if the numbers above are correct, they could be in a real world of hurt in no time.

 

[Steve S]

Didn't Haliburton move to the middle east ?

 

[Shaman]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
I drive fairly fuel efficent vehicles now and work far away from home so I have to drive. (Car pool is not an option)

The problem is there is no competition!


Let's edit this a bit, to make it more true


I drive fairly fuel efficent vehicles now and I choose to work far away from home so I choose to drive.

The problem is there is no visible competition in your eyes. You chose your job, and you chose your house. It's location, and distance from your place of employment are your problem. You chose to live where you are instead of moving closer to where you work.

 

[bruno]

And to make it a little more ' real ' world both job and home are not always where we want them to be !

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Brett Miller
You'll never hear Obama say that Exxon pays more income tax than the bottom 50% of American tax payers.


Because Exxon doesn't - especially when payroll taxes are taken into account.

Exxon pays about 30 billion - the bottom 50% pays about 34 billion in taxes.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Steve S
Didn't Haliburton move to the middle east ?


My bad, it was HSBC that relocated to Bermuda, Haliburton relocated to Dubai instead.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Shaman
Originally Posted By: ZZman
I drive fairly fuel efficent vehicles now and work far away from home so I have to drive. (Car pool is not an option)

The problem is there is no competition!


Let's edit this a bit, to make it more true
I drive fairly fuel efficent vehicles now and I choose to work far away from home so I choose to drive.
The problem is there is no visible competition in your eyes. You chose your job, and you chose your house. It's location, and distance from your place of employment are your problem. You chose to live where you are instead of moving closer to where you work.


Exactly

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Brett Miller
You'll never hear Obama say that Exxon pays more income tax than the bottom 50% of American tax payers.


Because Exxon doesn't - especially when payroll taxes are taken into account.

Exxon pays about 30 billion - the bottom 50% pays about 34 billion in taxes.


How much payroll tax does XOM pay on behalf of it's employees. Is that figured into the $30 billion?

I don't think you can figure payroll taxes into a figure because of two things. One it's comparing apples to oranges, income taxes vs payroll and income taxes. Second, employers have to match employees contributions to payroll taxes, so corporations are paying just as much in payroll taxes as are their employees.

So I don't think it's valid to roll into the calculation payroll taxes when making the comparison of how much income tax does each pay.