A_R_G_H

[Arkaign]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...o/congress_oil_profits

So, they don't want extra taxes on record profits ..

AND

They DO want no tax breaks on alternative energy ...

???

 

[blackangst1]

Wow. Sounds like Democrats too

 

[Genx87]

How many years do alternative energies require for tax breaks?
And the republicans are right on this issue. Windfall profit taxes on Oil, why? Their profit margins arent out of line. Go after google or better yet their masters called trial lawyers of america. A group of people who sap the economy of more profits than big oil.

 

[Pabster]

I've got to say, this "Windfall Profits" Tax has disaster written all over it. It'll work out about as well as price controls did during the last "gas crisis" ...

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I've got to say, this "Windfall Profits" Tax has disaster written all over it. It'll work out about as well as price controls did during the last "gas crisis" ...

Spell it out for me, seriously I'm curious as to the negatives of such a proposal, and would like more info.

As for alternative energy tax breaks, isn't that an incentive for innovation? I think it's pretty clear that the move towards true energy independence is a national security imperative.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Pabster
I've got to say, this "Windfall Profits" Tax has disaster written all over it. It'll work out about as well as price controls did during the last "gas crisis" ...

Spell it out for me, seriously I'm curious as to the negatives of such a proposal, and would like more info.

As for alternative energy tax breaks, isn't that an incentive for innovation? I think it's pretty clear that the move towards true energy independence is a national security imperative.

If you take away the incentive for a company to make money, the company does not generate the product.

Or they will then pass the tax along to the end consumer.

If Congress puts a tax of $1.00 per barrel of oil, what is to stop the fuel companies for passing this cost on to the consumers.

And you trust Congress to do what with the extra revenue? Increase FHA funding, pay down the debt or give it away on pet social programs? The benefits that are listed based on what may be best for the country/economy, but knowing politicians...

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Pabster
I've got to say, this "Windfall Profits" Tax has disaster written all over it. It'll work out about as well as price controls did during the last "gas crisis" ...

Spell it out for me, seriously I'm curious as to the negatives of such a proposal, and would like more info.

As for alternative energy tax breaks, isn't that an incentive for innovation? I think it's pretty clear that the move towards true energy independence is a national security imperative.

If you take away the incentive for a company to make money, the company does not generate the product.

Or they will then pass the tax along to the end consumer.

If Congress puts a tax of $1.00 per barrel of oil, what is to stop the fuel companies for passing this cost on to the consumers.

And you trust Congress to do what with the extra revenue? Increase FHA funding, pay down the debt or give it away on pet social programs? The benefits that are listed based on what may be best for the country/economy, but knowing politicians...

Point taken, though profits are becoming extreme in that business, at the same time almost every average American is suffering more than ever at the pump.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098458

Look at the graph showing the spike in profits.

Anyhow, you're right about both the (R)'s and (D)'s being terrible at balancing budgets.

I think we need slightly more taxes and much much much less spending. I don't think a windfall profits tax would dampen the oil companies much, as it's not taxing per barrel, it's taxing profits above a certain point to a higher degree. Meaning that just responding by raising prices would be counterproductive to making money.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Pabster
I've got to say, this "Windfall Profits" Tax has disaster written all over it. It'll work out about as well as price controls did during the last "gas crisis" ...

Spell it out for me, seriously I'm curious as to the negatives of such a proposal, and would like more info.

As for alternative energy tax breaks, isn't that an incentive for innovation? I think it's pretty clear that the move towards true energy independence is a national security imperative.

Well for one, who decides what windfall profits are? Is it a percentage or a dollar amount? If it's a percentage, who decides what the minimum would be before this "success penalty" would kick in? If THAT is in place, whats to stop a corporation from spinning off divisions everytime they reach that threshhold? It just plain wont work. If it's a dollar amount, same solution for corp's exists: spinoff. Do you really want to penalize Fortune 50 companies like this?

Second, no matter who does, you have effectively sent a message to businesses the same message we send to the wealthy: it's OK to make a profit and succeed, but not too much! Which is B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Pabster
I've got to say, this "Windfall Profits" Tax has disaster written all over it. It'll work out about as well as price controls did during the last "gas crisis" ...

Spell it out for me, seriously I'm curious as to the negatives of such a proposal, and would like more info.

As for alternative energy tax breaks, isn't that an incentive for innovation? I think it's pretty clear that the move towards true energy independence is a national security imperative.

If you take away the incentive for a company to make money, the company does not generate the product.

Or they will then pass the tax along to the end consumer.

If Congress puts a tax of $1.00 per barrel of oil, what is to stop the fuel companies for passing this cost on to the consumers.

And you trust Congress to do what with the extra revenue? Increase FHA funding, pay down the debt or give it away on pet social programs? The benefits that are listed based on what may be best for the country/economy, but knowing politicians...

Point taken, though profits are becoming extreme in that business, at the same time almost every average American is suffering more than ever at the pump.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098458

Look at the graph showing the spike in profits.

Anyhow, you're right about both the (R)'s and (D)'s being terrible at balancing budgets.

I think we need slightly more taxes and much much much less spending. I don't think a windfall profits tax would dampen the oil companies much, as it's not taxing per barrel, it's taxing profits above a certain point to a higher degree. Meaning that just responding by raising prices would be counterproductive to making money.

i understand what you are saying, i feel the pain everytime if get gas, but i do not agree with taxing a companies profits bucause they make too much profit. the problem is much deeper one of them being that nearly all oil companies have two or three names now and are not competing against each other.

conoco-phillips6-76

BP-Amoco-Arco

exxon-mobil

ChevronTexaco

i bet the oil companies are planning on more mergers if that is the case then i fully support our government stepping in and saying no, and breaking up the existing mergers like they did with the bells.

 

[maddogchen]

okay so cut out the windfall taxes thing and put the bill forth that does the rest of what they want which is this:

_Require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets and open the way for federal regulation of traders who are based in the United States but use foreign trading platforms. The measures are designed to reduce market speculation.

_Make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Pabster
I've got to say, this "Windfall Profits" Tax has disaster written all over it. It'll work out about as well as price controls did during the last "gas crisis" ...

Spell it out for me, seriously I'm curious as to the negatives of such a proposal, and would like more info.

As for alternative energy tax breaks, isn't that an incentive for innovation? I think it's pretty clear that the move towards true energy independence is a national security imperative.

If you take away the incentive for a company to make money, the company does not generate the product.

Or they will then pass the tax along to the end consumer.

If Congress puts a tax of $1.00 per barrel of oil, what is to stop the fuel companies for passing this cost on to the consumers.

And you trust Congress to do what with the extra revenue? Increase FHA funding, pay down the debt or give it away on pet social programs? The benefits that are listed based on what may be best for the country/economy, but knowing politicians...

Point taken, though profits are becoming extreme in that business, at the same time almost every average American is suffering more than ever at the pump.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098458

Look at the graph showing the spike in profits.

While they show a spike in profits, they are not telling you the whole story and showing the profit margins for the companies which have remained relatively stable at 10% or less. The oil companies spend a crap-ton of money to get the profit they make.

They also don't tell you things like Exxon paid $100 billion in taxes and royalties in 2007 (about $39 billion was taxes).

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
If you take away the incentive for a company to make money, the company does not generate the product.

QFT. I can't believe this basic principle isn't understood around here.

My analogy to price controls was put there because it is very similar. You can't run around telling a business what price they can sell their product at as it will produce a similar result.

I don't doubt the sincerity of those who propose such legislation - I think (most of them, anyway) have their hearts in the right place - but it simply defies logic and history has proven such knee-jerk attempts miserable failures.

 

[Fern]

Republicans are for taxes, and against them .. see which side their bread is buttered!

I don't think that's a fair assessment.

The bill imposing windfall profits tax just had a lot of other stuff in it. Typical Washington DC BS. I'm almost surprised there wasn't some give away for children included so the Dems could claim "Look, Repubs hate kids".

Unbundle the crap and get the good parts (regulations against speculators etc) passed.

I oppose any windfall profits tax on general principle. IMO, it's a VERY bad idea to allow Congress to just pick some company and then arbitraily decide what their profits should be and, if higher, decide to take the *extra* money away from them . That's bullshit of highest sort and reminds me of what our Founding fathers fought against - this crap is no different then some King deciding he needs your money so he takes it.

This country, at least those that support this concept of solving problems via taxation, is completly batshit insane. Why they support this Dem tomfoolery is beyond my comprehension.

You don't solve high prices at the pump by taxing the crap out of oil companies. You don't solve MMGW or polution by taxing citizen consumers of energy (another fvcking stupid proposal now in Congress - you should make energy companies and their customers pay for eqiupment upgrades - not send our damn money to Congress to be wasted).

Handing our money over to Congress hasn't solved a G@d D@mned problem ever. It just makes us each a little bit poorer; something we especially don't need now that fuel and food prices are so high.

The next 4 years look exceedingly bleak given that Dems solution to any problem appears to be taxing it. Jeebus Fvcking Krist. :|

Fern

 

[lupi]

So it was bad to cut the fed gas tax cause the companies would make up for that twenty-something cent drop and up po'folk would never see the effect. But an increased tax would somehow not magically be transffered right to us?


As for innovation tax incentives; what ever happened to targetted monetary rewards. Not to mention whomever comes up with something in the energy field that becomes a new standard will be raking in the dough.

 

[Xavier434]

I think the best answer for the consumer in terms of using taxes as the weapon would be to offer tax breaks to company XYZ which they only qualify for if they do ABC where ABC involves anything that reduces the price for the consumer and/or benefits the blue collar workers in that industry. Now, what exactly ABC should entail could be a great variety of things. However, I am no expert in that area. All I know is that it sounds great in theory which in itself might be flawed. Anyone who knows more about this sort of thing can feel free to chime in here. I would prefer to read something which involves proof based on history though if possible.

 

[Arkaign]

More thought on this looks necessary

Valid points from several angles.

BlackAngst, even Bill Gates says the wealthy are undertaxed, and a scaling tax really isn't saying 'Don't succeed too much', but is about keeping the economy from stagnating as a result of wealth concentration.

I really don't think someone making 100 million dollars a year, who gets taxed of 40 million dollars a year, wishes he only made 30 thousand dollars a year, but was only taxed $3,000. The gains from making more money will ALWAYS be there, it's just that the tip of the scale will give more back.

The OTHER side of this is our crappy politicians. Many above have said, and rightly so, that our elected officials almost invariably do a crappy job of spending money. So it's sort of a catch-22.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Pabster
I've got to say, this "Windfall Profits" Tax has disaster written all over it. It'll work out about as well as price controls did during the last "gas crisis" ...

Spell it out for me, seriously I'm curious as to the negatives of such a proposal, and would like more info.

As for alternative energy tax breaks, isn't that an incentive for innovation? I think it's pretty clear that the move towards true energy independence is a national security imperative.

If you take away the incentive for a company to make money, the company does not generate the product.

Or they will then pass the tax along to the end consumer.

If Congress puts a tax of $1.00 per barrel of oil, what is to stop the fuel companies for passing this cost on to the consumers.

And you trust Congress to do what with the extra revenue? Increase FHA funding, pay down the debt or give it away on pet social programs? The benefits that are listed based on what may be best for the country/economy, but knowing politicians...

Point taken, though profits are becoming extreme in that business, at the same time almost every average American is suffering more than ever at the pump.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11098458

Look at the graph showing the spike in profits.

While they show a spike in profits, they are not telling you the whole story and showing the profit margins for the companies which have remained relatively stable at 10% or less. The oil companies spend a crap-ton of money to get the profit they make.

They also don't tell you things like Exxon paid $100 billion in taxes and royalties in 2007 (about $39 billion was taxes).

Do you have a chart comparing the increase in profits with the increase in taxes paid?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Do you have a chart comparing the increase in profits with the increase in taxes paid?

Below is a link to their financial statments. Look in the upper left corner to choose either annual or quarterly data. The link below is to annual. Their tax looks a bit high to me - they paid approx 42%, which must be combined federal (35%) and state(s).

Link

Their profit margin looks a bit high to me at 17.4%, but I suppose that's to be expected.

Fern

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
More thought on this looks necessary

Valid points from several angles.

BlackAngst, even Bill Gates says the wealthy are undertaxed, and a scaling tax really isn't saying 'Don't succeed too much', but is about keeping the economy from stagnating as a result of wealth concentration.

I really don't think someone making 100 million dollars a year, who gets taxed of 40 million dollars a year, wishes he only made 30 thousand dollars a year, but was only taxed $3,000. The gains from making more money will ALWAYS be there, it's just that the tip of the scale will give more back.

The OTHER side of this is our crappy politicians. Many above have said, and rightly so, that our elected officials almost invariably do a crappy job of spending money. So it's sort of a catch-22.

Its easy for the 1st and 3rd richest people to say we need more taxation. However, as Fern so aptly put it, "Handing our money over to Congress hasn't solved a G@d D@mned problem ever. It just makes us each a little bit poorer". This includes the rich.

OK lets say for a moment instead of the top 10% paying approx 62% of the federal revenue (+/- 10% depending on what you read), and say they pay 90%. WTF will be different other than congress having MORE money to waste? There's a financial truth in the Bible I have also heard from many successful people: if you cant manage a little bit of money you wont be able to manage alot. Tell us...would oil prices be lower? Would housing stabilize? Would food prices lower? Would there be less homeless people on the street?

Fuck no. Winston Churchill said it best: "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into
prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying
to lift himself up by the handle."

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Its easy for the 1st and 3rd richest people to say we need more taxation.

It's a lot easier for them to say we don't. For them to say we do requires a reason.

A reason you would do well toget informed about, which you are not now.

However, as Fern so aptly put it, "Handing our money over to Congress hasn't solved a G@d D@mned problem ever. It just makes us each a little bit poorer". This includes the rich.

OK lets say for a moment instead of the top 10% paying approx 62% of the federal revenue (+/- 10% depending on what you read), and say they pay 90%. WTF will be different other than congress having MORE money to waste? There's a financial truth in the Bible I have also heard from many successful people: if you cant manage a little bit of money you wont be able to manage alot. Tell us...would oil prices be lower? Would housing stabilize? Would food prices lower? Would there be less homeless people on the street?

Fuck no. Winston Churchill said it best: "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into
prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying
to lift himself up by the handle."

When you quote these things, the context is never supplied. What were the tax rates Churchill was reacting to? Taxes can be too high and too low.

If you disagree, then I say we make taxes one cent per family per year, and if you say that's too low, I'll point you to the generic anti-tax quotes like the one above.

That's the problem, your statements are based on fact-free ideology, not any rational basis about what tax rates work, where the money goes, etc.

And by the war, I can point you to thousands of problems solved by the federal government with tax money. Why don't you check the appendix to James Carville's "Had Enough?"

 

[blackangst1]

Craig, youre out of youre fucking head. Hope you feel better by putting hope into something that will never happen.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Craig, youre out of youre fucking head. Hope you feel better by putting hope into something that will never happen.

You need to say something clearer if you want the point you're trying to make communicated.

What are you saying will not happen?