Why Do The "Progressives" Keep Arguing That "Big Oil" Get Subsidies?

[tydas]

Basically every company does. The subsidies are to encourage certain behaviors. It could be anything from exploring for oil and helping the local economy to giving extra tax breaks when a company hires students, old people, and handicapped people.

I don't have a problem with subsidies in general. It depends what is being subsidized.

Great point...the question we should be asking:

1. Is this making us less dependent on foreign oil?
2. Would the industry increase prices without subsidy? or lay people off? or just absorb costs?
3. Is this helping to create competition in oil exploration?

 

[Throckmorton]

How much did Exxon pay in taxes last year? $7.7 billion to the US government, which is after offsets from the $15 billion they paid overseas countries. They paid the most in taxes of any US company.

I'm calling you out. They paid $7.7 billion in sales tax and duties. Their "income tax" was negative because they got deductions for taxes paid in foreign countries. Why the fuck would we give corporations deductions for taxes they pay in other countries they operate in?

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/2.html

 

[Throckmorton]

Chevron paid $19 million LOLZ

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/3.html

 

[Fern]

I'm calling you out. They paid $7.7 billion in sales tax and duties. Their "income tax" was negative because they got deductions for taxes paid in foreign countries. Why the fuck would we give corporations deductions for taxes they pay in other countries they operate in?
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/2.html

When US companies generate their profits in other countries, that other country has the first right to income taxes.

Why would we want it any differently? We have plenty of foriegn companies operating here and we want to have the first right to income tax on profit generated here.

It's common sense, really.

Now if that foreign country doesn't tax them, the US requires the (US) company to pay taxes here.

If the USA wants to get the income tax from (our) companies we really need to let them operate here, instead of forcing them to go abroad looking for other opportunites. (They'd probably do that anyway, but letting them drill here we'd make billions in lease fees, royalties and taxes).

Fern

 

[Throckmorton]

When US companies generate their profits in other countries, that other country has the first right to income taxes.

Why would we want it any differently? We have plenty of foriegn companies operating here and we want to have the first right to income tax on profit generated here.

It's common sense, really.

Now if that foreign country doesn't tax them, the US requires the (US) company to pay taxes here.

If the USA wants to get the income tax from (our) companies we really need to let them operate here, instead of forcing them to go abroad looking for other opportunites. (They'd probably do that anyway, but letting them drill here we'd make billions in lease fees, royalties and taxes).

Fern

They aren't just not paying US taxes on foreign profits. They're getting deductions that let them pay zero tax here

 

[Fern]

They aren't just not paying US taxes on foreign profits. They're getting deductions that let them pay zero tax here

If their deductions drive them into a loss they don't have any profits to pay taxes on.

If I could see the tax return I would be in a better position to explain it. Having to go off what some layman/reporter says is dicey. (S)he wouldn't have the tax return either, and even if they did they aren't qualified to examine it.

I noticed the article mentions a country with a high tax rate (IIRC 85&#37, bear in mind that different countries do things differently. The US doesn't have a tax rate that high, but unlike that high tax country we also charge lease fees and royalties; combine those with our income tax rate and the US companies may be paying a something closer to 85% (but it won't reach that amount).

Personally, I think the USA charges far too little in royalties; at least from what I've read. And instead of screwing around with legitimate deductions and credits, royalties rates should be revisited.

Fern

 

[PeshakJang]

I'm calling you out. They paid $7.7 billion in sales tax and duties.

Yes, they paid $7.7 billion in taxes.

Or are you saying that because those are sales taxes and duties, they really paid zero taxes?

Then we better stop subsiding the poor, right? After all, they pay ZERO taxes. And their subsidies are actual subsidies, as in cash payments, to boot.

Their "income tax" was negative because they got deductions for taxes paid in foreign countries. Why the fuck would we give corporations deductions for taxes they pay in other countries they operate in?

Why did we give the President a $22,000 tax credit on the $820,000 ($610,00 taxable) he earned in foreign income last year?

Doesn't have have enough?

 

[DCal430]

The problem isn't oil companies are not paying enough in income taxes because oil companies do pay an above average amount for income tax compared to other companies. Oil companies last year paid around 29% in income tax.

No the problem is HIGHLY excessive profit margins. The profit margins of these BIG OIL companies is criminally high. As long as industries like oil are private there needs to be a an allowed cap on their profit margin. Lets say a 1.5% to 2% limit on profit.

 

[Hacp]

The problem isn't oil companies are not paying enough in income taxes because oil companies do pay an above average amount for income tax compared to other companies. Oil companies last year paid around 29% in income tax.

No the problem is HIGHLY excessive profit margins. The profit margins of these BIG OIL companies is criminally high. As long as industries like oil are private there needs to be a an allowed cap on their profit margin. Lets say a 1.5% to 2% limit on profit.

Ya, someone earns money through blood and tears, then you take it away from him. Not socialist at all.

 

[wuliheron]

They let them have a high profit margin supposedly so they'll take more risks and drill. Since the US is the world's energy hog it only makes sense, but we really need to get away from being so dependent on oil. That means more investment in alternatives and research which we're doing now, but should have done 30 years ago.

 

[Zebo]

Well you're wrong. O&G accounting is whole specialty with different accelerated deprecation schedules and everything from EOR Tax Credit to marginal well production credits and so on. My dad is a CPA but we have another accountant an O&G accountant do our gas gathering system and other properties with working interests in. I've been doing this 20 years and it's always been different. Got a lot better under Bush and it's stayed that way under Obama.

I even remember at the time back during S&L crisis and I was in HS and my dad was sifting through properties govt suddenly owned and govt didn't know what to do with, whole purchase/auction price was 100% deductible that year. No other business is like that. We got some smokin deals. I got 13.5% of one for $200 that still sends me checks for $200 every month.

 

[nobodyknows]

Yes, they paid $7.7 billion in taxes.

Or are you saying that because those are sales taxes and duties, they really paid zero taxes?

Then we better stop subsiding the poor, right? After all, they pay ZERO taxes. And their subsidies are actual subsidies, as in cash payments, to boot.



Why did we give the President a $22,000 tax credit on the $820,000 ($610,00 taxable) he earned in foreign income last year?

Doesn't have have enough?

Get a clue. The poor pay sales taxes too and they aren't making "record profits".

 

[WHAMPOM]

Now I have a question, if capitalism is so great why do they need tax breaks and incentives when their profits are in the $Billions? OH! Right! Greed. Can't let go of the tit.

 

[DCal430]

They aren't just not paying US taxes on foreign profits. They're getting deductions that let them pay zero tax here

Actually CNN did a story recently their average effective tax rate for their U.S profit in the last 6 years is 29%. What is on their Financial is not the same as what is on their tax forms and what they actually paid. People are using them as the same thing and they are not.

But the amount they pay is besides the point. The fact that they have huge profit margin and no mater how much they pay it isn't enough to stop their grotesque profit margins. We need a limit on profit margins. 50-75% tax on all profit over 1.5 to 2%.

 

[blackangst1]

6-8% is a HIGH profit margin?

 

[jhu]

The problem isn't oil companies are not paying enough in income taxes because oil companies do pay an above average amount for income tax compared to other companies. Oil companies last year paid around 29% in income tax.

No the problem is HIGHLY excessive profit margins. The profit margins of these BIG OIL companies is criminally high. As long as industries like oil are private there needs to be a an allowed cap on their profit margin. Lets say a 1.5% to 2% limit on profit.

Exxon had margins of 7.8%, and you're calling that too high??? Meanwhile Microsoft's margins are 30%. Just because you make alot of money due to volume doesn't mean you have high margins (see Walmart or Target)

 

[Engineer]

Again, see my article on refinery margins. They are the ones kicking us in the teeth.

 

[Patranus]

I'm calling you out. They paid $7.7 billion in sales tax and duties. Their "income tax" was negative because they got deductions for taxes paid in foreign countries. Why the fuck would we give corporations deductions for taxes they pay in other countries they operate in?

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/2.html

The bais in your article is apparent when CNN claims the tax bill is negative.
Last time I checked these companies with negative tax bills DID NOT receive a check for that amount.

So the federal government owed Exxon $150 million? LOL