Why shouldn't the oil companies give something back to America?

[shiner]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: shinerburke
The idiocy of the extreme left is strong in this thread.

The Corporate kissing ass of the radical right is equally as strong.

Kissing ass? No, some of us just prefer to live in a country where success isn't punished.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: shinerburke
The idiocy of the extreme left is strong in this thread.

The Corporate kissing ass of the radical right is equally as strong.

Kissing ass? No, some of us just prefer to live in a country where success isn't punished.

When that success is to the detriment of the country that used to be called treason.

It needs to be called treason again and people put to death for it.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: shinerburke
The idiocy of the extreme left is strong in this thread.

The Corporate kissing ass of the radical right is equally as strong.

Kissing ass? No, some of us just prefer to live in a country where success isn't punished.

When that success is to the detriment of the country that used to be called treason.

It needs to be called treason again and people put to death for it.

You're just a bitter troll who ruined his own life and has done nothing but go around crying "o woe is me" ever since. You think anyone who has ever made something of themselves is a traitor of the highest magnitude. If you spent half the time trying to get your shit together as you do pointing fingers and blaming anyone but yourself for your troubles you could probably have a pretty good life. As it is you will die a twisted, bitter, lonely old man who nobody can stand being around for more than 2 minutes.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs
For many, many, years the people of the United States of America have given huge amounts of money to oil companies. From the "oil depletion" allowance,
Oil Depletion Allownace is NOT a government give-away by any measure. It's an accounting concept employed in trying to accurately determine Profit & Loss. It' similar to depreciation where your cost of an asset is deducted over it's lifetime.

to the Armed Forces of the United States protecting overseas oil interests,
I'm not aware of any specific instances of this, but considering the extraordinary amount of income tax they pay, I don't see why they should pay again.

to scientific advances by government supported research programs, to generous giveaways of rights to oil on public lands,
I never heard of this. My research indicates that these companies pay huge amounts in an auction to secure the rights for exploration and drilling. Then pay an annual lease fee, all the while not really knowing if there's a commerical qusantity of oil to be found. I.e., they're taking a big risk. I don't see what they owe us for this.

etc, etc, the oil companies have made fantastically huge sums of money from the pockets of the citizens of the U.S., not to mention the very blood of our children.
Yeah, we're their customers, so what?

Why, at this time of fantastically huge profits, which the oil companies are NOT using to find more oil, shouldn't the U.S. get back some of what we gave them???
They do NOt have fantastic profits. Their margins are less than most industries, and from what I have seen they have been falling during this period of high prices.

See bold

Fern

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Demonizing oil companies, real validity of that aside, has become now the new national debate. So childish and such a petty distraction away from reality. Even if their profit margin was cut to $0 we'd still be paying plenty on gas. It's like dogs fighting over scraps. See the bigger picture.

People are finally realizing it's our land, our oil and we are getting raped.

Who is doing better now Chavez or the U.S.?

Yes, it is our land. But we leased the oil rights on it to the highest bidder. Get over it.

 

[seemingly random]

scrushy/health south and mcguire/united health were very successful and treated terribly unfairly. Not to mention worldcom, enron, tyco, etc. - each of which paid taxes - well, tyco did legally evade some, but never mind.

And, I don't know of any nor am alluding to any unscrupulous activity by exxon. I just detest the arguments of the sycophants who fawn over and worship corporations.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Demonizing oil companies, real validity of that aside, has become now the new national debate. So childish and such a petty distraction away from reality. Even if their profit margin was cut to $0 we'd still be paying plenty on gas. It's like dogs fighting over scraps. See the bigger picture.

People are finally realizing it's our land, our oil and we are getting raped.

Who is doing better now Chavez or the U.S.?

Yes, it is our land. But we leased the oil rights on it to the highest bidder. Get over it.

Who is this "we"?

I don't recall seeing a vote for that.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: shinerburke
The idiocy of the extreme left is strong in this thread.

The Corporate kissing ass of the radical right is equally as strong.

Kissing ass? No, some of us just prefer to live in a country where success isn't punished.

When that success is to the detriment of the country that used to be called treason.

It needs to be called treason again and people put to death for it.

You're just a bitter troll who ruined his own life and has done nothing but go around crying "o woe is me" ever since. You think anyone who has ever made something of themselves is a traitor of the highest magnitude. If you spent half the time trying to get your shit together as you do pointing fingers and blaming anyone but yourself for your troubles you could probably have a pretty good life. As it is you will die a twisted, bitter, lonely old man who nobody can stand being around for more than 2 minutes.

Awwww love you too :lips: :heart:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
scrushy/health south and mcguire/united health were very successful and treated terribly unfairly. Not to mention worldcom, enron, tyco, etc. - each of which paid taxes - well, tyco did legally evade some, but never mind.

And, I don't know of any nor am alluding to any unscrupulous activity by exxon.

I just detest the arguments of the sycophants who fawn over and worship corporations.

Should just re-name the U.S. United Corporations of America and get it overwith.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
enron didn't make sense for *years* and yet nobody really investigated it. Not saying that exxon is corrupt, I don't know, but relying on common sense and honesty in business accounting and activity reporting is setting yourself up for failure. Not saying that all businesses are corrupt either - but the ability to hide things is massive.

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: BoomerD

What no one here ever wants to admit to, is that the "8% profit" numbers are pure bullshit. That doesn't account for the massive profit the oil company makes when they buy oil from themselves, (many oil companies DO own exploration, drilling and other oil services as subsidiary corporations) nor the fact that much of that oil they get for only a few dollars per barrel. It's all accounting smoke and mirrors to make people think they're only making a low "acceptable" return on investment...

BS. I happen to be intimately familiar with accounting practices in several fortune 100 companies, and what you're saying doesn't make sense. Oil they "buy from themselves" is still included in the cost of goods sold, and profits from subsidiary's are included in the overall consolidated income statement. If they get oil for only a few dollars per barrel, then their cost of goods sold would be lower, and you'd see that reflected in their profit margin. If you look at Exxon's consolidated financials, that's simply not the case. Exxon does a lot of work to get the oil, and they have to work with a lot of unsavory characters around the world. It's expensive and filled with risk, that's why exxon's returns are not particularly good.

Bash exxon if you will (for example for fouling up the environment), but the profits are not at all out of the norm, they are sub-par if anything.

^ Some serious mis-understanding of accounting etc.

I must agree with Double Trouble, myself also being in accounting and having had Fortune 500 as clients.

More to the point, BoomerD & seemingly random have it backwards - i.e., wrong by 180 degrees.

When companies get in trouble for financial *mistakes* or fraudulent accounting practices it is because they are OVER-REPORTING profit. You guys seem to be charging that they are UNDER-REPORTING their income.

If you guys knew much about business, and how stock prices are determined in the market, and that CEO and other exec comp is usually tied to that, you'd realize how mind-bendingly stupid it would be for a company to understate it's income. Income tax is paltry compared to how the value of a company's stock increases by extra profit.

There is NO motivation for a publicly traded company to understate it's income.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: misle
According to the Tax Foundation, from 1977-2004, big oil made $643 billion in profits. During that same span, Federal and State governments made $1.343 TRILLION in tax revenues from big oil.

So, for every $1 Big Oil make in profit, the government takes $2.09. Who's really getting those "windfall" profits?

are you that dense? you are making it sound like the government is taking that $2.09 from the oil companies themselves. that would mean the oil companies would have zero profit and be out of business already.

most of the tax revenue is from the tax on a gallon of gas paid for at the pump. that isnt taken from the oil companies' pockets.

lolol

you fail at common sense 101

There is plenty of "fail" in the above, but perhaps not as you think.

Yes, the government is getting that money directly from the oil companies.

Even the fed tax on a gallon is paid by the oil company. It appears to be "passed through" to you at the pump because you see the sticker on the pump showing the tax amount. So, you are led to believe is being collected there and then forked over to the government like w/h on your wages, but it is not. The oil companies actually pay the tax themselves, they just include it in your price. (This latter bit might be interesting for those who continue to assert that taxes on companies are not passed through to consumers.)

The reason why it looks like the government makes more than the oil companies is because they do. That amount paid to the government ($2.2 trillion by my reading in the link - the $1.34T amount is just the excise tax) is deducted as an expense in arriving at the oil companies profit amount.

Fern

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Fern
...
More to the point, BoomerD & seemingly random have it backwards - i.e., wrong by 180 degrees.

When companies get in trouble for financial *mistakes* or fraudulent accounting practices it is because they are OVER-REPORTING profit. You guys seem to be charging that they are UNDER-REPORTING their income.

If you guys knew much about business, and how stock prices are determined in the market, and that CEO and other exec comp is usually tied to that, you'd realize how mind-bendingly stupid it would be for a company to understate it's income. Income tax is paltry compared to how the value of a company's stock increases by extra profit.

There is NO motivation for a publicly traded company to understate it's income.

Fern

I never made any claims about what exxon is or is not doing. I don't know and I would have to make stuff up while discussing it. What I do know, what everybody else knows who followed the financial mess and corruption revelations of the early 2000s, is that enron used these little accounting gems called off-balance-sheet entities to hide their shenanigans. Certainly, hopefully, no one here is going to dispute this. I see no reason why this or something similar can't happen again.

What no one has pointed out is that most, if not all, businesses calculate the selling price of product markup using percentages. So with raw material cost increasing, and unless exxon has suddenly started selling less or become uncharacteristically sloppy with costs, the absolute profit is going to increase. And nobody can deny that the number is astronomical. Perspective is in order though. How much does ge, and others, make? This is going to happen as our behemoth companies get bigger.

What also hasn't been discussed is the difference between companies offering a product that is optional and one that has become necessary in daily life. I don't recall anyone begrudging the entrepreneur who came up with the pet rock in the 1970s when he made a killing in profits.

And, I don't entirely agree with the op. As with many threads in p&n, a basic good idea can be lost when some additional, outlandish or shrill claims are associated. The outlandish claim in this thread is the idea that a company would voluntarily give the gov't money it wasn't absolutely legally required to. This is completely contrary to what most of us have been ingrained with since we were gurgling in our high-chairs. What I do agree with is that when a company is successful, any subsidies provided by taxpayers should be discontinued. I also think that the gov't should be subsidizing basic research for a new form of energy - one that you or I can't fathom right now.

I also wonder what was discussed and decided (divvied up?) in cheney's energy policy meetings in 2001. The ones he's been adamant about keeping the contents of from the public.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
-snip-
I never made any claims about what exxon is or is not doing. I don't know and I would have to make stuff up while discussing it. What I do know, what everybody else knows who followed the financial mess and corruption revelations of the early 2000s, is that enron used these little accounting gems called off-balance-sheet entities to hide their shenanigans. Certainly, hopefully, no one here is going to dispute this. I see no reason why this or something similar can't happen again.

I quoted you precisely because you mentioned Enron. My apolgies if I mis-understood you.

But Enron's mis-deeds were overstating income, not understating as some here seem to suspect oil companies do.

The Enron situation is confirmation of my point that publically traded companies get into trouble trying to overstate income, they have no motivation to understate income.

Fern

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: seemingly random
-snip-
I never made any claims about what exxon is or is not doing. I don't know and I would have to make stuff up while discussing it. What I do know, what everybody else knows who followed the financial mess and corruption revelations of the early 2000s, is that enron used these little accounting gems called off-balance-sheet entities to hide their shenanigans. Certainly, hopefully, no one here is going to dispute this. I see no reason why this or something similar can't happen again.

I quoted you precisely because you mentioned Enron. My apolgies if I mis-understood you.

But Enron's mis-deeds were overstating income, not understating as some here seem to suspect oil companies do.

The Enron situation is confirmation of my point that publically traded companies get into trouble trying to overstate income, they have no motivation to understate income.

Fern

This statement is troublesome in that it seems to sanitize what they did - not suggesting that you're excusing them. They broke many rules, laws and codes of conduct and decency - and not just in their accounting. But, I'll have to agree with you about the raw accounting. I hadn't thought of the over vs. under-reporting angle and I can't think of an example to disprove it.

I didn't know that the oil companies pay the tax and then collect it at the the pump. This is semi-interesting to me. I guess it might avoid any possible retailer shenanigans. But in the end, the same result is achieved - the irs gets the money. And all this money goes to keeping up interstates and helping states with their roads, right? From what I know, there are two components of the fuel tax - federal and state. I assume they pay the federal and not the state since each state is different - states rights and all...

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Demonizing oil companies, real validity of that aside, has become now the new national debate. So childish and such a petty distraction away from reality. Even if their profit margin was cut to $0 we'd still be paying plenty on gas. It's like dogs fighting over scraps. See the bigger picture.

People are finally realizing it's our land, our oil and we are getting raped.

Who is doing better now Chavez or the U.S.?

The U.S.?

Do you guys seriously want DHS or some over bureaucracy exploring and producing oil/gas? Do you think it would be all that much cheaper? How much cheaper does it get when you factor in the 70% we would still be importing at world market prices?

You honestly believe we would still be importing 70%?

So the environmental concerns go away if the government is doing the evil drilling instead of Big oil?

If thats the real issue here then by all means make a Federal oil/gas company and go drill ANWAR and everything else thats off limits. Leave big oil with what they currently have and let them spend their resources producing oil in other countries.