• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

About Those Oil Subsidies

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Steve said:
TSR said:
Steve said:
BTW what is Big Oils fair share?

no it is not a no brainer.. the tax code is complicated and you are trying to disprove a negative.. something that doesn't exist...

try to follow this thinking..

several of us on this board have beat this topic to death a dozen times..

and it still comes up every few months... I was going to ignore it..

I am a bit tired of trying to explain the manipulation that goes on..

I have asked an easy question... I assume you and Tex are both educated and fairly smart.. (correct me if I am wrong)

and neither of you buy the rational easy explanations we have given..

so if we can't convince you in in pages of examples.. how can a congressman get this across to a stubborn democrat?

now care to answer my question?

What deduction, loophole, subsidy is it that you don't like big oil getting.. ?

I'm sorry you missed the Q&A session on C-Span. The former CEO of Shell didn't say specifically, as I recall, but he did say the oil companies no longer needed the tax "benefits" being afforded them by the US gov't. simply because they were profiting more than at any time in history. I will take his word for it as he had just retired. I believe he would be as knowledgeable as anyone here on Rnet.

With respect to who has to be convinced, it might be the American people, hundreds of thousands,if not millions watch C-Span on a regular basis. Why would a former Shell ceo say something like this if it wasn't so?

I've done enough research on this issue to easily defend my position.. I don't have to rely on one persons' opinion..

feel free to tax any corporation out of business.. on the basis of one individual.. especially without any facts..

arguing and debating on this issue with any on hell bent on raising taxes is really pointless..

but understand this. we have a small amount of the world oil production market, BP, Shell, are not US corporations, it would be easy for them to abandon our market.. Exxon mobile is already positioned to leave and chevron has effectively already left.. so why not do as Tex wants.. tell them pay more taxes or we don't want your product.. ???

Could you at least answer the simple question before you do so I will at least know why they left us without oil?

What deduction, loophole, subsidy is it that you don't like big oil getting.. ?

My goal isn't to tax any corporation out of business---it is to stop selling the U.S. markets out the way we set up our rules and to pay the govt. expenses as we go, not load them on future generations with debt financing because our politicians want to spend money and get that money by borrowing, not by taxing.

These companies are thinking about leaving because the price of oil in the U.S. can not justify bus. decisions to get that oil. Some oil is recoverable at 20 a barrel and some at 80. If the big guys leave economic oil on the table, we should allow little guys to produce it and not let the big companies hold it up.

WE WILL NOT SOLVE OUR LACK OF DOMESTIC EASY OIL WITH TAX BREAKS TO CORPORATIONS. THE PRICE OF OIL HAS TO GO UP TO TAP SOME OF THE OIL HERE ECONOMICALLY AND THAT WILL HAPPEN AS THE PRICE OF OIL GOES UP. OIL COMPANIES WILL GET THE LOWEST COST OIL IN THE WORLD AND THEN SELL IT HERE FIRST BECAUSE THEY WILL MAKE MORE MONEY THAT WAY. WE CAN'T MAKE THE TAXES SO LOW THAT THEY WILL GET ALL OUR OIL FROM THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE THE CHEAP OIL IS GONE HERE COMPARED TO OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD.

The U.S. is the biggest consumer of oil. Are you saying these big global companies are wanting to lose their markets for oil here or just not produce oil here? These things happen for two different reasons that you are getting mixed up in your head. The argument is based in fantasy. Big oil ties up production here because we allow them to due to how they are allowed to buy leases and develop the oil field. Sometimes they just sit on oil or gas for later.



Tex
 
Tex said:
Steve said:
Iv'e went on record and said I think the deprerciation deduction is a crock, even if it excluded big oil, and since the main jist of this thread has been how the big oil screws the US out of it's 4 billion dollar in taxes

a quick question for you Tex,.. or anyone else that wants to answer..

is Big Oil actually getting any tax breaks..?

not normal deductions.. not normal tax credits that all US industry has,

but special carved out tax breaks, like the liberals and the media whines about?

My personal view is that the legislators have given tax loopholes out to those supporting them that almost all businesses are not paying their stated tax rate. Oil is but on example.

Our Congress would rather borrow money from China and on the way ship out jobs to China from the U.S. than to make our economy run the way it is supposed to. Big business just use small arguments or reasons for Congress to treat them preferentially for some reason or another. Then they borrow from China (this is the new slave route).

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08950.pdf

As oldgoat said, it is complicated, but it is happening.

Tex


Has anyone ever looked up the amount of the national debt and see who owns it. The largest amount is owned by citizens in the USA. China does own some but not as much as the media and Washington would like you to believe.Largest part of the debt is owed to the SS trust.
 
hurleyjd said:
Tex said:
Steve said:
Iv'e went on record and said I think the deprerciation deduction is a crock, even if it excluded big oil, and since the main jist of this thread has been how the big oil screws the US out of it's 4 billion dollar in taxes

a quick question for you Tex,.. or anyone else that wants to answer..

is Big Oil actually getting any tax breaks..?

not normal deductions.. not normal tax credits that all US industry has,

but special carved out tax breaks, like the liberals and the media whines about?

My personal view is that the legislators have given tax loopholes out to those supporting them that almost all businesses are not paying their stated tax rate. Oil is but on example.

Our Congress would rather borrow money from China and on the way ship out jobs to China from the U.S. than to make our economy run the way it is supposed to. Big business just use small arguments or reasons for Congress to treat them preferentially for some reason or another. Then they borrow from China (this is the new slave route).

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08950.pdf

As oldgoat said, it is complicated, but it is happening.

Tex


Has anyone ever looked up the amount of the national debt and see who owns it. The largest amount is owned by citizens in the USA. China does own some but not as much as the media and Washington would like you to believe.Largest part of the debt is owed to the SS trust.

Yes, you are right about this. Why should we put so much on the nation's credit card instead of paying it as we go? When the govt. issues govt. debt, they are just putting off taxes that should be collected to pay for govt. services.

I can see capitalizing some things with debt, but not the kind of things they are. They should come out of the current budget by collecting taxes. Basically we are allowing Congress to over spend and under tax while putting the balance in tbills which erodes the nation's balance sheet. It is leveraging up the ability to tax way too much.

I don't want to see a whole lot of investors owning the taxing rights to future Americans. It will enslave our future generations. Those with the money will continue to throw costs onto others as deficit spending does.

By the way, we couldn't just give U.S. taxpayers a big bonus to jump start the economy because much of what they would have bought would have gone to China. Have you seen some of the TV shows that take out all of the items out of a regular house that comes from China? We would have just been giving more business to the Chinese economy instead of pumping up our economy. You say that U.S. companies own those products and sell them from China to make money (this was the China leader's point)? We shouldn't have an economy where pumping money in the economy just goes to the corporations who own the brands who get them made in China. That has been the problem. As I said, these companies are allowing China to sucker punch the U.S. economy and make money on the fight. These kind of companies should have their goods stopped at the border until every item is inspected (like the Japanese did in their silent trade war). The companies who want supply lines that are not so globally linked and have manufacturers in the U.S. will have supplies to sell. The Walmarts and others will not.

We need to restructure this sorry economy we have allowed to get into such poor shape.

Tex

Tex
 
Tex said:
Are you saying these big global companies are wanting to lose their markets for oil here or just not produce oil here?

big oil could easily "leave here".. most have already left, you and the democrats in congress just haven't accepted that yet..

I doubt we could get by if they did not produce from here.. but I really doubt we could stop buying from them..

who would replace them? few corporations could step in.

overall this is an asinine argument.. no sane person is ever going to go with your policy.. especially on oil..



but in all the ranting you and one other have done not one of you two could come up with a reasonable answer to a really simple question..


What deduction, loophole, subsidy is it that you don't like big oil getting.. ?

any one with a little education or smarts should be able to answer it..
 
Steve, the Republicans on C-Span need you,why doesn't any of them tell the American people what you are saying??? Millions are watching! I'm sure millions were watching the former Shell CEO, and as I interpreted his comments with respect to taxes, he was talking about all the major oil companies in general.
 
The major oil companies in the U.S. pay just over $46 MILLION dollars PER DAY in U.S. taxes, not counting the taxes collected off of their products sold, while GE scoots by and doesn't pay a penny. :roll:
 
So what would eliminating these "tax breaks" amount to?

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that eliminating the tax breaks would be unlikely to result in higher gasoline prices, which are influenced by a host of factors. The report, released Wednesday, said eliminating the tax breaks would raise about $1.2-billion in 2012. By comparison, the five oil companies had combined revenues of $1.5-trillion, and profits of more than $76 billion, in 2010, the report said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/big-oil-doesnt-need-tax-breaks-senate-democrat/article2019753/

The hearings on CSPAN are a dog and pony show. The dollar devaluation that has happened in the last 2 years due to obama's spending has done more to raise the price of gasoline, than these "tax breaks" ever will.

Most don't realize that the stimulus bill spending has been added to the "baseline". The first step to balancing the budget, or cutting the deficit should be getting back to 2008 spending levels.

But attacking the "big five" oil companies, that control about 5% of the world's oil reserves is perceived as a good for "vote getting" strategy. It's a diversion and like good little "obama zombies", those on the left are falling for it.

Expanded drilling in the US, would increase the US' control of world reserves and lower gasoline prices. It's not a re-invention of the wheel. all that has to be done is to take a look at how other jurisdictions manage oil resources. We complain about gas prices in Alberta, and then in the next breath, we thank our lucky stars that oil is priced as high as it is.


Where's obama's energy policy and plan to become more energy independent?
 
But attacking the "big five" oil companies, that control about 5% of the world's oil reserves is perceived as a good for "vote getting" strategy. It's a diversion and like good little "obama zombies", those on the left are falling for it.

what many do not realize is that while big oil corporations can easily afford to pay their share of the 1.2 billion, it will also effect the small to medium oil corporations who can't afford to pay the additional tax burden without scaling back operations..

and what a few do not realize is that the tax breaks are not really tax breaks but deductions.. normal cost of business deductions,,, and the loss will be felt by all corporations, and all Americans..

it will be the small businesses and corporations who are nipping at the heals of big oil who will end up losing... not big oil...
 
hypocritexposer said:
So what would eliminating these "tax breaks" amount to?

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that eliminating the tax breaks would be unlikely to result in higher gasoline prices, which are influenced by a host of factors. The report, released Wednesday, said eliminating the tax breaks would raise about $1.2-billion in 2012. By comparison, the five oil companies had combined revenues of $1.5-trillion, and profits of more than $76 billion, in 2010, the report said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/big-oil-doesnt-need-tax-breaks-senate-democrat/article2019753/

The hearings on CSPAN are a dog and pony show. The dollar devaluation that has happened in the last 2 years due to obama's spending has done more to raise the price of gasoline, than these "tax breaks" ever will.

Most don't realize that the stimulus bill spending has been added to the "baseline". The first step to balancing the budget, or cutting the deficit should be getting back to 2008 spending levels.

But attacking the "big five" oil companies, that control about 5% of the world's oil reserves is perceived as a good for "vote getting" strategy. It's a diversion and like good little "obama zombies", those on the left are falling for it.

Expanded drilling in the US, would increase the US' control of world reserves and lower gasoline prices. It's not a re-invention of the wheel. all that has to be done is to take a look at how other jurisdictions manage oil resources. We complain about gas prices in Alberta, and then in the next breath, we thank our lucky stars that oil is priced as high as it is.


Where's obama's energy policy and plan to become more energy independent?



Thanks for the post Hypo. Now everyone read and "digest" his posting quoting the non-partisan Congressional Research Office.

"Expanded drilling would increase the US's control of world reserves and lower gas prices????" How much oil does the US have in reserves that are "economically and readily available" so as to be competitive with similar reserves in other countries???

C-Span a dog and pony show huh I guess FOX is the only one we should watch. Geesh!
 
hypocritexposer said:
So what would eliminating these "tax breaks" amount to?

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that eliminating the tax breaks would be unlikely to result in higher gasoline prices, which are influenced by a host of factors. The report, released Wednesday, said eliminating the tax breaks would raise about $1.2-billion in 2012. By comparison, the five oil companies had combined revenues of $1.5-trillion, and profits of more than $76 billion, in 2010, the report said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/big-oil-doesnt-need-tax-breaks-senate-democrat/article2019753/

The hearings on CSPAN are a dog and pony show. The dollar devaluation that has happened in the last 2 years due to obama's spending has done more to raise the price of gasoline, than these "tax breaks" ever will.

Most don't realize that the stimulus bill spending has been added to the "baseline". The first step to balancing the budget, or cutting the deficit should be getting back to 2008 spending levels.

But attacking the "big five" oil companies, that control about 5% of the world's oil reserves is perceived as a good for "vote getting" strategy. It's a diversion and like good little "obama zombies", those on the left are falling for it.

Expanded drilling in the US, would increase the US' control of world reserves and lower gasoline prices. It's not a re-invention of the wheel. all that has to be done is to take a look at how other jurisdictions manage oil resources. We complain about gas prices in Alberta, and then in the next breath, we thank our lucky stars that oil is priced as high as it is.


Where's obama's energy policy and plan to become more energy independent?

Hypo, I am not "attacking" the big 5. I just want EVERY corporation to pay their taxes without loopholes or other political give aways until we don't have a deficit. We have been borrowing from SS collections for some time. It is about time we made EVERYONE pay more in taxes until we don't have a budget deficit at all. Deficit spending means we delay the spending for our kids or future generations to pay for our present day consumption and tax breaks that Congress has given out so they can get their bribe money.

I also think it is the only way that we will get our government to stop spending so much money. If we don't equate political spending with raising that same money in taxes, then we will never get a balanced budget. If every business or individual making money had to pay taxes to cover the spending, we would soon send the spenders packing back home. I used to think the big spenders were democrats until Bush came after Clinton's almost balancing. All of that deficit spending was just put on the nation's credit card during "better" economic times---kind of like borrowing to keep up the partying in D.C.

There wasn't really a shared sacrifice with our recent 2 wars except by the men and women in those wars. Everyone got a tax cut and we just borrowed the money. It is ridiculous. Then Bush had the audacity to take "it off budget" so I guess it just doesn't count then, does it?

This is just crazy.

You can argue for not taxing anyone but doe that put the U.S. in a better or worse fiscal situation?

Here is the quote from the Shell pres in the following article:


Republicans Chose To Keep Big Oil Subsidies, Costing Americans Billions Of Dollars - And Response (4)
posted March 2, 2011

House Republicans voted yesterday to protect corporate welfare for big oil companies while cutting to the bone programs average Americans depend on. While the U.S. House of Representatives was working on a stopgap funding bill to avert a government shutdown, House Democrats offered a motion that would have taken away tax subsidies from the five largest oil companies, saving tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. The motion was defeated with every Republican voting against it.

Two weeks ago a similar vote that would have saved $53 billion in taxpayer funds, taking it away from the biggest oil companies, was also defeated basically along party lines.
The former CEO of Shell Oil, John Hoffmeister, recently said, "Big Oil doesn't need subsidies in the face of sustained high oil prices." The largest oil companies, between 2005 and 2009, have made a combined 485 billion dollars in profits. That's almost half a Trillion dollars.

House Republicans said yes to the subsidies, including 3rd District Congressman Chuck Fleischmann. The Democrats tried to keep your money from going to subsidize big companies making huge profits.

Who wants to reduce the deficit? Who wants to save taxpayer dollars?
Think about that the next time you fill up your car. You're paying a lot more than just the price at the pump, and you have House Republicans to thank.

Randy Price
Hixson
[email protected]

Republicans seem to be whores to those who are paying them off like Rep. Joe Barton showed when he apologized to BP (then took it back when everyone was shocked to see how indebted these politicians are to industry).

The whole drill baby drill mantra showed how totally clueless many republicans are about oil in the U.S. As TSR said, these companies will go where it is the cheapest to produce based on the geology and the country it is coming from. They have pretty much tapped the easy oil here in the U.S. and drilling here may not make much of a difference in its price. Besides that, we end up "depleting" our natural wealth.

Tex
 
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
So what would eliminating these "tax breaks" amount to?

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that eliminating the tax breaks would be unlikely to result in higher gasoline prices, which are influenced by a host of factors. The report, released Wednesday, said eliminating the tax breaks would raise about $1.2-billion in 2012. By comparison, the five oil companies had combined revenues of $1.5-trillion, and profits of more than $76 billion, in 2010, the report said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/big-oil-doesnt-need-tax-breaks-senate-democrat/article2019753/

The hearings on CSPAN are a dog and pony show. The dollar devaluation that has happened in the last 2 years due to obama's spending has done more to raise the price of gasoline, than these "tax breaks" ever will.

Most don't realize that the stimulus bill spending has been added to the "baseline". The first step to balancing the budget, or cutting the deficit should be getting back to 2008 spending levels.

But attacking the "big five" oil companies, that control about 5% of the world's oil reserves is perceived as a good for "vote getting" strategy. It's a diversion and like good little "obama zombies", those on the left are falling for it.

Expanded drilling in the US, would increase the US' control of world reserves and lower gasoline prices. It's not a re-invention of the wheel. all that has to be done is to take a look at how other jurisdictions manage oil resources. We complain about gas prices in Alberta, and then in the next breath, we thank our lucky stars that oil is priced as high as it is.


Where's obama's energy policy and plan to become more energy independent?



Thanks for the post Hypo. Now everyone read and "digest" his posting quoting the non-partisan Congressional Research Office.

"Expanded drilling would increase the US's control of world reserves and lower gas prices????" How much oil does the US have in reserves that are "economically and readily available" so as to be competitive with similar reserves in other countries???

C-Span a dog and pony show huh I guess FOX is the only one we should watch. Geesh!


The hearings on CSPAN are a dog and pony show

as for the amount of oil......


....lots and it would be a resource that could finance a bridge towards alternative, if desired.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=04212e22-c1b3-41f2-b0ba-0da5eaead952

Royalties at present are just a drop in the bucket compared to what they could be.
 
Tex said:
Hypo, I am not "attacking" the big 5. I just want EVERY corporation to pay their taxes without loopholes or other political give aways until we don't have a deficit. We have been borrowing from SS collections for some time. It is about time we made EVERYONE pay more in taxes until we don't have a budget deficit at all. Deficit spending means we delay the spending for our kids or future generations to pay for our present day consumption and tax breaks that Congress has given out so they can get their bribe money.


Like I said Tex, the US would make more in royalties and taxes if US oil companies were allowed to drill more in the US, instead of buying their oil from other countries.


"And during the first quarter of this year, we incurred tax expenses in the United States of more than $3.1 billion on U.S. earnings of $2.6 billion"


ExxonMobil's earnings: The real story you won't hear in Washington

April 28, 2011 | Posted by Ken Cohen

Big numbers make headlines – like our announcement of $10.7 billion in earnings for the first quarter of 2011. What may not make the headlines is the context surrounding that number, so I thought I would share with you what I told reporters following the announcement:

Whewn crude oil prices increase it means higher earnings for oil companies, and more importantly for most Americans – higher gasoline prices. Rising crude and gasoline prices have a very real impact on household budgets across the nation. Gasoline is an essential product, and price rises are felt by families and businesses alike.

Let me start by putting our earnings into context for U.S. motorists.

ExxonMobil's earnings are from operations in more than 100 countries around the world. During the first quarter, more than three-quarters of our operating earnings came from outside of the United States.

The part of ExxonMobil's business that refines and sells gasoline, diesel and other products in the United States represents less than 6 percent – or 6 cents on the dollar – of our earnings.


ExxonMobil-Expenses-and-Earnings-Chart-420x291.png


Why so little? Because we actually buy more crude oil to refine into gasoline and diesel in the U.S. than we produce ourselves. And these purchases are made on the open market at the prevailing rates.

During the first three months of this year, for every gallon of gasoline and other products we refined and sold in the United States, we earned about 7 cents. Compare that to the 40 to 60 cents per gallon that went from gasoline consumers to the government (state and federal) in gasoline taxes.

The underlying question people are asking is: Why are oil prices so high at the present time? The answer to this question is important because the price of crude oil accounts for most of the price of gasoline.

There are several factors involved in the rise in oil prices.

First, as a result of the global economy strengthening – particularly in countries like China, India and Brazil – demand for crude oil is on the rise.

Second, political instability in some oil-producing regions is contributing to uncertainty about future oil supplies. Oil markets are well-supplied today, but the issue is this: What will it cost to replace this supply if it is lost in the future? This uncertainty about tomorrow is reflected in prices today.

Finally, another factor behind higher oil prices is unique to the United States. And that's the weak U.S. dollar. Oil and most other food and industrial commodities are invoiced in dollars. Accordingly, when the dollar goes "down" the price of primary commodities tend to go "up," and vice versa.

The dollar is at a three-year low against other currencies and is approaching the record low which occurred in 2008, when oil prices were at historically high levels.

The dollar's decline accelerated last week after a warning by Standard & Poor's about the country's $14.3 trillion debt and economic weakness compared to other countries.

So these factors all combine to drive oil prices up.

What is our government doing about it? Unfortunately, they're reaching for the political playbook rather than seeking real solutions.

We understand that it's simply too irresistible for many politicians in times of high oil prices and high earnings – they feel they have to demonize our industry.

Predictably last week the Administration established a task force to investigate oil and gas markets, now a time-honored tradition when prices increase.

And we're seeing a return to the now-familiar misinformation about the oil industry's taxes.

Over the last week as earnings season has approached, the Democratic Party leadership again talked about removing what they call $4 billion in oil industry subsidies. But what they really mean is that they want to increase our taxes by taking away long-standing deductions for our industry while leaving these same deductions in place for other sectors of the economy. The simple truth is that these are legitimate tax provisions to keep U.S. industry internationally competitive – to keep jobs from being exported to other countries.

Unfortunately, this false discussion about oil industry subsidies also reinforces another falsehood making the rounds: that ExxonMobil doesn't pay its fair share of income taxes in the United States.

Let me state it unequivocally. Last year, our total taxes and duties to the U.S. government were $9.8 billion, which includes an income tax expense of $1.6 billion. Over the past five years, we incurred a total U.S. tax expense of almost $59 billion, which is $18 billion more than we earned in the United States during the same period.

And during the first quarter of this year, we incurred tax expenses in the United States of more than $3.1 billion on U.S. earnings of $2.6 billion.

So we have seen the predictable political positioning but no action to actually help bring down energy prices. In fact the government has chosen not to help increase supply by refusing to open up the vast energy resources in this country that are off limits to our industry.

We have seen exploration and development in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico – which accounts for 30 percent of all U.S. crude oil production – effectively banned for the past year by the Obama Administration.

In addition, legislation was enacted targeted at restricting the supply of oil from Canada – a country whose oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's.

Unfortunately, irresistible sound-bite politics rather than sound public policy is dominating the energy agenda in Washington – but there is one reason for optimism about America's economic and energy security.

That optimism lies in America's extraordinary natural gas endowment. This resource is providing the United States with an enormous economic advantage as a result of American ingenuity and innovation.

It's nothing short of revolutionary that our industry has recently unlocked more than a 100 years' worth of natural gas right here in the United States. And at some of the world's lowest prices – last month natural gas was selling for 40 percent less in the U.S. than in Europe.

Think of the advantages this is already providing – in the form of power generation and fuel for manufacturing and other industries, not to mention the jobs and taxes natural gas production creates.

But there are concerns that political overreaction to a small number of isolated environmental issues could jeopardize this emerging industry and the benefits it provides.

Government policies did not cause the shale gas revolution in this country – but they could stop it in its tracks.

Policymakers need to look carefully at the facts and avoid a bias against natural gas and fossil fuel development in favor of far more costly energy sources that are already receiving massive subsidies.

In fact, we've already spent more on alternative energy subsidies than we did on the Manhattan and Apollo projects combined. And what do we have to show for it? Unreliable and uneconomic energy sources that still can't compete – even at today's prices.

On the other hand, natural gas is affordable, available – and doesn't need taxpayer subsidies.

The technologies and industrial processes involved in developing shale gas are proven – the industry has successfully fracked more than a million wells over the last 60 years. There are thousands of feet of rock between the natural gas deposit where the fracking takes place and the water table.

Risk to water supplies and air quality can be and are being mitigated by using proper well design, operating with care and following industry best practices and procedures that are all subject to regulation and government oversight.

When these technologies are applied properly and the industry remains focused on operational integrity, we can protect our environment and public health and enjoy this unprecedented economic advantage.

Energy policy should enable safe and environmentally responsible development of all of America's natural resources, which will support economic recovery and improved quality of life.

It's time for our leaders to stop playing politics with the energy industry and to start working for solutions that will take the pressure off household budgets and enhance our energy security.


http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/04/28/exxonmobil-earnings-the-real-story-you-wont-hear-in-washington/
 
hypocritexposer said:
Tex said:
Hypo, I am not "attacking" the big 5. I just want EVERY corporation to pay their taxes without loopholes or other political give aways until we don't have a deficit. We have been borrowing from SS collections for some time. It is about time we made EVERYONE pay more in taxes until we don't have a budget deficit at all. Deficit spending means we delay the spending for our kids or future generations to pay for our present day consumption and tax breaks that Congress has given out so they can get their bribe money.


Like I said Tex, the US would make more in royalties and taxes if US oil companies were allowed to drill more in the US, instead of buying their oil from other countries.


"And during the first quarter of this year, we incurred tax expenses in the United States of more than $3.1 billion on U.S. earnings of $2.6 billion"


ExxonMobil's earnings: The real story you won't hear in Washington

April 28, 2011 | Posted by Ken Cohen

Big numbers make headlines – like our announcement of $10.7 billion in earnings for the first quarter of 2011. What may not make the headlines is the context surrounding that number, so I thought I would share with you what I told reporters following the announcement:

Whewn crude oil prices increase it means higher earnings for oil companies, and more importantly for most Americans – higher gasoline prices. Rising crude and gasoline prices have a very real impact on household budgets across the nation. Gasoline is an essential product, and price rises are felt by families and businesses alike.

Let me start by putting our earnings into context for U.S. motorists.

ExxonMobil's earnings are from operations in more than 100 countries around the world. During the first quarter, more than three-quarters of our operating earnings came from outside of the United States.

The part of ExxonMobil's business that refines and sells gasoline, diesel and other products in the United States represents less than 6 percent – or 6 cents on the dollar – of our earnings.


ExxonMobil-Expenses-and-Earnings-Chart-420x291.png


Why so little? Because we actually buy more crude oil to refine into gasoline and diesel in the U.S. than we produce ourselves. And these purchases are made on the open market at the prevailing rates.

During the first three months of this year, for every gallon of gasoline and other products we refined and sold in the United States, we earned about 7 cents. Compare that to the 40 to 60 cents per gallon that went from gasoline consumers to the government (state and federal) in gasoline taxes.

The underlying question people are asking is: Why are oil prices so high at the present time? The answer to this question is important because the price of crude oil accounts for most of the price of gasoline.

There are several factors involved in the rise in oil prices.

First, as a result of the global economy strengthening – particularly in countries like China, India and Brazil – demand for crude oil is on the rise.

Second, political instability in some oil-producing regions is contributing to uncertainty about future oil supplies. Oil markets are well-supplied today, but the issue is this: What will it cost to replace this supply if it is lost in the future? This uncertainty about tomorrow is reflected in prices today.

Finally, another factor behind higher oil prices is unique to the United States. And that's the weak U.S. dollar. Oil and most other food and industrial commodities are invoiced in dollars. Accordingly, when the dollar goes "down" the price of primary commodities tend to go "up," and vice versa.

The dollar is at a three-year low against other currencies and is approaching the record low which occurred in 2008, when oil prices were at historically high levels.

The dollar's decline accelerated last week after a warning by Standard & Poor's about the country's $14.3 trillion debt and economic weakness compared to other countries.

So these factors all combine to drive oil prices up.

What is our government doing about it? Unfortunately, they're reaching for the political playbook rather than seeking real solutions.

We understand that it's simply too irresistible for many politicians in times of high oil prices and high earnings – they feel they have to demonize our industry.

Predictably last week the Administration established a task force to investigate oil and gas markets, now a time-honored tradition when prices increase.

And we're seeing a return to the now-familiar misinformation about the oil industry's taxes.

Over the last week as earnings season has approached, the Democratic Party leadership again talked about removing what they call $4 billion in oil industry subsidies. But what they really mean is that they want to increase our taxes by taking away long-standing deductions for our industry while leaving these same deductions in place for other sectors of the economy. The simple truth is that these are legitimate tax provisions to keep U.S. industry internationally competitive – to keep jobs from being exported to other countries.

Unfortunately, this false discussion about oil industry subsidies also reinforces another falsehood making the rounds: that ExxonMobil doesn't pay its fair share of income taxes in the United States.

Let me state it unequivocally. Last year, our total taxes and duties to the U.S. government were $9.8 billion, which includes an income tax expense of $1.6 billion. Over the past five years, we incurred a total U.S. tax expense of almost $59 billion, which is $18 billion more than we earned in the United States during the same period.

And during the first quarter of this year, we incurred tax expenses in the United States of more than $3.1 billion on U.S. earnings of $2.6 billion.

So we have seen the predictable political positioning but no action to actually help bring down energy prices. In fact the government has chosen not to help increase supply by refusing to open up the vast energy resources in this country that are off limits to our industry.

We have seen exploration and development in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico – which accounts for 30 percent of all U.S. crude oil production – effectively banned for the past year by the Obama Administration.

In addition, legislation was enacted targeted at restricting the supply of oil from Canada – a country whose oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's.

Unfortunately, irresistible sound-bite politics rather than sound public policy is dominating the energy agenda in Washington – but there is one reason for optimism about America's economic and energy security.

That optimism lies in America's extraordinary natural gas endowment. This resource is providing the United States with an enormous economic advantage as a result of American ingenuity and innovation.

It's nothing short of revolutionary that our industry has recently unlocked more than a 100 years' worth of natural gas right here in the United States. And at some of the world's lowest prices – last month natural gas was selling for 40 percent less in the U.S. than in Europe.

Think of the advantages this is already providing – in the form of power generation and fuel for manufacturing and other industries, not to mention the jobs and taxes natural gas production creates.

But there are concerns that political overreaction to a small number of isolated environmental issues could jeopardize this emerging industry and the benefits it provides.

Government policies did not cause the shale gas revolution in this country – but they could stop it in its tracks.

Policymakers need to look carefully at the facts and avoid a bias against natural gas and fossil fuel development in favor of far more costly energy sources that are already receiving massive subsidies.

In fact, we've already spent more on alternative energy subsidies than we did on the Manhattan and Apollo projects combined. And what do we have to show for it? Unreliable and uneconomic energy sources that still can't compete – even at today's prices.

On the other hand, natural gas is affordable, available – and doesn't need taxpayer subsidies.

The technologies and industrial processes involved in developing shale gas are proven – the industry has successfully fracked more than a million wells over the last 60 years. There are thousands of feet of rock between the natural gas deposit where the fracking takes place and the water table.

Risk to water supplies and air quality can be and are being mitigated by using proper well design, operating with care and following industry best practices and procedures that are all subject to regulation and government oversight.

When these technologies are applied properly and the industry remains focused on operational integrity, we can protect our environment and public health and enjoy this unprecedented economic advantage.

Energy policy should enable safe and environmentally responsible development of all of America's natural resources, which will support economic recovery and improved quality of life.

It's time for our leaders to stop playing politics with the energy industry and to start working for solutions that will take the pressure off household budgets and enhance our energy security.


http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/04/28/exxonmobil-earnings-the-real-story-you-wont-hear-in-washington/

Hypo, they can drill more in the U.S. They have the leases but don't think it is worth the drilling costs to complete.

I don't begrudge anyone from making money. I do begrudge any company that puts on a huge pr campaign and lobbies to get their taxes lower when we have deficits and the U.S. borrows to pay for present day consumption.

I think our govt. shouldn't be the one who pays people. I think the economy should pay the people but the rules our politicians have given us have encouraged our jobs to leave the country, a few very wealthy to use leverage to capture markets and profits, pensions to be gutted by CEOs while their pay has increased, leverage to be subsidized, and SS are not actuarial and sound and the rest of our economy to just get screwed over. I think those rules need to change.

I saw that the Afghanistan economy produces under 15 billion a year but we spend over a hundred billion a year there for our military.

These are not sound economic decisions. They are decisions that have have culminated into one of the worst economic times of my life.

The former CEO of Exxon retired and received pay that was valued by the company at 98 million.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041201844.html

I think this company has some of the best PR at getting out of paying taxes while operating an obviously very profitable business.

We have to stop making corporate excuses for not paying taxes while we have budget deficits. We can't borrow from SS then say we have to slash it when SS taxes only go up to about $150K.

When is enough enough? It is just greed and PR.

Tex
 
Tex said:
Hypo, they can drill more in the U.S. They have the leases but don't think it is worth the drilling costs to complete.

Tex

If that's true, then why is obama promising to sell more leases and extend the ones that are already being drilled?

Can you explain how Alberta continues to profitably operate the oilsands? Extraction of oilsands is one of the more costly forms of oil production.

Maybe it's the Federal corporate income tax structure in Canada?



The corporate tax rate will decrease as follows:

* 21% before January 1, 2008
* 19.5% effective January 1, 2008
* 19% effective January 1, 2009
* 18% effective January 1, 2010
* 16.5% effective January 1, 2011
* 15% effective January 1, 2012

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/scr/on/ofn/index-eng.asp[/quote]


the US is not re-inventing the wheel. why not take a look at the cost/benefits of how other Countries manage their resources?
 
hypocritexposer said:
Tex said:
Hypo, they can drill more in the U.S. They have the leases but don't think it is worth the drilling costs to complete.

Tex

If that's true, then why is obama promising to sell more leases and extend the ones that are already being drilled?

Can you explain how Alberta continues to profitably operate the oilsands? Extraction of oilsands is one of the more costly forms of oil production.

Maybe it's the Federal corporate income tax structure in Canada?



The corporate tax rate will decrease as follows:

* 21% before January 1, 2008
* 19.5% effective January 1, 2008
* 19% effective January 1, 2009
* 18% effective January 1, 2010
* 16.5% effective January 1, 2011
* 15% effective January 1, 2012

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/scr/on/ofn/index-eng.asp


the US is not re-inventing the wheel. why not take a look at the cost/benefits of how other Countries manage their resources?[/quote]

Oil sands?---They have a lot of natural gas (our biggest foreign supplier, I believe) and turned their oil sands into oil for profit. Tax structure did not give them oil sands or natural gas but demand from the U.S. made it all possible and profitable.

I think we have to stop allowing ALL businesses to cry they need to stop paying taxes in order to keep operating here (their empty threat--they operate in other places with or without tax concessions) and to shift the tax burdens on others.

Maybe we are allowing them to operate here in the U.S. for too low a cost and capture middle class demand and income way too cheaply.

Obama made that decision to open more drilling for political purposes. It is kind of like giving out free meals and favors at the Coliseum in Rome to stay in power.

Our govt. has become servant to a small group of spectators at the Coliseum while the country goes the way of a falling Roman empire.


Tex
 
So US customers can afford to pay higher oil production costs (oilsands) to Alberta production companies, but can not afford to expand production in the US, because production costs are too high?



Tex said:
Hypo, they can drill more in the U.S. They have the leases but don't think it is worth the drilling costs to complete.


Maybe the tax structure in Canada comes into play? We sure do enjoy having the jobs.

and those jobs provide tax revenue for the government.

You are advocating for the oil companies to be taxed at a higher rate than other companies, through loss of their tax deductions, to raise further taxes.

but it will do nothing for job creation and further tax revenue will be lost, through loss of individual taxes.

Maybe obama will make your wish come true. It sure would give a boost to our economy here in Alberta.
 
hypocritexposer said:
Tex, just wondering...

are you in favour of ranchers and farmers not having the tax deductions they have?

I think everyone should be able to write off any legitimate business expense which includes the tax deductions that farmers and ranchers have. Most farmers and ranchers still have to pay SS tax all the way up to about $150,000 OF PROFIT. Most farmers and ranchers don't go over that for an average profit. The CEO of these large companies do many times and don't have to pay SS and medicare taxes on income over about the $150,000 amount (I have no problem with income tax averaging either). Wall Street and most executives are exempt from these taxes on MOST of their income because they got politicians to exempt them and their income. This puts the percentage tax burden on everyone else.

I don't know of any farmers and ranchers that have a depletion allowance over and above costs and in fact, they don't get to deplete or depreciate their land value, only the improvements.

It has been stated in some economic reports that the depletion allowance paved the way for vertical integration of the oil companies with the help of that funny accounting between divisions:

http://wps.aw.com/aw_carltonper_modernio_4/21/5566/1424998.cw/content/index.html

I have already stated when we went over the details of depletion, that I thought all costs of production should be business expenses but that depletion should never have been allowed to be greater than the costs.

It obviously was for a time.

This whole question gets back to whether or not the govt. should use its power to give people some incentives that others do not have. It is picking winners and losers and just putting the costs of such "incentives" on all the other tax payers or if deficits are occurring, on future tax receipts.

I think that is wrong.

Call me ultra conservative if you want.

The larger point is why buy into corporate arguments of why we should give them tax breaks to do what they were going to do anyway---make a profit? They use this argument to shift the tax burden on others and as we have seen, the super rich already have ways of not paying the stated tax rate---largely by buying more, getting bigger, and capturing large parts of the economy for themselves at the expense of opportunities for others and reducing taxes they have to pay like SS taxes. I think we need to tell businesses that to continue to do business in the U.S., you pay these amount of taxes or you can kiss the demand in the United States goodbye, and while you are at it, take yourself, your board members, and your families to the Marshall Islands or wherever you have put your corporation for a tax break. The re-entrance fee needs to be pretty high because you are not supporting the U.S. government's costs so you don't get the benefits. i think their tax accountants who do this and their families should go too. Get the Marshall Islands to protect your boats on the ocean or defend the country against terrorists.

It wouldn't take long for this money business to stop. Sometimes you have to prove you have a big stick for people to be afraid of it. I think business carries the big stick by pitting this political party against that one while they laugh all the way to the bank at our country's expense.

Then they get the republican state legislators to bring up some diversionary tactic like going after teacher unions when they haven't been the problem and didn't create the ones destroying the economy. I don't mind fixing a problem with teachers or unions but fix the things broken before breaking something else.

Tex
 

Latest posts

Top