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

Dems Want To Punish Oil Companies

Mike

Well-known member
Senate Considers Windfall Profits Tax on Big Oil
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

E-Mail Print Share:

WASHINGTON — With gasoline prices topping $4 a gallon, Senate Democrats want the government to grab some of the billions of dollars in profits being taken in by the major oil companies.

Senators were to vote Tuesday on whether to consider a windfall profits tax against the five largest U.S. oil companies and rescind $17 billion in tax breaks the companies expect to enjoy over the next decade.

"The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, warning that if energy prices are not reined in "we're going to find ourselves in a deep recession."

But the Democrats are going to have to overcome staunch Republican opposition to any new taxes on the oil industry. The five largest U.S. oil companies earned $36 billion during the first three months of the year.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will need 60 votes Tuesday to proceed with the oil tax legislation in the face of a threatened GOP filibuster. If he doesn't get 60, he likely will pull the bill from the floor.

Only last week, Reid was forced to withdraw a measure aimed at addressing global warming, falling short of the 60 votes needed to advance that legislation.

The Democrats' energy package also would:

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

— Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.

— Require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets to curb speculation.

Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has acknowledged that Americans are hurting from the high energy costs but strongly opposes the Democrats' response and has ridiculed those who "think we can tax our way out of this problem."

Oil executives, testifying before Congress last month, called the proposed taxes "punitive" and warned that they would discourage domestic oil and gas exploration and production, possibly causing prices to rise instead of fall.

The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the major oil companies, has been reminding lawmakers that in the early 1980s, when the government imposed windfall profits taxes on oil companies domestic oil production dropped and imports increased.

But Democrats reject the comparison.

The Senate proposal would impose a 25 percent tax on profits over what would be determined "reasonable" and would allow oil companies to avoid paying the tax if they invest the money in alternative energy projects or refinery expansion.

The tax breaks that would be rescinded, given by Congress over the past five years, are expected to save the five largest oil companies about $17 billion over the next 10 years. The Democratic proposal would funnel the money into tax incentives for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, and to promote energy efficiency and conservation.

Most Senate Republicans have a different approach to dealing with the growing energy crisis — pump more oil and gas.

The GOP energy plan, rejected by the Senate last month, calls for opening a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development and to allow states to opt out of the national moratorium that has been in effect for a quarter century against oil and gas drilling in more than 80 percent of the country's coastal waters.

"Republicans by and large believe that the solution to this problem, in part, is to increase domestic production," said McConnell.
 

fff

Well-known member
Dems don't want to punish oil companies. They want them to pay their fair share of taxes. I do. Why shouldn't they?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
Dems don't want to punish oil companies. They want them to pay their fair share of taxes. I do. Why shouldn't they?

How is it that they all of a sudden aren't paying their share in taxes? What changed?
 

Mike

Well-known member
fff said:
Dems don't want to punish oil companies. They want them to pay their fair share of taxes. I do. Why shouldn't they?

Read this and explain your position further please:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html

Realistically, I believe that there should be no taxes on Public Corporation Profits. The stockholders are paying taxes on their stock dividends. A double tax.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
When I started smoking cigarettes were 45 cents a pack at the convenience store. They are over $5 now.

If you took all the money in the world, put it in a pile, and dealt it out to every human, someone would be broke tomorrow and probably on this forum blaming everyone else.

There is much more opportunity out there right now than there was when I started out as an adult. I worked multiple jobs and put myself through college at night. I paid for it all.

Where you are in life is where you put yourself.

Ten years from now you will be in the same situation unless you decide to do something about your situation. Blame whoever you choose but in the end, it all comes down to you putting yourself where you are.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Exxon's 2007 Tax Bill: $30 Billion
by: Mark Perry Phd
February 05, 2008

Corporate profits receive a lot of media attention, but what receives considerably less attention are the corporate taxes paid on corporate profits. Do a Google search for "Exxon profits" and you'll get about 8,000 hits. Now try "Exxon taxes" and you'll get a little more than 300 hits. That's a ratio of about 33 to 1.

I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.

By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!

[Update: The $40.6 billion and $39.5 billion figures are after-tax profits. For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income after tax), or profit, was $39.5 billion.]



Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion


Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).
 

P Joe

Well-known member
Mike said:
Exxon's 2007 Tax Bill: $30 Billion
by: Mark Perry Phd
February 05, 2008

Corporate profits receive a lot of media attention, but what receives considerably less attention are the corporate taxes paid on corporate profits. Do a Google search for "Exxon profits" and you'll get about 8,000 hits. Now try "Exxon taxes" and you'll get a little more than 300 hits. That's a ratio of about 33 to 1.

I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.

By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!

[Update: The $40.6 billion and $39.5 billion figures are after-tax profits. For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income after tax), or profit, was $39.5 billion.]



Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion


Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).

And why do you suppose those numbers are that way? Why does a CEO deserve 10 million dollars a year, but the employee who busts his @ss day in, day out gets paid $$$20,000???????????

Don't you think those 2 numbers are a little to far streched?? Maybe if that CEO was only making 5 million and the employee's were making $100,000 then they wouldn't be complaining.

I say tax the hell out of them, if they want to make that much money while riding the backs of the REAL workers, then they should pay that much!
 

Mike

Well-known member
And why do you suppose those numbers are that way? Why does a CEO deserve 10 million dollars a year, but the employee who busts his @ss day in, day out gets paid $$$20,000???????????

Oh.....so you're a communist/socialist that thinks everyone should make the same salary?

McCain has just introduced an idea to insure each CEO's pay should be voted upon by the stockholders of that corporation, which are the basic owners.......then if they want to pay the CEO $50 BILLION a year, it's their right to do so.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
P. Joe, "And why do you suppose those numbers are that way? Why does a CEO deserve 10 million dollars a year, but the employee who busts his @ss day in, day out gets paid $$$20,000???????????

Don't you think those 2 numbers are a little to far streched?? Maybe if that CEO was only making 5 million and the employee's were making $100,000 then they wouldn't be complaining.

I say tax the hell out of them, if they want to make that much money while riding the backs of the REAL workers, then they should pay that much!

I think the pay differences are totally rediculous as well, but that is an issue for the owners (stockholders), not the government.

The Dems are totally out of line with their proposal for a windfall tax. First of all, none of us will see a penny of that money, the companies are already paying a lot in taxes, the Dems themselves are partially responsible for creating the problem, and IT ISN'T GOING TO FIX A FLIPPING THING! This is just a knee-jerk proposal with no rational thought behind it - typical liberal legislation.

The real problem is supply and unchecked speculation. That is what needs to be addressed to actually fix something. The problem is that would take some actual thought, a reversal of some policies, and decisive action - hard things for liberals to do.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Well said Sandhusker.

Some folks want to do away with capitalism entirely it seems.

Ever heard the old saying......?

"Guvment has two purposes, to guard the coast and tote the mail"
 

fff

Well-known member
I want "Royalty Relief" stopped.

Billions at Stake
Oil and gas companies stand to get royalty relief on top of record profits

By Marianne Lavelle
Posted 2/19/06
One wouldn't think an industry rolling in historic profit--nearly $23 billion for the top four players in the past quarter--would need any federal government relief. And yet, Uncle Sam is poised to dole out $7 billion in breaks to the oil industry over the next five years, a figure that could increase fivefold because of a legal battle underway.

At issue are royalties, the percentage of the action that oil and natural gas companies fork over to the U.S. treasury for the privilege of drilling on federal lands. In 1995, when energy was cheap and the feds were trying to prod more Big Oil development, Congress gave companies a break on royalties if they sank money into risky exploration in the Gulf of Mexico's deep water. The carrot worked; the deepwater Gulf business now accounts for nearly 20 percent of U.S. oil production.

The Department of Interior's proposed budget projects the industry will pull $65 billion worth of fuel from the Gulf's deep waters through 2011. And the government will forgo $7 billion in royalties. But does the relief Congress offered at the market's nadir make sense at today's sky-high prices? "There is no need for an incentive,"says Republican Rep. Richard Pombo of California, chairman of the House Resources Committee. "They have a market incentive to produce at $70 a barrel."

Legal battle. In dispute is whether the Interior Department has authority to set thresholds based on the market price of oil to limit industry relief. Pombo and others say that was Congress's intent, and, indeed, the department earlier this month said that 41 companies had improperly claimed more than $500 million in 2004 royalty relief because prices had surpassed Interior's triggers. Nearly all companies agreed to pay up, but one, Kerr-McGee, has vowed to take the matter to court. A government loss in this high-stakes legal battle would mean $35 billion more in royalty relief through 2011.

American Petroleum Institute chief economist John Felmy points out that companies made billions of dollars in investments in high-risk deepwater. Production there is growing even more expensive, as the industry rebuilds to more-rigorous specifications after last season's hurricane damage, he says.

"This has been perhaps one of the most successful programs the government ever enacted in terms of energy policy," he says. "We found 10 billion barrels of oil that likely would not have been found otherwise, and consumers have benefited significantly."

But Keith Ashdown, analyst for Taxpayers for Common Sense, says royalty relief dwarfs the estimated $3 billion in explicit energy tax breaks each year. "This is by far the biggest subsidy to the industry that we have," he says.

Pombo has asked Interior for a full explanation of why the royalties issue has become so muddled, but it looks certain that the courts will decide if one of the nation's most profitable industries gets an even bigger helping hand.

This story appears in the February 27, 2006 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060227/27oil.htm
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
Exxon's 2007 Tax Bill: $30 Billion
by: Mark Perry Phd
February 05, 2008

Corporate profits receive a lot of media attention, but what receives considerably less attention are the corporate taxes paid on corporate profits. Do a Google search for "Exxon profits" and you'll get about 8,000 hits. Now try "Exxon taxes" and you'll get a little more than 300 hits. That's a ratio of about 33 to 1.

I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.

By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!

[Update: The $40.6 billion and $39.5 billion figures are after-tax profits. For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income after tax), or profit, was $39.5 billion.]



Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion


Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).

And here we go again, according to the other thread that Exxon supporter Aplus posted, when you look at the taxes make sure that you are looking at taxes paid in the US, that 41% or 27 billion if you like, includes international taxes as well as US taxes. Only a small portion of that money percentage-wise went to the US treasury if my memory serves me right. As the article that Aplus posted stated, the US is much kinder to the Exxon than the foreign governments. And at the risk of being redundant-Those foreign countries better watch out they will drive Exxon out, heck they might even relocate back here to the good ol' usa to escape those taxes. But don't worry with the help of that 17 billion tax break(part of which Exxon will get,we'll (the taxpayer) will soften the blow of those high taxes abroad. After all they are struggling aren't they?
I do agree with Sandhusker on the regulation of the speculators but I don't think it will happen under this administration because they are going to let their buddies line their pockets between now and 2009.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Democrats' Oil Windfall Tax Plan Fails in Senate Vote
Tuesday, June 10, 2008


WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats failed to gain enough votes on an energy bill that would have imposed higher taxes on oil companies, which are making record profits as oil and gasoline costs continue surging higher.
 

fff

Well-known member
I do agree with Sandhusker on the regulation of the speculators but I don't think it will happen under this administration because they are going to let their buddies line their pockets between now and 2009.

I think you're exactly right. Republicans today blocked the Democrat's bill on windfall profits. The legislation also would:

_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.

_Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.

There are tax breaks expiring that encourage alternative fuels research/use, but Republicans have blocked extending those, too. Mitch McConnell's answer is more production of oil.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
I do agree with Sandhusker on the regulation of the speculators but I don't think it will happen under this administration because they are going to let their buddies line their pockets between now and 2009.

I think you're exactly right. Republicans today blocked the Democrat's bill on windfall profits. The legislation also would:

_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.

_Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.

There are tax breaks expiring that encourage alternative fuels research/use, but Republicans have blocked extending those, too. Mitch McConnell's answer is more production of oil.

How the heck do you libs expect them to vote when you've got that dumb-ass socialist windfalls tax as part of the deal? They would vote against banishing Hillary to France if had a windfalls tax attached. You can't blame them when you make part of the package unacceptable by any rational thought. Take that nonsense off and run it for a vote again.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
I do agree with Sandhusker on the regulation of the speculators but I don't think it will happen under this administration because they are going to let their buddies line their pockets between now and 2009.

I think you're exactly right. Republicans today blocked the Democrat's bill on windfall profits. The legislation also would:

_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.

_Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.

There are tax breaks expiring that encourage alternative fuels research/use, but Republicans have blocked extending those, too. Mitch McConnell's answer is more production of oil.

How the heck do you libs expect them to vote when you've got that dumb-ass socialist windfalls tax as part of the deal? They would vote against banishing Hillary to France if had a windfalls tax attached. You can't blame them when you make part of the package unacceptable by any rational thought. Take that nonsense off and run it for a vote again.

Well it wasn't a windfall profits tax per se if I understood it correctly. It was a 25% tax that woud be rescinded if that money was invested in alternative energy or building more refining capacity. This is what our country needs rather than the 17 billion in tax cuts to energy giants that are making more money than any corporations in the history of the world. But I guess the energy giants /Rep.'s want all the cake.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
I do agree with Sandhusker on the regulation of the speculators but I don't think it will happen under this administration because they are going to let their buddies line their pockets between now and 2009.

I think you're exactly right. Republicans today blocked the Democrat's bill on windfall profits. The legislation also would:

_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.

_Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.

There are tax breaks expiring that encourage alternative fuels research/use, but Republicans have blocked extending those, too. Mitch McConnell's answer is more production of oil.

How the heck do you libs expect them to vote when you've got that dumb-ass socialist windfalls tax as part of the deal? They would vote against banishing Hillary to France if had a windfalls tax attached. You can't blame them when you make part of the package unacceptable by any rational thought. Take that nonsense off and run it for a vote again.

But then it would probably pass and they'd have to find something else to whine about.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
TSR said:
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
I think you're exactly right. Republicans today blocked the Democrat's bill on windfall profits. The legislation also would:

_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.

_Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.

There are tax breaks expiring that encourage alternative fuels research/use, but Republicans have blocked extending those, too. Mitch McConnell's answer is more production of oil.

How the heck do you libs expect them to vote when you've got that dumb-ass socialist windfalls tax as part of the deal? They would vote against banishing Hillary to France if had a windfalls tax attached. You can't blame them when you make part of the package unacceptable by any rational thought. Take that nonsense off and run it for a vote again.

Well it wasn't a windfall profits tax per se if I understood it correctly. It was a 25% tax that woud be rescinded if that money was invested in alternative energy or building more refining capacity. This is what our country needs rather than the 17 billion in tax cuts to energy giants that are making more money than any corporations in the history of the world. But I guess the energy giants /Rep.'s want all the cake.

Would they be doing this if oil was $50? Heck no. Call it what you want, but no matter how much sugar you sprinkle on a turd, it's still a turd.

Hey, I'm no fan of the oil companies either, but right is right and wrong is wrong. Socialism is still socialism and we need to get away from that - it's a proven failed system.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TSR said:
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
I think you're exactly right. Republicans today blocked the Democrat's bill on windfall profits. The legislation also would:

_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.

_Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.

There are tax breaks expiring that encourage alternative fuels research/use, but Republicans have blocked extending those, too. Mitch McConnell's answer is more production of oil.

How the heck do you libs expect them to vote when you've got that dumb-ass socialist windfalls tax as part of the deal? They would vote against banishing Hillary to France if had a windfalls tax attached. You can't blame them when you make part of the package unacceptable by any rational thought. Take that nonsense off and run it for a vote again.

Well it wasn't a windfall profits tax per se if I understood it correctly. It was a 25% tax that woud be rescinded if that money was invested in alternative energy or building more refining capacity. This is what our country needs rather than the 17 billion in tax cuts to energy giants that are making more money than any corporations in the history of the world. But I guess the energy giants /Rep.'s want all the cake.

Yep-- The Repubs just stuck the total bill of developing alternative energy sources on the middle class and working man....While giving their their elitist banker/invester/oil industry buddies more free hand to profiteer off these same folks....
:(
 

Larrry

Well-known member
While giving their their elitist banker/invester/oil industry buddies more free hand to profiteer off these same folks....

Don't tell me you are so shallow that you think they will absord this tax. They will pass it on to you and all the dems will wonder again why fuel took another jump. Some of the shallow thinking by the leftist sheeple a laughable.
 
Top