Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: Oil Companies

  1. #1

    Oil Companies

    What is about oil companies that drive democrats nuts. Exxon made quite a bit of money last quarter, but so did apple corp and GE. Yet nothing is said about them. But Exxon Mobil paid more in taxes then both combined. Go Figure!

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,032
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;4027353]What is about oil companies that drive democrats nuts. Exxon made quite a bit of money last quarter, but so did apple corp and GE. Yet nothing is said about them. But Exxon Mobil paid more in taxes then both combined. Go Figure![/QUOTE]

    Not taking away big oil's subsidies is like continue to give welfare to a mom who landed a 100k job.

    Would you be cool with that?

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;4027353]What is about oil companies that drive democrats nuts. Exxon made quite a bit of money last quarter, but so did apple corp and GE. Yet nothing is said about them. But Exxon Mobil paid more in taxes then both combined. Go Figure![/QUOTE]

    Not sure why you see this as a Democrat/Republican issue. It's a taxpayer issue. If you could show me how these subsidies convert dollar for dollar into jobs, I might see a glimmer of reason in your comment. But even then, if you're a card-carrying conservative, why would you want the federal government providing the stimulus to private industry for job growth through expenditures?

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,032
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4027407]Not sure why you see this as a Democrat/Republican issue. It's a taxpayer issue. If you could show me how these subsidies convert dollar for dollar into jobs, I might see a glimmer of reason in your comment. But even then, if you're a card-carrying conservative, why would you want the federal government providing the stimulus to private industry for job growth through expenditures?[/QUOTE]

    Just look at the chart, bro!!!!!

    [IMG]http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu190/PlumberKhan/OilCompProfits.png[/IMG]

  5. #5
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,402
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4027408]Just look at the chart, bro!!!!!

    [IMG]http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu190/PlumberKhan/OilCompProfits.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    LOL....seriously, take a close look at that graph. Manipulate much? :rolleyes:

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,032
    [QUOTE=shakin318;4027412]LOL....seriously, take a close look at that graph. Manipulate much? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    I designed it myself :yes:

    :P

  7. #7
    You folks seem very educated on this topic.

    I'm curious, can you tell me which of the Subsidies are actually true subsidies (a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector), as opposed to tax reduction credits (a reduction of teh amount of the businesses money they have to surrender to the State in taxation)? Specificly, please.

    And can you tell me which of these "subsidies" are specific and limited only to the Oil Industry, and are not general industrial/corporate tax breaks? Again, I'd ask for specifics, not generalizations.

    And should the subsidies be terminated, can you explain what will stop the Oil Companies from passing the new increased tax burden along to the consumer, in the form of higher prices (currently at a record high in my locale, paid $4.26/gallon this morning)?

    And finally, can you tell me how much the States and federal Government made in unearned revenue off of the Oil Industry in taxes (at the pump, off employee payroll and in corporate taxes), vs. how much profit the Oil Industry made in the sale of their products, in say, Fiscal year 2010?

    Thanks in advance.
    Last edited by Warfish; 05-13-2011 at 09:57 AM.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4027408]Just look at the chart, bro!!!!!

    [IMG]http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu190/PlumberKhan/OilCompProfits.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]


    You're familiar with the concept of "scale" , right?

    I own shares in both Exxon Mobil and Conoco Phillips. I would suggest you pull up the income statements on these and see the income taxes paid by them. Very high. It doesn't show on line but in my annual reports they also pay billions in other taxes to the gov.
    They get breaks that other companies get. BTW, GE (run by Obama's buddy Jeff Immeldt) pays almost zero. They make plenty.

  9. #9
    Oil is an easy target. If you listen to the democrats on the issue they clearly are all about protecting their friends and firing on easy targets. The Oil subsidies are absurd but they are no more absurd then the entire convoluted tax code and subsidy system.

    If Subsidies are bad for oil why aren't they bad for biofuels that use up tons of fresh water and raise food prices?

    We have a huge budget and tax problem in this country and to attack an easy target that happens to be an industry that pays more money to governments around the world then any other industry in the world is absurd.

    The same guys who want to tax the industry more want to subsidies other industries more and hide behind oil profits when their policies are all about high oil prices which the consumer/voter is feeling at the pump and the Supermarket.

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,032
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4027473]You folks seem very educated on this topic.

    I'm curious, can you tell me which of the Subsidies are actually true subsidies (a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector), as opposed to tax reduction credits (a reduction of teh amount of the businesses money they have to surrender to the State in taxation)? Specificly, please.

    And can you tell me which of these "subsidies" are specific and limited only to the Oil Industry, and are not general industrial/corporate tax breaks? Again, I'd ask for specifics, not generalizations.

    And should the subsidies be terminated, can you explain what will stop the Oil Companies from passing the new increased tax burden along to the consumer, in the form of higher prices (currently at a record high in my locale, paid $4.26/gallon this morning)?

    And finally, can you tell me how much the States and federal Government made in unearned revenue off of the Oil Industry in taxes (at the pump, off employee payroll and in corporate taxes), vs. how much profit the Oil Industry made in the sale of their products, in say, Fiscal year 2010?

    Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]

    Ask Paul Ryan:

    [url]http://abcnewsradioonline.com/politics-news/rep-paul-ryan-backs-ending-oil-subsidies.html[/url]

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4027510]Ask Paul Ryan:

    [url]http://abcnewsradioonline.com/politics-news/rep-paul-ryan-backs-ending-oil-subsidies.html[/url][/QUOTE]

    A Politician, of any stripe, is the last person I would ask for fact, or truth.

    You all seem to be the experts, with clear cut policy desires, so I'm asking you. Surely you know the answers....if you didn't, how could you be forthright as to a desired outcome?

    I see LiL lurking in the thread, I am confidant he can answert these questions (without resorting to using a Politician as his source).

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4027528]A Politician, of any stripe, is the last person I would ask for fact, or truth.

    You all seem to be the experts, with clear cut policy desires, so I'm asking you. Surely you know the answers....if you didn't, how could you be forthright as to a desired outcome?

    I see LiL lurking in the thread, I am confidant he can answert these questions (without resorting to using a Politician as his source).[/QUOTE]

    Not "lurking" just reading. I took a look at what I could on this issue, as the biggest issue is "should any business be subsidized, and if it is, why? Here's a starting point on some of your questions, although I'm not sure why you tend to lay back and play Socrates, when you could simply make your position known and provide your own "facts." It's all too easy to sit back and say prove it to me and offer nothing of your own... by the way, the last paragraph was truly funny and so typical of Washington. As you said, politicians of any stripe cannot be trusted...

    July 3, 2010
    [B]As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies[/B]

    By [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/david_kocieniewski/index.html?inline=nyt-per"]DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI[/URL]
    When the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform set off the worst [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/o/oil_spills/gulf_of_mexico_2010/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier"]oil spill[/URL] at sea in American history, it was flying the flag of the Marshall Islands. Registering there allowed the rig’s owner to significantly reduce its American taxes.
    The owner, [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/transocean_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org"]Transocean[/URL], moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.
    At the same time, [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/bp_plc/index.html?inline=nyt-org"]BP[/URL] was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.
    With federal officials now considering a new tax on petroleum production to pay for the cleanup, the industry is fighting the measure, warning that it will lead to job losses and higher gasoline prices, as well as an increased dependence on foreign oil.
    But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.
    According to the [URL="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/67xx/doc6792/10-18-Tax.pdf"]most recent study[/URL] by the [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congressional_budget_office/index.html?inline=nyt-org"]Congressional Budget Office[/URL], released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.
    And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is [URL="http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg284.htm"]more than eliminated[/URL] by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.
    “The flow of revenues to oil companies is like the gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico: heavy and constant,” said Senator [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/robert_menendez/index.html?inline=nyt-per"]Robert Menendez[/URL], Democrat of New Jersey, who has worked alongside the Obama administration on a bill that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks over the next decade. “There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer.”
    Oil industry officials say that the tax breaks, which average about $4 billion a year according to various government reports, are a bargain for taxpayers. By helping producers weather market fluctuations and invest in technology, tax incentives are supporting an industry that the officials say provides 9.2 million jobs.
    The [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/american_petroleum_institute/index.html?inline=nyt-org"]American Petroleum Institute[/URL], an industry advocacy group, [URL="http://www.api.org/statistics/earnings/upload/earnings_perspective.pdf"]argues[/URL] that even with subsidies, oil producers paid or incurred $280 billion in American income taxes from 2006 to 2008, and pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes than most other American corporations.
    As oil continues to spread across the Gulf of Mexico, however, the industry is being forced to defend tax breaks that some say are being abused or are outdated.
    The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday announced that it was investigating whether Transocean had exploited tax laws by moving overseas to avoid paying taxes in the United States. Efforts to curtail the tax breaks are likely to face fierce opposition in Congress; the oil and natural gas industry has spent $340 million on lobbyists since 2008, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors political spending.
    Jack N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, warns that any cut in subsidies will cost jobs.
    “These companies evaluate costs, risks and opportunities across the globe,” he said. “So if the U.S. makes changes in the tax code that discourage drilling in gulf waters, they will go elsewhere and take their jobs with them.”
    But some government watchdog groups say that only the industry’s political muscle is preserving the tax breaks. An economist for the [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/treasury_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org"]Treasury Department[/URL] said in 2009 that a [URL="http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg284.htm"]study[/URL] had found that oil prices and potential profits were so high that eliminating the subsidies would decrease American output by less than half of one percent.
    “We’re giving tax breaks to highly profitable companies to do what they would be doing anyway,” said Sima J. Gandhi, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization. “That’s not an incentive; that’s a giveaway.”
    Some of the tax breaks date back nearly a century, when they were intended to encourage exploration in an era of rudimentary technology, when costly investments frequently produced only dry holes. Because of one lingering provision from the Tariff Act of 1913, many small and midsize oil companies based in the United States can claim deductions for the lost value of tapped oil fields far beyond the amount the companies actually paid for the oil rights.
    Other tax breaks were born of international politics. In an attempt to deter Soviet influence in the Middle East in the 1950s, the State Department backed a Saudi Arabian accounting maneuver that reclassified the royalties charged by foreign governments to American oil drillers. Saudi Arabia and others began to treat some of the royalties as taxes, which entitled the companies to subtract those payments from their American tax bills. Despite repeated attempts to forbid this accounting practice, companies continue to deduct the payments. The Treasury Department estimates that it will cost $8.2 billion over the next decade.
    Over the last 10 years, oil companies have also been aggressive in using foreign tax havens. Many rigs, like Deepwater Horizon, are registered in Panama or in the Marshall Islands, where they are subject to lower taxes and less stringent safety and staff regulations. American producers have also aggressively exploited the tax code by opening small offices in low-tax countries. A [URL="http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-86GPTN?OpenDocument"]recent study[/URL] by Martin A. Sullivan, an economist for the trade publication Tax Analysts, found that the five oil drilling companies that had undergone these “corporate inversions” had saved themselves a total of $4 billion in taxes since 1999.
    Transocean — which has approximately 18,000 employees worldwide, including 1,300 in Houston and about a dozen in Zug, Switzerland — has saved $1.8 billion in taxes since moving overseas in 1999, the study found.
    Transocean said it had paid more than $300 million in taxes so far for 2009, and that its move reflected its global scope, with only 15 of its 139 rigs located in the United States. “Transocean is truly a global company,” it said in a statement.
    Despite the public anger at the gulf spill, it is far from certain that Congress will eliminate the tax breaks. As recently as 2005, when windfall profits for energy companies prompted even President [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/george_w_bush/index.html?inline=nyt-per"]George W. Bush[/URL] — a former Texas oilman himself — to publicly call for an end to incentives, the energy bill he and Congress enacted still included $2.6 billion in oil subsidies. In 2007, after Democrats took control of Congress, a move to end the tax breaks failed.
    Mr. Menendez said he believed the Gulf spill was devastating enough to spur Congress into action. But one notable omission in his bill shows the vast economic reach of the industry. While the legislation would cut many incentives over the next decade, it would not touch the tax breaks for oil refineries, many of which have operations and employees in his home state, New Jersey.
    Mr. Menendez’s aides said the senator thought it was legitimate to allow refineries to continue claiming a manufacturing tax credit that he wants to eliminate for drillers because refining is a manufacturing business and because refineries do not benefit from high oil prices. Mr. Menendez did not consult with New Jersey refineries when writing the bill, his aides said.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;4027353]What is about oil companies that drive democrats nuts. Exxon made quite a bit of money last quarter, but so did apple corp and GE. Yet nothing is said about them. But Exxon Mobil paid more in taxes then both combined. Go Figure![/QUOTE]

    the problem with big oil is they seem to make the most record profits when the price of gas is the highest. Their good news coincides with everyone else's bad news. and i don't think it's just democrats. alot of republicans and libertarians are against a 21 billion tax break for these companies.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4027545]Not "lurking" just reading.[/quote]

    No ill intent, reading/lurking is effectively the same3 thing on a message board. Your name was at the bottom as "here", thats all.

    [QUOTE]I took a look at what I could on this issue, as the biggest issue is "should any business be subsidized, and if it is, why?[/QUOTE]

    I don;t believe I asked that question. I asked which of the claimed "subsidies" were actual subsidies, i.e. direct or indirect payments, as opposed to tax breaks (reduction of State confiscation). And of those, which were specific to Oil, as opposed to general industrial/corporate/business.

    [QUOTE]I'm not sure why you tend to lay back and play Socrates. It's all too easy to sit back and say prove it to me[/QUOTE]

    With respect, those making clear cut declaration of policy desire face the burden of proving why their desired outcome is the right outcome. I'm open to change, but before I support it, the questions I asked are things I would need to know first.

    Since we have many here who are completely 100% supporting of one side or the other, I had to assume they would already know the things I asked, as they are somehat basic issues to understand before one could foment an accurate opinion on the topic.

    If forced to give "my opinion", I would give what I've given a million times. The entire tax system needs overhauled from the ground up, exceptions and loopholes all removed, and all corporate/business taxes ended, as companies do not pay them, their customers do. A streamlined strait taxation system (flat/fair/other, we could have that discssuion yet again elsewhere) is vastly suprior to the current system, of which this issue (tax reductions, i.e. "subsidies") are only one part. Those who support the current tax system have little ground to stand on, as the current system is specificly built to allow the State to play favorites in it's efforts at Social and Economic Engineering. When thats the case, special interests will always get benefits, including ones any of us might be stridently against.

    End of the day, the most basic outcome to an end of tax reduction (i.e. "subsidy") is a guaranteed increase in my personal cost of fuel, and in pure self-interest, I do not support an increase in my own costs.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4027498]
    If Subsidies are bad for oil why aren't they bad for biofuels that use up tons of fresh water and raise food prices?[/QUOTE]

    this is the '2 wrongs make a right' argument and most don't think biofuel subsidies are any better. I don't like farm subsidies either, the gov't paying people to grow corn or not grow corn. the whole gov't subsidizing business thing should be limited to infrastructure type situations. If the gov't wants to subsidize amtrak or us airways it benefits the economy as a whole.

    I don't see the benefit to subsidizing ethanol, tomatoes or XOM.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4027559]No ill intent, reading/lurking is effectively the same3 thing on a message board. Your name was at the bottom as "here", thats all.



    I don;t believe I asked that question. I asked which of the claimed "subsidies" were actual subsidies, i.e. direct or indirect payments, as opposed to tax breaks (reduction of State confiscation). And of those, which were specific to Oil, as opposed to general industrial/corporate/business.



    With respect, those making clear cut declaration of policy desire face the burden of proving why their desired outcome is the right outcome. I'm open to change, but before I support it, the questions I asked are things I would need to know first.

    Since we have many here who are completely 100% supporting of one side or the other, I had to assume they would already know the things I asked, as they are somehat basic issues to understand before one could foment an accurate opinion on the topic.

    If forced to give "my opinion", I would give what I've given a million times. The entire tax system needs overhauled from the ground up, exceptions and loopholes all removed, and all corporate/business taxes ended, as companies do not pay them, their customers do. A streamlined strait taxation system (flat/fair/other, we could have that discssuion yet again elsewhere) is vastly suprior to the current system, of which this issue (tax reductions, i.e. "subsidies") are only one part. Those who support the current tax system have little ground to stand on, as the current system is specificly built to allow the State to play favorites in it's efforts at Social and Economic Engineering. When thats the case, special interests will always get benefits, including ones any of us might be stridently against.

    End of the day, the most basic outcome to an end of tax reduction (i.e. "subsidy") is a guaranteed increase in my personal cost of fuel, and in pure self-interest, I do not support an increase in my own costs.[/QUOTE]

    I was putting out the question about all subsidies, as this is part of the debate. Here's one opinion on the issue of reduced subsidies NOT affecting increased prices, which has been stated in a number of places using the same argument... I do have to say that if the government is going to be in the business of subsidizing, clean fuels and alternative forms of energy are to my mind actually worthwhile, as they cannot compete in the early going with low cost fossil fuel, but in the long run are essential to the future not only of the U.S., but of the planet. To my mind, that's a good use of subsidies, if there is one, and it often ends up in the same pockets, as big oil is a big player in the alternative energy arena.

    [URL="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/big_oil_spigot.html"]Sima Gandhi. "Turn off the oil subsidy spigot." Center for American Progress. July 6th, 2010[/URL]: "Oil subsidies don’t help consumers at the pump. [...] oil companies are fond of saying that ending tax subsidies will cause disastrous price hikes. But the tax subsidies Sanders, the president’s budget, and other lawmakers propose for elimination pay companies to find and produce oil. Eliminating them will have little, if any, effect on consumer prices. A Joint Economic Committee report states, 'the removal or modification of [one of these subsidies] is unlikely to have any effect on consumer prices for oil and gas.' The committee found that subsidies do not affect production decisions in the near term. And in the long term the Energy Information Administration explains that the major factors affecting oil prices include the production limits set by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and global disruptions in supply. Moreover, the minimal impact of tax subsidies on domestic production (as discussed above) underscores that eliminating tax subsidies will have little, if any, effect on oil prices."

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a Senate panel in February of 2010 that a White House proposal to repeal roughly $39 billion in oil, natural gas and coal industry tax breaks won't raise consumer energy prices: “We don’t think they are going to have any effect on prices. We don’t think they will. They have been carefully designed not to do that.”[URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/79247-geithner-repealing-oil-industry-subsidies-wont-hit-consumers"][1][/URL]
    Retrieved from "[URL]http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Subsidizing_oil_companies_does_not_lower_global_prices[/URL]"

  17. #17
    I have to admit, one of the things I find very frustrating about this forum, is that replies often touch on one small part of the quoted posts only (if that), and ignore the entire thrust or point of what the quote was aimed at discussing/asking. It's alot like talk radio, actually, the host (of either stripe) asks a question, and the callers of the opposite strip immediately skip right over the question, and attack something else, often only partly related.

    In this case, I've asked a few very specific questions on the very specific topic of Oil Companies so-called subsidies, and I can see already there is no chance anyone is going to actually touch those questions.

    It's almost as if posters are not actually talking to each other at all.

    We can go down the list of issues, and we'd find the same thing. If I were to ask about Illegal Immigration and in-state tuituion in Maryland, I'm betting not a single poster would touch on the illegallity of the residence, or the issue of providing benefits to an illegal not provided to a Citizen.

    Just makes this all so pointless, and I wish, wish I could just stop reading here tbh. It only causes me frustration and anger. See, even I fail at times in taking "personal responsabillity" for my actions. a failing I can only hope to fix one day.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4027473]You folks seem very educated on this topic.

    I'm curious, can you tell me which of the Subsidies are actually true subsidies (a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector), as opposed to tax reduction credits (a reduction of teh amount of the businesses money they have to surrender to the State in taxation)? Specificly, please.

    Who's defining "subsidy?" One person's subsidy is another person's tax break. Either way, the question is, should any particular business or industry receive special credits/subsidies/tax breaks, particularly is that business or industry is highly profitable?

    And can you tell me which of these "subsidies" are specific and limited only to the Oil Industry, and are not general industrial/corporate tax breaks? Again, I'd ask for specifics, not generalizations.

    Again, the question is a bit off kilter. There are generalized tax credits that apply to manufacturing, let's say. But oil companies utilize them in ways that are at least questionable, since they write off refineries as if they were factories. Oil in the ground is given a depletion allowance intended for equipment, etc.

    And should the subsidies be terminated, can you explain what will stop the Oil Companies from passing the new increased tax burden along to the consumer, in the form of higher prices (currently at a record high in my locale, paid $4.26/gallon this morning)?

    This is a rhetorical question. The question is not "what will stop them" as they haven't been stopped even WITH the subsidies from jacking up prices. The question is: would the elimination of subsidies in any way directly affect the cost associated with oil supply. The answer is, by 1/2 of 1%. But I'm with you... the oil companies will use any excuse to further gouge.

    And finally, can you tell me how much the States and federal Government made in unearned revenue off of the Oil Industry in taxes (at the pump, off employee payroll and in corporate taxes), vs. how much profit the Oil Industry made in the sale of their products, in say, Fiscal year 2010?

    What do you mean by "unearned revenue?" If you are referring to corporate taxes, the answer appears to be that big Oil's effective tax was 9%. The question also is, what was big Oil's margin of profit over the last ten years. And did that margin of profit convert to increased jobs in the oil industry or increased padding of stockholders' pockets? You'll have to look that one up... :)

    Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]

    See above...

  19. #19
    [url]http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13071[/url]

    The oil subsidies are mainly accelerated depreciation credits given for oil exploration. They don't have any substantial effect on large companies like XOM. They do help the smaller oil exploration co's do their business. As a Libertarian/Conservative I would be for the elimination of these deductions. In addition however we should eliminate farm and ethanol subsidies.

    None of this will effect the price of oil in the slightest. Anyone that says otherwise is a lying politician. Republicans should agree to eliminate the oil exploration depreciation credits only if it coincides with the opening of additional acres in Alaska for drilling.

  20. #20
    The Government lets the Oil Companies write off the equipment they use at a faster rate that is what they call a subside.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us