Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: Oil Companies

  1. #21
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4027622]See above...[/QUOTE]

    Just to mnake it hard to quote, eh?

    [QUOTE]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?[/QUOTE]

    Words have meanings LiL. A Subsidy is a payment, direct or indirect, from the Government. A Tax Reduction is just that, a reduction in the tax code that reduces the amount being confiscated by the Government, often with requirements and stipulations. It's not a payment at all, it's taking less.

    Are you honestly being serious here.....that you do not know the definitions of Subsidy, and how it differs from the tax code? If so, thats exactly why I asked the question, as the two are not the same, and it's not semantics to point that fact out. But in the majority of this discussion they are being treated as exactly the same, IMO for political reasons and misdirection.

    Watch the News, and you'd think (if you know what Subsidy means) that the Govt. is paying the Oil Companies money, instead of simply taking a little less off the top in taxes. You'd also think the few Billion involved here was a big deal....till you see that our Deficit is heading towards 2 trillion, and the rduction of tax revenue is a drop in the proverbial bucket on the road to fixing that problem.

    [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

    Why is it every question you dislike is viewed as "off kilter"? The question is absolutely relevant. Tax Code is written to cover both "all" of X, and in some cases just an individual business or industry. asking which is which in regards to the potential cuts is entirely relevant, as it speaks to a political descrimination against a specific industry, whilst allowing the same tax breaks to continue unabated for other protected industries.

    You say "Oil COmpnaies Use them (tax breaks) in ways that are at least question".

    Ok, name them then, and tell us what "use" you find questionable.

    [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

    No, it's basic business. Increase of the tax burden adds expense. That cost is entirely passed on to the consumer, or profit is reduced. I've read some of the writing on "price won't rise at all", and it's not backed by anything but political ideology and wishfull hinking. There is nothing to stop a concurrent and equivalent increase in enegry price to make back whats lost in an increased tax burden, and I'd fully expect them to do so. We taxpayers pay regardless.

    [QUOTE]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...[/QUOTE]

    Unearned revenue is revenue gained without any product or service having been rendered to generate it.

    The point being made is the the Government (in all it's forms) has made vastly more Profit off the Oil Companies than the Oil Compnaies have made themselves. Tax at the Pump alone equated to more profit for the Governments than the Oil Company themselves make. Throw in income taxes of employees, and corporate taxes, property taxes, and the State is making incredable amounts of money off the Oil Companies back. Far in excess of the Companies themselves.

    So with that said, the company that does all the work and provides all the jobs to provide us with the vast majority of our energy needs is being demonized here as money grubbing profitmongers who steal from taxpayers.....while the State, who did nothing whatsoever in the process of providing energy, makes vastly more money off the whole operation.


    ----


    End of the day, I maintain yet again, the answer is to fix the Tax Code. Not to play Politics and Preferences to suit Politcal causes or Party-based Social Engineering. THAT would be "paying your fair share", but that phrase too is nothign but Politics. Not a drop on honesty or integirty in any of it.

  2. #22
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    The bottom line of the whole discussion is this: If you eliminate the subsidy or raise taxes on the oil companies, they will merely raise the price of their products. Very basic stuff here. Guess who pays.
    If taxes or reduction in subsidy decreases profit by say 7%, the companies raise prices by a minimum of 10%. That covers the reduction in their % profit plus allows for additional tax on additional profit.
    As a separate issue, I make more from my oil dividends than all my energy bills and any increases in food/all other products combined. I also pay tax on my dividends (money already taxed as profit by the gov). I'm good with oil company profits.

  3. #23
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,121
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4027684]Just to mnake it hard to quote, eh?



    Words have meanings LiL. A Subsidy is a payment, direct or indirect, from the Government. A Tax Reduction is just that, a reduction in the tax code that reduces the amount being confiscated by the Government, often with requirements and stipulations. It's not a payment at all, it's taking less.

    Are you honestly being serious here.....that you do not know the definitions of Subsidy, and how it differs from the tax code? If so, thats exactly why I asked the question, as the two are not the same, and it's not semantics to point that fact out. But in the majority of this discussion they are being treated as exactly the same, IMO for political reasons and misdirection.

    Watch the News, and you'd think (if you know what Subsidy means) that the Govt. is paying the Oil Companies money, instead of simply taking a little less off the top in taxes. You'd also think the few Billion involved here was a big deal....till you see that our Deficit is heading towards 2 trillion, and the rduction of tax revenue is a drop in the proverbial bucket on the road to fixing that problem.



    Why is it every question you dislike is viewed as "off kilter"? The question is absolutely relevant. Tax Code is written to cover both "all" of X, and in some cases just an individual business or industry. asking which is which in regards to the potential cuts is entirely relevant, as it speaks to a political descrimination against a specific industry, whilst allowing the same tax breaks to continue unabated for other protected industries.

    You say "Oil COmpnaies Use them (tax breaks) in ways that are at least question".

    Ok, name them then, and tell us what "use" you find questionable.



    No, it's basic business. Increase of the tax burden adds expense. That cost is entirely passed on to the consumer, or profit is reduced. I've read some of the writing on "price won't rise at all", and it's not backed by anything but political ideology and wishfull hinking. There is nothing to stop a concurrent and equivalent increase in enegry price to make back whats lost in an increased tax burden, and I'd fully expect them to do so. We taxpayers pay regardless.



    Unearned revenue is revenue gained without any product or service having been rendered to generate it.

    The point being made is the the Government (in all it's forms) has made vastly more Profit off the Oil Companies than the Oil Compnaies have made themselves. Tax at the Pump alone equated to more profit for the Governments than the Oil Company themselves make. Throw in income taxes of employees, and corporate taxes, property taxes, and the State is making incredable amounts of money off the Oil Companies back. Far in excess of the Companies themselves.

    So with that said, the company that does all the work and provides all the jobs to provide us with the vast majority of our energy needs is being demonized here as money grubbing profitmongers who steal from taxpayers.....while the State, who did nothing whatsoever in the process of providing energy, makes vastly more money off the whole operation.


    ----


    End of the day, I maintain yet again, the answer is to fix the Tax Code. Not to play Politics and Preferences to suit Politcal causes or Party-based Social Engineering. THAT would be "paying your fair share", but that phrase too is nothign but Politics. Not a drop on honesty or integirty in any of it.[/QUOTE]

    One thing I didn't say is that the oil companies are currently doing anything that's illegal or "stealing." They're exploiting whatever advantages the tax code gives them. I think the term "subsidy" is being parsed far too narrowly in your definition, based on everything I've read thusfar. If a company paid all their taxes and the government gave them back a portion of what they paid, would that be a subsidy? Why is that different than simply building in the credit up front? Anything the government pays an industry will be assessed against what that industry pays the government.

    Taxes on gasoline are both federal (18cpg)and state and obviously vary from one to the other. My understanding is that these taxes are mostly directly toward highway improvement/maintenance, which amounts to a kind of consumption tax. Saying that it somehow is "off the backs" of the oil companies is a bit simplistic. You could just as easily say it's off the backs of auto-makers, or tire manufacturers, etc. What's your fairer alternative to generate revenue for highways? Speeding tickets?

    As to the tax code, I agree with you. But politics is a snakepit of special interests and selfishness. The Times article was a case in point. Mendendez was sounding positively zealous about getting rid of subsidies until it came to New Jersey refineries... then suddenly the rhetoric reversed course. Until lobbies are curbed in politics (and I don't know how we would do that) politicians will make decisions based far too much on their benefactors. Shame but that's the truth.

  4. #24
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4027605]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.

    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.[/QUOTE]

    Why dont you edumacate the sheep rather than whine about them?

    Splain it all to us oh great one!

    Baaahhhh!! Baaahh!!!

  5. #25
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,121
    Post Thanks / Like
    Found this useful for the discussion:

    Here is a look at the main tax breaks:

    The biggest is what's called the Domestic Manufacturing Deduction. It's a 2004 tax change meant to encourage companies to manufacture in the U.S.
    It allows companies of almost any type to deduct from their taxable income up to 9 percent of profits from domestic manufacturing. Under the rule, oil and gas companies were classified as manufacturers, but their deduction was capped at 6 percent.
    This provision alone is expected to save the oil and gas industry $18.2 billion over the next ten years, or 42 percent of the $44 billion total.
    The oil industry feels unfairly singled out. "It can't be good for some and not for others or it is just a punishment," says Stephen Comstock, the tax policy manager at the American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry lobbying group.

    Another subsidy, established in 1913 to encourage domestic drilling, allows oil companies to deduct more quickly all of the so-called intangible costs of preparing a site for drilling.
    To accountants, intangible costs are costs for things that have no salvage value when the well runs dry, including clearing land and pouring concrete. Ordinarily, a business would have to deduct these costs over the life of the drilling site. Instead, small, independent drillers are allowed to deduct all of these expenses in the first year; major, so-called integrated companies like ExxonMobil can deduct 70 percent in the first year.
    The break is worth $12.5 billion over the next ten years.
    Comstock compares the oil industry's ability to write off the cost of preparing a well to other companies' ability to write off research and development costs. Other tax experts say this is clearly a subsidy.

    A rule dating from 1926 that establishes how oil companies can depreciate the value of their wells allows drillers to deduct 15 percent of the well's revenue from its taxable income per year. This is instead of a more traditional depreciation scheme in which the cost of the well is depreciated over the well's life.
    The tax break was created in part to simplify accounting, so companies wouldn't have to guess how long an oil or gas field would produce in order to calculate how to depreciate it. It can be a boon: The total of the deductions over the life of the well can sometimes be bigger than what the company actually spent on the well.
    This provision was eliminated for major oil companies in 1975, but it continues for independent producers. The break is worth $11 billion over 10 years.

    Royalties that companies pay foreign governments for the oil they extract are not deductible from U.S taxes. But often the industry is allowed to claim royalties as foreign taxes, which are deductible. Obama and Senate Democrats call this a loophole, and want to close it. Obama doesn't include this in his $44 billion proposal, but Whitney Stanco, an analyst at MF Global, calculates that removing this benefit could cost the industry $8.5 billion over ten years.

  6. #26
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2;4027764]Why dont you edumacate the sheep rather than whine about them?

    Splain it all to us oh great one!

    Baaahhhh!! Baaahh!!![/QUOTE]

    GFY Troll.

    The next time you post some content in here will be the first time.:rolleyes:

  7. #27
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4027756]One thing I didn't say is that the oil companies are currently doing anything that's illegal or "stealing." They're exploiting whatever advantages the tax code gives them. I think the term "subsidy" is being parsed far too narrowly in your definition, based on everything I've read thusfar. If a company paid all their taxes and the government gave them back a portion of what they paid, would that be a subsidy? Why is that different than simply building in the credit up front? Anything the government pays an industry will be assessed against what that industry pays the government.[/quote]

    Again, there are specific definitions to words, and if cannot use the appropriate words for the appropriate things, how can we even have a debate?

    A Subsidy is a payment. Period.

    A Tax Rate Reduction/Tax Code Item is taking less money away.

    On their own, the two have similar results, more money in the hands of the Business. Except that is a shallow reading. Subsidy takes someone elses money (taxpayers) and gives it to Company X because Compnay X cannot exist without it. A Tax Liabillity Reduction allows a business to keep more of IT'S OWN money (not taxpayers money, it's own money), and comes with regulation, stipulation and more. Beyond that, most Subsidized companies are also either tax exempt, or also recieve the maximum number of tax reductions the Congress can vreate for them.

    I'm not sure how to explin this any deeper. Taxpayer Money Given To Compnay (Subsidy) vs. keeping ones own money (Tax break) by meeting strict compliance of Y. Even this is too simplistic (in actually the accounting here is hella-deep and complicated tbh).

    Do we even agree that a business or individual has any right to their own earnings? I don't think we do, tbh.

    [QUOTE]What's your fairer alternative to generate revenue for highways? Speeding tickets?[/QUOTE]

    Why are higjhways any different that any other Spending Line Items. Govt. collects taxes, Highways are one spending item, and should prioritized as the Govt. sees fit. Does every spending item warrant special tax code additions? Isn't that kind of thinking part of the problem?

    Our Govt. has a basic budgeting problem, and the incredably overcomplicated tax code is a big part of that. We'd all be much better off (and be forced to really decide what is important to us as a Nation and People) if we had to actually do as most companies and individuals do, and live within our means, and make hard choices on what we want to fund. Sorry, but when you're running a 1.5 trillion deficit, and Cowboy Poetry Roundups are vital spending, you;re just not making hard choices at all.

    [QUOTE]As to the tax code, I agree with you.[/QUOTE]

    It's funny, everyone agrees, but everyone also says "it's unrealistic".

    You know what would make it more relaistic, and curb some of the whining about "evil corporateocracy, man!" is people actually havign integrity, and not simply voting (R) or (D).

    Everyone wants to make the case that the People have no power. It's just not true, we have ALL the power. We simply choose (in the majority) to be lazy and ignorant, and to wield it over sillyness, and abdicate it over the important stuff.

    Every voter of (D) or (R) supports the system as it is today, from top to bottom, good and bad. If you didn't support this horrid system, you wouldn;t vote (R) or (D), it really is that simple. In your fear of being powerless (wastign a vote), you guarantee that you ARE powerless.

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,377
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4027845][B][SIZE="7"]R[/SIZE][/B][/QUOTE]

    Fixed. :P

  9. #29
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,121
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4027845]Again, there are specific definitions to words, and if cannot use the appropriate words for the appropriate things, how can we even have a debate?

    A Subsidy is a payment. Period.

    A Tax Rate Reduction/Tax Code Item is taking less money away.

    On their own, the two have similar results, more money in the hands of the Business. Except that is a shallow reading. Subsidy takes someone elses money (taxpayers) and gives it to Company X because Compnay X cannot exist without it. A Tax Liabillity Reduction allows a business to keep more of IT'S OWN money (not taxpayers money, it's own money), and comes with regulation, stipulation and more. Beyond that, most Subsidized companies are also either tax exempt, or also recieve the maximum number of tax reductions the Congress can vreate for them.

    I'm not sure how to explin this any deeper. Taxpayer Money Given To Compnay (Subsidy) vs. keeping ones own money (Tax break) by meeting strict compliance of Y. Even this is too simplistic (in actually the accounting here is hella-deep and complicated tbh).

    Do we even agree that a business or individual has any right to their own earnings? I don't think we do, tbh.

    [/QUOTE]

    [B][SIZE=3]subsidy[/SIZE][/B] [ˈsʌbsɪdɪ]
    [I]n[/I] [I]pl[/I] [B]-dies[/B] [B]1.[/B] (Economics) a financial aid supplied by a government, as to industry, for reasons of public welfare, the balance of payments, etc.
    [B]2.[/B] (Historical Terms) [I]English history[/I] a financial grant made originally for special purposes by Parliament to the Crown
    [B]3.[/B] (Economics) any monetary contribution, grant, or aid [from Anglo-Norman [I]subsidie,[/I] from Latin [I]subsidium[/I] assistance, from [I]subsidēre[/I] to remain, from [I]sub-[/I] down + [I]sedēre[/I] to sit]




    I think definition 3. is the reason every article, whether NY Times, Wall Street Journal, or whatever, interchangeably refers to these tax credits and deductions as subsidies. They are recognized as a form of aid to these corporations or industries. You're making a distinction that no else is making and it isn't even of any significance to the argument. Bottom line: do you think, for example, that oil companies should get accelerated depreciation on oil in the ground? Do you favor oil companies writing off royalties paid to foreign governments as deductions? Do you think oil and gas companies should be considered "manufacturers? and get the tax break that goes along with that distinction? Do you think oil companies should be able to charter their wells in foreign countries with low taxes but still claim tax benefits for those same wells in the U.S.? etc.

    Do you think government should promote through financial incentives the development of alternative fuel sources that are environmentally safe and increase our independence from fossil fuels? Or do you think we should leave it to the Chinese and others to simply dominate the alternative energy market and bind us to a new foreign energy master? Isn't this precisely what the Constitution intended with the "general welfare" clause?

  10. #30
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4027809]GFY Troll.

    The next time you post some content in here will be the first time.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    GFY oblivited blowhardness.

  11. #31
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4027938]I think definition 3. is the reason every article, whether NY Times, Wall Street Journal, or whatever, interchangeably refers to these tax credits and deductions as subsidies.[/quote]

    Then they are defining it incorrectly. A Tax break is not "monetary contribution, grant, or aid". Allowing one to keep their own property is not the same as GIVING something.

    [QUOTE]it isn't even of any significance to the argument[/QUOTE]

    Just like "your question is flawed", this type of dismissiveness serves no purpose other than to expose a lack of understand of the differences we're discussing. It is not semantics to differentiate between aid, and being allowed to keep ones own profits.

    [QUOTE]Bottom line: do you think, for example, that oil companies should get accelerated depreciation on oil in the ground?[/QUOTE]

    Under the existing system, yes. For the reasons stated, predictng the end of a Oil Field/Gas Mine is very difficult, and the benefit here is almost purely accounting-based. The depreciation benefit would happen one way or the other, it simply happens faster currently, but the end result is still the same amount of depreciation benefit being taken.

    With that said, I support a complete overhaul of our taxation system and an end to both progressive and corporate taxation.

    [QUOTE]Do you favor oil companies writing off royalties paid to foreign governments as deductions?[/QUOTE]

    Under the current system, yes. Other compnaies in other fields get this benefit. Taxes paid to other Governments get this benefit. There is nor eason that fees paid to foreign Governments for access (an access tax in all but name) should not be treated the same as other taxes and for other comanies.

    With that said, I support a complete overhaul of our taxation system and an end to both progressive and corporate taxation.

    [QUOTE]Do you think oil and gas companies should be considered "manufacturers?[/QUOTE]

    Absolutely.

    [QUOTE] and get the tax break that goes along with that distinction?[/QUOTE]

    If other manufacturers get it under the current system, then yes.

    But I support a complete overhaul of our taxation system and an end to both progressive and corporate taxation.

    [QUOTE]Do you think oil companies should be able to charter their wells in foreign countries with low taxes but still claim tax benefits for those same wells in the U.S.? etc.[/QUOTE]

    Would have to know more, as what your describe sounds like double-dipping of a very illegal sort.

    [QUOTE]Do you think government should promote through financial incentives the development of alternative fuel sources that are environmentally safe and increase our independence from fossil fuels?[/QUOTE]

    No.

    I don't believe the Government should be dictating what individuals choose to purchase as enegery. I think I've been rather consitent on this point, the Governemnt exists to serve the people, not to control the people as a small minority in power feel is needed.

    [QUOTE] Or do you think we should leave it to the Chinese and others to simply dominate the alternative energy market and bind us to a new foreign energy master?[/QUOTE]

    If thats what they want, and we don't, then yes. The market for "alt energy" is not a closed one, anyone an start an Alt-energy company and get all the same tax breaks Oil does, and a whole host of actual subsidies (direct Govt. payments as aid). If they see no profit in it, thats a problem of the technology, not the people. If an affordable efficient green alt-fuel existed, people would use it.

    [quote]Isn't this precisely what the Constitution intended with the "general welfare" clause?[/QUOTE]

    No.

    But with all thes eissues, from who has a moral right to income and wealth, to the role of Govt. we see things 180 degrees differently.

    By the way, one of these days it might be nice if your replied to me as I've just replied to you. Asked, and answered, directly.

  12. #32
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2;4028068]GFY oblivited blowhardness.[/QUOTE]

    :rolleyes:

    Losing your mojo troll. /ignore.

  13. #33
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4028098]:rolleyes:

    Losing your mojo troll. /ignore.[/QUOTE]

    no kidding

  14. #34
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,867
    Post Thanks / Like
    Oblivited.


    Thats a new one for me.

    Gotta look it up.

    Be right back, dont move.


    -

  15. #35
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,121
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4028095]
    By the way, one of these days it might be nice if your replied to me as I've just replied to you. Asked, and answered, directly.[/QUOTE]

    If you asked nice neat questions like I do, I would be happy to oblige :yes:.
    Every time I've tried to answer your questions (and I'd say I may be the only poster here who's attempted that specifically), I run up against a lack of clarity, a strange usage of terms, or a question that is posed about the future (what do you think oil companies will do?... which is speculation). Ask simple, factual questions, and you'll get more straight answers... just sayin...

  16. #36
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4027561]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.[/QUOTE]

    I don't either but you don't see Congressional Democrats calling in rich liberal donors from holywood or NYC who are getting huge windfalls from farm subsidies. Hell lets see Chuck Shumer bring in a couple of farmers in overalls from Iowa who are making windfall profits right now at the expense of the poor slobs who eat their over priced Weaties and ask them the same questions he asks the oil executives.

    The tax code needs to be overhauled. Allowing Congress to put on show trials against particular industries for political purposes is simply BS to allow the same curropt Government to continue to pick winners and losers and shake down companies for campaign donations through what is essentially Congressional extortion.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 05-14-2011 at 11:32 AM.

  17. #37
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4028318]
    The tax code needs to be overhauled. Allowing Congress to put on show trials against particular industries for political purposes is simply BS to allow the same curropt Government to continue to pick winners and losers and shake down companies for campaign donations through what is essentially Congressional extortion.[/QUOTE]

    on this we agree note we are only talking about possibly removing oil company subsidies but nothing has actually been done about it.

  18. #38
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4028253]If you asked nice neat questions like I do, I would be happy to oblige :yes:.
    Every time I've tried to answer your questions (and I'd say I may be the only poster here who's attempted that specifically), I run up against a lack of clarity, a strange usage of terms, or a question that is posed about the future (what do you think oil companies will do?... which is speculation). Ask simple, factual questions, and you'll get more straight answers... just sayin...[/QUOTE]

    :rolleyes:

    Just sayin indeed.

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