Opinion Talk

By AH

April 1, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

Unless you understand finances please don’t post to this board.

Thanks,

By tmunro

April 1, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

I don’t see where big oil is doing any exploring, and prices are sure not down. So no I don’t see where we should be subsidizing their efforts.

By Finance major

April 1, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

All I understand AH is that big oil companies are recording record profits while receiving over 18 BILLION dollars in tax breaks. Do you get treated like that by OUR government? And don’t give me the same tired old line that they need the breaks to explore renewable energy resources. That is a joke. So yeah… I guess that’s all you need to know.

By patrick

April 1, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

It is not necessary to understand finances to argue that the most fiscally responsible thing for our country to do would be to ask the largest oil extracting companies to roll a percentage of their profits back into exploration & research. I believe in Business 101, this is a basic principle of growing and sustaining a profitable business - reinvestment.

By Copyleft

April 1, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

I thought governmental “meddling in the marketplace” was a BAD thing?

By Mike

April 1, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

Oil companies have record profits, but they have to spend record amounts of money to get it.

I’m not sure who people think the “big oil companies” are - they’re public companies, owned by shareholders. Owned by retirees, investors, pension funds… a left-wing grab-from-the-rich mentality is going to do more damage to retiring Boomers who invested for their future.

Has anyone verified Neal Boortz’s allegation that the proposed legislation would put Hugo Chavez’s CITGO at a competetive advantage?

By Lee

April 1, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

Public Welfare is out. Corporate welfare is in. What part about the Republican revolution didn’t you understand?

By patrick

April 1, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

publicly traded companies are still for-profit ventures. They are not charity cases. Even if they have to spend record amounts of money to make their profits, the last time I checked your company’s profits are NET of the Cost of Sale or Cost of Goods Sold.

It does not matter a lick what it costs those companies to operate. If they are doing it at a highly profitable level, there is no reason to have a federal tax subsidy for them. I have no problem with the companies doing well and being profitable ventures, but if I make more in income from my own business than it costs me to do business I get taxed on the profits!!

By patrick

April 1, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

publicly traded companies are still for-profit ventures. They are not charity cases. Even if they have to spend record amounts of money to make their profits, the last time I checked your company’s profits are NET of the Cost of Sale or Cost of Goods Sold.

It does not matter a lick what it costs those companies to operate. If they are doing it at a highly profitable level, there is no reason to have a federal tax subsidy for them. I have no problem with the companies doing well and being profitable ventures, but if I make more in income from my own business than it costs me to do business I get taxed on the profits!!

By patrick

April 1, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

publicly traded companies are still for-profit ventures. They are not charity cases. Even if they have to spend record amounts of money to make their profits, the last time I checked your company’s profits are NET of the Cost of Sale or Cost of Goods Sold.

It does not matter a lick what it costs those companies to operate. If they are doing it at a highly profitable level, there is no reason to have a federal tax subsidy for them. I have no problem with the companies doing well and being profitable ventures, but if I make more in income from my own business than it costs me to do business I get taxed on the profits!!

By ed

April 1, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

If it is used to research renewable energy resources then so be it

By Paul

April 1, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this

Why does Mike believe in welfare for corporations?

WTF should the rest of us have a larger tax burden, because shareholders of these oil companies want the public to subsidize their industry?

By patrick

April 1, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

if the U.S. public is expected to support these companies with a subsidy, then we are also entitle to the reasonable restrictions that go along with it: price controls, etc.

In agriculture, where there are still strong subsidies the intent is to keep the cost of farm products low for the consumer.

I am not entirely sure I agree with agricultural subsidies either, but I do feel that when subsidies exist, the public is entitled to place restrictions on those industries.

By Filster

April 1, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

It is not so much understanding finances as understanding special interests, and the power and influence they have in our political system. The big 3 made something like a combined 118 billion in profits last year, yes? And now they want to maintain the 18 billion or so in tax breaks. Tax breaks for a system where oil, that was refined weeks or months ago, changes price, sometimes daily, to “adjust” to current prices. Example: A tanker fills a tank at a gas station on moneday and gas is 3.15 a gallon. A hug refinery fire occurs in SA, diminishing CURRENT output. The gas in the tank from monday shoots up to 3.45 a gallon due to the impact on current supply. what a nice system oil has in this country. I’m quite sure the 118 billion in profits is more than enough to offset the measly 18 billion in tax breaks that should be revoked, and if fact, higher taxes imposed upon such obscene profits. Ordinary people are having a hard time paying for gas to get to work AH. I drive a Camry and it cost 49.50 to fill it up the last time. Just exactly what are the 18 billion in tax breaks for that can’t be paid out of their profits. This is not capitalism and free enterprise, this is a monopoly, and in the past, our government has taken actions to break up monopolies (remember the bells AH?). But because poeple like Cheney and Bush have their you know whats in the back pockets of big oil, we get screwed over and over again. And I can only hope that America is getting tired of it.

By CC

April 1, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

$18 billion dollars a year could finance the war in Iraq. A war that the oil companies will profit dearly from as it draws to a close. Maybe they should pony up and pay the price like the rest of us and our brave fighting men and women have done for the last 5 or so years.

By James

April 1, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this

All of this is a little out of my league as a layman but I have always been a believer that corporations don’t pay taxes (even if they technically do) because they just pass them on as costs. Only people pay taxes because we can’t pass them on. If I am wrong on that, please tell me where.

By patrick

April 1, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

James - corporations pass sales tax on to the consumer because consumers are responsible for that.

Corporations are expected to pay taxes on their income, just like individuals are. The tax laws and structure are different for corps than for individuals, but they are taxable entities, unless they fall under specific categories: non-profits (501c3), etc.

By James

April 1, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this

Patrick:

I realize that but whatever “supposed” taxes they pay under whatever regulation are just passed on to the consumer by raising the price of goods; so IN EFFECT corporations pay no taxes. Where am I wrong?

By patrick

April 1, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

James - I don’t think the economics quite work the way you describe it. A company cannot simply pass on costs to the consumer. Obviously, any profitable company is bringing in more money than it is spending out, so every successful company MUST by definition bring in more total revenue than its total costs. This is basic economics. Companies are only expected to pay taxes on their income, net of all costs. I would argue that it is technically incorrect to say that the tax costs are passed on. Corporate taxes are actually just a function of a company operating successfully at a profit, which all good companies strive to do.

There is, however, a limit to how much a company can increase its prices before it impacts the way consumers behave, so there are natural checks to price increases.

In the case of the oil industry, this is probably not the case because most people NEED to buy gas.

By Matt

April 1, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

All, One thing to think about. As it was covered last week in an oil company’s shareholders meeting, they will not add any additional output of oil into the market. If they did, the price for crude would drop as well as their profits. All are saying status quo on output.

By James

April 1, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

Patrick:

Thanks for the information. I just hope the people who are working on this know what they are doing. That’s the scary part.

By Big Tex

April 1, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

Do any of you have the slightest comprehension of what the difference is between a profit and a profit margin? Why are we not tapping into our resources here in the US? Why can we not drill for oil in Alaska or off of the coast of Florida? We are dependent on foreign oil!

Some mentioned oil companies and the “company” paying taxes and not wanting to get rid of their tax breaks. Did you know that “companies” do not pay taxes? Look it up. No “company” pays taxes, only individuals pay taxes. If I owned a company, I would not want to get rid of my tax breaks either.

I challenge you all: Educate yourself with the facts and quit relying on the media to tell you what they think you ought to know. Research this stuff yourself and you will find out how truly ignorant you really are when you rely solely on the media to lie to you! Look up the definition to the word ignorant too before you go and blow a gasket.

By Me

April 1, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

James, you are correct. Companies do not pay taxes. We pay all the taxes. Companies take taxes into consideration when they set the price for their goods or services. All costs are passed on to consumers.

Even companies that don’t deal directly with us little people eventually pass their costs on to a company that does.

Granted, most companies don’t change their prices like oil/gas companies do.

By demwit

April 1, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

Let’s just do away with all private American oil companies and put Bush in charge!!

By Eric

April 1, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

POP QUIZ: who has a higher profit margin, Exxon or Coca-Cola? Exxon or Microsoft? Exxon or Google? You think those companies don’t get tax breaks? Ever heard of the R&D tax credit? You don’t think Microsoft and Google are taking advantage of that tax break right this minute? Why is the outrage only directed at oil companies?

By AJM

April 1, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

Big Tex - let me help you out

Why are we dependednt on foreign oil? Because that is to meet the country’s energy demands. Drilling oil in Alaska, is not a solution to our overall energy needs. It will meet like 1% of our needs. Sure the oil companies want the revenue, but do your own research on how much is there and how much this adds to our supply.

Newsflash - oil is not going to last forever, so all the idiots who are against aletrnative sources of energy are morons.

So the real solution is to find alternative energy sources and conserve, but seeing all these hummers/SUV’s around, it is hard to see Americans doing what is best for their country. If every driver had a car that did approx 36 miles per gallon (both my cars do) then we could be almost mid-east oil free

And as long as the idiot corn lobby controls the ethanol debate, that is a waste as well. Brazil is basically energy self sufficient, without drilling away their homeland. Answer was sugar ethanol, which is so much more efficient than corn.

And lets not forget when Bush promised more reneable energy funding, and the next year it was cut by 27%

Bush’s response to what he said and what happened?

“We sent mixed signals”

genius

By AJM

April 1, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

Big Tex - let me help you out

Why are we dependednt on foreign oil? Because that is to meet the country’s energy demands. Drilling oil in Alaska, is not a solution to our overall energy needs. It will meet like 1% of our needs. Sure the oil companies want the revenue, but do your own research on how much is there and how much this adds to our supply.

Newsflash - oil is not going to last forever, so all the idiots who are against aletrnative sources of energy are morons.

So the real solution is to find alternative energy sources and conserve, but seeing all these hummers/SUV’s around, it is hard to see Americans doing what is best for their country. If every driver had a car that did approx 36 miles per gallon (both my cars do) then we could be almost mid-east oil free

And as long as the idiot corn lobby controls the ethanol debate, that is a waste as well. Brazil is basically energy self sufficient, without drilling away their homeland. Answer was sugar ethanol, which is so much more efficient than corn.

And lets not forget when Bush promised more reneable energy funding, and the next year it was cut by 27%

Bush’s response to what he said and what happened?

“We sent mixed signals”

genius

By AJM

April 1, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

Big Tex - let me help you out

Why are we dependednt on foreign oil? Because that is to meet the country’s energy demands. Drilling oil in Alaska, is not a solution to our overall energy needs. It will meet like 1% of our needs. Sure the oil companies want the revenue, but do your own research on how much is there and how much this adds to our supply.

Newsflash - oil is not going to last forever, so all the idiots who are against aletrnative sources of energy are morons.

So the real solution is to find alternative energy sources and conserve, but seeing all these hummers/SUV’s around, it is hard to see Americans doing what is best for their country. If every driver had a car that did approx 36 miles per gallon (both my cars do) then we could be almost mid-east oil free

And as long as the idiot corn lobby controls the ethanol debate, that is a waste as well. Brazil is basically energy self sufficient, without drilling away their homeland. Answer was sugar ethanol, which is so much more efficient than corn.

And lets not forget when Bush promised more reneable energy funding, and the next year it was cut by 27%

Bush’s response to what he said and what happened?

“We sent mixed signals”

genius

By Me

April 1, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

Eric,

I can easily do without Coke, Google, or Microsoft. It is much more difficult with oil. Add to it that oil prices change drastically and you will see why we are outraged at oil companies.

By Tony

April 1, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this

We would not have an oil problem if Congress’s concern for actual R&D was as high as their concern for political showmanship..

By Cathy Baker

April 1, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

I cant afford to drive my car anymore so I walk or ride the bus or take a bicycle. I did lose two pounds.

By ITGuy

April 1, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

I can go without Coke, Google and Oil…, but not MicroSoft.

By Eric

April 1, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

“Me” - oil prices change drastically because it is sold on the open market. How is a tax hike on oil companies going to change any of that?

I guess in your world corporate tax breaks are OK, just as long as YOU don’t REALLY REALLY REALLY need the product. And big profits are OK as long as you aren’t inconvenienced. Nice.

By tom

April 1, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

People, what is the difference between a profit and a profit margin? Basic economics - can you honestly answer the question without looking it up on-line?

2004 Profit Margins: Exxon Mobile - 9.8% CitiGroup - 15.7% Marlboro - 22% Mereck - 25.3%

Current Profit Margins: Wal-Mart - 3.4% BP - 7.3% Kellog - 9.4% GE - 13.1%

Where are all of the complaints to Kellog regarding the price of cereal and where are all of the complaints to GE for all of the goods they supply to us everyday? Their margins are higher than BP!!

If the profit margins for the big oil companies was high, I would be concerned. The fact is the margins are not high and are keeping with great business practice.

Quit complaining and invest in these companies. Let’s vote for people who will allow us to privatize some social security (which is a failing program) and then we can choose to become owners (shareholders) of these oil companies and build our retirement!!

By dumb one

April 1, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this

Who thinks companys actually pay taxes? I know my company does not pay taxes. I pass those wonderful little problems right to my consumers. They pay taxes.

I collect taxes for my company and collect taxes for the Goverment for my employees.

Yes, I pay “my fair share too,” to support the lazy people.

Plus What is a Profit? How about a Profit margin?

I bet gas prices go even higher when they(big oil co) do not get a tax break. Plus Check to see how much money the state of Georgia’s collects every time you fill up your car.

By tomsail

April 1, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this

It’s the American energy situation, stupid! Damn the sorry Democrats and the Environmentalists—start drilling for oil offshore USA—NOW!

How long will the Congress continue to punish and oppress all working Americans and their families with absolutely unnecessary high oil prices and the resulting high costs of every staple all families need to survive?

Do something, Congress!….and DO IT NOW!!!

By Blind Homer

April 1, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

If all taxes are paid by the people, why does the oil industry even accept tax breaks? Why not just ask to pay triple taxes since it won’t cost them anything anyway? The point is the use of the money, not the source. Personally, I’d prefer we have a windfall profits tax like we did the last time and the government use the revenue to address the coming Social Insecurity and Medicare problems rather than let the oil companies do god knows what with it. I’d guess more goes to executive bonuses, 2nd yachts and even more lobbyists than is spent on R&D. Hell they haven’t expanded refinery capaciaty in 2o years.

By tomsail

April 1, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

BEAT THE GASOLINE PRICES!

You will find great ideas on how in the new book, “HOW TO LIVE WELL WITHOUT OWNING A CAR” BY Chris Balish.

By Me

April 1, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

Actually Eric, I think all corporate tax breaks should be removed. I was just giving you an example of why people are more outraged at oil versus other companies.

I also think religious institutions should be taxed, income tax should be replaced with sales tax, and farm subsidies should be abolished.

By Steve

April 1, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

FairTax and eliminate all this convoluted government tax policy BS.

By willie

April 1, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

By Filster April 1, 2008 11:27 AM: You had a good argument and I agree with what you said and the direction you were heading then you said:” But because poeple like Cheney and Bush have their you know whats in the back pockets of big oil, we get screwed over and over again. And I can only hope that America is getting tired of it.” I can not believe that two people in the executive office has that much control. Congress has the control. Someone earlier said make oil companies a utility…that is a great idea. Speculators will not be able to drive the prices up due to rumors of bad weather, Iran sword rattling, and threats by other terrorist or anti America radicals. Remeber! All Saudi has to do is turn the valve off. Unless, the U.S. Congress delcares it a utility and will not buy oil for more than $40 a barrel. These prices are due to Speculators gouging us and not because of the real demand for oil. I have to buy oil to survive in todays economy. I do not have to buy other products if they are not needed for food, clothing and shelter. The oil companies are to blame and congress are to blame. Send both the message you know this.

By willie

April 1, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

By Filster April 1, 2008 11:27 AM: You had a good argument and I agree with what you said and the direction you were heading then you said:” But because poeple like Cheney and Bush have their you know whats in the back pockets of big oil, we get screwed over and over again. And I can only hope that America is getting tired of it.” I can not believe that two people in the executive office has that much control. Congress has the control. Someone earlier said make oil companies a utility…that is a great idea. Speculators will not be able to drive the prices up due to rumors of bad weather, Iran sword rattling, and threats by other terrorist or anti America radicals. Remeber! All Saudi has to do is turn the valve off. Unless, the U.S. Congress delcares it a utility and will not buy oil for more than $40 a barrel. These prices are due to Speculators gouging us and not because of the real demand for oil. I have to buy oil to survive in todays economy. I do not have to buy other products if they are not needed for food, clothing and shelter. The oil companies are to blame and congress are to blame. Send both the message you know this.

By willie

April 1, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

By Filster April 1, 2008 11:27 AM: You had a good argument and I agree with what you said and the direction you were heading then you said:” But because poeple like Cheney and Bush have their you know whats in the back pockets of big oil, we get screwed over and over again. And I can only hope that America is getting tired of it.” I can not believe that two people in the executive office has that much control. Congress has the control. Someone earlier said make oil companies a utility…that is a great idea. Speculators will not be able to drive the prices up due to rumors of bad weather, Iran sword rattling, and threats by other terrorist or anti America radicals. Remeber! All Saudi has to do is turn the valve off. Unless, the U.S. Congress delcares it a utility and will not buy oil for more than $40 a barrel. These prices are due to Speculators gouging us and not because of the real demand for oil. I have to buy oil to survive in todays economy. I do not have to buy other products if they are not needed for food, clothing and shelter. The oil companies are to blame and congress are to blame. Send both the message you know this.

By David

April 1, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

OK, I admit, I’m not a math major but it doesn’t take one to realize that with 123 BILLION in profits, oil and gasoline supplies seemingly adequate, there is NO WAY in the world to justify another 18 BILLION in tax breaks. As has been heard on tv…. “Gimme a break”

By Tom

April 1, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this

The tax breaks ($18 billion) are for exploration in the Western Hemisphere for oil and not for just being an oil company - every manufacturing company in America gets the same incentive. The purpose is to keep jobs in America. Take it away and watch our dependency on foreign oil increase.

OPEC sets the price for a barrel of oil - get mad at the hedge fund brokers who are hedging on these high prices.

David, your “gimme a break” attitue is why so many lazy people depend on the government each day for handouts while so many others work hard to develop a skill set which in return they can make an income. “Gimmie a break - that guy makes so much money - it is not fair - he should have to pay for my inability to get a job - it is not fair - he was lucky - why would anyone pay him so much to run that company - he is paid too much.” The lines from the lazy gets old.

I am personally sick and tired of the government dictating how my money and businesses money is spent. Success should be rewarded and not penalized.

As one person said, the Fair Tax would solve this all.

By JUNE_BABY

April 1, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this

just as always, a bunch of rethieflicans get on line and start trying to blur the issues, or divert people away from the topic at hand.the topic was tax breaks for big oil!! all they are doing is taking, taking, taking. not giving anything back, not doing anything to create alternative ener. sources. since this is the case, why should they continue to recieve these gigantic tax incentives?? and the average investor only receive pennies on their investment, the lions share is taken by officers and directors of these corp.s. you apologists for these people should quit deflecting the topic at hand.

By JUNE_BABY

April 1, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this

just as always, a bunch of rethieflicans get on line and start trying to blur the issues, or divert people away from the topic at hand.the topic was tax breaks for big oil!! all they are doing is taking, taking, taking. not giving anything back, not doing anything to create alternative ener. sources. since this is the case, why should they continue to recieve these gigantic tax incentives?? and the average investor only receive pennies on their investment, the lions share is taken by officers and directors of these corp.s. you apologists for these people should quit deflecting the topic at hand.

By Dave

April 1, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this

Funny, there are amost NO tax breaks for Solar companies (they are so little it’s laughable..but I’m not laughing)…GA has NO tax incentives for anyone wanting to install solar energy, or that buys a car that gets over 35 mpg. I’m not saying for a hybrid (as the rethuglicans HATE hybrids)…I’m just talking about a tax break for those that buy cars that get over 35 mpg. And why NOT give tax rebates or incentives for both consumers and solar companies? When I had my house built, it took 6 months to get my solar panels installed. Know why? Because nobody wants to go into that business here in GA. Go to any state that offers incentives to home owners to add solar, and you’ll find that industry thriving. But not here…nope! Billions in tax breaks by our fed. gov. for Big oil. How many billions went to solar companies for development of cheaper ways to create their product? If ALL car manufacturers were forced to up their mileage to an average of 40 mpg, and all new homes needed to have at least 50% solar energy….big oil would tank! That’s why the money spent on big oil (via tax incentives and breaks)…that COULD go to these other industries is wasted. Worse…it’s OUR money!

Thanks to ALL of you who voted and continue to vote for rethuglicans…. don’t even BOTHER complaining about what you pay for gas….it’s YOUR FAULT! Your votes are the ones to blame more than anyone else!!!

By Glenn

April 1, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this

Who’s to blame for this situation … CONGRESS! What Corporation in their right mind would turn down a tax credit of any size? Who’s to blame for this situation … CONGRESS! Who continues to vote FOR these tax credits or fails to vote against them every year? Who’s to blame for this situation … CONGRESS! Who votes against or fails to vote for the US drilling for oil in Alaska or off each coast every year? Who’s to blame for this situation … CONGRESS!

All the blame leads back to YOUR elected representatives in CONGRESS!

The Republican CONGRESS did nothing to positively address this situation.

The Democrat CONGRESS has done nothing to positively address this situation.

Don’t blame the Oil Companies. They’re just in this to make money. Oops, so is CONGRESS!

By Dave

April 1, 2008 6:14 PM | Link to this

Yeah Glenn, drilling in ANWAR will really bring down oil prices… sorry, but your stupidity is showing…

By Dave

April 1, 2008 6:29 PM | Link to this

Oh and Glenn….what happened for 6 years of TOTAL control of ALL 3 houses? President/Vice P. Senate, and the congress?

Since the dems took over both houses, Mr. Dummy in charge has vetoed ALL bills put before him that tried to take away the tax breaks to Big Oil….so put THAT in your pipe and smoke it (instead of the meth you’re on…better stop doing that if you want to keep you one remaining TOOTH)! ;-)

By D

April 1, 2008 6:52 PM | Link to this

now that over 30 environmental laws have been over-stepped to build border fence (which I am in favor of doing whatever it takes to secure our borders, ports and airports), can we really say that the environmentalists are keeping us from building a new refinery? when we all know that the best thing about being rich and powerful is that you are rich and powerful. and if you want something it doesn’t take long ‘til you get it. and if the oil companies, with their collusion, tax breaks, subsidies, invitational only BBQ’s and special hookers want something, they will get it, and it will all be for our children and the future, and for the troops and their boots on the ground and for that defense contractor-lovin’ Jesus.

By Thank a Democrat

April 1, 2008 6:59 PM | Link to this

Yes, [big]oil companies should be nationalized along with all pharmaceutical companies [big pharma], hospitals [big health], and insurance companies [big insurance].

Also, all auto companies and both durable and non-durable goods producers. All service industries and businesses should also be under government control.

Then, the government can institute a living wage of, say, $100,000 per year per person (children are included + some pets).

We can all be employed producing only environmentally friendly products, drive Volvos, and wear Birkenstocks and hemp clothing. We will name Al Gore the Green King and pay homage to him by chanting on hemp prayer mats that face Nashville (really Washington, D.C.)

Only then will we all be happy.

By GaVoter

April 1, 2008 7:21 PM | Link to this

Tax everyone. Get rid of all loopholes, all exceptions, all deductions, everything. Then tithe earnings of all kinds — wages, capital gains, interest, dividends, sales, etc. The only exemption should be bartering between individuals for items that they each produced on their own such as garden goods, woven goods, etc. The bartering should be limited to what the individual families personally consume. Everyone should be free to barter, tax-free, at a personal level. Doctors, farmers, lawyers, …

By Lynn Cheramie

April 1, 2008 7:42 PM | Link to this

Yeah those big oil companies made 120 billion last year but spent 3.5 on research over a 5 year period.

Wow that statement shows how they do math.

Water is wet and the sun will burn you bad if you sit on it!

By Lynn Cheramie

April 1, 2008 7:42 PM | Link to this

Yeah those big oil companies made 120 billion last year but spent 3.5 on research over a 5 year period.

Wow that statement shows how they do math.

Water is wet and the sun will burn you bad if you sit on it!

By Rick

April 1, 2008 8:46 PM | Link to this

I understand finances well. I know the innerworkings of corporations very well. Been there, done that.

The oil industry neither a fair nor free and open market. Anyone wanting to argue that point is a complete idiot. Prices in the petro-chemical industry are artificially set at all levels according to short-term financial performance expectations, period. The fundamentals that determine the prices in free markets have no meaning whatsoever in Big Oil. Just look at the data and listen to the marketplace rumblings. These filthy, greedy butt plugs want $4/gallon gasoline and they are going to get it in order to make their financial nut.

Computers set with targeted prices intervene in normal trading when values fall below the desired range. Everytime some camel jockey or South American dictator sneezes, the targets are adjusted higher - the “reason” for the “price rally” at the ready.

Granted, the bottom line is that we are at the mercy of OPEC basically. What irritates me is that rich investors and the big oil companies are supporting this disgusting and immoral behavior. Those subhumans in the Middle East are the most disgusting examples of humanity on Earth. They have no sence of right and wrong and therefore, just do not care about anything other than their grand palaces. They execute their own people for next to nothing so I’m guessing they do not care about livelyhoods.

Big Corporate Oil - gotta love it, huh?

By Heather

April 1, 2008 9:23 PM | Link to this

I find something rather interesting about the testimony before congress today.

When the Republicans controlled congress, the Democrats blamed them for the high price of gasoline.

Now the Democrats control congress and they are blaming the oil companies!

When do Democrats get around to blaming themselves for something?

From what I can see, about all they do is one endless hearing after another.

By Rick

April 1, 2008 9:52 PM | Link to this

Hey Heather,

Drink the Kool-Aid sweetheart, please.

“When the Republicans controlled congress, the Democrats blamed them for the high price of gasoline.”

Well, they are blaming them now as they should and is totally appropriate. Ever heard of George W. Bush and/or Dicky Cheney and/or Halliburton and/or this little skirmish that was “Mission Accomplished” about 4 years ago? WTF do you think this was all about? Want to guess the voting record of all of the Big Oil CEO’s?

By zeke

April 1, 2008 11:56 PM | Link to this

Congress is grandstanding for political reasons, period! Those idiots have no idea how economic realities affect pricing of various items! Screw the environmentaists, the sierra club and the like! Drill in all areas where oil is found! Alaska and offshore! Produce oil from shale and sand wherever it is found! Build several new integrated refineries! Remove oil from the commodities markets and ban all speculation from those in the market! Then the price of oil will drop back to $15 to $25 per barrel and relieve the current absurd situation! The oil companies do not control the price of oil or gas! IT IS THE SPECULATORS AND THE PRODUCTION CARTELS! We get 60% of our oil from Canada and Mexico, and, we should us our economic muscle to prod them into more oil at a reasonable price! Yes, oil may be , may be a finite resource, however, every year the known reserves continue to increase! Explain that!

By Bob Grant

April 2, 2008 2:39 AM | Link to this

If the oil companies are entitled to special tax subsidy. Then the general public should be entitled to special subsidy due to the higher gas prices at the pumps. If they can’t operate without special tax subsidy making those kind of profits. Something is wrong with American business practices.

By frank

April 2, 2008 6:15 AM | Link to this

hell no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Copyleft

April 2, 2008 8:00 AM | Link to this

Thank a Democrat: Sounds like an excellent plan! Where do I sign up?

(No, I’m not being sarcastic. People are more important than a mythical “free market.”)

By Copyleft

April 2, 2008 8:05 AM | Link to this

And to those arguing that “companies don’t pay taxes”… then why should they get a tax break?

After all, any subsidies they receive should get ‘passed on to the consumers’ as well, right? Or maybe it doesn’t actually work that way, and they only make this argument when they’ll have to PAY OUT rather than TAKE IN.

By Elaine

April 2, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this

I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON FINANCES, BUT BASIC MATH IS BASIC MATH. THE OIL COMPANIES ARE GETTING TAX BREAKS AND THE CONSUMER KEEPS PAYING HIGHER PRICES. WHO IS PROFITING? MMMMMMM?????