Government to determine 'Reasonable Profits'?

A place for intelligent and well-thought-out discussion involving politics and associated topics. No nonsense will be tolerated at all.
User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

Ok Isaac, stick your fingers in your ears for a sec. Heres some real life histeria, ripped straight from the pages of Atlas Shrugged.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/h ... ny-profits

The buzzword in the article? REASONABLE PROFITS BOARD
article wrote: The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding "a reasonable profit." It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.
Whats worse is:
article wrote: The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board, as it says members "shall have no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the Board."
Add to all that, the fact that no one seems to understand the difference, or why the difference is important, between profits and profit margins.

Great so we set up this board, with 3 people who probably dont know their bum from an ant hill, who get to determine when a company or industry has made enough money, then tax the stew out of the overage. It starts with the oil companies. How long until the pharmaceutical industry gets put before this board, how long before the agricultural industry gets put before this board, how long before YOUR industry gets put before this board.

WHY oh WHY cant government keep its nose out of business that IS NOT theirs?


User avatar
szh
Posts: 15932
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 12:54 pm
Car: 2018 Tesla Model 3.

Unfortunately, no longer a Nissan or Infiniti, but continuing here at NICO!
Location: San Jose, CA

Post

Let's see if I understand this correctly ... gas prices might go high, so the gas companies might make more of a profit, and then pay up to 100% tax to the government for them to use ... as they wish?

Seems like a way to effectively collect a new tax from everybody who buys gas ... with plausible deniability: "Oh, we are only taxing the bad, evil oil companies profits ... not the average person (directly)!"

The reality is that gasoline is sold at market rates - short-term profits due to drops in crude oil prices are not an indication of long-term evil profits. These prices follow normal demand-supply trends due to the volume of gas sold in the US. Artificially impacting prices with taxation (using rhetoric government "social engineering efforts") will have the usual negative outcomes.

Sigh ... when will Congress realize that we need less government not more! Since government is paid for by our taxes, etc.? Since much of the federal government (Congressfolk included!) don't make products or provide meaningful services that contribute to the economy?

Z

User avatar
themadscientist
Posts: 26254
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:30 pm
Car: R32 GTR, DR30 RS Turbo, BRZ, Lunchbox, NSR50 Sportster 883 Iron
Location: Staring down at you with disdain from the spooky mountaintop castle.

Post

I think in november we will have such a board to sit in judgement of many congressmen. Be sure to attend your local "meeting" and vote.

How to contact Dennis.
http://kucinich.house.gov/Contact/Starter.htm

What just hit his inbox, socialist bastard. :mad:
Mr. Kucinich, good day to you sir.

I will begin by pointing out I am not one of your constituents, but I do hope this will not dissuade you from entertaining my correspondence. I DO expect a response from my congressman, Mr. Connolly on this issue.

I am perusing the text of hr3784 and I must say I am shaking my head in complete disgust.

I am all for fuel efficiency and am actually trying to scrape up such cash to convert one of my vehicle to full electric. Not an overpriced under-performing hybrid bait and switch like the Chevy Volt, but a true gasless vehicle so please know I am not an oil company shill.

The continued demonization of the oil companies so that you can shake them down for money for your pet agendas is as opaque as a lace teddy and while many Americans have inadequate electrical flow to make a 1-watt lightbulb flicker, we are not all so obtuse.

"reasonable profits?" That's a nice conveniently ambiguous term that leaves just enough wiggle room, doesn't it.

How does one decide what is "reasonable?"

How does one earn the privilege to be recognized as an unquestioned authority on such an issue?

Answer: "The board shall appoint a Director who has no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the board."

I have no fiduciary connection to any oil or gas company. Please let me know where I need to send my resume.


I do not mean to be insulting, truly, but I will not pull punches. You know this is wrong on its very face when you look at it through the untinted lens of logic and common sense devoid of the patina imparted by, I won't say greed, I would not venture to assume evil motivations when I do not know you; that would be unfair. Let's say, your enthusiasm for the payout side of this little scheme, ostensibly tax credits and public transportation.

Please take a moment to step outside your position, your opinions, your prejudices and the immediate issue and join with me as we play devils' advocate and wax up our sled for a slippery slope.

Don't you think as the aforementioned citizen so unencumbered, a state of actual objectivity rather than the assumed objectivity of the theoretical members of this planned board, the idea of some group, reportable to nobody, but the person who appointed them, likely a person who shares their views, whatever they may be, would not be compelled to adhere to another similarly vaporous term, "fairness?"

When did the government get into the business of deciding who wins and who loses and if they get to win, by how much? Don't worry, it was a rhetorical question to spark some consideration on your end about what you are trying to do.

I don't question your honor or genuine desire to do good, Mr. Kucinich, you seem like a nice person with conviction, but this is a dangerous idea, an unAmerican one and will actually punish the people and not big oil. You see, when the cost of doing business goes up, you simply roll that into the retail price and dump it on the consumer. Prices go up, profits stay relatively stable and I have to pay more for a gallon of gas.

Now, as I said, you seem like a nice person, you also seem like an intelligent person. This leads me to wonder how you would miss this inescapable relationship. If the first assumption is true, that you are smart, the second assumption must then be false, that you didn't think of this. If I have painted you with an ill color, I do apologize, but you can see why I would wonder at your motivations, sir.

If I have correctly deduced your real intentions you will rob legally-earned profit from a business, increased my cost of living to make owning a gas-burning car a hardship and pushed me into the waiting arms of the government handout to buy a dinky little piece of junk car that is more "fuel efficient," another term defined by a similarly untouchable bureaucracy.

Well-played, but I am not the only one who can see this grift you are setting up. While I am not a constituent of yours, there are those in your district who can map this out and might not appreciate it either.

If you think the oil companies make too much money then why not cut their subsidies? There is no reason they need a check from the government, they are very good at what they do. I would back you and my representative 100% on such a move. Subsidies skew the marketplace and create an out of balance condition that can only be maintained through artificial means. Adam Smith's invisible hand has a heck of a grip.

I urge you to reconsider your position and pursue your objectives in a more capitalistic and effective manner. The voters are indeed watching and they will decide what is a "reasonable" exercise of your power Mr. Kucinich and if you think that's unfair I would remind you that unlike the board proposed in your bill, those good folks of your district very much DO have financial interest in your activities and they WILL decide if your power is a windfall and they may take it from you.

Again, good day.

Mike

User avatar
bigbadberry3
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:19 pm
Location: USA

Post

Is this really what the finest of Americans can come up with now....

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

First line of the article:
The Hill wrote:Six House Democrats
The buzzwords? "Six" and "House." Lemme know when something worth reading into comes up.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

szh wrote:Seems like a way to effectively collect a new tax from everybody who buys gas ... with plausible deniability: "Oh, we are only taxing the bad, evil oil companies profits ... not the average person (directly)!"
Only if the oil companies actually raise the gas prices in futility. Somebody correct me if I'm not understanding this right, but would a 100% windfall profit above a certain profit margin mean that the only way the government gets more money (and the only way you'd be forced to pay more at the pump as a result) is if the oil companies decided that, just to spite the Feds, they'd raise prices?

In the face of competition from other oil suppliers, wouldn't that simply mean that nobody would ever do this because self-interest dictates that it's bad? Right out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged, eh, Stebo?

User avatar
szh
Posts: 15932
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 12:54 pm
Car: 2018 Tesla Model 3.

Unfortunately, no longer a Nissan or Infiniti, but continuing here at NICO!
Location: San Jose, CA

Post

IBCoupe wrote:
szh wrote:Seems like a way to effectively collect a new tax from everybody who buys gas ... with plausible deniability: "Oh, we are only taxing the bad, evil oil companies profits ... not the average person (directly)!"
Only if the oil companies actually raise the gas prices in futility. Somebody correct me if I'm not understanding this right, but would a 100% windfall profit above a certain profit margin mean that the only way the government gets more money (and the only way you'd be forced to pay more at the pump as a result) is if the oil companies decided that, just to spite the Feds, they'd raise prices?
Not necessarily. Gasoline prices is one area where the natural market forces of supply-demand do hold true. Particularly given that it is not monopolistic. Attempting to morph this by government feat usually causes unnatural response actions to be taken.

My points.

1. It seems to me that the definition of "reasonable profit" may not be easy and clear-cut. The so-called board does not know, or will not have access to, the actual costs that drive the profits, etc. Makes for poor spending practices, etc.

2. Government price-control attempts usually backfire - the attempt to change the laws of economics (particularly on one with such a clear supply-demand market control) forces companies and governments to make unnatural acts to compensate. Look at the utility industry price problems - different in different states - for simple examples.

3. This new attempt could easily create the same kind of PUC czars, with too much authority and yet with lack of knowledge, to do their job right. The PUC's in the utility or telecom industry are clear examples where much time and effort has to be spent to correct their mistakes (if you are able to - they have too much power!).

4. More government interference and bureaucracy and you know how we feel about that. :biggrin:

Z

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Well, two through four are speculative, and while your points might be perfectly sound considerations, I'm still gonna go with "Never going to come into effect, so not gonna worry about it." To the first, it'd likely be conducted through the IRS, and while we may have trouble pinning down what is a "reasonable" profit, I don't think they'd have any trouble enforcing a regulation once the definition had been established for the purpose of regulation.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

Here's the progression, if you're interested to know.

First, this bill kicks off, the board begins imposing 100% tax on companies within the gas/oil industry. This of course obliterates their overhead, making it completely pointless to stay in business. Eventually the first one declares they are closing their doors, now the cost of doing business exceeds any reasonable expectations of return. Now there is one less competitor in the market, 20000 jobs have been lost, worldwide I might add, as the company has global interests that have now closed down. Since this company refined about 10% of the gas and 15% of the diesel coming into the US, the supply drops, natural market forces drive the price of gas higher. Soon another company decides to follow suite, now Congress begins to squirm a bit. Another large chunk of jobs are lost, as well as another 10% or so of the supply. Determined not to let this spiral out of control, Congress convenes in an emergency session, and passes a new law, which forbids gas/oil companies from going out of business. It is now punishable by federal prison for a board of directors to declare their company out of business. In about more weeks, suddenly the entire board for Company C has up and disappeared. Although still technically "in business" its production grinds to a halt within a week. Employees dont recieve their paychecks, now its a ghost in the shell. Congress again convenes in an emergency session, even Chucky Sheumer makes it in, and this company is declares property of the federal government, and a group of appointees are placed in control of the company. By now of course, we are pissed by used to $8 a gallon gasoline, and $9.50 a gallon diesel. It costs $30 to ship a 1 pound box to your niece in the next state. Shipping costs have also decimated other markets, $20 bag of potatoes, $10 gallon of milk, $5 loaf of bread, and so on. Congress decides to mandate that their new company sale their fuel to stations for half the normal price, to ease tension. Well this helps a bit, but this particular company only provides about 10% of diesel comsumption, and since FedEx subsidiaries were contracted buyers, they end up getting the majority of the cheap diesel. Additionally, as this cheap gas hits the streets, it hits in limited supply. You can imagine seeing $4 a gallon gas at 2 of the 12 stations in your general area, what the result of that might be. At both of these stations, the normal becomes riots, looting from the vendor, as he's too busy dealing with the riots. The gas doesnt last long, and as it were, the company cant keep up with production. Now your local "cheap" station only gets gas supply on tuesday, and only about 20000 gallons, which lasts till midday wednesday. The areas around these stations are the new ghetto of town. Some towns even see gang violence increase, in a means to "street control" the cheap gas. Now in about 6 months of this, eventually its realized that this company cant pay its bills, its been selling gas for half price, who knew! Faced with a new dilemma, Congress decides to take a new bold step. First, an allocation of SS funds are directed to the company to keep it afloat, then secondly, a bill is structured, and rather quickly passes, that places crude oil and several of its components as national resources, controlled and dispursed at the hand of a new presidentially appointed board of 3, of whom none can have financial ties to the resources in question.

Do I need to continue....?

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

You lost me after the first sentence there, Stebo.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

Not surprising. Who wants to squint to read blather on an iPhail right?

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54538
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote: Lemme know when something worth reading into comes up.
IBCoupe wrote:You lost me after the first sentence there, Stebo.
Let's not get lost in laziness and apathy. ;)

At the VERY least, we've identified 6 wack-job Dems that need to be harangued mercilessly and called on the carpet for their clear inability to think in a rational and logical manner.

User avatar
szh
Posts: 15932
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 12:54 pm
Car: 2018 Tesla Model 3.

Unfortunately, no longer a Nissan or Infiniti, but continuing here at NICO!
Location: San Jose, CA

Post

AZhitman wrote:At the VERY least, we've identified 6 wack-job Dems that need to be harangued mercilessly and called on the carpet for their clear inability to think in a rational and logical manner.
Only 6? :chuckle:

Z

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

stebo0728 wrote:Not surprising. Who wants to squint to read blather on an iPhail right?
By that I meant that I disagree with the premise upon which your analysis is built. From what I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it won't be a 100% tax on those companies. It will be a 100% tax on profits above some certain arbitrary level, right?

That's a pretty big distinction, and if your analysis is derived from a hypothetical that is not proposed by this oddball resolution, then (and I don't mean any disrespect) it's of little value to the conversation.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote:
stebo0728 wrote:Not surprising. Who wants to squint to read blather on an iPhail right?
By that I meant that I disagree with the premise upon which your analysis is built. From what I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it won't be a 100% tax on those companies. It will be a 100% tax on profits above some certain arbitrary level, right?

That's a pretty big distinction, and if your analysis is derived from a hypothetical that is not proposed by this oddball resolution, then (and I don't mean any disrespect) it's of little value to the conversation.
Ah ha, but you see you cant pin me into one or the other on this one, its not that simple. Yes the 100% is only on the "overage" beyond the "reasonable profit". But heres a distinction for you. The goal, at least as I understand it, is not to limit profit margin, but to limit overall profit. That means suddenly there is a magic line where beneath it, you are making a reasonable profit margin, and anything above it begins to erode your sustainable profit margin. This creates a spiral effect, as companies begin to limit sales, lay off unnecessary work force, and supply decreases. Decreased supply drives up speculative price, thereby causing remaining sellers to hit their limit faster. And so on and so on. Thats when the same scenario I laid out above starts to play out, as it starts making sense to the shrills in congress to start forbidding sales limits, and eventually to try and nationalize the resource altogether.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Not really sure it's a resource we can do much nationalizing with.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote:Not really sure it's a resource we can do much nationalizing with.
Is your faith in the nationalizing power of our imperial federal government in question?

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

No, I just have a fuller understanding of the resource we're supposedly nationalizing, and most of it isn't within the jurisdiction of our government.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

Wouldn't be hard to nationalize. You might think it would be hard to pass the legislation to get it done. Thats where scare tactics come in. As far as the logistics, 2 week turnover time at most.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Today, most of the oil is outside of the country. Most of the refineries are outside of the country. Most of the oil companies are multinational. What, exactly, are we going to nationalize?

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

The product itself, confiscated at import, doled out by career politicians.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

And how is it we're supposed to have gotten there?

User avatar
szh
Posts: 15932
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 12:54 pm
Car: 2018 Tesla Model 3.

Unfortunately, no longer a Nissan or Infiniti, but continuing here at NICO!
Location: San Jose, CA

Post

IBCoupe wrote:Today, most of the oil is outside of the country. Most of the refineries are outside of the country. Most of the oil companies are multinational. What, exactly, are we going to nationalize?
Maybe, we could start by preventing our US oil companies from shipping gasoline overseas? Keeps prices higher here as a result. :yesnod

I have never understood just WHY we export gasoline products ... :rolleyes: And, now our such exports exceed our imports:

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/29/144155269 ... ss-imports
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... 52298812/1
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1M7LAV.DTL

And, no one seems to want to curb this ... keeps costs for us drivers higher than it should be!

Z

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote:And how is it we're supposed to have gotten there?
Remember that TL;DR I wrote above? I didnt say we were there now. I laid out a cause/effect scenario that could bring us there. Many measures having the same chances as this "6 man" sponsored proposal, but if it passes, then the chances of my scenario improve greatly.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54538
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote:Today, most of the oil is outside of the country.
szh wrote: I have never understood just WHY we export gasoline products ... :rolleyes: And, now our such exports exceed our imports
Hmmmmm.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Stebo, being that my next question to you would bring us right back to where we've already been, I'm gonna go ahead and just skip ahead (or back) a couple of steps:
stebo0728 wrote:That means suddenly there is a magic line where beneath it, you are making a reasonable profit margin, and anything above it begins to erode your sustainable profit margin. This creates a spiral effect, as companies begin to limit sales, lay off unnecessary work force, and supply decreases.
Why would limiting sales help them with their profit margin? If the tax is established above a certain dollar amount of profit, sure, that makes sense! But limiting sales would simply shift their profit margin, not change its size. Similarly, laying off unnecessary workers would increase their profit margin by reducing costs. And the supply of oil isn't going to decrease - it is what it is. The oil companies may reduce their consumption of it (but that wouldn't help them, either).

In order to reduce their profit margin, they'd have to reduce costs, increase inefficiency, or simply continue the status quo and throw money into the pockets of the government. Changing the amount of oil they sell wouldn't have any effect on the expense-revenue ratio.


Return to “Politics Etc.”