Oil, Oil, toil and trouble

[bigbadberry3]

So here's two different article covering the oil execs in DC:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110512/ap_ ... e_oil_ceos

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05 ... nate-dems/

With arguably large profits, why should the government continue to give 2 billion dollars to large oil companies? No, I'm not looking at this as to bring down the price of gas at the pump because in all reality it's only going to continue to rise but rather a fiscally wise move. Sure it's 2 billion dollars but if you want cuts, even small things add up.

[stebo0728]

Large profit dollars or large profit margins?

[bigbadberry3]

A small profit margin doesn't mean they aren't making large profit dollars

[stebo0728]

But thats all demand, or usage driven, out of the control of the seller. All they can do is set a margin and sell all they can, they cant be faulted for the gross amount made. Keep in mind margins are set so that all self generated costs are met, with each barrel sold, each self generated cost increases in kind. Looking at overall gross numbers is pointless, and preys on the ignorance of the masses. If you're worried about gouging, look at margins. Id say 5 to 10% average is far from gouging. We make minumum 20% on products here where I work, and the customers pay happily.

[bigbadberry3]

But thats all demand, or usage driven, out of the control of the seller. All they can do is set a margin and sell all they can, they cant be faulted for the gross amount made. Keep in mind margins are set so that all self generated costs are met, with each barrel sold, each self generated cost increases in kind. Looking at overall gross numbers is pointless, and preys on the ignorance of the masses. If you're worried about gouging, look at margins. Id say 5 to 10% average is far from gouging. We make minumum 20% on products here where I work, and the customers pay happily.

No, I'm not looking at this as to bring down the price of gas at the pump because in all reality it's only going to continue to rise but rather a fiscally wise move.

Ummm, I don't care if the profit margin is .00000001 percent if you're still profiting billions of dollars annually.

Additionally this is 2 billion dollars spread out over a few companies so it's not 2 billion dollars be directly taken from each company.

And I'm glad your business model works well but never forget how a free market works.

[bigbadberry3]

And Stebo, I'm quite surprised at your stance here. You're usually get the government out of everything especially if it's costing you money.

[stebo0728]

I havent taken a stance on anything here, I just stating facts. If you force a company to work for a .00000001 profit margin, they wont do it long, they go out of business. You're hung up on gross numbers, gross numbers really DO NOT matter. As I said, the more you sell, the more profit you make, but the more costs are incurred by selling the products. The laid in costs increase at the same level as the sales, if you have to pay a guy 10 bucks for every unit he sells, the more units he sells, the more you pay him, get it? The billions of dollars figure matters not.

And Im all for the free market working, but the free market is not going to cause the profit margins to lower to a point that the business cant operate.

And what part of what I said indicated I was for bigger government?

[bigbadberry3]

How are these subsidies forcing oils to posses a certain profit margin? They operate how they want, I just don't see why I have to pay taxes so that a business that is profitable no matter how you try and spin it, becomes more profitable.

[stebo0728]

That was completely my mistake, I started a rabbit trail, as Im infamous for doing. I wasnt referring to the subsidies, I started out by asking if you were angry about profit margins or gross figures. Consider it a distraction and disregard, Ill get it back together on this forum one of these days, having a bit of an off spell ...

[IBCoupe]

We still love you, Stebo.

[stebo0728]

I can be a political despot and still be a cool guy right?

[HashiriyaS14]

Ummm, I don't care if the profit margin is .00000001 percent if you're still profiting billions of dollars annually.

This isn't how the private sector sees it.

Everything is viewed, more or less, through the lens of profits generated per dollar of capital deployed, i.e. as a percentage.

[stebo0728]

Ummm, I don't care if the profit margin is .00000001 percent if you're still profiting billions of dollars annually.

This isn't how the private sector sees it.

Everything is viewed, more or less, through the lens of profits generated per dollar of capital deployed, i.e. as a percentage.

Thats what I was getting at basically, but the OP is about the subsidies so I got us a bit distracted.

[bigbadberry3]

And here's the update:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05 ... pain-pump/

No me gusta. Dems try ending subsidies and Repubs saying no? Cats and dogs loving each other in harmony now too!?

[stebo0728]

Just a quick little stat for you, taken out of:

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2 ... ashington/

First Quarter 2011:
ExxonMobile earnings on operations in the United States. $2.6 billion.
ExxonMobile taxes paid to the U.S. Government. $3.1 billion.

And thats WITH the subsidies.

[stebo0728]

And you gotta love this:

http://www.chevron.com/weagree/

They're commercials are extremely well done.

[bigbadberry3]

Just a quick little stat for you, taken out of:

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2 ... ashington/

First Quarter 2011:
ExxonMobile earnings on operations in the United States. $2.6 billion.
ExxonMobile taxes paid to the U.S. Government. $3.1 billion.

And thats WITH the subsidies.

So to this I can quickly figure out these:

It's a quarter report. Multiply it by 4.

US only.

Uh, BIASED?

[bigbadberry3]

And you gotta love this:

http://www.chevron.com/weagree/

They're commercials are extremely well done.

A good PR department, nothing more nothing less.

[stebo0728]

So to this I can quickly figure out these:

It's a quarter report. Multiply it by 4.

Which comes up to? Sorry I ran out of fingers.

US only.

Yes, this was stated on the quote, good good.

Uh, BIASED?

Biased because its on an oil company's website? Stats dont reflect bias, the stats are what I referenced, whatever other blather comes from the site I didnt read.

The company is operating in the US at a loss. Sure maybe for now there is reason enough to continue to do so, but for how long? And just how do we seek to maintain significant presence in the business world when we force major players to even have to worry about operating at a loss here?

And I should say, I didnt necessarily lay this out to be support for the subsidies, BUT, it certainly sheds a bit more light on why they might have been set up to begin with.

[bigbadberry3]

Why would a company operate somewhere it is bleeding money? Maybe because they aren't? The article says owed, not paid.

[stebo0728]

Oh, maybe the company will just vote to not extend their debt ceiling then, and all will be well.

[stebo0728]

And to answer your question, perhaps having a presence here, or some form of basis here is an additional non-fiscal revenue the company enjoys and it's making enough elsewhere to cover the leak, so for now its acceptable. But what happens when we fail to fix the problem here, and another nation finally steps up and becomes the next economic superpower, and chooses NOT to penalize business. Perhaps that non-fiscal revenue goes away and the companies decide to just let the boats here sink and build new ones in more favorable waters.

Just because someone isn't dead from cancer doesn't mean they aren't dying from it.

[IBCoupe]

Wait, how the hell do you get "operating at a loss?" First, if they were operating at a loss, they wouldn't pay income taxes. You only pay taxes on profits. What the hell is wrong with you?

Second, if you multiply the quarterly earnings, that's profits of $10.4 billion, if you take these numbers at face value. How much you want to bet that they've taken taxes out of that? Hm...?

Third, what magic date is included in Q1 2011? March 15th, the corporate tax filing deadline. Why the f*** would you think they pay $3.1 billion four times a year? You lack critical thinking skills.

For f***'s sake Stebo, grow a brain of your own and use it. The fact that you're little more than a shill for Republican talking points wouldn't bother me if you weren't so damned smarmy about it. Stop wasting our time, or, short of that, stop being cocky about it.

[mattblancarte]

Wait, how the hell do you get "operating at a loss?" First, if they were operating at a loss, they wouldn't pay income taxes. You only pay taxes on profits. What the hell is wrong with you?

I think he is referring to operations specifically in the United States. He may be correct, but Exxon Mobil operates in over 100 countries around the world. Obviously, they are not operating at a cumulative loss.

The wording is meant to prop up the argument of government setting up Exxon with a competitive operating environment. It's also a subtle threat, in that they "can and will" move (jobs, offices, equipment, etc.) elsewhere given the opportunity.

Anyways, I don't see the big issue in raising taxes (specifically, repealing the tax breaks they already get) on companies like Exxon Mobil. There is a 0% chance that it will adversely affect their business, other than how they pad pockets at the top. I suppose it may affect their trading price on the NYSE in the short-term, but it won't in the long-run.

Kind of a silly argument, IMHO. It's a very small amount of money that will be gained.

This is more of a grandstanding by Democrats to show how angry they are about gas prices. Exxon doesn't really have much to do with that, but are the easiest and most-accessible target that the general public can be angry at.

The Republican Congressmen are defending big oil because, well... They drink from the precious fountain of lobbying dollars in a greater amount than Democrats, and they know that they will gain little to nothing from going after big oil.

[heliochrome85]

For f***'s sake Stebo, grow a brain of your own and use it. The fact that you're little more than a shill for Republican talking points wouldn't bother me if you weren't so damned smarmy about it. Stop wasting our time, or, short of that, stop being cocky about it.

[HashiriyaS14]

Wait, how the hell do you get "operating at a loss?" First, if they were operating at a loss, they wouldn't pay income taxes. You only pay taxes on profits. What the hell is wrong with you?

Second, if you multiply the quarterly earnings, that's profits of $10.4 billion, if you take these numbers at face value. How much you want to bet that they've taken taxes out of that? Hm...?

Third, what magic date is included in Q1 2011? March 15th, the corporate tax filing deadline. Why the f*** would you think they pay $3.1 billion four times a year? You lack critical thinking skills.

For f***'s sake Stebo, grow a brain of your own and use it. The fact that you're little more than a shill for Republican talking points wouldn't bother me if you weren't so damned smarmy about it. Stop wasting our time, or, short of that, stop being cocky about it.

There is a lot of vitriol in this post that I could do without, but IBCoupe has a point. If anyone is going to rant in this section, they'd better have a ROCK SOLID grasp on the subject matter at hand.

It's okay to form a conclusion and make a point when you're not a subject matter expert, but it's NOT okay to be militantly adamant about said conclusion when challenged by people that may potentially know more about it than you do.


Cliffs: In this election cycle, if people act like c0cks in here, I'm going to be doing a lot of very amusing post edits. Be warned.

[stebo0728]

Ok if FQ 2011 is too short a period, then:

Let me state it unequivocally. Last year, our total taxes and duties to the U.S. government were $9.8 billion, which includes an income tax expense of $1.6 billion. Over the past five years, we incurred a total U.S. tax expense of almost $59 billion, which is $18 billion more than we earned in the United States during the same period.

And yes I am referring to US operations only. Of course the company is not operating at a NET loss globally, or they wouldnt stay in business. My point is that eventually at some point it may become better business to NOT tow around a leaking life boat along with all the functional ones.

Im not proclaiming to be an expert, or be a c0ckhead, but Im not an idiot either. If the statement "you only pay taxes on your profits" was that simple, it sounds nice, but its not so cut and dry. If so why would they have entire divisions of their operations devoted to taxation. If you can write "xyz" profits, "abc" taxes, and cut a check, you might have a point. But regardless, thats a detractor from the argument. The arguments is that, in US operations, earnings have been historically lower than tax expenditures ON those US earnings.

Again I didnt mean for this to be a direct argument to keep the subsidies, I dont really like the idea of subsidies, as they are another tool of market manipulation that the government should not have the power to employ. BUT, in some cases they counteract other manipulations that have been made, as a form of error correction. Should we keep them or not? I dont really know the answer to be honest, but the right answer could be either.

So Hash....no "rockin out with our c0cks out" this election cylce?
I will attempt to behave.

[heliochrome85]

Wait, how the hell do you get "operating at a loss?" First, if they were operating at a loss, they wouldn't pay income taxes. You only pay taxes on profits. What the hell is wrong with you?

Second, if you multiply the quarterly earnings, that's profits of $10.4 billion, if you take these numbers at face value. How much you want to bet that they've taken taxes out of that? Hm...?

Third, what magic date is included in Q1 2011? March 15th, the corporate tax filing deadline. Why the f*** would you think they pay $3.1 billion four times a year? You lack critical thinking skills.

For f***'s sake Stebo, grow a brain of your own and use it. The fact that you're little more than a shill for Republican talking points wouldn't bother me if you weren't so damned smarmy about it. Stop wasting our time, or, short of that, stop being cocky about it.

There is a lot of vitriol in this post that I could do without, but IBCoupe has a point. If anyone is going to rant in this section, they'd better have a ROCK SOLID grasp on the subject matter at hand.

It's okay to form a conclusion and make a point when you're not a subject matter expert, but it's NOT okay to be militantly adamant about said conclusion when challenged by people that may potentially know more about it than you do.


Cliffs: In this election cycle, if people act like c0cks in here, I'm going to be doing a lot of very amusing post edits. Be warned.

may be vitriolic, but given that he has done this in thread after thread... at this point its getting a bit old hat and his continued refusal to attempt to construct thought through arguments is a bit aggravating. i apoligize if ive been a bit over the top in my responses. at this point, im just sick of hearing the same small minded, ignorant arguments that are parroted by the right on every conservative news outlet.

[bigbadberry3]

Again, owed does not equal taxes paid . . . just playing advocate. . .

[stebo0728]

Whatever, im pulling my "simple mind" out of this one.