Tonight (Oct 30) on ABC World News, VP Candidate Joe Biden was shown at a campaign rally saying $4B of Exxon Mobil's profits should go to the taxpayers. Hear that? That means 100% of the companies profits should be taken from the company and given to the taxpayers!
If that doesn't scare the he!! out of everyone, it should.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Tonight (Oct 30) on ABC World News, VP Candidate Joe Biden was shown at a campaign rally saying $4B of Exxon Mobil's profits should go to the taxpayers. Hear that? That means 100% of the companies profits should be taken from the company and given to the taxpayers!
If that doesn't scare the he!! out of everyone, it should.
Um, wasn't ExxonMobil's profit last year somewhere around $12 or $16 billion? Damn fearmongers.
Edited to add:
Oh, wait, look at this CNN article...
quote:
Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), the leading U.S. oil company, said its third-quarter net profit was $14.83 billion, or $2.86 per share, up from $9.41 billion, or $1.70, a year earlier. That profit included $1.45 billion in special items
Yes, 6% of their profits..that's really taking
all of their profits. You can do better than that. [xx(]
Edited again to add: And you failed to mention he was talking about no longer giving them certain tax breaks, not an actual tax rate increase or the windfall profits tax that some have been talking about. [xx(][xx(]
Way to spin, there, Wilbur.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
Tonight (Oct 30) on ABC World News, VP Candidate Joe Biden was shown at a campaign rally saying $4B of Exxon Mobil's profits should go to the taxpayers. Hear that? That means 100% of the companies profits should be taken from the company and given to the taxpayers!
If that doesn't scare the he!! out of everyone, it should.
The Obama Menace !http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyxbcLYoH_4
......what really scares me is when the JackBooted Thugs of the Republican Party will STOOP TO ANYTHING to win an election...
BTW, didn't a certain Alaska governor actually do that............ pot to kettle, come in kettle....
EXHIBIT A: Gov. Sarah Palin "spreading the wealth" -- that's right folks, guess that makes her a big time "wealth redistributor".... I guess you could call her the "redistributor in chief".... and we all know what that means.... she's a SOCIALIST!!! Throw her in Prudhoe Bay.... and if she floats...... she's a witch!
[:P]
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html
Republicans in Congress this June united to defeat a proposed windfall tax on oil companies, deriding it as a bad idea that would discourage investment in U.S. oil exploration.
Things worked out far differently in the GOP stronghold of Alaska, a state whose economic fate is closely tied to the oil industry.
Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.
At a time when Americans are feeling the pinch at the gasoline pump and oil companies are racking up record profits, Alaska's choice foreshadows one of the sharpest debates in the upcoming presidential election.
Democrat Barack Obama supports a national windfall-profits tax, while Republican John McCain opposes it.
Alaska collected an estimated $6 billion from the new tax during the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. That helped push the state's total oil revenue — from new and existing taxes, as well as royalties — to more than $10 billion, double the amount received last year.
------------------------------------------------
Alaska's oil windfall - by the numbers
$6 billion
Estimated revenue collected by state of Alaska from new tax on oil profits this fiscal year.
$10 billion
Estimated total oil revenue collected by state this year (old plus new oil taxes).
$1,200
Special payment to each Alaskan resident this year from new oil tax.
$2,000
Estimated annual dividend each Alaskan will receive this year from oil-wealth savings account, not counting the new oil tax.
How the windfall tax works
The tax is imposed on the net profit earned on each barrel of oil pumped from state lands, after deducting costs for production and transportation.
The tax is set at its highest rate in Prudhoe Bay, where the state takes 25 percent of the net profit of a barrel when its price is at or below $52.
The percentage then escalates as oil prices rise over that benchmark.
Wilbur. Dude. You gotta check your facts. Exxon Mobil announced today net profits of $14.83 billion...for the third quarter! That's the biggest quarterly profit for any company, anywhere, ever.
They had a net profit of over $40 billion last year Wilbur. Don't worry, they'll be fine.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
They had a net profit of over $40 billion last year Wilbur. Don't worry, they'll be fine.
Then the gov't needs to take more. Make sure that doesn't happen again. Shame on them.
No question they made a LOT of $. Anybody have some verifiable numbers on what percentage profit that is? I've kind of remember hearing that is still only about 12% or so of gross revenue.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
They had a net profit of over $40 billion last year Wilbur. Don't worry, they'll be fine.
Then the gov't needs to take more. Make sure that doesn't happen again. Shame on them.
No question they made a LOT of $. Anybody have some verifiable numbers on what percentage profit that is? I've kind of remember hearing that is still only about 12% or so of gross revenue.
$14 billion on $131 billion in revenue for the quarter. Far better than, say, Wal-Mart, who makes do with only a couple percent.
Either way, you aren't getting it. If they're making that much profit, do we really need to keep giving them tax breaks?
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
$14 billion on $131 billion in revenue for the quarter. Far better than, say, Wal-Mart, who makes do with only a couple percent.
Either way, you aren't getting it. If they're making that much profit, do we really need to keep giving them tax breaks?
I think I get it. An all time record quarter with tax breaks to boot and they make approximately 11% profit. Hardly something to set investors wallets on fire. They'd do better in pharmaceutical companies or the media.
Maybe we can cut the tax breaks but adding punitive measures is not necessary.
Cheap election year rhetoric to hi-jack votes.
The oil & gas industries are spending a lot more money with my company right now than the government. So my personal preference would be to allow the O & G industries to keep spending money like crazy on new energy infrastructure, alt fuels research, and badly-needed infrastructure upgrades. They will "spread the wealth" in more productive ways.
I don't see where anyone in Tulsa has room to diss the O & G business, considering it's a huge engine in our local economy. Still much bigger than most people realize. There are very few, if any, industries in our area which is not impacted by the presence of O & G profits being spent here locally.
Let's see- $4 bln spread over 300 mm or so people, that's $13.33 a person. Assuming 120mm will vote, that's about $33 or so per vote. I'm a whore Joe, but my vote costs a whole lot more than $33.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Cheap election year rhetoric to hi-jack votes.
The oil & gas industries are spending a lot more money with my company right now than the government. So my personal preference would be to allow the O & G industries to keep spending money like crazy on new energy infrastructure, alt fuels research, and badly-needed infrastructure upgrades. They will "spread the wealth" in more productive ways.
I don't see where anyone in Tulsa has room to diss the O & G business, considering it's a huge engine in our local economy. Still much bigger than most people realize. There are very few, if any, industries in our area which is not impacted by the presence of O & G profits being spent here locally.
Let's see- $4 bln spread over 300 mm or so people, that's $13.33 a person. Assuming 120mm will vote, that's about $33 or so per vote. I'm a whore Joe, but my vote costs a whole lot more than $33.
I am willing to accept a $50.00 gas card. [:P]
-Whore Mr. Burns
The problem, Red Arrow, is that the oil companies don't give a damn about energy independence, climate change, or you and me.
A company like Pfizer, who had $47 billion in sales last year, spent $8 billion on research; that number is 17% of sales. That kind of investment is typical of the pharmaceutical industry.
Microsoft had $51 billion in sales last year and poured over $8 billion in R&D...and they're considered an (evil) monopoly. There's a pattern with successful companies...they invest in new products in order to stay ahead.
So, what about big oil? Exxon, who had $404 billion in net sales last year spent a paltry $600 million on research. For the mathematically challenged, that's 0.1%. Point. One. Percent. This is an important number because it demonstrates that this company feels no external threats, that it's "good to go" with the status quo, and that it enjoys way too much control of over the market.
When I see numbers like that it makes me think that that Big Oil will ride this trend for centuries if they can: gouging your great-great grandchildren at the pump; putting their country at risk every day, too. That's irresponsible behavior and it should not be rewarded.
One could argue that the function of a corporation is to generate a profit for the shareholders and that's all; that these corporations are amoral entities that owe you nothing more than a tankfull of gas to make the motor go. I think that's bull. If I have to be a good citizen, then so do they.
So, if they're not going to do their part for energy independence and climate protection, then we'll just have to tax them and do the research and development ourselves. Grants and startup loans to better corporate citizens? Sounds fair to me.
one thing you fail to understand is the fact that oil industry is pretty much a mature industry. $600-1bln is a pretty typical R&D budget in O&G. they pretty much know where all the recoverable oil and gas is, they are just waiting for it to become cost effective to extract some of it. You should be very happy that oil ran up to $140 because it allowed then to justify putting some wells into some basins that were previously unprofitable to do so, like in north and south dakota. They have known about oil up there for better half of a century, they spent the money on R&D to figure out how to extract it, but it was still too expensive to pull out of the ground until recently. Well now people have wells in, they got paid for with the expensive oil they pulled out and now they are regular producers. It happens that was everywhere.
people forget that in the 90s oil was cheap...real cheap, yet companies like exxon still spent 600 mill on R&D. They stuck to their guns during the lean years, and now people want to punish them for the fruits of their labor.....how pathetic.
You really expect any company to go drill in profit averse areas out of the goodness of their hearts? This is the same logic that wanted banks to give away cheap mortgages...look where that got us.
Thank you Inteller. Excellent analysis, especially the comment about it being a mature industry.
A lot of people are not aware that big oil is also investing in alternative fuels research. Ethanol, bio-diesel, turning coal into light-end liquids and gas, turning gas into liquids, turning sh!t into oil. They are well aware there's finite reserves of oil and to still be in the energy business in 100 years, they will need to be producing something else other than petroleum products.
What really irked me was Obama telling a crowd of people that those Exxon profits are "your money". No it's not my money, only if I'm a share-holder. Exxon earned it, they didn't steal it (thought it may feel like it). People willingly paid the price for their product. If Exxon's cost basis was $40/bbl getting oil out of the ground in certain wells, it's not their fault when that oil starts selling for $147/bbl.
Can we get a [DEBUNKED] tag to add to thread titles for situation like this?
Two things to consider:
1. Companies don't pay taxes, their customers do. That would be you and me.
2. Taking money from Exxon Mobil to give to some other non-tax paying citizen is taking money from me and you, since most of us are owners of Exxon Mobil (stocks and mutual funds). As owner, I'm none too keen on someone taking part of my profits to hand out because my company makes too much, in someone's opinion.
And I stand corrected on my numbers in the first post. Not sure what I was thinking about from their total profits of $15B and Biden wanting to take $4B, which obviously isn't 100%. But, I still don't want Biden taking the profits, no matter how little/much.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Thank you Inteller. Excellent analysis, especially the comment about it being a mature industry.
A lot of people are not aware that big oil is also investing in alternative fuels research. Ethanol, bio-diesel, turning coal into light-end liquids and gas, turning gas into liquids, turning sh!t into oil. They are well aware there's finite reserves of oil and to still be in the energy business in 100 years, they will need to be producing something else other than petroleum products.
What really irked me was Obama telling a crowd of people that those Exxon profits are "your money". No it's not my money, only if I'm a share-holder. Exxon earned it, they didn't steal it (thought it may feel like it). People willingly paid the price for their product. If Exxon's cost basis was $40/bbl getting oil out of the ground in certain wells, it's not their fault when that oil starts selling for $147/bbl.
I don't like how Obama's approaching this either, but I'm at a loss about how to tell an audience that it cost triple to fill up their tanks over the summer because of speculation.
Exxon Mobil didn't improve their product in any way, and yet tripled the cost of it to consumers. We the consumers didn't get anything for the increase in price. There was no increase in value. Supposedly supply didn't even change, so gasoline wasn't any rarer. So the only difference between $1.99 a gal gas and $3.99 a gal gas is when it was sold.
So why does Exxon Mobil deserve that extra profit when it didn't do anything to get it?
I don't think most of the U.S. (I'm applying your meaning of "us" to being all US citizens) own stock in Exxon Mobil in one form or another.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
Maybe we can cut the tax breaks but adding punitive measures is not necessary.
That's been off the table for a long time now. Biden was talking about cutting the breaks. They obviously don't need them. We helped 'em out when they were down, now they're not, so why do we have to keep helping?
And it was our money, in that we gave it to them. Although, to be fair, it wasn't really the fault of the oil companies. It was the hedge funds and other speculators that drove the price up. Now they've moved on. The oil companies themselves were just in the right place at the right time to take a whole crap ton of our money.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
Maybe we can cut the tax breaks but adding punitive measures is not necessary.
That's been off the table for a long time now. Biden was talking about cutting the breaks. They obviously don't need them. We helped 'em out when they were down, now they're not, so why do we have to keep helping?
And it was our money, in that we gave it to them. Although, to be fair, it wasn't really the fault of the oil companies. It was the hedge funds and other speculators that drove the price up. Now they've moved on. The oil companies themselves were just in the right place at the right time to take a whole crap ton of our money.
When I complained several years ago to a friend in the oil business he responded "what am I supposed to do, not take the money?"
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
A lot of people are not aware that big oil is also investing in alternative fuels research.
Inteller, you are absolutely right, there's very little need to explore. They're confident that they know where all the reserves are. Sadly, the only idea they can come up with is to sell those dwindling reserves to us in tiny, expensive little spoonfuls for the next 100 years or so. How long do you think that plan will last?
I could care less about the money they spent on exploration in the '90s and they should stop fretting about it, too. My uncle spent a sh*tload on betamax movies in the '80s; sometimes investments are obsoleted by circumstance.
Big oil needs to reinvent their sh*t or they'll be obsolete, too. We need research into alternatives because we need to protect this country's independence and planet's environment.
Conan, I actually do realize how much Exxon puts into R&D and it's quite literally next to nothing: zero-point-one-percent of their net sales to be exact. That's probably barely more than they spend on lobbying and junk science. At any rate, it's nowhere near what a tech or pharm company would spend on staying alive and keeping ahead of their competitors.
In 1850's there were plenty of whale oil producers with a long-range plan. Kerosene effed them up in less than five years.
In 1900 there were horse cart manufacturers who thought they could keep things going forever, too.
I know pathetic when I see it and right now I see a bunch of massive oil companies, sitting on record profits, doing...nothing.
Hope my cut and paste works.
Originally posted by Chicken Little:
The problem, Red Arrow, is that the oil companies don't give a damn about energy independence, climate change, or you and me.
nathanmCivic Leader Posted - 10/28/2008 : 16:57:02
Nevermind that most medical breakthroughs in the last 50 years (aside from Viagra and other lifestyle drugs) have come from basic research funded by the government that drug companies don't do because it's unprofitable.
Chicken LittleCity Father Posted - 10/31/2008 : 12:45:03
A company like Pfizer, who had $47 billion in sales last year, spent $8 billion on research; that number is 17% of sales. That kind of investment is typical of the pharmaceutical industry.
Microsoft had $51 billion in sales last year and poured over $8 billion in R&D...and they're considered an (evil) monopoly. There's a pattern with successful companies...they invest in new products in order to stay ahead.
My response (Red Arrow):
I wonder how much of that $8 Billion was government grants. They probably did not spend too much on esophageal cancer that killed my father and his brother. When my father was diagnosed, they said, sorry, we don't have anything for that cancer. So much for government funding of "unpopular" diseases. So much for benevolent pharmaceutical companies. I notice that no one publishes the profit of the pharmaceutical companies, only the $ they spend (of the government's money?) on research. I have heard numbers like 30%. The price of name brand vs. generic drugs is absurd. I don't have any specific company numbers for profit. Maybe they don't need any government help either.
Microsoft:
They should have spent more on R&D. A few more products like Vista and the world will turn to Apple. Windows 7 is on the way for public testing by retail sales. (And you thought General Motors had a bad product development program. They probably did but that's another subject.) I'm sure the history of the government funded history of the BIOS and BASIC used by Microsoft/IBM vs. the private development of Apple's operating system has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
A lot of people are not aware that big oil is also investing in alternative fuels research.
Inteller, you are absolutely right, there's very little need to explore. They're confident that they know where all the reserves are. Sadly, the only idea they can come up with is to sell those dwindling reserves to us in tiny, expensive little spoonfuls for the next 100 years or so. How long do you think that plan will last?
I could care less about the money they spent on exploration in the '90s and they should stop fretting about it, too. My uncle spent a sh*tload on betamax movies in the '80s; sometimes investments are obsoleted by circumstance.
Big oil needs to reinvent their sh*t or they'll be obsolete, too. We need research into alternatives because we need to protect this country's independence and planet's environment.
Conan, I actually do realize how much Exxon puts into R&D and it's quite literally next to nothing: zero-point-one-percent of their net sales to be exact. That's probably barely more than they spend on lobbying and junk science. At any rate, it's nowhere near what a tech or pharm company would spend on staying alive and keeping ahead of their competitors.
In 1850's there were plenty of whale oil producers with a long-range plan. Kerosene effed them up in less than five years.
In 1900 there were horse cart manufacturers who thought they could keep things going forever, too.
I know pathetic when I see it and right now I see a bunch of massive oil companies, sitting on record profits, doing...nothing.
Bear with me, CL.
The logic that "they have the money so they should spend it" sounds a lot like my
ex-wife (please note where I put the emphasis [;)] ).
They may not have capacity to spend more money on R & D at the moment. It's like one of the AIDS bills to send money to Africa people got up in arms over. There were no mechanisms to consume the amount of money trying to be crammed into the bill. Over-appropriating makes as much sense as under-funding. If you don't have a way or place to spend it, you simply cannot spend it. $600 mil is a lot of money that will make a large payroll and keep facilities operating. A percent of profit or gross is not an accurate yard stick. Much of the alt fuel technology is known. Now it's down to developing ways to get it refined and to market to be price competitive with petroleum products. It's a slow, evolutionary process and not necessarily one for which throwing more money in every year would expedite it. Keep in mind that the other oil giants have R & D budgets too and are working on the same tecnologies.
Wevus-
I don't have near the time to get into all the ins & outs of O & G accounting (money, inventory, and trading), nor am I near enough an expert to provide a three page lecture on it. Exxon-Mobil not only explores, drills, produces, and refines it's own oil. It also sells crude oil to other refiners and buys crude oil from other producers. IOW- they had to buy some of that $147/bbl oil for refining. I've not seen a break-down on where the majority of profit came from, whether it was finished product or wholsale oil to other refiners. There were many mechanisms in the market which caused oil and gasoline to spike, speculators and hedge funds included.
Look I've always been skeptical of the claim that oil companies make no money on refined products (or very little), and that gasoline retailers sell gas for a loss-leader. Who in their right mind would stay in a break-even business???
I do find it odd that gas prices have fallen to just under $2.00 right at the election. I paid $1.95 a gal this morning. About half what I was paying 3 1/2 months ago. Amazing.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Quote
I do find it odd that gas prices have fallen to just under $2.00 right at the election. I paid $1.95 a gal this morning. About half what I was paying 3 1/2 months ago. Amazing.
There's nothing odd about it.
1) People in the United States have been driving billions of fewer miles since the prices went up. Look at you: You switched from a gas-guzzling pickup to a motorcycle. You aren't the only one.
2) The world is going into a recession, which will dampen demand further.
Supply, meet lower demand.
and thats not counting the seasonal demand swings. winter is coming and people tend consume less oil.
man, just think if semgroup would have won on their hedges, those gambling crooks would be kabillionaires.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
When I complained several years ago to a friend in the oil business he responded "what am I supposed to do, not take the money?"
As I said, I don't
blame them for the high prices. Speculation, mostly not on the part of the big oil companies, was the largest part of the reason for the high prices. They did what any rational person would do. Didn't lower their percentage of the take. Fine.
But do you really think we need to continue giving them $5 billion a year in tax breaks?
As far as demand reduction producing the price drops we've seen? Demand reduction was what took it from $4 to $3.75. The rest was speculation reduction. We'll be in a better position to know early next year where we really stand on demand.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
As far as demand reduction producing the price drops we've seen? Demand reduction was what took it from $4 to $3.75. The rest was speculation reduction.
I sure haven't seen a 50% reduction in Tulsa traffic. I cannot speak for the rest of the world. I agree the speculators had a big hand in it and probably deserve to take a hit.