Exxon/Mobil Paid No Federal Income Tax in 2009

[DiamondDave]

so the headliner is about Exxon-Mobile but the first sentence is this:

Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam

now GE is obamie's bestest buddy and owner of his tv network nbc and msnbc,,, so why isn't that the headliner???

Perhaps because the reason for GE's tax receipts is tax credits for their innovative initiatives into new technologies...

...While the reason for Exxon's is the fact that they're keeping their money in offshore accounts.

And exxon or other 'energy' companies do not engage in innovative initiatives??? You think GE and other companies like them do not use foreign loopholes that are available to them?

 

[Vast LWC]

And exxon or other 'energy' companies do not engage in innovative initiatives???

Apparently not enough of them, no. If they had been, they wouldn't have needed to put their money in offshore accounts, now would they?

You think GE and other companies like them do not use foreign loopholes that are available to them?

And as far as GE goes, I do not have a vested interest in what GE does or does not do. If you have some proof that they are storing their funds in offshore accounts, then show it to me, and I will have as much criticism for them as I have for Exxon.

 

[beowolfe]

Hmmmm....I gotta figure out that whole "wholly owned subsidiary" thing....

What's up with all of the 'half naked women' avatars?

 

[DiamondDave]

And exxon or other 'energy' companies do not engage in innovative initiatives???

Apparently not enough of them, no. If they had been, they wouldn't have needed to put their money in offshore accounts, now would they?

You think GE and other companies like them do not use foreign loopholes that are available to them?

And as far as GE goes, I do not have a vested interest in what GE does or does not do. If you have some proof that they are storing their funds in offshore accounts, then show it to me, and I will have as much criticism for them as I have for Exxon.

All I am saying is that the post sort of made it seem like you are saying Exxon does not have advancements and initiatives.. and that GE would not use loopholes that are available to them... and in my experience in business, any company will use any loophole possible.. and I have been in sleazy companies such as WorldCom (and I have seen some funky shit).... I do not have any specific tax data or the complete books to either of these 2 companies, but I would not bet against GE's loopholes and I would bet firmly on exxon's innovative initiatives

 

[Dr.House]

I saw a repeat of "The Crumbling of America" on the History Channel. Bridges, water mains, etc are killing people for lack of funds to keep them up.

Trying to derail your own thread?

Fuel taxes are supposed to be paying for roads and bridges, yet about 20% of those taxes are diverted money-sucking to urban mass transit scams, most often supported by leftist hacks like you.

Monorail!

Monorail!

Monorail!


(I call the big one "Bitey")

 

[Political Junky]

Do you suppose the wingnuts were against the great railway expansion in the 19th and 20th
century? I guess so.

 

[editec]

Why does Exxon hate America?

They hate us for our freedoms.

Although, candidly, they have less and less to hate us for every damned day.

 

[Vast LWC]

I saw a repeat of "The Crumbling of America" on the History Channel. Bridges, water mains, etc are killing people for lack of funds to keep them up.

Trying to derail your own thread?

Fuel taxes are supposed to be paying for roads and bridges, yet about 20% of those taxes are diverted money-sucking to urban mass transit scams, most often supported by leftist hacks like you.

Soooo....

Some time ago, your excuse for the fact that small population states suck up federal funds much faster than their larger population counterparts (and pay less in taxes) was that they need more money for roads and such.

But now, it's the urban areas that are using all the funds, huh? Even though the numbers, per capita, show that to be completely false?

Big deals are made of Urban development spending because the numbers are so large.

But of course, in a city like New York, a subway serves 9 million people, so the cost per capita is quite low.

 

[Political Junky]

Do you suppose the wingnuts were against the great railway expansion in the 19th and 20th
century? I guess so.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqxxTfGCIz0]YouTube - French TGV new 2007's record is 574.8 kmh (357.2mph)[/ame]

 

[editec]

Do you suppose the wingnuts were against the great railway expansion in the 19th and 20th
century? I guess so.

Depends on which wingnuts you're talking about.

The government's socialism on behalf of the big railroads made sense in my opinion.

It was one of those events where government and industry working hand in hand seemed to benefit society overall rather well.

 

[Misty]

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.
<more>

Exxon paid $36.5B in income taxes in 2009. Isn't that enough? It's a global company - and has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to apply the various tax codes in the most beneficial way possible. Do you pay more income tax than the legally required minimum?

How much money did the government earn off of the taxes it adds to every gallon of gas?

excellent post!!!!

 

[Political Junky]

Do you suppose the wingnuts were against the great railway expansion in the 19th and 20th
century? I guess so.

Depends on which wingnuts you're talking about.

The government's socialism on behalf of the big railroads made sense in my opinion.

It was one of those events where government and industry working hand in hand seemed to benefit society overall rather well.

"Wingnuts" has always referred to the right wing, but I notice some right wingers have tried to rewrite that as well as most of history.
Yes, the "Socialism" that promoted the vast railroads this country once enjoyed was very successful, as was Eisenhower's program that created a wonderful network of highways. Both are dated now.

 

[Mr Natural]

Do you suppose the wingnuts were against the great railway expansion in the 19th and 20th
century? I guess so.

Depends on which wingnuts you're talking about.

The government's socialism on behalf of the big railroads made sense in my opinion.

It was one of those events where government and industry working hand in hand seemed to benefit society overall rather well.

"Wingnuts" has always referred to the right wing, but I notice some right wingers have tried to rewrite that as well as most of history.
Yes, the "Socialism" that promoted the vast railroads this country once enjoyed was very successful, as was Eisenhower's program that created a wonderful network of highways. Both are dated now.

Eisenhower was smart enough to sell the Interstate Highway System as vital for national defense.

The ever paranoid Conservatives will always piss away vast sums of money for so called "national defense".

 

[del]

Excellent, then, in return, we should deny them mineral rights in the United States, and then put a nice big tariff on any imports from their overseas production.

They lease mineral rights (usually from the Feds), so the government has already received compensation - in addition to the $.184 tax per gallon on gasoline.

Well, if they have to pay so much, and they're not making enough of a profit, then they won't mind the loss of mineral rights at all, will they?

I'm sure we'll have no trouble at all finding another company that would be happy to take them over, and pay their taxes.

do you think exxon or any other company just says fuck you i'm not paying?

the game's rigged and it's rigged for the companies by pols of all stripes.

a different company would do the same thing as exxon.

 

[Jarhead]

Depends on which wingnuts you're talking about.

The government's socialism on behalf of the big railroads made sense in my opinion.

It was one of those events where government and industry working hand in hand seemed to benefit society overall rather well.

"Wingnuts" has always referred to the right wing, but I notice some right wingers have tried to rewrite that as well as most of history.
Yes, the "Socialism" that promoted the vast railroads this country once enjoyed was very successful, as was Eisenhower's program that created a wonderful network of highways. Both are dated now.

Eisenhower was smart enough to sell the Interstate Highway System as vital for national defense.

The ever paranoid Conservatives will always piss away vast sums of money for so called "national defense".

Thanks to the ever paranoid Conservatives, your sorry ass has a country you can call home.

 

[boedicca]

That's a bunch of crap. Exxon/Mobil has always done quite well for itself and it's investors, thank you very much.

Are you really expecting anyone to feel sorry for Exxon Mobil because they have to pay their taxes?

Really?

If they don't want to pay taxes in the United States, they shouldn't have the ability to use our resources. It's just that simple.

And you are now suggesting that the U.S. government punish them for that success by revoking leases.

Nice. That's very Totalitarian of you.

 

[Dr Gregg]

People say "good for them" yet bitch about their taxes being so high. Well if billion dollar corporations don't pay taxes, who do you think is going to have to foot the bill? You think those companies spent their tax break dollars hiring more people and paying their employees well? probably not, just pocket it

 

[boedicca]

Exxon paid nothing to the US. Foreign countries, holding the funds, are benefiting from from those dollars.

The U.S. government collected $.184 on every gallon of gas sold in the U.S., as well as earned lease revenue.

Exxon employs over 100,000 people, a large portion of whom are in the U.S. If you think that punishing Exxon for filing taxes based upon the provisions in code, then you are advocating voiding the Rule of Law and replacing it with the Rule of Mob.

Nice.

You also lack perspective. You're in a tizzy that Exxon earned profits overseas and paid taxes in those jurisdictions - and are focusing on a few $Bs when the government is spending us into a $Ts of deficits. Of course, that is exactly the focus Big Government wants you to have. Demonize the people who earn money while they waste orders of magnitude more.

 

[Jarhead]

Exxon paid nothing to the US. Foreign countries, holding the funds, are benefiting from from those dollars.

The U.S. government collected $.184 on every gallon of gas sold in the U.S., as well as earned lease revenue.

Exxon employs over 100,000 people, a large portion of whom are in the U.S. If you think that punishing Exxon for filing taxes based upon the provisions in code, then you are advocating voiding the Rule of Law and replacing it with the Rule of Mob.

Nice.

You also lack perspective. You're in a tizzy that Exxon earned profits overseas and paid taxes in those jurisdictions - and are focusing on a few $Bs when the government is spending us into a $Ts of deficits. Of course, that is exactly the focus Big Government wants you to have. Demonize the people who earn money while they waste orders of magnitude more.

Not to mention that it is all about profit as a percentage, not profit in dollars.

Making 10 dollars profit when you spend 2 dollars to make it is not the same as making 10 dollars profit when you spend 8 dollars to make it.

Sure, it is the same 10 dollars profit, but one is a 500% return and the other is a 25% return.
And the 25% return is much better for commerce overall as much more moeny was spent to make the 10 dollars profit.

So exactly what is wrong with a 4% profit when billions of dollars is spent to make that 4% profit?

Of course, that type of analysis does not meet the agenda of this adminsiatration, so you will never hear about it.

 

[Political Junky]

"Wingnuts" has always referred to the right wing, but I notice some right wingers have tried to rewrite that as well as most of history.
Yes, the "Socialism" that promoted the vast railroads this country once enjoyed was very successful, as was Eisenhower's program that created a wonderful network of highways. Both are dated now.

Eisenhower was smart enough to sell the Interstate Highway System as vital for national defense.

The ever paranoid Conservatives will always piss away vast sums of money for so called "national defense".

Thanks to the ever paranoid Conservatives, your sorry ass has a country you can call home.

Of course, the conservatives at the time of the Revolution were Royalists.