Props aplenty in Senate show on big oil tax breaks

[SFC Ollie]

I think Charlie Rangel helped with the tax laws.

I think that since the Democrats have had control of congress so very much more than the republicans that they did indeed write the majority of the tax laws.

The GOP has controlled the House 13 of the last twenty years and I'm NOT making an excuse for the Dems. I'm pretty darn sure that both parties are responsible for our tax laws and the loopholes.

12 years actually. And the 40 years before that?

And look at the margins those 12 years....

 

[The T]

I did. And then I was reminded that you expect an honest assessment from American tinkerer.

Tell me, how much does Apple collect from the subsidy for shale extraction?

How much does Google get from special depreciation rules for drilling equipment and exploration activities?

How much depletion credit does IBM collect?

Just asking;

Do you want to end it all for oil AND all other companies or just stick it to oil?

I would end subsidies for the vast majority of companies. There are a select few industries that produce positive externalities and may deserve some form of subsidy (or at least some form of payment for the external benefits they create - though not necessarily in the form of a direct production subsidy.

WHY? Becuase it promotes Commerce and JOBS?

 

[initforme]

I find it absurd that some small family making a combined income of $50,000 per year and raising a family will pay taxes, yet so many corporations pay little or next to nothing of their total profit. Flat tax time? Everyone, EVERY CORPORATION, EVERY LAST ONE, HAS TO PAY if everyone else is paying. Time to stick it to em and hard.

 

[The T]

I find it absurd that some small family making a combined income of $50,000 per year and raising a family will pay taxes, yet so many corporations pay little or next to nothing of their total profit. Flat tax time? Everyone, EVERY CORPORATION, EVERY LAST ONE, HAS TO PAY if everyone else is paying. Time to stick it to em and hard.

THEY DO pay taxes...guess what? it is reflected in what YOU pay in buying their product/service.

 

[Mr. H.]

The 7.65% FICA contribution on payroll is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Zander]

The left’s anti-subsidy rhetoric is right on. Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. But if those senators were truly serious about cutting the deficit, they wouldn’t stop at just cutting subsidies for oil companies. They would also call for the elimination of subsidies for the president’s pet projects such as renewable fuels, electric vehicles, wind and solar. Throw in clean coal and natural gas, too. That would be the right move for the American taxpayers. But good policy isn’t their goal – vilifying an industry is their end game.

 

[hjmick]

That's all it is, a "show."

 

[Shadow]

Oil prices are high and hitting everyone in the wallet. There is a lot of lip service saying that Big Oil is gouging the consumer. It's a campaign year and the left knows that they will get positive milage at the ballot box if they attack this year. They have another faux witch hunt to prove that big oil is evil. But, in the end they will find nothing as what has always been the case in the past. But, it sure does look like the libs are trying to fix the problem, and the gullible people will buy it.

Oil/gas prices will probably be going up again in the next week or two anyway. Apparently the flooding of the Mississippi river has effected several oil refineries and their production and shipments.

But I agree...the left knows attacking the oil industry is a big winner with their base. Wonder how come they never talk about the billions that industry spends towards innovations though? Or the money they will have to eat due to damages and delays related to the flood.

 

[GWV5903]

How about we eliminate the oil company subsidies and transfer the savings to a federal gas tax reduction at the pump?

Good one!!

Too easy though....

 

[The T]

The left’s anti-subsidy rhetoric is right on. Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. But if those senators were truly serious about cutting the deficit, they wouldn’t stop at just cutting subsidies for oil companies. They would also call for the elimination of subsidies for the president’s pet projects such as renewable fuels, electric vehicles, wind and solar. Throw in clean coal and natural gas, too. That would be the right move for the American taxpayers. But good policy isn’t their goal – vilifying an industry is their end game.

Amnd cutting the *SUBSIDIES* For UNIONS (a.k.a. BIG LABOR) as well...

 

[Charles_Main]

Props aplenty in Senate show on big oil tax breaks - Yahoo! News

The hearing didn't get Congress any closer to doing that. But it did provide Senate Democrats a televised chance to challenge the nation's five largest oil companies to defend their generous tax breaks amid huge profits. At issue, Democrats said, was a bill by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., to repeal the tax breaks granted to the five companies testifying.

Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon played a video of a 2005 congressional hearing in which oil company executives said they didn't need generous tax breaks because oil was then selling at $55 a barrel. As the hearing commenced, the price per barrel hovered just below $100.

"You all said you didn't need them in 2005," Wyden said. "You seem to be telling a different story today."
Chevron Corp. chairman and CEO John Watson said the companies don't want special tax benefits — just the benefits that other industries get.

ConocoPhillips chairman Jim Mulva said a tax increase on oil companies would cost jobs, discourage investment and lead to even higher gas prices. But several of his fellow CEOs weren't as willing to make a direct link between eliminating the tax breaks and higher fuel costs.

"It's hard to make definitive statements around prices because part of the conversation today was around all of the elements that go into the volatility of prices," Marvin Odum, president of Shell Oil Co., said after the hearing. "There's so many factors you can't say a definitive impact."

If they didn't need them why now? Greed!!!!

Hell I could care less if you guys want to take away Oils Subsidies and Tax Breaks. Go for it. But Mark my words. Every single penny in new Revenue the government realizes from it will be reflected in higher prices on the literally Thousands of Products that either have Oil in them, or depend highly on oil for production. Big oil is just going to collected more money from us, to give to the Government. Big oil will not lose one penny in profits.

So in the end all you are doing is costing consumers more.

Not to mention the fact that if you real extreme oil company haters had your way, and record profits for oil companies came to an end. Say back the way it was in the 90's when Oil companies posted record losses. Nearly 70% of Americans with a pension, 401k or other fund invested in oil, would take a hit in their retirement funds as a result.

Wooo whooo those damn evil oil company owners. The American people. LOL

 

[The T]

Props aplenty in Senate show on big oil tax breaks - Yahoo! News

The hearing didn't get Congress any closer to doing that. But it did provide Senate Democrats a televised chance to challenge the nation's five largest oil companies to defend their generous tax breaks amid huge profits. At issue, Democrats said, was a bill by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., to repeal the tax breaks granted to the five companies testifying.

Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon played a video of a 2005 congressional hearing in which oil company executives said they didn't need generous tax breaks because oil was then selling at $55 a barrel. As the hearing commenced, the price per barrel hovered just below $100.

"You all said you didn't need them in 2005," Wyden said. "You seem to be telling a different story today."
Chevron Corp. chairman and CEO John Watson said the companies don't want special tax benefits — just the benefits that other industries get.

ConocoPhillips chairman Jim Mulva said a tax increase on oil companies would cost jobs, discourage investment and lead to even higher gas prices. But several of his fellow CEOs weren't as willing to make a direct link between eliminating the tax breaks and higher fuel costs.

"It's hard to make definitive statements around prices because part of the conversation today was around all of the elements that go into the volatility of prices," Marvin Odum, president of Shell Oil Co., said after the hearing. "There's so many factors you can't say a definitive impact."

If they didn't need them why now? Greed!!!!

Hell I could care less if you guys want to take away Oils Subsidies and Tax Breaks. Go for it. But Mark my words. Every single penny in new Revenue the government realizes from it will be reflected in higher prices on the literally Thousands of Products that either have Oil in them, or depend highly on oil for production. Big oil is just going to collected more money from us, to give to the Government. Big oil will not lose one penny in profits.

So in the end all you are doing is costing consumers more.

Not to mention the fact that if you real extreme oil company haters had your way, and record profits for oil companies came to an end. Say back the way it was in the 90's when Oil companies posted record losses. Nearly 70% of Americans with a pension, 401k or other fund invested in oil, would take a hit in their retirement funds as a result.

Wooo whooo those damn evil oil company owners. The American people. LOL

And these same people FORGET that the Government take in MORE in taxation than the Oil companies make in profit.

 

[hipeter924]

Props aplenty in Senate show on big oil tax breaks - Yahoo! News

The hearing didn't get Congress any closer to doing that. But it did provide Senate Democrats a televised chance to challenge the nation's five largest oil companies to defend their generous tax breaks amid huge profits. At issue, Democrats said, was a bill by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., to repeal the tax breaks granted to the five companies testifying.

Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon played a video of a 2005 congressional hearing in which oil company executives said they didn't need generous tax breaks because oil was then selling at $55 a barrel. As the hearing commenced, the price per barrel hovered just below $100.

"You all said you didn't need them in 2005," Wyden said. "You seem to be telling a different story today."
Chevron Corp. chairman and CEO John Watson said the companies don't want special tax benefits — just the benefits that other industries get.

ConocoPhillips chairman Jim Mulva said a tax increase on oil companies would cost jobs, discourage investment and lead to even higher gas prices. But several of his fellow CEOs weren't as willing to make a direct link between eliminating the tax breaks and higher fuel costs.

"It's hard to make definitive statements around prices because part of the conversation today was around all of the elements that go into the volatility of prices," Marvin Odum, president of Shell Oil Co., said after the hearing. "There's so many factors you can't say a definitive impact."

If they didn't need them why now? Greed!!!!

Hell I could care less if you guys want to take away Oils Subsidies and Tax Breaks. Go for it. But Mark my words. Every single penny in new Revenue the government realizes from it will be reflected in higher prices on the literally Thousands of Products that either have Oil in them, or depend highly on oil for production. Big oil is just going to collected more money from us, to give to the Government. Big oil will not lose one penny in profits.

So in the end all you are doing is costing consumers more.

Not to mention the fact that if you real extreme oil company haters had your way, and record profits for oil companies came to an end. Say back the way it was in the 90's when Oil companies posted record losses. Nearly 70% of Americans with a pension, 401k or other fund invested in oil, would take a hit in their retirement funds as a result.

Wooo whooo those damn evil oil company owners. The American people. LOL

I just want all taxes to be voluntary (everyone gets to decide what they want to pay for and where their money goes) , and watch as the unneeded bureaucracy crashes into dust; but since that won't happen, if people want to have a stronger economy then end the subsidies as well as business tax.

 

[Liability]

In such matters it is astounding to me to see how consistently and persistently these liberals tend to be so fucking economically illiterate. They are dense. They are blind. They are dumb.

Simple question. Do Oil Companies pay ANY taxes?

Simple answer (but ultimately the correct one): Nope.

More complicated answer: "Yes, but ..."

The devil is in the details. The "but" devours the "yes."

They may initially pay taxes, but every penny they pay in taxes (of any kind, Federal, State, local, property, etc.) gets PASSED ALONG to the consumer.

So, when the jackass, braying, hee-hawing, class-warfare-mongering liberals insist that the evil rich greedy oil companies MUST have any tax abatements or credits TERMINATED, they are actually just vainly ATTEMPTING to increase the taxes on OIL Companies, "forgetting" that the companies don't actually pay such taxes. WE do.

All these idiot liberal class-warfare-mongering jackasses are managing to accomplish is to make it more expensive for US to fuel our cars, our homes and our industries.

 

[bripat9643]

Don't these companies realize if they bankupt the west, they will go down with us?

But you don't give a hoot if the federal government bankrupts this country, right?

 

[bripat9643]

I didn't realize that 'most' of the people who have 401K's that have mutual funds with oil co stocks in them were rich.

I would think most of them have a small percentage of the total stock of the oil companies. I meant the major stockholders being rich.

You said "most of them," not the "major" stock holders. The major stock holders would have to be rich. So all you've said is that the rich stock holders are rich. Of course, there are no "major stockholders" in companies like Exxon. How could anyone own a significant share of a company worth $400 billion?

 

[bripat9643]

There is no competition in Oil today and speculation is a large part of the cost.

You can't have "speculation" where there is no competition. Speculation only causes short term fluctuations in the price. Over the long term, the price is determined strictly by supply and demand.

Only Marxist goons claim the oil industry isn't competitive. There are dozens of major oil producing countries and dozens of oil companies. There is an abundance of competition.

 

[bripat9643]

How about we eliminate the oil company subsidies and transfer the savings to a federal gas tax reduction at the pump?

How about we cut federal spending, period?

 

[Seawytch]

Big Oil doesn't need US subsidies. It's a simple as that. How about if your company is making a profit you get no subsidies? Is that so hard?

The subsidies need to go to R & D and to investing in alternative energies. Did you know we have increased our battery production here in the United States by 38% since President Obama took office? We went from producing 2% of the worlds batteries to 40%.

For an investment of only $8 billion dollars, we could have battery swapping stations across the United States.

We need to stop investing in 19th century technologies and start looking to our future. There is no future in oil.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Targeting Oil Companies alone really is "Community Organizer" BULLSHIT! Lets start with GE instead. Oil Companies paid much more Taxes than GE. In fact GE doesn't even pay Taxes at all. What about all their Government Welfare? And why the hell is GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt this President's "Jobs Czar?" People should be much more concerned with this White House/GE cozy relationship. This beating up on Oil Companies really is just political B.S. Lets start with GE.