Leftist environmentalists are aghast at the idea of American oil companies drilling in the same area, but if it’s the Chicoms doing it, then that doesn’t bother them in the slightest.
I could explain why, but I’ll leave it as an interesting question as to why this and many other seemingly incongruous things in their behavior are so.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Leftist environmentals are aghast at the idea of American oil companies drilling in the same area, but if it’s the Chicoms doing it, then that doesn’t bother them in the slightest.
I could explain why, but I’ll leave it as an interesting question as to why this and many other seemingly incongruous things in their behavior are so.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t want anyone drilling it. least of all the Chinese, who seem to give so much care to the environment…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My rant was against obama, the media that allow him to make such statements and the idiots who believe him, not the poster whom I was agrying with. People actually believe obama when he says the way to fix high oil prices is to raise oil taxes. That’s kimpossible.
And yes. Profit = gross - expense
Taxes are an expense in my book. Why would you consider something profit that is automatically taken from you? It’s why I make more money where I live now than if I lived in California, even if the jobs paid the same. After tax profits are lower than taxes on gas.
When you buy a gallon of gas, more of that money goes into government pockets than oil company pockets. ESPECIALLY if you factor in regular corporate taxes in addition to the oil and gas taxes.
A little critical thinking would have gone a long way on that one guys.
[/quote]
According to Exxon’s 2009 financial statements:
(in millions)
Gross profit = 98,817.0
Income before taxes = 34,777.0
Income taxes = 15,119.0
Net Income After Taxes = 19,658.0
Total Net Income = 19,280.0
Net Profit Margin = 6.2%
They do not in fact pay more taxes then they earn either gross or net.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My rant was against obama, the media that allow him to make such statements and the idiots who believe him, not the poster whom I was agrying with. People actually believe obama when he says the way to fix high oil prices is to raise oil taxes. That’s kimpossible.
And yes. Profit = gross - expense
Taxes are an expense in my book. Why would you consider something profit that is automatically taken from you? It’s why I make more money where I live now than if I lived in California, even if the jobs paid the same. After tax profits are lower than taxes on gas.
When you buy a gallon of gas, more of that money goes into government pockets than oil company pockets. ESPECIALLY if you factor in regular corporate taxes in addition to the oil and gas taxes.
A little critical thinking would have gone a long way on that one guys.
[/quote]
According to Exxon’s 2009 financial statements:
(in millions)
Gross profit = 98,817.0
Income before taxes = 34,777.0
Income taxes = 15,119.0
Net Income After Taxes = 19,658.0
Total Net Income = 19,280.0
Net Profit Margin = 6.2%
They do not in fact pay more taxes then they earn either gross or net.
[/quote]
Is that income before and after taxes including direct taxes on gasoline, or just corporate income taxes? Income tax is far from the only taxes paid.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html
This says that it’s pretty close if you consider profit to be BEFORE income tax.
The total taxes paid do not end there however: nothing like.
Add in the taxes the consumer pays, and total going to the government is far more than what goes to the producer.
But even if neglecting that: paying $15.1 billion in taxes on $34.8 billion of before-tax income (43%) gets called by the leftists the government “giving money” to the oil companies???
The 6.2% profit margin is “obscene” ?
I’m sorry: the pathetic slugs who claim things like this and who vote accordingly really should not be supplied with oil or other petroleum products. These parasites don’t deserve the fruits of the achievements of the productive, which the oil companies are and they are not. As they hate the oil companies so much, they should do without or shut their pieholes. Personal opinion.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My rant was against obama, the media that allow him to make such statements and the idiots who believe him, not the poster whom I was agrying with. People actually believe obama when he says the way to fix high oil prices is to raise oil taxes. That’s kimpossible.
And yes. Profit = gross - expense
Taxes are an expense in my book. Why would you consider something profit that is automatically taken from you? It’s why I make more money where I live now than if I lived in California, even if the jobs paid the same. After tax profits are lower than taxes on gas.
When you buy a gallon of gas, more of that money goes into government pockets than oil company pockets. ESPECIALLY if you factor in regular corporate taxes in addition to the oil and gas taxes.
A little critical thinking would have gone a long way on that one guys.
[/quote]
According to Exxon’s 2009 financial statements:
(in millions)
Gross profit = 98,817.0
Income before taxes = 34,777.0
Income taxes = 15,119.0
Net Income After Taxes = 19,658.0
Total Net Income = 19,280.0
Net Profit Margin = 6.2%
They do not in fact pay more taxes then they earn either gross or net.
[/quote]
Is that income before and after taxes including direct taxes on gasoline, or just corporate income taxes? Income tax is far from the only taxes paid.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html
This says that it’s pretty close if you consider profit to be BEFORE income tax.[/quote]
If a company (Exxon) pays the government a tax of any kind it would have to be in their financial statements, on the income statement.
Now it is possible for the government to make more on the sale of oil than an oil company if you take the tax revenue from both the oil company and the taxes citizen pay to consume said oil, but the company itself does not pay more to the government then the profit of the sale of of their goods.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The total taxes paid do not end there however: nothing like.
Add in the taxes the consumer pays, and total going to the government is far more than what goes to the producer.
But even if neglecting that: paying $15.1 billion in taxes on $34.8 billion of before-tax income (43%) gets called by the leftists the government “giving money” to the oil companies???
The 6.2% profit margin is “obscene” ?
I’m sorry: the pathetic slugs who claim things like this and who vote accordingly really should not be supplied with oil or other petroleum products. These parasites don’t deserve the fruits of the achievements of the productive, which the oil companies are and they are not. As they hate the oil companies so much, they should do without or shut their pieholes. Personal opinion.[/quote]
I couldn’t agree more…I mean a 6% profit margin is not exactly amazing.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My rant was against obama, the media that allow him to make such statements and the idiots who believe him, not the poster whom I was agrying with. People actually believe obama when he says the way to fix high oil prices is to raise oil taxes. That’s kimpossible.
And yes. Profit = gross - expense
Taxes are an expense in my book. Why would you consider something profit that is automatically taken from you? It’s why I make more money where I live now than if I lived in California, even if the jobs paid the same. After tax profits are lower than taxes on gas.
When you buy a gallon of gas, more of that money goes into government pockets than oil company pockets. ESPECIALLY if you factor in regular corporate taxes in addition to the oil and gas taxes.
A little critical thinking would have gone a long way on that one guys.
[/quote]
According to Exxon’s 2009 financial statements:
(in millions)
Gross profit = 98,817.0
Income before taxes = 34,777.0
Income taxes = 15,119.0
Net Income After Taxes = 19,658.0
Total Net Income = 19,280.0
Net Profit Margin = 6.2%
They do not in fact pay more taxes then they earn either gross or net.
[/quote]
Is that income before and after taxes including direct taxes on gasoline, or just corporate income taxes? Income tax is far from the only taxes paid.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html
This says that it’s pretty close if you consider profit to be BEFORE income tax.[/quote]
If a company (Exxon) pays the government a tax of any kind it would have to be in their financial statements, on the income statement.
Now it is possible for the government to make more on the sale of oil than an oil company if you take the tax revenue from both the oil company and the taxes citizen pay to consume said oil, but the company itself does not pay more to the government then the profit of the sale of of their goods.
[/quote]
According to fact check, as of April 2008, the government made more on the sale of gas than the oil companies.
Exactly as I clarified my statement several posts ago “When you buy a gallon of gas, more of that money goes into government pockets than oil company pockets.”
Whether or not the money you pay at the pump ever goes down on the balance sheet, the price you are paying is more tax going to the government than profit for the oil companies.
So sorry if I misspoke and labeled all the taxes being paid as coming from the oil companies when some of it may bypass the oil companies and go straight to government pockets.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My rant was against obama, the media that allow him to make such statements and the idiots who believe him, not the poster whom I was agrying with. People actually believe obama when he says the way to fix high oil prices is to raise oil taxes. That’s kimpossible.
And yes. Profit = gross - expense
Taxes are an expense in my book. Why would you consider something profit that is automatically taken from you? It’s why I make more money where I live now than if I lived in California, even if the jobs paid the same. After tax profits are lower than taxes on gas.
When you buy a gallon of gas, more of that money goes into government pockets than oil company pockets. ESPECIALLY if you factor in regular corporate taxes in addition to the oil and gas taxes.
A little critical thinking would have gone a long way on that one guys.
[/quote]
According to Exxon’s 2009 financial statements:
(in millions)
Gross profit = 98,817.0
Income before taxes = 34,777.0
Income taxes = 15,119.0
Net Income After Taxes = 19,658.0
Total Net Income = 19,280.0
Net Profit Margin = 6.2%
They do not in fact pay more taxes then they earn either gross or net.
[/quote]
Is that income before and after taxes including direct taxes on gasoline, or just corporate income taxes? Income tax is far from the only taxes paid.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html
This says that it’s pretty close if you consider profit to be BEFORE income tax.[/quote]
If a company (Exxon) pays the government a tax of any kind it would have to be in their financial statements, on the income statement.
Now it is possible for the government to make more on the sale of oil than an oil company if you take the tax revenue from both the oil company and the taxes citizen pay to consume said oil, but the company itself does not pay more to the government then the profit of the sale of of their goods.
[/quote]
According to fact check, as of April 2008, the government made more on the sale of gas than the oil companies.
Exactly as I clarified my statement several posts ago “When you buy a gallon of gas, more of that money goes into government pockets than oil company pockets.”
Whether or not the money you pay at the pump ever goes down on the balance sheet, the price you are paying is more tax going to the government than profit for the oil companies.
So sorry if I misspoke and labeled all the taxes being paid as coming from the oil companies when some of it may bypass the oil companies and go straight to government pockets.[/quote]
It’s all good. I was more or less just bustin your ball.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My rant was against obama, the media that allow him to make such statements and the idiots who believe him, not the poster whom I was agrying with. People actually believe obama when he says the way to fix high oil prices is to raise oil taxes. That’s kimpossible.
And yes. Profit = gross - expense
Taxes are an expense in my book. Why would you consider something profit that is automatically taken from you? It’s why I make more money where I live now than if I lived in California, even if the jobs paid the same. After tax profits are lower than taxes on gas.
When you buy a gallon of gas, more of that money goes into government pockets than oil company pockets. ESPECIALLY if you factor in regular corporate taxes in addition to the oil and gas taxes.
A little critical thinking would have gone a long way on that one guys.
[/quote]
According to Exxon’s 2009 financial statements:
(in millions)
Gross profit = 98,817.0
Income before taxes = 34,777.0
Income taxes = 15,119.0
Net Income After Taxes = 19,658.0
Total Net Income = 19,280.0
Net Profit Margin = 6.2%
They do not in fact pay more taxes then they earn either gross or net.
[/quote]
You are worried about 6.2% net profit margin. That is a really low number. Most apparal companies have a 20% margin. Technology companies 45%. Furniture Companies 100%. The issue most people have it that they are bringing in a huge dollar figure.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
My rant was against obama, the media that allow him to make such statements and the idiots who believe him, not the poster whom I was agrying with. People actually believe obama when he says the way to fix high oil prices is to raise oil taxes. That’s kimpossible.
And yes. Profit = gross - expense
Taxes are an expense in my book. Why would you consider something profit that is automatically taken from you? It’s why I make more money where I live now than if I lived in California, even if the jobs paid the same. After tax profits are lower than taxes on gas.
When you buy a gallon of gas, more of that money goes into government pockets than oil company pockets. ESPECIALLY if you factor in regular corporate taxes in addition to the oil and gas taxes.
A little critical thinking would have gone a long way on that one guys.
[/quote]
According to Exxon’s 2009 financial statements:
(in millions)
Gross profit = 98,817.0
Income before taxes = 34,777.0
Income taxes = 15,119.0
Net Income After Taxes = 19,658.0
Total Net Income = 19,280.0
Net Profit Margin = 6.2%
They do not in fact pay more taxes then they earn either gross or net.
[/quote]
Is that income before and after taxes including direct taxes on gasoline, or just corporate income taxes? Income tax is far from the only taxes paid.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html
This says that it’s pretty close if you consider profit to be BEFORE income tax.[/quote]
If a company (Exxon) pays the government a tax of any kind it would have to be in their financial statements, on the income statement.
Now it is possible for the government to make more on the sale of oil than an oil company if you take the tax revenue from both the oil company and the taxes citizen pay to consume said oil, but the company itself does not pay more to the government then the profit of the sale of of their goods.
[/quote]
According to fact check, as of April 2008, the government made more on the sale of gas than the oil companies.
Exactly as I clarified my statement several posts ago “When you buy a gallon of gas, more of that money goes into government pockets than oil company pockets.”
Whether or not the money you pay at the pump ever goes down on the balance sheet, the price you are paying is more tax going to the government than profit for the oil companies.
So sorry if I misspoke and labeled all the taxes being paid as coming from the oil companies when some of it may bypass the oil companies and go straight to government pockets.[/quote]
It’s all good. I was more or less just bustin your ball. [/quote]
Left or Right Ball?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Also- I might add, many of the people… don’t actually want it. [/quote]
After the Health Care Act…who gives a shit about what many of the people don’t actually want? Those days are over, my friend. There’s a new sheriff in town.
You get what HE wants you to get. Not to mention he’s your guy. You have to snuggle with him.[/quote]
Obama ran on the platform of reforming health care reform. Most of the voters voted for him. That means yes, he’s got the support to do it. The people that voted for him but didn’t want healthcare reform are horse’s asses.
This one he’s snuck in, however. I don’t like the idea, and I’m not going to follow it just because I belong to the same party as him- just like I don’t any Democrat’s ideas on gun control.
Unlike you GOPers… I don’t toe any party’s line, and I will bash my own politicians. I don’t “snuggle” with any politician or president.
I totally disagree with my usual ally, fightingirish, here. Too much money and too many jobs are lost by inaction.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett actually spoke at Columbia Business School earlier this week about how investment in alternative energies is very risky simply because of their pervasive lack of VIABILITY due to enormous fixed costs and/or low energy output per dollar (i.e. not because of legislative/political hoops).
As far as the environment is concerned, drilling isn’t the problem. Fuel inefficiency is.
This doesn’t have to be partisan. Good policy is good policy. And, hey. With the added tax revenue and lease payments we could pump some money into alternative energy R&D.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s all good. I was more or less just bustin your ball. [/quote]
Left or Right Ball?[/quote]
Only Right balls here.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I guess Obama just wants to tax evil things. We have evil rich people, evil oil companies, and evil wall street. Man who is next?[/quote]
They don’t know it yet but I will guarantee you it will be the evil middle class, because that piece of crap legislation called health care will NEVER fly without middle class tax dollars.
Anyone wannna bet?
I agree with thefedarlist’s point. Most alternative energy sources can only plug small holes in the dam. Also I spent a little time in Germany recently and attended a Bavarian Gov’t conference for a few days and energy was a big piece of it. Our “dependency on foreign oil” actually only makes up less than 1/3 of our energy.
I say go nuclear. France can do it. Reactor technology had made leaps in the last 10 years but everyone is still freaked out by 3 mile island. If nothing else we’re still better off than places like Germany that basically import all energy from Russia and the middle east.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Don’t qualify this by your life span. Isn’t it our duty to push for the future benefit? Protect our way of life. We need to rid ourselves on dependancy of foriegn oil…and other products as far I I’m concerened. Not to say ban imports, but lets get our own reliance in check.
[/quote]
“Protecting our way of life” would mean developing new energy sources and strategies, not trying to put a stopgap measure, if you can even call it that, on foreign dependence of a finite supply of fossil fuel that’s awful for the environment anyway.
[/quote]
I agree. Drilling for more oil is only a temporary solution. It’s kind of like a meth freak who’s going broke buying meth from other people all the time, so he decides to make it himself to save money. Nuclear power is the wave of the future. There are enough natural gas reserves in Alaska to provide us with our own energy source until the technology to create virtually waste-free nuclear power using LIFE reactors is realized.
https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/proposed-laser-ignition-fusionfission.html[/quote]
If this type of energy is available in the near future that is pretty cool. Never heard of this type of technology before. I dont understand why we have been reluctant to use Nuclear Power more frequently in the past. I guess Three Mile Island, and Chernoble sp really put a damper on that for us here in the US.[/quote]
You can blame the Sierra Club and other ignorant anti-nuclear lobbyists for this. Their efforts to save the environment have forced us to continuously dump coal and carbon emissions into the atmosphere. At least Obama has allowed for some modern plants to finally be built.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I don’t know enough about the process involved to say whether this is good or bad.
But I’m not a fan of drilling in general, although necessary, and if he opens up ANWR for drilling I won’t vote for him again.
I’ve got to read more before making a call on this, but I’m much more of an environmentalist than a drilling fan. [/quote]
I am surprised to hear you say this, seriously. You allow an occasional glimmer of sensibility to shine through if God is not under discussion. I sincerely thought this would be one of those times. Oh well.
[/quote]
Why? I’m stating that I don’t know whether this will be good or bad. I’m not a fan of drilling because of the possible environmental impacts, but offshore drilling, as far as I can tell, has been relatively clean. Transporting the stuff in barges seems to be more of a problem.
Again, I don’t consider myself educated enough in the subject to really comment on it… drilling is obviously necessary, and maybe with newly developed technology it will be worth it to get to the harder to reach reserves.
However, again, I’m dead set against drilling ANWR. It’s a wildlife reserve and should stay that way, regardless of oil. I am much more concerned with conservation than I am with the amount of oil that could come out of there- which, while it might be a significant amount, wouldn’t impact oil prices any time in my lifetime.[/quote]
If it ain’t private, I say give it back the people that owned it, and if they stole it give it to the people that homesteaded it.