My point isn't that what Exxon or anybody else is doing is right or wrong. My point is that if it is acceptable to call Exxon's money "ours" because they received a tax break then why isn't it acceptable to call every other company's or person's money "ours" if they have received a tax break? Why stop at Exxon?

I can follow this line of thinking in this thread. I think it is a big assumption to assume that this was funded with JUST the money from the tax breaks. I would rather assume that they would fund this whether they had the tax breaks or not.

My point isn't that what Exxon or anybody else is doing is right or wrong. My point is that if it is acceptable to call Exxon's money "ours" because they received a tax break then why isn't it acceptable to call every other company's or person's money "ours" if they have received a tax break? Why stop at Exxon?

 

Should it be considered "our" money if Exxon extracted offshore oil from public waters in the Gulf of Mexico without paying any royalties to the government because of a loophole in the law? That's almost like someone looting your possessions and then selling them back to you.

Should it be considered "our" money if Exxon extracted offshore oil from public waters in the Gulf of Mexico without paying any royalties to the government because of a loophole in the law? That's almost like someone looting your possessions and then selling them back to you.

So it is Exxon's fault that the government has a loophole is there and they used it. Tell Congress to close the loophole.

 

There is a loophole for me as a public school teacher to lower my taxes and you better believe I am using it. But your implication is that since they are a multi-billion dollar company, they shouldn't be using it.

How does the government "own" waters in the Gulf of Mexico?

I can follow this line of thinking in this thread. I think it is a big assumption to assume that this was funded with JUST the money from the tax breaks. I would rather assume that they would fund this whether they had the tax breaks or not.

 

Whether the dollar bill that went from one pocket to another is exactly the same one is immaterial.

 

When you write a check for $25 to Wal-Mart, does it matter whether that $25 came from this week's paycheck, or if the money had been in the checking account for over a month?

 

 

Frances

My point isn't that what Exxon or anybody else is doing is right or wrong. My point is that if it is acceptable to call Exxon's money "ours" because they received a tax break then why isn't it acceptable to call every other company's or person's money "ours" if they have received a tax break? Why stop at Exxon?

 

Why indeed? I would submit that the tax money that comes from my pocket or your pocket is all the same. Once it goes into the federal coffers, it is all "our" money. This also applies to tax money that comes from industry as well.

 

My (original) point was that it IS wrong for a company being granted tax breaks to use that money to pay people to intentionally distort scientific findings. The fact that (in this instance) that company is receiving tax breaks while reaping the largest annual profit in the history of the US only serves to illustrate the insanity of granting the tax break in the first place.

 

 

 

Frances

So it is Exxon's fault that the government has a loophole is there and they used it. Tell Congress to close the loophole.

 

There is a loophole for me as a public school teacher to lower my taxes and you better believe I am using it. But your implication is that since they are a multi-billion dollar company, they shouldn't be using it.

 

This was no loophole in the tax code. It was the result of sponsored legislation - written with the express intent of giving the oil industry a chance to make a profit that was essentially "untaxed".

 

 

Frances

Whether the dollar bill that went from one pocket to another is exactly the same one is immaterial.

 

When you write a check for $25 to Wal-Mart, does it matter whether that $25 came from this week's paycheck, or if the money had been in the checking account for over a month?

 

 

Frances

That is not what you claimed. Your claim is that my tax dollars was used to fund that project. The claim implied that my tax dollars DIRECTLY funded the project.

 

Any claim that my tax dollars funded this project is a reach. No more than me starting a thread and saying I saw a person who receives a welfare check buying alcohol and my tax dollars was being used to purchase alcohol.

 

 

 

On the real point of your thread and Exxon looking for studies to go against global warming. I think most science in today's world is tainted to a view that they scientists or funding group wants.

 

You think groups are not doing scientific research on cigarettes looking for dangers of smoking. You think companies who sell baby products don't do research that makes their products look good.

 

I view claims of scientists in today's world the same way I view claims of politicians.

This was no loophole in the tax code. It was the result of sponsored legislation - written with the express intent of giving the oil industry a chance to make a profit that was essentially "untaxed".

 

 

Frances

So Exxon should be blasted for it. Blast Congress for it. Businesses in today's private enterprise world is ran on a basis of profit, NOT for the common good of society.

That is not what you claimed. Your claim is that my tax dollars was used to fund that project. The claim implied that my tax dollars DIRECTLY funded the project. [/Quote] I'm not implying anything - I am telling you (point blank) that Exxon received significant tax breaks. I am telling you (point blank) that at the same time they were receiving these tax breaks, they were offering a bounty to anyone that would refute the findings on global warming. I am telling you (point blank) that it doesn't matter if the dollar that they give someone to deride the best scientific findings we have is the same actual piece of paper that came out of my paycheck or yours.

 

Any claim that my tax dollars funded this project is a reach. No more than me starting a thread and saying I saw a person who receives a welfare check buying alcohol and my tax dollars was being used to purchase alcohol.[/Quote] I agree - completely. If someone that is receiving a welfare check buys alchohol, they are, effectively, using your tax dollars for the purchase.

 

 

On the real point of your thread and Exxon looking for studies to go against global warming. I think most science in today's world is tainted to a view that they scientists or funding group wants. ... I view claims of scientists in today's world the same way I view claims of politicians.

I find it sad that anyone would put scientists on the same level as politicians - especially a teacher.

 

 

You think groups are not doing scientific research on cigarettes looking for dangers of smoking. You think companies who sell baby products don't do research that makes their products look good.[/Quote]I fully realize that when scientists do research on cigarettes that they are looking for a link to cancer. And the data collected as a result of decades of study show that the link is real - cigarettes ARE hazardous to your health. I also realize that the tobacco companies will do their best to fight these findings. I just don't want us to subsidize their efforts to repudiate the evidence provided by good solid scientific research.

 

 

Frances

 

I find it sad that anyone would put scientists on the same level as politicians - especially a teacher.

 

 

Frances

Certain parts of the scientific community have sold themselves out for the almighty dollar. So when a scientific claim is made, you have to think about where that claim is coming from and is tainted by what they were looking for when they started the research and what information have they left out.

 

No different than politicians. They are going to tell you what they think you want to hear. And the good ones that don't do that are tainted by the bad ones.

 

No different for scientists. The ones who have sold out have tainted the research that the good ones do.

 

Plus, I haven't got over the reclassification of Pluto either.

I'm not implying anything - I am telling you (point blank) that Exxon received significant tax breaks. I am telling you (point blank) that at the same time they were receiving these tax breaks, they were offering a bounty to anyone that would refute the findings on global warming. I am telling you (point blank) that it doesn't matter if the dollar that they give someone to deride the best scientific findings we have is the same actual piece of paper that came out of my paycheck or yours.

 

 

I fully realize that when scientists do research on cigarettes that they are looking for a link to cancer. And the data collected as a result of decades of study show that the link is real - cigarettes ARE hazardous to your health. I also realize that the tobacco companies will do their best to fight these findings. I just don't want us to subsidize their efforts to repudiate the evidence provided by good solid scientific research.

 

 

Frances

So, big companies should get NO tax breaks in any form or you are going to claim that we are paying for their research? The local government gives them a property tax break to build their business there and now our tax dollars are funding their research.

 

That view doesn't give much credibility to "our tax dollars funding this" view because EVERY BUSINESS would be funding by our tax dollars in some form or fashion.

So, big companies should get NO tax breaks in any form or you are going to claim that we are paying for their research? The local government gives them a property tax break to build their business there and now our tax dollars are funding their research.

 

That view doesn't give much credibility to "our tax dollars funding this" view because EVERY BUSINESS would be funding by our tax dollars in some form or fashion.

 

In a way, you are correct. And this is exactly why those of us that are truly fiscal conservatives like much of what they see in Libertarianism. In my opinion, the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing industry with our tax dollars - regardless of the industry.

 

If we are going to subsidize industry, I would at least make the argument that we not subsidize companies that are reaping surreal profits.

 

 

Frances

In a way, you are correct. And this is exactly why those of us that are truly fiscal conservatives like much of what they see in Libertarianism. In my opinion, the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing industry with our tax dollars - regardless of the industry.

 

If we are going to subsidize industry, I would at least make the argument that we not subsidize companies that are reaping surreal profits.

 

 

Frances

Let's see how far your Libertarianism goes.

 

How about the 3% loans from the SBA after natural disasters like Katrina.

How about tax breaks to start small businesses in areas of major cities that business are vacating because of crime left and right?

How about tax breaks for small businesses to handle the cost of providing heath care for their employees?

How about tax breaks given to factories to establish their new factory with 500 jobs in a certain community?

How about providing subsidies or price floors to certain industries to make them more competivie with foreign countries?

How about tax/funding benefits for minorities or women to start their own businesses?

 

I could go on. There are many, many great tax advantages given to companies. And there are some that are ridiculous. I don't think it is fair to brush with such a broad stroke against them.

This was no loophole in the tax code. It was the result of sponsored legislation - written with the express intent of giving the oil industry a chance to make a profit that was essentially "untaxed".

 

 

Frances

 

In the 1Q of 2006 Exxon's profit was "untaxed" at a rate of $100 billion per year. See above.

 

Also, most "loopholes" in the tax code were put there on purpose. Some loopholes are accidental but most are written with the express intent of benefiting a specific group.