The House last year and again on Feb. 27 approved legislation that would have ended the tax breaks for the oil giants, while using the revenue to support wind, solar and other renewable fuels and incentives for energy conservation. The measure has not passed the Senate.

 

The oil industry has argued on Capitol Hill and at the White House that the tax breaks are needed to assure continued investment in exploration, production and refinery expansions. President Bush has promised to veto any such bill, saying that the oil companies should not be singled out.(NO SHOCK HERE COMING FROM THE OILMAN)

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_ ... ngress_oil

Let's raise taxes on the oil companies, AND expect them to lower prices.

 

Pick one or the other, you can't have both. Personally, I believe give them the tax breaks. The cost of their inputs are rising very quickly (due to rising prices from OPEC). I believe that alternative fuels will take over when the technology has been developed, due to the fact that rising oil prices will make it cost-effective. There is not much you can do to speed that up (it will happen naturally the more OPEC raises prices).

 

Then again, I am for almost all tax breaks. :lol: Seriously though, the only real taxes that I kind of agree with are ones on industries in which it is easy to gain a monopoly of a scarce natural resource, but Big Oil doesn't have a monopoly- OPEC does.

Yes, trotting out a few oil executives in front of a committee and berating them with some “hard-nosed” questions is going to affect some profound results in the gas market. Or it’s going to give a couple of Congressmen some face time “fighting” for the common man.

Let's raise taxes on the oil companies, AND expect them to lower prices.

 

 

I think we're talking about ending a tax credit for the oil companies, not raising taxes on the oil companies.

 

The oil companies are saying the tax incentives are needed to continue "to assure continued investment in exploration, production and refinery expansions." As if $100+ oil and $3.20/gal gasoline aren't adequate incentives already. It is absurd to think that companies raking in $30-40 billion a year in net income need any kind of special government handout.

Let's raise taxes on the oil companies, AND expect them to lower prices.

 

Pick one or the other, you can't have both. Personally, I believe give them the tax breaks. The cost of their inputs are rising very quickly (due to rising prices from OPEC). I believe that alternative fuels will take over when the technology has been developed, due to the fact that rising oil prices will make it cost-effective. There is not much you can do to speed that up (it will happen naturally the more OPEC raises prices).

 

Then again, I am for almost all tax breaks. :lol: Seriously though, the only real taxes that I kind of agree with are ones on industries in which it is easy to gain a monopoly of a scarce natural resource, but Big Oil doesn't have a monopoly- OPEC does.

:thumb: Raising taxes or reducing incentives for exploration will result in higher prices at the pump. Of course, Democrats can then blame Bush for the high cost because of his failure to get a good energy bill passed.

I think the main question for the oil companies was: Where do you get your money, and can you spot us a 20. LOL

Let's raise taxes on the oil companies, AND expect them to lower prices.

 

Pick one or the other, you can't have both. Personally, I believe give them the tax breaks. The cost of their inputs are rising very quickly (due to rising prices from OPEC). I believe that alternative fuels will take over when the technology has been developed, due to the fact that rising oil prices will make it cost-effective. There is not much you can do to speed that up (it will happen naturally the more OPEC raises prices).

 

Then again, I am for almost all tax breaks. :lol: Seriously though, the only real taxes that I kind of agree with are ones on industries in which it is easy to gain a monopoly of a scarce natural resource, but Big Oil doesn't have a monopoly- OPEC does.

 

Aren't they getting tax breaks now? If so, I don't think the "tax break" theory is working. Gas is $3.30-$3.50 on the east coast in some places...

:thumb: Raising taxes or reducing incentives for exploration will result in higher prices at the pump. Of course, Democrats can then blame Bush for the high cost because of his failure to get a good energy bill passed.

 

 

Why do the most profitable companies in the history of the world need to be given extra government tax incentives to conduct their normal business operations? Help me understand. :confused:

 

What's next? Subsidies for Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and GM?

Aren't they getting tax breaks now? If so, I don't think the "tax break" theory is working. Gas is $3.30-$3.50 on the east coast in some places...

The petroleaum industry is among the most heavily taxed in this country. Oil companies typically pay three times as much in total taxes as they make in profits. Federal and state governments could sharply reduce gasoline prices if they were not so addicted to the taxes paid by oil companies.

The petroleaum industry is among the most heavily taxed in this country. Oil companies typically pay three times as much in total taxes as they make in profits. Federal and state governments could sharply reduce gasoline prices if they were not so addicted to the taxes paid by oil companies.

 

They pay 3X as much in taxes as they make in profits? How does that make sense. They wouldn't be able to operate, would they?

I think we're talking about ending a tax credit for the oil companies, not raising taxes on the oil companies.

 

The oil companies are saying the tax incentives are needed to continue "to assure continued investment in exploration, production and refinery expansions." As if $100+ oil and $3.20/gal gasoline aren't adequate incentives already. It is absurd to think that companies raking in $30-40 billion a year in net income need any kind of special government handout.

 

Aren't they getting tax breaks now? If so, I don't think the "tax break" theory is working. Gas is $3.30-$3.50 on the east coast in some places...

 

Why do the most profitable companies in the history of the world need to be given extra government tax incentives to conduct their normal business operations? Help me understand. :confused:

 

What's next? Subsidies for Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and GM?

As OPEC keeps raising the prices of oil, two things change- the cost of inputs, and the expected future profitability. Both are reasons to make huge profits now, as it will only become more expensive to stay in this industry in the future.

 

I hate paying high gas prices, but if I were in the industry, I would do the same thing.

 

You can't convince me that getting rid of this tax credit will lower prices at the pump. It can only raise them. So basically, the oil companies would make less after-tax profits, and consumers would pay more per gallon. Who wins there? Oh yes, the government gets a bit more revenue. Just great.

They pay 3X as much in taxes as they make in profits? How does that make sense. They wouldn't be able to operate, would they?

ExxonMobil's U.S. tax burden is already very large.

• From 2002 - 2006, their U.S. tax bill ($59.9 billion), including all forms of taxation, exceeded their U.S. earnings ($39.5 billion) by over $20 billion.
  
• ExxonMobil's worldwide effective income tax rate for 2006 was 43 percent, compared to about 32 percent for the market as a whole according to the Tax Foundation. For the third quarter of 2007, ExxonMobil's effective worldwide income tax rate was 46 percent.

Additional taxes would raise prices and reduce supplies.

 

• In the past, windfall profit taxes have undermined capital investments in the oil and gas industry and reduced domestic energy supplies. "Backdoor" windfall profit taxes would be no less damaging.
  
• According to a 1990 Report of the Congressional Research Service, the windfall profit tax of the 1980s reduced domestic oil production as much as 6 percent, and increased imports as much as 16 percent.
  
• Industry projects span decades, require massive investments, and utilize cutting-edge technologies that evolve throughout project lifecycles. Under these circumstances, long-term planning — which relies on stable legal, fiscal and regulatory frameworks — is critical.
  
• About 70 percent of ExxonMobil’s earnings come from outside the U.S.
  
• Over the past five years, oil and gas production has generated over two-thirds of ExxonMobil's earnings.

So now we should all feel sorry for the billionaires of big oil? :lol:

The petroleaum industry is among the most heavily taxed in this country. Oil companies typically pay three times as much in total taxes as they make in profits. Federal and state governments could sharply reduce gasoline prices if they were not so addicted to the taxes paid by oil companies.

 

Direct sales tax on gasoline (at a set cents per gallon rate) and corporate tax are two different things. Again, please tell me why a company that makes $35 billion in net income needs special tax breaks to make the investments required to stay in business. And what guarantee do these companies give that they will make any incremental investment as a result of these tax breaks?

Tax deductions or tax credits are not subsidies. They are ways of reducing taxable income as passed by congress. Some want to make it sound as if the government is giving them money, when all that is happening is that they get to keep money they made in a free, capitalist economy. The real greed is when people want to take from those who productive and provide us with a product we want.

 

You may complain of the cost of gas, as I do, but where are you going to get gas otherwise? And all they will do if they have to pay more taxes is to pass on the cost to the consumer.