Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Should Washington repeal the tax cuts to Big Oil?

Old 02-01-08, 09:38 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: in Bush territory!
Posts: 11,613
Should Washington repeal the tax cuts to Big Oil?

Just wondering what you guys think of this? Looks like times are gravy for Big Oil right now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080201/...BU_yNYK0qyBhIF
wabio is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 09:44 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
yes
classicman2 is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 09:46 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,980
depends...what tax cuts?

If oil companies get some tax cuts others don't, okay. But should they be targetted for higher taxes? no.

Looks like the Dems in the Senate want to give them more tax cuts though with the stimulus bill.
Venusian is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 09:54 AM
  #4  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,682
Investigate all the ramifications of repealing whatever tax cuts those are and get back to us. Then we'll be able to make a somewhat informed decision.
X is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 09:59 AM
  #5  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,072
Originally Posted by classicman2
yes
Big oil is not exactly hurting. They don't need the breaks right now.
VinVega is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 10:10 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,580
While we are at maybe we can lower the gasoline tax as well?


Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Energy Information Administration

State and Federal Treasuries "Profit" More from Gasoline Sales than U.S. Oil Industry
wishbone is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 10:10 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Give the tax breaks to the independents who are going to go out and find new sources of domestic oil - not to major oil companies.

That was, at least what we told, one of the reasons for giving the large oil companies tax breaks.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 12:13 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,846
Originally Posted by classicman2
Give the tax breaks to the independents who are going to go out and find new sources of domestic oil - not to major oil companies.

That was, at least what we told, one of the reasons for giving the large oil companies tax breaks.
But the big guys are much better at finding the oil than the independents.
orangecrush is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 12:41 PM
  #9  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
For every cent that the evil big oil companies make in profit, the govt. makes 3 cents.
bhk is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 12:44 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
bhk & wishbon3 - please answer the question that is the subject of this thread.

Try not to stray from the subject.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 12:50 PM
  #11  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749

That's easy. They shouldn't repeal tax cuts to corporations because corporations hire workers and that broadens the tax base because everyone working for Exxon pays some tax. When people say "corporate" taxes, they mean money that will be taxed more than once because Exxon doesn't have a big swimming pool in the basement of their headqaurters that they fill with money and have the CEO swim in. That money goes for infrastructure, bonuses, and to shareholders. All of those people pay taxes on that money.
Despite noting some posting here have actually ran a business, their economic knowledge is pathetically poor.
bhk is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 12:52 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
If the tax cuts (subsidies) were given for a specific purpose, and the companies failed to act on that specific purpose - what do you think then?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 12:57 PM
  #13  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Originally Posted by classicman2
If the tax cuts (subsidies) were given for a specific purpose, and the companies failed to act on that specific purpose - what do you think then?
Then penalize them if the company put it in writing that they were going to do that specific thing. If it isn't in writing, then nothing doing.


And remember all those that want the successful punished: The govt. doesn't take any of the risk of business, doesn't have to deal with drilling, refining, or transporting the gasoline. They're like Paulie in Goodfellas, they take their cut right off of the top and they don't do any of the work.

Last edited by bhk; 02-01-08 at 12:59 PM.
bhk is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 01:04 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
sracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ
Posts: 12,460
Originally Posted by bhk
Then penalize them if the company put it in writing that they were going to do that specific thing. If it isn't in writing, then nothing doing.


And remember all those that want the successful punished: The govt. doesn't take any of the risk of business, doesn't have to deal with drilling, refining, or transporting the gasoline. They're like Paulie in Goodfellas, they take their cut right off of the top and they don't do any of the work.
Is that "success" measured before or after assistance? I can see lauding an entity for being successful by going it alone, but when their "success" is dependent upon outside help, and their ongoing success depends upon ongoing help then it really isn't success. At least that's how the type of anti-public assistance logic goes.
sracer is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 01:05 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522


I'll admit - the government was stupid thinking that the major oil companies would do anything they agreed to do if it wasn't in writing.

They're developed the art of lying better than some of our politicians.

If you doubt that - remember the hearings a couple of years ago with the major oil companies' CEOs?
classicman2 is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 01:13 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,172
yes, but if it raises the prices of gas that would be bad...

I do think a profit of 112billion is rediculous when this country is struggling. There is no reason they need to make that kind of money.. I think their profits need to be regulated through the govt.
What do the big oil companies do with these profits? Are they building more refineries? Are they drilling for more oil? WHAT??? They need to start giving back or invest to lower prices..
ANDREMIKE is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 01:48 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,580
Originally Posted by classicman2
bhk & wishbon3 - please answer the question that is the subject of this thread.

Try not to stray from the subject.
I am not a big fan of subsidies, whether they are for corporations, energy, agriculture, transportation, etc.

Now can we lower the gasoline tax?
wishbone is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 01:53 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,980
Originally Posted by ANDREMIKE
yes, but if it raises the prices of gas that would be bad...

I do think a profit of 112billion is rediculous when this country is struggling. There is no reason they need to make that kind of money.. I think their profits need to be regulated through the govt.
What do the big oil companies do with these profits? Are they building more refineries? Are they drilling for more oil? WHAT??? They need to start giving back or invest to lower prices..
profits need to be regulated???

why? how?

The companies pass the profits onto their owners - share holders.
Venusian is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 03:23 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
 
sracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ
Posts: 12,460
Originally Posted by Venusian
profits need to be regulated???

why? how?

The companies pass the profits onto their owners - share holders.
Well, the oil companies (big and small) have had it "both ways" for way too long.

On the one hand, oil is a natural resource that is vital to the national security of our nation. And as such, needs government intervention to protect access to oil sources.

On the other hand, oil companies are the ones who profit from the sale of oil and the cost of protecting their access should fall squarely on them....all in the name of free market capitalism.

The current situation seems like they get the best of both hands... They get all of the protection (of a vital natural resource) and all of the profit (of the free market).

Having said that... it is not going to change any time soon.
sracer is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 03:37 PM
  #20  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,682
Originally Posted by sracer
On the one hand, oil is a natural resource that is vital to the national security of our nation. And as such, needs government intervention to protect access to oil sources.
Do you mean like a military presence all over the Middle East? And have the oil companies pay for it?
X is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 03:39 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Well, we could include repealing small oil tax cuts as well, then even Ted Kennedy would have to vote against it.

Oil companies are only bad when you don't own them, apparently.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 04:30 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I thought I super conservatives were opposed to targetted tax cuts - in this subsidies in the form of tax to the major oil companies.

Now I see. They're all for them if the large corporations get them. But don't you dare have a targetted when the very wealthy can't participate.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 05:22 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 18,895
Repealing tax cuts makes baby Jabba cry.

Jason is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 05:32 PM
  #24  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,017
The word "tax" does not appear anywhere in the original article.

It does use the phrase "record profits." However, it's only a record if you look at the dollar amount. But investors don't care about that. Instead, what they care about is the annual percentage return on investment. And going by that, there is nothing "record" at all about those profits.

The U.S. corporate income tax rate of 35% is already, I think, the second highest of any industrialzied country. I don't see any good reason to raise it. And to the degree that it makes out country less competitive and less attractive to investors, I think there's a good argument that we should lower it.

If there is some special tax cut that is designated for the oil companies, then I am against that, because I think the tax code should treat all businesses equally. But the article doesn't mention any such thing.
grundle is offline  
Old 02-01-08, 05:36 PM
  #25  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,017
Originally Posted by ANDREMIKE
I do think a profit of 112billion is rediculous when this country is struggling. There is no reason they need to make that kind of money.. I think their profits need to be regulated through the govt.

1) Why do you measure profit in total dollar amount, instead of as an annual percentage return on investment?

2) What kind of law do you think the government should pass?

3) If the government passed such a law, what kinds of incentives would it create for investors?
grundle is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.