Welcome to Political Fever - The Political Debate Forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest with limited access. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. You can also take part in our Private Debates where you can test your skills against an opponent. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. After you Register the advertisements will disappear on the site!

Go Back   Political Fever - The Political Debate Forums > Political Issues > Economics

Economics Discuss Economics here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 11:10 AM
Bourne's Avatar
No Fat Chicks Allowed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Userid: 374
Posts: 2,259
Rep Power: 3
Bourne is on a distinguished road
Default Senate Democrats seek to tax oil companies

This is classic. The Democrats, the same crew that prohibited oil exploration in the Arctic, now are proposing to levy a penalty in the form of a profit tax against large oil companies effectively penalizing one specific industry from making too much money. For being successful. Cut back on oil profits and the oil companies will just cut back on R&D and exploration expenses. The result, less domestic production and an even greater dependence on foreign sources. Pelosi, Reid and their ilk are absolutely nuts. Fortunately this bill has next to no chance of making it past a presidential veto.

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats on Wednesday called for a windfall profits tax on oil companies and a rollback of $17 billion in oil industry tax breaks as part of an energy package. The proposal also would impose federal penalties on energy price gouging and calls for stopping oil deliveries into the government's emergency reserve.

Senate Republicans strongly oppose any additional oil industry taxes, which are widely viewed as having little chance of being enacted. Even then, they would almost certainly prompt a veto by President Bush.

The proposed 25 percent profits tax would apply only to windfall oil company earnings above what would be considered "reasonable" and only if those profits are not reinvested in refinery capacity expansion or renewable energy sources, according to a summary of the proposals.
The Associated Press: Senate Democrats seek to tax oil companies
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 11:19 AM
Oregon Elephant's Avatar
Obey the Kitty
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Userid: 63
Age: 20
Posts: 6,376
Rep Power: 10
Oregon Elephant will become famous soon enough
Default

It's not for "being successful" but for precieved price gouging. In 2007, Shell made 11% (net profit), in 2003, they were only making 5%. They've doubled their profits margin, meaning that they are raising their costs more than their expenses are raising.
__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Don't click here, seriously
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 11:25 AM
Bourne's Avatar
No Fat Chicks Allowed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Userid: 374
Posts: 2,259
Rep Power: 3
Bourne is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant View Post
It's not for "being successful" but for precieved price gouging. In 2007, Shell made 11% (net profit), in 2003, they were only making 5%. They've doubled their profits margin, meaning that they are raising their costs more than their expenses are raising.
Percieved being the key word. Has there been proof offered? Any evidence of illegality? No to both.

It's plain and simple a penalty levied against one industry for being successful.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 11:44 AM
Oregon Elephant's Avatar
Obey the Kitty
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Userid: 63
Age: 20
Posts: 6,376
Rep Power: 10
Oregon Elephant will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne View Post
Percieved being the key word. Has there been proof offered? Any evidence of illegality? No to both.

It's plain and simple a penalty levied against one industry for being successful.
Holding a near monoply and raising your prices at a faster rate than your costs are raising is price gouging, it is in their financial records, so there is proof of it.

BP in 2007 made a 29.4% gross profit, while in 2005 (only two years before) made 23.0% gross profit.

Chevron in 2007 made a 39.1% gross profit, and in 2005 it was only 22.4% gross profit.

That is price gouging.
__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Don't click here, seriously
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 11:50 AM
Michael's Avatar
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Userid: 166
Location: Sierra Mountains
Posts: 6,562
Rep Power: 7
Michael will become famous soon enough
Default

Gas price hikes driven by California refinery shutdowns

The Raw Story | Gas price hikes driven by California refinery shutdowns

It is the old Enron tactic of shutting down facilities for alleged repairs inorder to drive the prices upward. The free market capitalism argument to promote the oil industry's cause does not cover price gouging tactics.

And what this information doesn't mention is that there was a proposal to eliminate all subsidies to oil corportations that were breaking all records for profits when the last Energy Bill was passed. The Senate Republicans lined up to block this. Then if you check the campaign contributions that got these guys elected, guess who is bribing them for their votes.

Senate Republicans have proven themselves to be corporate prostitutes. They all need to be voted out of office so the status quo of Bush Republicans selling out the federal government wholesale to billionaire corporations stops.

The subsidies need to be eliminated. The arguments here for the oil companies based on free market capitalism does not cover subsidies and tax breaks. They are also drilling on public lands and paying NO lease.

And previously I mentioned the fact that Exxon quit paying for the Valdeze oil spill and taxpayers had to foot most of the bill while their lawyers (legal prostitutes money could buy) tied up law suits for damages in court for 20 years.
__________________
The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives.
— Native American Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 12:30 PM
Oregon Elephant's Avatar
Obey the Kitty
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Userid: 63
Age: 20
Posts: 6,376
Rep Power: 10
Oregon Elephant will become famous soon enough
Default

what, is no one going to bite on my links?
__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Don't click here, seriously
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 12:33 PM
Bourne's Avatar
No Fat Chicks Allowed
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Userid: 374
Posts: 2,259
Rep Power: 3
Bourne is on a distinguished road
Default

What a wonderfully unbiased source.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 01:28 PM
Michael's Avatar
Global Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Userid: 166
Location: Sierra Mountains
Posts: 6,562
Rep Power: 7
Michael will become famous soon enough
Default

Unfortunately for the oil corporations, they are dealing with a commodity that has a very direct relationship to inflation and the overall economic health of the country. If we were talking about cigarettes or jewelry, it would be different.

I would like to see stock market speculation in oil stopped. People buying up oil at a low price in order to sell later when the cost per barrel goes up means market volatility. In increases the price to the public
__________________
The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives.
— Native American Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 03:38 PM
Birdzeye's Avatar
Congressman
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Userid: 596
Posts: 782
Rep Power: 1
Birdzeye is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant View Post
It's not for "being successful" but for precieved price gouging. In 2007, Shell made 11% (net profit), in 2003, they were only making 5%. They've doubled their profits margin, meaning that they are raising their costs more than their expenses are raising.
The apologists for the oil companies are trying to repackage greed as "success." Go figure.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2008, 03:40 PM
Oregon Elephant's Avatar
Obey the Kitty
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Userid: 63
Age: 20
Posts: 6,376
Rep Power: 10
Oregon Elephant will become famous soon enough
Default

And they don't stay to fight for it.
__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Don't click here, seriously
Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On






   PolitiPoll.net - Political Web Rankings    Top Political Sites  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 PM.
Political Fever 2007/2008
   Word Search   |   Family Friendly   |   AdSense Forum   |   Game Cheats   |   Coupon Codes   |   Spore Game   |   Xcode Forum   |   Political Forums   |   Internet Marketing   |   Social Networking    |   Sudoku   |   Mobile Marketing   |   Web Forms   |   Articles & News   |   Loans & Credit Repair   |   Online Coupon Codes   |   Loans   |   Sudoku Puzzles   |   Map Games   |   Spore Screenshots