I’m totally against this because it’s just more of the same tax and spend with little or nothing to show for it. The oil industry is in bad shape right now and increasing taxes is going to hammer it even more.
Kudos to MikeinNH for pointing out that much of the highway money is being diverted into the general fund instead of being spent on what is designated for.
During an upcoming vote on a gas tax to “repair crumbling highways and bridges” here in OK some years ago (sound familiar…) it was discovered that 63% of the highway money was being diverted to other projects in the general fund instead of being spent on the roads and bridges.
One of those projects was a quarter million dollar statue of a horse to commemorate the path of the Chisholm Trail cattle drive route.
Ironically, just 3 blocks away from the statue was a crumbling bridge that was eventually closed when it collapsed. The highway was closed for almost 2 years while it was repaired and was only reopened a few months ago.
Actually I agree with Rod and OK. I haven’t looked at this seriously but I would like to know the behind the scenes strings being pulled between Goldman and Obama and who currently owns what before I’d be in favor of anything. What group and what bank will benefit??? Interesting that Venezuela just bought oil from us. I thought they hated us or are we now buddies as their economy is in shambles?
You always do that…You take one argument and turn/twist it around to argue something complete different so you can win the argument.
No one (NOT ON PERSON) argued about Exxon’s profits being too high. Not one. Show me where? I’ll wait.
The whole argument was about Subsidies…PERIOD. I know your argument defending subsidies is weak…So if you can’t argue against it…then don’t start arguing against something no one said.
I think it’s GREAT EXXON has good profits. More power to them. So why are we still subsidizing them?
It includes oil purchases for the strategic petroleum reserves, tax reduction for farmers, and low income home energy assistance, along with tax benefits available to many other industries. Get rid of them?
Those are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT subsidies. You want to lump them all into one pot. Gee I wish the Telecom industry had those subsidies. Then maybe my company could give great bonuses to management like Exxon does. I might actually be able to retire by the time I’m 65.
The biggest chunk of the tax credits go to intangible drilling costs. For other industries it’s called R&D. We spend MILLIONS on R&D that doesn’t pan out. That’s why it’s called Research and Development. Many times it doesn’t get to the development stage. We don’t get one dime from anyone for R&D…I guess we can’t afford to spend millions in lobbyists.
During an upcoming vote on a gas tax to "repair crumbling highways and bridges" here in OK some years ago (sound familiar.....) it was discovered that 63% of the highway money was being diverted to other projects in the general fund instead of being spent on the roads and bridges.
When I left NY in the 80’s they had similar numbers. I don’t mind raising taxes for infrastructure repairs/improvements (IF IT’S REALLY NEEDED)…as long as that’s where it’s going…which it’s NOT. Highway funding bills are one of the great bills every congressman LOVES. Because they are usually so large that it’s easy to attach their pork-belly projects to. That’s why you see these big bills every few years. Congress needs bills like this to attach their pork belly projects to. Republican and Democrats are equal participants…depending who’s in power at the time.
“The biggest chunk of the tax credits go to intangible drilling costs. For other industries it’s called R&D. We spend MILLIONS on R&D that doesn’t pan out. That’s why it’s called Research and Development. Many times it doesn’t get to the development stage. We don’t get one dime from anyone for R&D…I guess we can’t afford to spend millions in lobbyists”
All company expenses for R&D are deductible, just like these drilling costs. The only benefit applied to the drilling costs is expensing them as incurred, rather that depreciating them over a series of years. It’s only a timing issue, not whether the deduction occurs. The logic was that many wells were dry holes, and these are the expenses that can’t be recovered.
All industries benefit from many exemptions and deductions, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, including profitable ones like information/computer/electronics. But only oil company exemptions/deductions attract this kind of attention, it seems, even though the domestic oil and gas industry is now saving the US (you and me) over $400 BILLION a year in lower oil costs.
As for my comment on taxes paid, you raised it:
“Exxon had one of the LOWEST profits in years. They only made about 18 BILLION dollars this year in PROFIT. NOT REVENUE.” Excuse me if this obvious dig at Exxon’s profits was poorly stated.
As for my comment on taxes paid, you raised it:
"Exxon had one of the LOWEST profits in years. They only made about 18 BILLION dollars this year in PROFIT. NOT REVENUE." Excuse me if this obvious dig at Exxon's profits was poorly stated.
Oh Please… I notice how you conveniently cut out the following line of your cut and paste hack. As I said…the whole argument had NOTHING to do with profit…but the billions in subsidies.
Yet we give big oil BILLIONS of dollars in subsidies each year.
All company expenses for R&D are deductible, just like these drilling costs.
WONG…R&D is only deductible against PROFITS. Our first 5 years we made ZERO in profit…thus we were unable to take any deduction. Those subsidies are above and beyond their tax deductions. Those subsidies are given to Exxon even if they don’t make a profit…which they were NOT making some 20 years ago. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
But only oil company exemptions/deductions attract this kind of attention, it seems,
Because they are among the highest profit companies in the world. Their subsidies are unparalleled. Defend them all you want. You always do. In your eyes big oil can’t do anything wrong and has never done anything wrong.
I thought we were discussing major corporations, not startups. All major corporations deduct their R&D costs. And oil companies are no more profitable than most other companies, who also benefit from hundreds of billions of dollars in tax preferences. But they are a convenient target.
I thought we were discussing major corporations, not startups. All major corporations deduct their R&D costs.
Startup or a company that’s been in business for decades…they can only deduct R&D against the profits they make.
And oil companies are no more profitable than most other companies
Really…I guess you don’t read Forbes.
And which of those companies are getting billions in Federal Subsidies. State subsidies are different. I can’t speak for what each state does…especially with Tax incentives to entice and keep a company in it’s borders.
$10 a barrel is cheap when compared to the proposed 50 cents per gallon of gasoline that came up in the 1980s. That one wasn’t popular either. Take away the corn tax and make us happy to de-ethanol.
Over the years several new car dealerships have occasionally sent me business for one reason or another but one in particular farmed out all repair work on his used car inventory. The owner told me that his shop charged him $20 more per hour than I charged. I bit my tongue and waited until he left to laugh. The man obviously belonged in politics.
WOW @Texases…Now you changed again…Instead of pure profit numbers you went to percentage. I keep knocking down your statements…and instead of admitting you were WRONG…you keep changing and twisting.
Profit Percentage is NOT the same as total amount Profit. Never has been…never will.
The US could subsides 100% of the buggy whip industry in this country. (Yes there are companies that still make buggy whips - mainly in horse racing)…but it wouldn’t effect my tax dollars would only go up less then 1/100th of a penny.
But according to YOU…subsidizing an industry that is 1/100th the size of the oil industry because that industry has higher profit margins…is BAD…WOW. Great logic.
I’ve always focused on % profits as the only logical way to discuss the issue. No change there. A bigger company will spend more money, receive more money, and make more money than an equally-profitable small company. Percentages are the only reasonable way to compare companies.
I've always focused on % profits as the only logical way to discuss the issue
No it isn’t…not even close. If we subsidized 100 the buggy whip industry which has a higher profit margin then Oil/Gas because there is virtually zero competition…it wouldn’t have any effect on the tax burden of any person in this country…Subsidizing an industry with a low percentage profit, but with extremely high revenues have a drastic impact on individual taxes in this country. Percentage is meaningless.
Glad you brought up subsidies again. If anyone’s interested in actual facts about them, here’s a comprehensive list of the most-subsidized companies in the US. And guess what? On a $ basis, the most subsidized oil company is Shell, coming in at #15. Exxon? It’s WAY down the list, at #92. So even on a $, not %, basis, there are MANY more companies receiving MANY more tax subsidies than the oil industry. http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/top-100-parents
Again…are they Federal or State…I noticed you didn’t make that distinction. There’s a big distinction. The Subsidies that Boeing get from Washington St have nothing to do with my taxes here in NH.
And you ONLY justification for Exxon and Shell having subsidies…is “Well Gee other companies are doing it”…WOW. I have no problem eliminating most if not all subsidies. Your arguments get weaker and weaker.
I have said many times that reducing subsidies from all industries is fine. Just wait for the complaints from the IT industry, the farmers, the banks, the utilities. Folks that claim the oil industry gets outrageous, or unusual tax credits are wrong, obviously.
And you may want to check on the R&D tax credit, sounds like there’s 20 years of carry forward, and it also deals with startups:
It seems obvious to me that we are bring patted on the head and congratulated for our patriotism and loyalty while having out pockets picked. If we look at Wall St’s numbers and average income how can we not conclude we are doing well? But then what happens on Main St doesn’t seem to matter.
Easy money has given US the illusion of well being as we are offered all that we deserve on easy terms while our portfolios have doubled in the past 7 years… If only I had poured everything I had into Uhaul in 2009 at $23.40 I would be posting from Cruz Bay now. Or maybe enjoying a cruise around the island.
The rat holes that businesses can take advantage of to avoid taxes are immense. Many years ago I bought a Ford van and the total subsidies and deductions were more than half the price of the truck. I can only imagine the rat holes available to multi billion dollar corporations. I recall the last year that I operated that truck I was able to deduct more than 3x the actual cost of operating it.
Geez, interesting again. Shell, a Dutch company? Berkshire? Disney? Citigroup? Uggg. Throw the bums out as they say, my pockets are getting empty. I better go over there and vote again.
And true, you need to look at the percentage of profits to gross to see how profitable a company is. Also true the bigger you are the more gross money you make which is to be expected but profitability is based on percentage as Dr. Carson taught.
