Advertisement

Previous poll Next poll

Do you think Big Oil companies should continue to receive tax breaks while making billions in annual profits?

Response Percent Votes
No.
 
86% 429
Yes.
 
13% 67
Total 496

Comments

acoupstick 6 years ago

"it seems you're more concerned with soaking the rich than with what is right and wrong, and what is good policy"I am interested in fairness and transparency. It is my impression that tax policies (cuts) are proposed in ways that appeal to (specifically) middle to upper-middle class "when in fact the very wealthy benefit disproportionately. BTW, I have no uber-wealthy neighbors.Anyways, I did not mean to distract you into a discussion of the class imbalance in this country. Why should corporations not pay taxes? As mentioned above, corporations are not necessarily benign entities. They make use of our social infrastructure with profit as their motive, so why shouldn't they help pay for it. Corporations already limit personal accountability, liability, and "responsibility for corporate debt, insulation from judgments against the corporation, shareholders' amnesty from criminal actions of the corporation, and, in some jurisdictions, limited liability for corporate officers and directors from criminal acts by the corporation" (wikipedia) Wouldn't abolishing corporate taxes simply encourage tax evasion by the shareholders? Tax is incorporated into the the price of each share in a corporation that you buy. That transaction is being taxed like any other exchange of goods or services in our country. If shareholders don't like being taxed in this manner, perhaps they should shift the burden to their multimilliondollar CEO and his/her ridiculous golden parachute. Again, why shouldn't corporations pay taxes?

0

Fritz 6 years ago

Let's say you own a trucking company, and you're doing well - and you did it all yourself! Why should you pay the government anything of your hard-earned cash, right? What did they ever do for you?We won't even start with all of the clean food, water and drug laws that kept you from being poisoned, or the public health initiatives that kept you from dying of cholera, or polio, or the public education you likely received...everybody benefits from those. Let's look at your trucking company specifically:First, you are able to have a business because anti-trust laws have kept a latter-day Carnegie from controlling the industry, and second, massive public road spending means that the freight doesn't have to go on the rails to travel long distances. (Sure, you pay some special taxes on your trucks, but it is a fraction of the cost of the damage they do to the roads vs. ordinary cars. Everyday motorists pay most of the costs.)Safety regulations and enforcement mean you and your competitors are on a level playing field, and no one can gain an advantage by compromising safety, causing a dangerous race to the bottom...Strong judicial institutions mean the rule of law is observed everywhere, so no paying "taxes" to the local capos when you cross the county line, not to mention massive police enforcement spending means you don't have to worry much about losing trucks to bandits everytime you want to cross the Arizona badlands or some other remote area...Regulation also means you're getting a gallon of diesel when the pump says you are, and it's not going to be cut with moonshine...Mandatory insurance laws mean that if somebody cuts in front of one of your trucks and wrecks it, you're not stuck with the bill...Government initiatives made sure modern infrastructure such as electricty and clean drinking water and now, the internet, are provided to every corner of the nation, so you can base your business wherever you want...But you did everything yourself.Those of us who actually think beyond the talking head screaming points and who have actually seen how things work in the undeveloped world know how lucky we are to be Americans and just how ugly things can be without the amazing public institutions and public infrastructure that we have. No, liberatarians, the free market alone cannot do the job - if history tells us anything, it's that it does it very badly. Nor can government alone - ask the Russians. It is our constantly tweaked mix of the two that works. It does take something off the top of our highest economic highs - but that allows it to cushion our lowest economic lows.

0

Fritz 6 years ago

Wow, Bandolero, did you crib that straight from Hannity or Rush? We're talking about annual PROFITS running in excess of $140 Billion - this is not ma & pa deciding to expand the corner grocery store, and hoping to save a little for their kids college fund. They are not spending every penny "back on the business", nor are they spending more than a pittance piggybacking on others' hard work in the alternative energy field (despite what their own commercials would have you believe) And they didn't "work through it" when oil was $10/barrel. They were given my money when they went crying to Congress in the form of $18 billion a year in tax breaks. But your heroes are saying if I want some of it back I'm destroying capitalism? So welfare is only for those who make seven figures a year or better?

Why is it, when someone suggests a sane, progressive tax policy, whereby those corporations profit from this nation's strong infrastructure and social institutions should pay their share of the cost of it, the right-wing kool-aid drinkers start screaming that the sky is falling and Marx is behind it? Why would they want to return to the economic system of 1929 anyway?

0

Bandolero 6 years ago

People grouse about BIG BUCKS going IN to BIG OIL because they have no concept of where that money is going besides the pockets of CEO's, which is a miniscule fraction but makes for banners the liberal media can bombard a gullible public with. Oil companies are spending billions of their "riches" finding new reserves, drilling new wells, rehabilitating old wells and implementing secondary and tertiary recovery methods, all of which will yield future energy. In the process, they're buying equipment and machinery, hiring new employees, doing a lot more to stimulate an ailing economy than the liberals who want to put them out of business. Remember when oil was $10/bbl? But they worked through it. How about if you worked your butt off for five years in hopes of being in a position to make lots of money down the road that you could invest for retirement and maybe pass some on to your kids, only to find when you got there, the government was waiting to make sure you didn't make TOO much? It's gotten really scary in this country. Everybody buys into the vapid sound-bites the liberal media spews as "facts", forgetting why free enterprise won out over the Soviet paradigm. Yeah, I know the topic was whether they should get tax breaks, not whether they should be taxed more, but those "breaks" are what stimulate even more investment in the future and, if you've actually been watching what some of those "oil" companies are doing, you know they're also doing R&D on alternative energy, with money that comes from their BIG OIL PROFITS. Are they doing it out of the kindness and goodness of their hearts? Of course not -- they see future profits in alternative energy. I was under the impression that national policy (and public sentiment) favors development of alternative fuels. In a free enterprise system, if you want to encourage somebody to spend money a certain way, tax breaks have historically been the way to do it.

0

Fritz 6 years ago

Can we set aside the ridiculous notion that the major oil corporations "only" make a dime on each gallon of gas? For the most part, the majors also control the oil they pull from the ground around the world. Via lease or some other instrument, they do pay fees to the various governmental agencies they have negotiated with, but it is a fraction of what the oil is selling for on the open market. That is the point of the tax breaks - they are generally to offset the cost of oil exploration and bringing more capacity online, and were to handle situations where oil is selling at prices so low that it wouldn't be profitable to get it out of the ground. This way, we would still have production capacity in case world oil markets tightened due to a war, natural disaster, or OPEC getting uppity.So a reasonable person would conclude that we could go in and modify the legislation to end the tax breaks once oil went above some sort of minimum amount that allowed a rational ROI, and reinstate them if they went back below...but in today's CEO world of "My corporate jet has more gold-plated seat belt buckles than yours does", I guess that's too much to ask...the big oil companies also make money at the refineries, which they control an overwhelming majority of. That's the main reason for the tightness in supply that we have today. Oil companies began buying and shuttering independent refineries starting in the late 80's to take "slack" out of the system that would eat into their profits. The KC Star did a great article on it 3 years ago, front page on June 26, 2005. (I'd post the link, but you need a paying account to access the archives of the Star)As for the idiot who said that US tax policy had driven US oil "jobs" overseas, and cited figures showing that total domestic production had gone down over the last few decades? That's because WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF EASILY RETRIEVABLE OIL IN THE U.S.! That's the point of peak oil - production is on an inevitable downward slide. (Is it any wonder it's so tough to explain global climate change to these people? I'm surprised they haven't blamed that on the capital gains tax too.) Peak oil means no matter how hard we look, we're aren't go to keep finding enough to stay ahead of demand, especially in a world where China and India want the American lifestyle. That "big find" in the Gulf? It would have been considered too small to be worth the trouble 40 years ago.

0

justfornow 6 years ago

Stop it you big oil companies..... That's about as much pull as Lawrence has after the dismal voter turn out yesterday.

0

kansas778 6 years ago

acoupstick, I find it interesting that your concern is solely with the "uber-wealthy." Why couldn't middle class investors take advantage of the same thing? It seems you're more concerned with soaking the rich than with what is right and wrong, and what is good policy. Just because your neighbor is rich, that doesn't make you poor. Regardless, I didn't say get rid of the capital gains tax. It wouldn't be a tax shelter, you pay your taxes on your gains when you sell your shares, and you pay taxes on the income you get from dividends.

0

Mariann 6 years ago

How about subsidising a large mercanary army to occupy Iraq????? Oh, already done.

0

Rationalanimal 6 years ago

How about subsidizing wind energy with free cash and tax breaks? The retarded thing about this is that the same people that are ticked off about $4.00 per gallon gas are the same people who stand in the way of energy exploration. If people want to throw anyone under the bus here, it should be the idiotic politicians that are (1) creating energy supply shortages as a result of quelling exploration and (2) print and spend the U.S. dollar like it's Monopoly money. It is a matter of lack of supply and a weak U.S. dollar. Both are policy matters. If you want cheap gas, stop demanding elaborate social entitlements from the government and complaining about drilling for oil in places you'll never see anyway. America isn't addicted to oil. America's politicians are addicted to printing and spending money while the American public ignorantly follows environmentalist loons over an economic cliff.

0

jonas 6 years ago

acoupstick (Anonymous) says:"Why not? Without a tax on capital gains, what's to stop wealthy corporations or individuals from living off the interest of their assets, or simply borrowing against them when they need cash?"Some really already do this. Many individuals do this as well, typically referring to it as "retirement.""Without the tax "squeeze" or double taxation, or whatever you want to call it, wouldn't corporations just become large tax shelters serving the uber-wealthy?"I suppose that this is potentially possible, but they can do that with all those restrictions in place, it's just a little more difficult. Really, though, the corporation that you just described above is an investment firm. Those exist in great numbers. The simple fact is that the only reason that firms would not do the above thing is because they gain more utility from producing goods or services. For whatever reason, they feel they are adding and receiving more value than just by sitting on their invested assets and pulling in interest, through one method or another. But there have always been companies or corporations that are doing things other than this, clearly.Oh, and no, I don't feel big oil companies should continue to receive tax breaks. I believe that the american consumer should have to pay for the full cost of the gas that they are consuming. I think that some good changes in behavior would result from this.

0

RedwoodCoast 6 years ago

I sure do appreciate the Nader-belts and Nader-bags in my car.

0

acoupstick 6 years ago

"corporations should not be taxed"Why not? Without a tax on capital gains, what's to stop wealthy corporations or individuals from living off the interest of their assets, or simply borrowing against them when they need cash? Without the tax "squeeze" or double taxation, or whatever you want to call it, wouldn't corporations just become large tax shelters serving the uber-wealthy?I am interested in your opinions.

0

jumpin_catfish 6 years ago

Anyone who ever thought Nader was good for America was simply uninformed Thanks Marion for the info even if by error.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

How in the heck did my Nader posts end up HERE?I was posting on another thread entirely!

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

cont'd from the citation regarding Ralph Nader:"" One reason he may hide his ample cash reserves -- besides the fact that people may not want to give him more money -- is that he is fond of playing the stock market with that green. (He also uses surpluses from his most flush organizations, usually the tax deductible ones, to give grants to his other groups.) Some of these transactions appear reckless for a nonprofit, "public interest" group; others skirt the edges of insider trading and conflict of interest. Mostly, it seems that all this money was a toy that Nader enjoyed playing with, especially as his winnings increased his power, fame and influence.For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and charged the organization with "churning", excessive stock trades whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without contest""Forced contributions to his college PIRG groups:College PIRG groups, which Nader founded and leads despite his denials of control, use an astonishingly undemocratic, even coercive funding mechanism that Ralph designed. Once a college approves, all students are automatically billed a few dollars out of their student fees to support the local PIRG. To avoid paying, students must make a special trip to the Registrar and fill out a form so they can get their $2-6 back.Most don't of course, out of inertia or because they aren't even aware they're funding Ralph. That's why record and book clubs use the same mechanism. Nader, like most consumer advocates, opposes these billing methods as a rip-off - unless they fund his own groups. One PIRG worker estimated that at Penn State alone, forced payments would have brought in $270,000 a year, while a voluntary checkoff would only have raised $30,000These forced payments brought over a million dollars a year to PIRGs even back in the mid-1970s. (Nader's PIRG group won't release the total amount.) At least 145 colleges in 20 states were involved.When Penn State turned down this method in favor of a box students could check to donate, the PIRG refused it. Nader attacked the school viciously, as described above."

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

A few sites which refer to the lies of Ralph Nader:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_1_34/ai_84841770http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/02/ralph-nader-lies-on-meet-press.htmlhttp://www.realchange.org/nader.htmFrom the citation:"If they don't close these [nuclear] reactors down, we'll have civil war in five years." -- Ralph Nader in 1977."Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader, who represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in taxes." -- Dave Barry."Saint Ralph loves to preach about democracy and "citizen power", but he runs his carefully concealed empire with an iron grip. Of 19 groups associated with Nader, the most powerful and important groups are all directly controlled by Nader or completely under his influence and no one else's. With some groups, Nader is the only contributor; others are controlled by his sister, Laura Nader Milleron, or his cousin."" He has steadfastly refused to make his tax returns public (as Dole and Clinton have done). In 1996 he even says he spent less than $5,000 on his campaign so that he wasn't required to file even the minimal financial disclosure forms every other candidate is filing.This time he had to admit spend more than $5,000, and his financial disclosure -- while sketchy -- revealed that he is a multimillionaire who makes hundreds of thousands on speeches each year and owns over $1 million in Cisco stock alone. (Nader still refused to release his tax returns, though all other major candidates have done so for the last many years.) ""Nader always received lots of funding from trials lawyers, and in return has supported their interests throughout his career. For all his talk of democracy, Nader's vision is of an elite of lawyers -- led of course by himself -- defending the little guy, much more than true "citizen power". He confided to Charles McCarry his dream of having 4,000 to 5,000 "professionals" around the country to battle business nationwide."cont'd:

0

RedwoodCoast 6 years ago

"U.S. military in Iraq feels gouge of fuel costs About $153 million a month goes to filling up jets, tankers, cargo in Iraq":http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23922063/

0

solsken66 6 years ago

Many companies and individuals receive tax breaks from the federal government. There are individuals who make plenty of money who know how to squirrel money away so that the government does not get a cent.

0

kansas778 6 years ago

Windlass, my point wasn't to start a discussion on where government spending should be cut, but to point out the bias of the question. Adding the term "Big Government" causes people automatically to associate negative ideas with it, and then talking about increasing gas prices would tip the scales even further. But since you asked, all those things you mention could stand some trimming. From the people in the military I know, we have too many bases around the world that duplicate the mission and region of each, and some should be closed and the forces consolidated to save money. Many years ago, the federal criminal courts were relatively slow, but with the war on drugs they're busier than ever. Get rid of that and we could save money on prisons, courts, FBI drug agents and a whole host of other costs. So sure, I would support cuts in those areas, and cuts in many others.

0

prospector 6 years ago

Windlass asked:"So please tell us what has become of that endeavor? That oil?"From the ship hovering over the billion barrels of oil to the first drop getting to a refinery is usually 5-7 years. It would take the drilling of dozens to hundreds of wells, construction of production facilities, pipelines, etc,. to the tune of $300-500 billion dollars out of pocket before a penny is seen in return.FYI, a billion barrels of oil is only a 50 day supply for the US.-----------------------------------------------------------------The US Governments facts and figures on energy.http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Windlass (Anonymous) says: OK, you bit,Oh, you mean "bitch?" That's funny. So calm down, or I'll have to call you one : )"Marion writes:I wrote "bit"; I meant "bit", as in a fish on a line.In your case, hook, line and sinker.I was simply waiting for someone to howl about using Wikipedia as a source so that I could cite another source which confirmed the information..Like I wrote, you bit!

0

Windlass 6 years ago

Well, can't wait 'til my next birthday.

0

Windlass 6 years ago

Do you think we should increase taxes on gas to fund Big Government programs?No, hearken back to CNN's money pie. Gas is the smallest slice. But let's say we dismantle these Big Government programs. Would that include the Department of Homeland Security? The FBI? The CIA? The Illegal Spying Program? The Defense Department? Pentagon? What gluttonous pig programs did you mean other than those named?

0

Windlass 6 years ago

Well see, government goes somethin' like this: By the People For the People...In other words, the people are the government, hence, democracy. Problem is, however, the people aren't represented by their [supposedly] elected officials. They've all gone to hell in a handbasket. But what the people pay into their government, they expend it back out according to their collective will, or vote. Problem is that the politicians have gone off to some looney la la land, and the people are effectively seperated from their governing powers.

0

kansas778 6 years ago

Oh, and I voted no because corporations should not be taxed. That only taxes the owners twice: once when the corporation pays taxes, and then again when they pay capital gains taxes after they sell their ownership share. Also, corporations don't have a magic money drawer they pay taxes out of, and they certainly don't take it out of their profits, they pass it on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. So as much as the left tries and tries to tax the rich, it's always the middle class that ends up paying.

0

kansas778 6 years ago

Oh, and this poll is completely biased and aimed at getting a certain vote. The use of the term "Big Oil" is clearly a pejorative, and the question lacks any reference to possible consequences. I could come up with another poll that equally biased, for example asking: Do you think we should increase taxes on gas to fund Big Government programs?

0

Windlass 6 years ago

If you sell $10,000 worth of gas and make $100 profit, and I sell $100 worth of computer software and make $50 profit, who's done better?You have, you little thief. That $50 in your pocket is highway robbery!!

0

Windlass 6 years ago

Not everyone is in the big, bad oil business so can we break it down into something more layperson-friendly?i.e., The Discover Enterprise drilling vessel was hovering over a spot in the Gulf of Mexico in 2003 where an estimated one billion barrels of oil was said to be beneath the sea floor. So please tell us what has become of that endeavor? That oil?

0

kansas778 6 years ago

Windlass (Anonymous) says: How many smart dead people are there now, anyway? Is it still 4,000?******Yeah, you are really respectful of our soldiers. _________Windlass (Anonymous) says: So, according to Marion's link to the CNN video, the crude oil producers take the biggest slice of the money pie, but:.American oil companies post the astronomical profits?******The oil companies have made record profits in terms of straight dollars, but certainly not in % of profit. If you sell $10,000 worth of gas and make $100 profit, and I sell $100 worth of computer software and make $50 profit, who's done better? Exxon had 404 Billion dollars of revenue. $404,552,000,000! They are posting that much profit simply because they are doing that much business, not because they are make so much off of each gallon of gas.

0

Windlass 6 years ago

OK, you bit,Oh, you mean "bitch?" That's funny. So calm down, or I'll have to call you one : )

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Windlass (Anonymous) says: I'm not the least interested in that little weanie wikepedia. Anybody can fill it in."Marion writes:OK, you bit, which is EXACTLY what I wanted someone to do!Try this:Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits $0.07Crude Oil Cost $2.44Refinery Cost and Profits $0.31State UndergroundStorage Tank Fee $0.01State and Local Sales Tax $0.26State Excise Tax $0.18Federal Excise Tax $0.18Retail prices $3.46March 3rd, 2008, National averages of name brand gasoline.Source:http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.htmlWanna go for two out of three, Windlass?

0

Windlass 6 years ago

I'm not the least interested in that little weanie wikepedia. Anybody can fill it in.

0

Windlass 6 years ago

So who's lying in cahoots with who, Marion? Because the oil companies profits are the ones that scream.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Around 138 BILLION gallons of gas were soldin the USA in 2006.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GasolineThis one from Wikipedia is well documented.At a profit of $.09 to $.10 per gallon that is some serious money.The oil companies are NOT responsible for the rise in gas costs.Some of you people should get out once in a while and do your own homework.Of course, that would mean that you might learn and if you learn, you might have to change and you won't do that, so never mind.

0

Windlass 6 years ago

Can everyone agree that all this populist talk about "two Americas" and "tax cuts for the rich" and "widening gaps between the rich and the middle class" is just meant to scare the country into voting for people who want to pit us against each other?I'm in 100% agreement with this. Can't tell anybody on this board how long I have believed that we need to all be singing from the same sheet of music with regard to where the heck we're going as a country. There's a phrase, believe it...United We Stand, Divided We Fall. We're being intentionally divided, but here's the thing with that: We're not but maybe a fraction different from one another! From Kansas I've traveled to the east coast, and talked to people just like in Kansas. We're all Americans! We need to think about and look out for one another. Forget the politicians. They are nothing to us. When in the world was the last time a politician meant anything to us? Haven't we been living and getting along without them for a very long time now? Yes, we have. But the American people have been divided and distorted and disenfranchised so slowly that many of us were caught unaware of it. We have to start singing from the same sheets of music again - The Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

0

bobberboy 6 years ago

It's not about anything other than ENORMOUS PROFITS. All the rest is just a smoke screen.

0

Windlass 6 years ago

4,011 dead. Do we even have one drop of oil to show for this charade?

0

Windlass 6 years ago

Maybe that piece is that Mobil/Exxon etc are the producers. And the refinery. And the transportation. Packaged deal?Um, no. The producers of the crude oil would be Saudi Arabia, for instance. Comes out of their wells.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years ago

Can everyone agree that all this populist talk about "two Americas" and "tax cuts for the rich" and "widening gaps between the rich and the middle class" is just meant to scare the country into voting for people who want to pit us against each other? If we're worried about how much more cushy someone's lifestyle is compared to everyone else's already-super-cushy lifestyle, we've got our priorities screwed up.

0

autie 6 years ago

Maybe that piece is that Mobil/Exxon etc are the producers. And the refinery. And the transportation. Packaged deal?

0

Windlass 6 years ago

So, according to Marion's link to the CNN video, the crude oil producers take the biggest slice of the money pie, but....American oil companies post the astronomical profits? The video didn't explain that whole side of it.

0

Windlass 6 years ago

How many smart dead people are there now, anyway? Is it still 4,000?

0

bobberboy 6 years ago

No, absolutly not. That tax revenue should be used to develope altrnative energy sources.

0

sjschlag 6 years ago

No tax breaks for profitable companies.No artificially deflated gasoline prices. If it's to expensive to get from point A to point B with Gasoline, maybe it's time to re-think how we get around.Time to invest in public transit and human powered vehicles.

0

Windlass 6 years ago

The people who voted "yes" are the smart people.Smart people don't wind up dead trying to steal what doesn't belong to them.

0

Windlass 6 years ago

Pretty overwhelming NO, which means they'll keep doing it.

0

prospector 6 years ago

Should farmers continue to receive tax breaks with record commodity prices? Corn has gone from under $2.00 to around $6.00. Wheat is up 300% over the record price set in 1996.http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CN/Mhttp://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Business/2008/02/16/wheat_prices_reach_nearly_20_a_bushel/9975/Wheat price rises outstrip oilhttp://www.upiasiaonline.com/Economics/2008/03/18/wheat_price_rises_outstrip_oil/5716/----------------------------------------------Anonymous usergccs14r (Anonymous) says:Bring back the Windfall Profits Tax.----------------------------------------------FYI, this was a tax on US production. In part, it was responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of US jobs in the oil and gas industry. US onshore production went from 3.2 MBOPD (million barrel oil per day) in 1979 to 1.8 MBOPD in 2007. gccs14r, which part did you like about it? The loss of US jobs, the loss of US production, or the government bureaucracy.http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/edf8de04e58e4b14852570ba0048848b?OpenDocument--------------------------------------------gccs14r writes:"When it got to $50 a barrel, folks started uncapping wells in the U.S."Baloney. When a well is plugged, the pipe is pulled and the hole filled with cement. There is no "uncapping" to be done. It costs $250,000 to drill and complete a typical Kansas oil well. A typical well in Kansas produces just over 2 barrels a day. So at $100/barrel, it takes three and a half years to recoup the money you have spent. This does not take into account the dry holes a company could have drilled and recouped nothing.

0

autie 6 years ago

So that report on CNN? $2.00 goes to the producers? But it doesn't tell us how much it cost them to produce. Only what they took out of the 3.29. That is not all that enlightening. Maybe it only cost a quarter to produce; Or 1.99. I don't know.

0

mom_of_three 6 years ago

question - honest answer please - I assumed the price of gasoline is so high because it costs more to buy and produce and the costs were passed onto us, the consumer. So why did the oil companies post such big profits last quarter? Are they just out to make money while they can?

0

gccs14r 6 years ago

At $12 a barrel in the mid-80s, crude oil was unprofitable here, but still profitable elsewhere. When it got to $50 a barrel, folks started uncapping wells in the U.S. Oil is up around $100 a barrel now. Sounds like at least 100% profit for well operators, and maybe as much as 800% profit. Gas station operators are still running on thin margins, because they're having to pay jacked-up wholesale prices. BigOil is laughing all the way to the ballot box.

0

canyon_wren 6 years ago

Some interesting comments here with food for thought. I learned a few things. Thanks for the info!

0

myvotecounts 6 years ago

In Kansas and some other states, oil is subject to an extra tax the moment it's severed from the ground. It's called the severance tax. As long as oil companies are subject to a special tax just imposed on them, sure they should be entitled to other tax breaks.

0

autie 6 years ago

Anybody watch NOVA last night? If we can send a probe to Saturn's biggest moon with all the challenges that presented, don't you think we could have the best and brightest solve the energy problems so I wouldn't have to have so much oil in my life? OH, we can! But I guess pie in the sky ideas would be the ruination of the world's oil based economies.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years ago

"How do tax breaks to oil companies help anyone except those companies?" -logicsound04The majority owners of oil companies are investors in 401k and 403b retirement plans. Other owners include mutual fund investors and labor union pensioners. Most of us own part of an oil company.

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Agnostick (Anonymous) says: BigPrune (Anonymous) says:"Why doesn't the Federal Government decrease the amount of taxes they charge per gallon of gas? The taxes are higher than the profits the oil companies bring in."_______Prove it."Marion writes:OK; here we go!Kansas total state fuel tax on gasoline per gallon: 25.0. plus 1.0 enviroinmental fee: $.26 per gallon.Total tax on gasoline: 43.4 per gallon.Kansas tax on Diesel: $.26 per gallon plus $.01 environmental fee.Total tax on Diesel: $.51.4 per gallon.Source:http://www.api.org/policy/tax/stateexcise/upload/December_2007_notes.pdfOil companies profit on average TEN CENTS per gallon of gasoline!Source:http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2007/20070323.htmlWanna go for two out of three, Aggie?

0

twaldaisy 6 years ago

So what happens if their tax breaks are taken away? I think the corporate whores will pass the pricing on to us again, so of course the price of gas goes up even higher. Also I thought the point of being in Iraq was to protect our oil interests and keep the oil flowing over here and keep prices reasonable? Well that is not working, so bring our men and women home.

0

Agnostick 6 years ago

BigPrune (Anonymous) says:"Why doesn't the Federal Government decrease the amount of taxes they charge per gallon of gas? The taxes are higher than the profits the oil companies bring in."_______Prove it.Remember: The taxes you and I are charged at the pump are not the "tax breaks" the fat cats are talking about. They're talking about corporate taxes charged to them and them alone.They'd also like to continue, naturally, the "corporate welfare" handouts they get from the government."No strings attached" (little or no regulatory oversight), of course.Agnostickagnostick@excite.comhttp://www.uscentrist.orghttp://www.americanplan.org

0

BrianR 6 years ago

"Why give aid to companies that don't need it?"Because they bought the best government that money could buy. I just want to know when Exxon-Mobile, et. al. will insist on being represented on our currency.

0

logicsound04 6 years ago

How do tax breaks to oil companies help anyone except those companies?Getting tax breaks implies that providing those breaks results in some benefit to the U.S. people or government. Otherwise, why subsidize an industry that is quite robust right now with the explosion of the Chinese (and other industrial revolution countries) market?I'm sure one of the "smart people" can provide an answer....Think carefully--I'm not complaining about the level of oil profits, I'm just wondering what the point is of subsidizing an profitable industry. Why give aid to companies that don't need it?

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

Unix_Admin (Anonymous) says: I want to know who the people who voted "Yes" are."Marion writes:I voted "Yes".

0

gccs14r 6 years ago

Bring back the Windfall Profits Tax.

0

kansasbrandon 6 years ago

This whole Congressional inquiry of the energy executives is a political ploy to blame the sagging economy on something besides the Federal Government.

0

kansasbrandon 6 years ago

The people who voted "yes" are the smart people.

0

BigPrune 6 years ago

Why doesn't the Federal Government decrease the amount of taxes they charge per gallon of gas? The taxes are higher than the profits the oil companies bring in.This whole Congressional debate is B.S. lip service.

0

georgeofwesternkansas 6 years ago

Excess economic profit usually brings more producers into the market. But when the government will not allow a new refinery to be built, there is no hope of any releif. Sorry I guess I am a troll.

0

Unix_Admin 6 years ago

I want to know who the people who voted "Yes" are.

0

Agnostick 6 years ago

Wow. Could this question be a bigger piece of troll bait?

0

canyon_wren 6 years ago

Why should it be LESS biased? Biases are often based on fact and this one certainly is.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years ago

Wow. Could this question be any more biased against energy developers?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.