[idobestbuyonlinepp]

Aren't the type of tax breaks that oil companies recieve also available to most other corporations? If write offs are available, who wouldn't use them.

This is just a bunch of political BS to try to win votes from those not educated enough to know better.

The oil industry last year had average profits of less that 6%!

as Institute for Energy Research Senior Vice President Dan Kish told CNSNews.com, eliminating tax write-offs for oil companies will not have any effect on gas prices. Democratic Leaders Mislead on Gas Prices, Oil Taxes, Says Energy Expert | CNSnews.com

[Grapappytek]

eliminating tax write-offs for oil companies will not have any effect on gas prices.

No, but it will on the federal budget. I'm not picking on oil companies though. Get rid of all the write offs in all tax code.

[lXwVlTgO]

Aren't the type of tax breaks that oil companies recieve also available to most other corporations? If write offs are available, who wouldn't use them.

This is just a bunch of political BS to try to win votes from those not educated enough to know better.

The oil industry last year had average profits of less that 6%!

6% of what? I assume this number is worldwide? So it includes companies that don't pay US taxes? Or have any revenue in the US?

Democratic Leaders Mislead on Gas Prices, Oil Taxes, Says Energy Expert | CNSnews.com

"as Institute for Energy Research Senior Vice President Dan Kish told CNSNews.com, eliminating tax write-offs for oil companies will not have any effect on gas prices."

So the industry doesn't need these tax breaks. Fair enough.

[aceriscoolon]

6% of what? I assume this number is worldwide? So it includes companies that don't pay US taxes? Or have any revenue in the US?

Actually, it's the profit of all companies in the S&P energy index.

[DOWNLOADnowADOBEphotoSHOP]

Actually, it's the profit of all companies in the S&P energy index.

Could you provide link? I can easily find Mark Perry's chart but I can't find the original chart from "YahooFinance".

If you are referring to Mark Perry's chart it should be noted that this 6% profit doesn't include "Exploration, Independent Oil and Gas, Gas Utilities, Oil and Equipment Svs.," The oil companies have said that exploration is one of the risky costs of their business as not every hole leads to oil, but this chart would seem to contradict that claim. It seems that exploration is more profitable than just running a major oil or gas company.

[wentscat]

6% of what? I assume this number is worldwide? So it includes companies that don't pay US taxes? Or have any revenue in the US?.

Here you go:

So the industry doesn't need these tax breaks. Fair enough.

In reality I and many other tax payers and corporations don't NEED the write offs either, but we are entitled to them so we take them.

Who is getting rich off of this?
Compared with a small fraction of oil stocks (about 1.5%) owned by corporate management, the vast majority of such investments are held by average Americans, primarily via retirement accounts. Independent research shows that 14% of industry shares are in IRAs and a full 30% held in mutual funds.

Another 27% of oil stocks are in public pension funds. Oil Company Earnings: Reality Over Rhetoric Page 2 of 3 - Forbes.com

Those evil mutual fund investors. How dare they.

[Creelaleps]

Do those profit margins take into account the obscene salaries paid to top executives?

[Mowselelex]

Here you go:


"as Institute for Energy Research Senior Vice President Dan Kish told CNSNews.com, eliminating tax write-offs for oil companies will not have any effect on gas prices."



In reality I and many other tax payers and corporations don't NEED the write offs either, but we are entitled to them so we take them.

Who is getting rich off of this?

Oil Company Earnings: Reality Over Rhetoric Page 2 of 3 - Forbes.com

Those evil mutual fund investors. How dare they.

Full disclosure: the Forbes article is written by Robert L. Bradley Jr. is the CEO and founder of the Institute for Energy Research. Basically the boss of Senior Vice President Dan Kish of the Institute for Energy Research who was quoted in the 2nd post of this thread.


I still can’t find the YahooFinance chart quoted in Perry’s article but I have found many other reliable sources that ascertain the same figure. Which would lead to the question why is the US Gov. supporting an industry that is not that profitable?

Regarding the $0.48 of taxes per gallon of gas the major oil companies are paying, much of that goes to defend oil fields in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. Not to mention the US Navy and Coast Guard which can be called upon to protect ships of major oil companies. And let’s keep things in perspective, I paid $3.91 per gallon today and $0.48 represents 12% in taxes. Seems very reasonable. I would enjoy paying that much in taxes.

While the pharma and soft drink industries are more profitable they represent much less risk from spills and to national security. The tax breaks the oil companies are getting might serve this country better in areas that are more profitable with lower risks.

In the Forbes article the higher cost is of oil (the recent 16% increase) is attributed to unrest in the Middle East and demand from China and India. I didn’t realize that the US and Canada (which represent about 80% of the oil consumed in the US) were exporting enough oil to India and China to cause a 31% increase at the pump (Gas Price Historical Price Charts - GasBuddy.com and some basic math), or that we imported oil from Libya? Otherwise the 16% increase is from imported oil which only represents about 20% of the oil used in the US which caused the 31% increase at the pump. Either there is a problem with numbers, which could be, or possibly a credibility problem of major oil companies.

As to investors, they seem to put their money in an industry that isn’t that profitable and one that needs assistance from the US Gov.

[xanonlinexan]

Full disclosure: the Forbes article is written by Robert L. Bradley Jr. is the CEO and founder of the Institute for Energy Research. Basically the boss of Senior Vice President Dan Kish of the Institute for Energy Research who was quoted in the 2nd post of this thread.


I still can’t find the YahooFinance chart quoted in Perry’s article but I have found many other reliable sources that ascertain the same figure. Which would lead to the question why is the US Gov. supporting an industry that is not that profitable?

Regarding the $0.48 of taxes per gallon of gas the major oil companies are paying, much of that goes to defend oil fields in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. Not to mention the US Navy and Coast Guard which can be called upon to protect ships of major oil companies. And let’s keep things in perspective, I paid $3.91 per gallon today and $0.48 represents 12% in taxes. Seems very reasonable. I would enjoy paying that much in taxes.

While the pharma and soft drink industries are more profitable they represent much less risk from spills and to national security. The tax breaks the oil companies are getting might serve this country better in areas that are more profitable with lower risks.

In the Forbes article the higher cost is of oil (the recent 16% increase) is attributed to unrest in the Middle East and demand from China and India. I didn’t realize that the US and Canada (which represent about 80% of the oil consumed in the US) were exporting enough oil to India and China to cause a 31% increase at the pump (Gas Price Historical Price Charts - GasBuddy.com and some basic math), or that we imported oil from Libya? Otherwise the 16% increase is from imported oil which only represents about 20% of the oil used in the US which caused the 31% increase at the pump. Either there is a problem with numbers, which could be, or possibly a credibility problem of major oil companies.

As to investors, they seem to put their money in an industry that isn’t that profitable and one that needs assistance from the US Gov.

By giving the oil companies large tax breaks, grants and covering the cost of protecting the supply of Mideast oil the U.S. is upsetting the supply and demand equation by keeping prices at the pump low. With a potential cost of 3 Trillion (with a T) dollars the Iraq war hides the true cost of oil. I don't know if the recent uptick in prices was due to unrest in the Mideast or just testing the upper limits of price before demand drops. The Mideast is a quagmire and if we had been spending the war money on alternate production we may have been able to just pack up leave that hell hole. Our money also supports other countries such as China, Japan, Europe etc who have not had a military presence in the Mideast but have gotten the benefits of our spending and military lives lost.

Just food for thought, here is the link for the 3 Trillion cost of the Iraq adventure. We spend money to keep the cost low and demand high, this is not a good energy policy. Let the oil companies pay the bill to protect their investments and let the market determine if we want to remain dependent on Mideast oil. Some guesstimates figure the true cost of Mideast oil exceeds $9.00 a gal.

The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More - washingtonpost.com

[lagunaEl]

Regarding the $0.48 of taxes per gallon of gas the major oil companies are paying, much of that goes to defend oil fields in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. Not to mention the US Navy and Coast Guard which can be called upon to protect ships of major oil companies.

WE are paying the $.48/gallon to the government. I see nothing that says that money that I am paying is being spent in a certain way.

And let’s keep things in perspective, I paid $3.91 per gallon today and $0.48 represents 12% in taxes. Seems very reasonable. I would enjoy paying that much in taxes.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. You/We are on average paying 12% tax to federal and local goverments on our gas. You enjoy this on top of the other taxes you pay?

While the pharma and soft drink industries are more profitable they represent much less risk from spills and to national security. .

The soft drink industry is much more of a threat to our national health and healthcare costs.

As to investors, they seem to put their money in an industry that isn’t that profitable and one that needs assistance from the US Gov.

So? People can choose to invest where they want.
Would you propose that we not, as investors, invest in any company that takes tax write offs?

I'm off to go calculate the true cost of a can of coke.

[sttrqiss]

In the Forbes article the higher cost is of oil (the recent 16% increase) is attributed to unrest in the Middle East and demand from China and India. I didn’t realize that the US and Canada (which represent about 80% of the oil consumed in the US) were exporting enough oil to India and China to cause a 31% increase at the pump (Gas Price Historical Price Charts - GasBuddy.com and some basic math), or that we imported oil from Libya? Otherwise the 16% increase is from imported oil which only represents about 20% of the oil used in the US which caused the 31% increase at the pump. Either there is a problem with numbers, which could be, or possibly a credibility problem of major oil companies.

We export very little crude,

[Patabeamn]

Do those profit margins take into account the obscene salaries paid to top executives?

Assuming this wasn't rhetorical. Nope, that's money paid to labor so takes away profit from the company. Same when you give them stock options for compensation although that usually costs the company less. It's not like no labor has leverage over capital. Top-level labor has quite a bit of leverage.

[extessarere]

WE are paying the $.48/gallon to the government. I see nothing that says that money that I am paying is being spent in a certain way.

Indeed we are paying that at the pump, my mistake. We should lower taxes by driving less, smaller or more efficient cars, inflating tires, etc. A tax cut for every consumer. I topped my tank with 8 gallons, now it has a full 10 gallons in it. Right now I'm getting 32MPH in the burbs with maybe 10-20 miles on a highway.

No the article does not mention that the US defense of oil producing countries. Funny how it's left out of the equation. Defending Middle East oil has been part of US foreign since the Nixon Admin.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. You/We are on average paying 12% tax to federal and local goverments on our gas. You enjoy this on top of the other taxes you pay?

I pay as little of this as possible.

The soft drink industry is much more of a threat to our national health and healthcare costs.

Well, possibly. Unfortunately, this story doesn't bleed so it doesn't lead.

So? People can choose to invest where they want.
Would you propose that we not, as investors, invest in any company that takes tax write offs?

No, just that it would appear to be wiser to invest in companies with higher profits. Also, for the US to give tax breaks to companies with lower risks and better profits.

I'm off to go calculate the true cost of a can of coke.

Hey, good luck with that. Let's also know how many lives are lost in production, damage from spills, and our foreign and domestic policies regarding soft drinks.

[rushiddink]

[quote]We export very little crude,

[smokeberly]

I want to apologize before any Congressman beats me to it for the appalling lack of sensitivity shown by Congress by talking about reducing tax breaks for your industry. These discussions are not fit for civilized society. The oil industry needs these tax breaks to insure the low prices of gasoline at the pump, and for executive perks to keep up with perks of lesser royal families in the Middle East. Also I understand that buying rights to drill and not drilling is expensive and these costs must not be incurred solely by members of your industry.

Your Friend,
Colin P. Varga

Democrats go after oil giants' tax breaks | Energy | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle