Exxon Mobil earns a record $40.6 billion

Goddamn Communist swine!

Did you even read the NY Times article. That is income from worldwide operations. The price of energy has increased throughout the world. Since Exxon (and other companies) make longer term bets on energy prices, the increasing world price, increases the value of its assets.

There is no way that the U.S. can maintain itself as a modern first world country if it depended on renewables. When NIMBY activists oppose windmills or nuclear power plants, they give up credibility on questioning oil companies.

Only fools believe renewables are today's instant solution to our energy problem.

"Goddamn Communist swine!"

They want the oil companies nationalized (federalized in this country).

SuperD, DLS, neither of you answered the article. Renewables were not mentioned. Giving specific tax breaks to companies making record profits who just happen to be major donors was the issue.

We responded to what started this thread, which was not limited to the article.

Tax breaks aren't inherently evil. Excessive, oppressive taxes are, on the other hand.

* * *

"When NIMBY activists oppose windmills or nuclear power plants, they give up credibility on questioning oil companies."

Anti-nuclear hysteria is just that. I've annihilated it when encountering it and been subject to POS behavior by the opposition as a "reward." Ugh.

As to windmills, here's a classic example of hypocrisy:

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Paul, you do know the tax break for corporations is only an accelerated depreciation deduction (?) that obviously reverses itself completely as a tax deduction in the subsequent years. It has a time period value benefit only. And by the time the regs are actually hammered out on this one, it may very well be that there is limitation on which corps can qualify for it. Exxon certainly won't have any application of the loss carryback benefit provision either at all.

Factually speaking the Treasury is not out anything on this except interest at the short term T rate.

Care to translate that into non accountant lingo for us idiots?

and arguably the equipment sales revenue garnered by the selling corporation attracts an offsetting tax increase.

"Care to translate that into non accountant lingo for us idiots?"

Basically, not much at all is being "given away" in terms of corporate tax revenue on this.

Rail against corporate welfare whenever you wish, but this would hardly qualify as a good example.

Archer-Daniels-Midland's bonanza for renewable ethanol from corn -- now that is corporate welfare. So are subsidies that boost the price of sugar, which leads to increased demand for corn-based sweetener as a substitute.

My initial comment was directed at Paul, and humorously.

CO: regardless of what the proviso are in a tax break, the salient point is that none should be given to corporations, esp. when those who give them whine about any and all aid to individual Americans- be it Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

cos-I think this is one of those rare cases where our different schools of libertarianism lines up.

Not only is it not necessary to give (i.e., corporate capital expenditure budgets for 2008 are hardly going to change at this point and therefore it is not much of a "spending stimulus")............it has logically attracted the "bad headline" for no substantial benefit even to the corporations.

Bush's skill as "executive management" probably makes me see as much red as you do over Iraq. For different reasons, I'll be as happy to see him go as you.

So on the last bill when it was mentioned that the GOP fought to keep in $15 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, you're saying that those breaks were for things they weren't likely to pay taxes on anyways so doesn't count? That its more like a $4bn tax break or something? I'm just ad libbing on those numbers so don't hold me to them. Also, if that is the case how is a voter supposed to know what it means if they don't have the background or time needed to understand corporate accounting methods?

"how is a voter supposed to know"

It would be nice if the media would ditch their editorializing (when not being preoccupied instead with celebrities) and explain it plainly to us.

"$15 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, you're saying that those breaks were for things they weren't likely to pay taxes on anyways so doesn't count? That its more like a $4bn tax break or something?"

Let's use your number and just focus on the bottom line effect.........at $15b in accelerated depreciation deductions, true out of pocket to the Treasury might be guessed at somewhere around $300-400 million per year for 3-4 years.

Well, I'm a small l libertarian. Only the LP Libertarians believe in corporate welfare. But, whatever you call it, it's hypocrisy to cut taxes on legal fictions (corps) while not for people (living, breathing, material things).

I don't think it is efficient national policy to give benefits to industries that deplete resources and put our environment at risk, while spending large sums to protect their interests overseas. Nor do I think it is moral or efficient to thwart increasing renewable energy developments while American's are in harms way as a consequence.
For a fraction the cost of the invasion we could have begun a dramatic reduction in dependency on petroleum while reducing the income and clout of oil funded tyrannies.
I feel that the GOP is wrong on the substance and marketing of these policies. To pander to their friends in the Oil and Military-industrial complex they have put the entire world at risk.

"There is no way that the U.S. can maintain itself as a modern first world country if it depended on renewables."

I'm about as pro alternate energy as you can get and even I understand that the transition is going to take decades. The kick start needed to dislocate our fossil fuel dependency can only come from the gov't however. Through strategic use of incentives the technology and its adoption into our lives can be sped up dramatically. That is what most of us are hoping for. Little things, like getting rid the $100,000 tax write off for Hummers and making the ones for efficient vehicles.

And so what if NIMBY folks are out there? Change doesn't happen overnight, and there are huge swaths of land usable for wind energy. Doesn't mean that the goal is unattainable.

So what are the problems with giving oil companies a tax break for domestic exploration? Realizing with our high corporate taxes, high costs, and low margin, that domestic exploration isn't a high priority for any company, but it is important for the country as a whole. Kind of like giving tax breaks on alt energy vehicles, because anyone who can afford a prius doesn't really need the tax break do they? Why is it a problem that a company makes 40 bill? I mean they sold over 400 bil gross. 10% doesn't seem like that much. I don't know of many businesses that would do less than 10% of gross, do you?

I don't begrudge the oil companies making a profit. I object that they are getting favorable treatment when it should be directed towards the renewable industry.
To me it is an issue of national security, environmental protection, industrial policy, and moral stewardship of this country and planet.

Our corporate taxes aren't nearly as high as Republicans like to make them out to be. They are only that high if you completely ignore all of the tax breaks and loopholes corporations have. In addition not all of the tax breaks oil companies receive are simply accelerated depreciation. There are breaks for exploration, a special tax break for refinery expansion and another one for drilling in the U.S. instead of overseas. Those have nothing to do with depreciation.

"So what are the problems with giving oil companies a tax break for domestic exploration?"

Because oil companies have plenty of incentive as it is to go looking for oil. My god its been in the $100/barrel range. You don't need to encourage them, they make plenty of money doing what they do. Alternate energy on the other hand is in its infancy and does however need help if we are going to replace the existing power sources before the time comes when we HAVE to replace them. Also, the people that make capturing wind/solar power efficient and cheap are going to make fortunes.

"I don't know of many businesses that would do less than 10% of gross, do you?"

Almost every business operates below 10%. Restaurants, manufacturers, take a look at some stock financials. Also, I believe that $40bn was after some very hefty stock buybacks on the part of Exxon.

"Almost every business operates below 10%. Restaurants, manufacturers, take a look at some stock financials."

Ok let's do that

"Most financial institutions, such as commercial banks, are routinely more profitable than Exxon Mobil was in its third quarter. For example, Exxon Mobil's gross margin of 9.8 cents of profit for every dollar of revenue pales in comparison to Citigroup Inc.'s 15.7 cents in 2004. By percentage of total revenue, banking is consistently the most profitable industry in America, followed closely by the drug industry.

Altria Group, the maker of Marlboro and other cigarettes, made 22 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004, and pharmaceutical company Merck made 25.3 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004.

By other measures, such as profit per employee, return on invested capital and free cash flow, Exxon Mobil is nowhere near a standout.

Oil industry analysts yesterday also pointed out that while times are good for oil companies, one of the reasons is the huge American demand for gas at a time when supply is constrained. And the cost of extracting and refining oil in the coming years is only going to increase, requiring hundreds of billions of dollars of investment. Energy research firm John S. Herold Inc. last month predicted that despite short-term increases in profits, higher costs will probably make many U.S. oil companies less profitable in the next five years, even as their revenue grows rapidly."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Does anyone think the last energy crisis helped oil companies? There will be a reaction and they know it OPEC knows it, everyone one with sense knows it. What should the oil companies do? Spend billions, hundreds of billions and make little to no profit? That much sitting in the bank would make almost 10% why shouldn't they get a 10% return when now is as good as it will get for them?


"the average profit margin for corporate America over last 25 years was approximately 8.3%. "
http://contrarianedge.com/?p=79

So I should see 10% as extraordinary when the oil industry should be hitting their highest numbers? You might as well hate anyone who runs a successful business. In the above referenced WSJ article it was mentioned that Exxon ranked 127 in terms of their gross profit margin (out of the Forbes 500). So show me why oil companies should be held to a different standard? Obviously there are at least 100 major corporations that take more advantage of you than Exxon does.

"Our corporate taxes aren't nearly as high as Republicans like to make them out to be. They are only that high if you completely ignore all of the tax breaks and loopholes corporations have."

When companies move to England because corporate taxes are lower then I think there is a problem. Out of the industrialized nations only japan has significantly higher taxes.

"Because oil companies have plenty of incentive as it is to go looking for oil. My god its been in the $100/barrel range. You don't need to encourage them"

Domestic exploration is not exploration as a whole. It cost more to find and produce oil in the US. What is wrong with giving incentives to get them to commit to domestic exploration when it's more profitable to do otherwise? It is in the countries interest and ends up making more money for the US.

Oil companies should be held to a higher standard because of their impact on the environment and national security.

Nurturing that industry at the expense of industries that would help us be more secure and healthier is just wrong.

EEllis: Corp tax rates are nowhere near where they were in the 1960s & 70s- topping out at 90% on a graduated scale.

Nowadays there are corps that pay zero in taxes and get prorated refunds. Stop with the apologism and live in the real world. When I pay higher tax rates than most corps, there's something majorly wrong.

And all your tossing about of spurious stats cannot change that.

Cos-
Who? Spurious stats you say, but have nothing to back that up while I did provide evidence for my position. The average corp. tax is 35% which places us #2 behind japan. The "tax breaks" are not free of cost either. The US has one of the most complex systems in the world and the cost to comply with it and indeed the costs to receive the "tax breaks" can be a significant portion of the overall tax liability. The truth is many companies have moved "off shore" because of the mounting tax which has increased from the Reagan era to today. What major corp pays no taxes and gets a prorated refund? Any? Any basis at all for that drivel? Here is a paper written out of Berkeley, hardly a conservative bastion. http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~auerbach/AJA_CESi...
Page 7 has a table of average rates for various years. from 83 to 91 the taxes were under 30%. From 97 they went up sharply to 45% in 2003. The idea that somehow rich people, companies, ect, don't pay their share is a plain falsehood. They indeed pay their share and more, but why not hate the rich (or even just the well off).

The avr corporate taxes may, on paper, be what you quote, but, a few years back I worked at AT&T (then run by the inept Mike Armstrong), which boasted of its being a good corporate citizen by paying several billion in taxes in a fiscal year, but in the very same month of its boast beamed over getting a multi-billion dollar handout from the US taxpayers to help 'upgrade' cable lines from companies they bought in the Far East. The handout was equal to the taxes paid, plus 900 million more.

So, on paper, AT&T was a good corporate citizen, when in the real world, they were welfar moms to the tune of nearly a billion of your and my dollars. But, these sorts of facts never seem to make it into the 'facts' that folk like you, who shill for corps, speak of.

Most corps are just like sports team owners, who boast of Capitalism when they want to make money, but beg for the public to build them new stadia, when their own greed and ineptitude strike, come crawling for gov't bailouts. Or, in some cases, get their lackey bought and paid for politicians to gift them.

So, in truth, to even talk about the tax rates is to only mention the outgo of corporations, or 1/2 the equation, while conveniently never mentioning the income- in the form of tax breaks and giveaways, and, to use the parlance 'competitive incentives for American businesses'.

Sorry, but three decades plus in the corporate world makes your claims easily seen through. Go peddle that swill elsewhere. I hear the John Birch Society is looking for good speakers.

BTW- such handouts as my former employer got have been in the news lately, under the new, sexy term 'earmarks.'

Earmarks don't reach into the billions. Any real basis for your stance or is "This one company I used to work for........" the best you can do? Care to refute my claim that taxes are driving companies overseas? Mind you not just to China, India, and such but also Britain? Does everyone realize that a company based in the US must pay US taxes on money they make world wide. If a corporation based in France, England or Germany has operations in the United States, that company will not pay taxes in its home country for profits earned here – they will pay taxes here, where the money is earned, but not at home. But if a company based in the United States operates overseas, that company will pay taxes here on the overseas profits. So all that 40 bill wasn't earned here but of course those evil oil guys still are ripping the US off. It's not like Corps really pay taxes anyway. I mean sure they write a check but it's just money that has been collected from customers, employees, and share holders.

Well, anyone who has worked in corp America knows that its wages, not tax rates, that drive corps out of a state or country. Let's see. If Nike had to pay even $10/hr for sneaker makers vs. the 10 cents (and we'll be generous) do you think they'd stay with the sawbuck? C'mon, your naive-te is amusing.

Do you realize that the profits that corps report are usually far less than that they actually earned. case in point. A corp earns 50 mill in profit, but then gets creative, and decides to hand out huge bonuses to its board members and top mgmt. That totals, conveniently, more than the 'profit,' so that the corp can claim it lost money, and reduce its actual tax burden.

Of course, EE, this NEVER happens, does it? Is the best you can do relying on spurious statistics? Recall the statistics and damned lies nostrum. And, indeed, earmarks, collectively, reach into the billions each year. And the term earmark is just the latest weasel word for such.

Let's see what new agitprop you'll sink to now.

And, on top of the creative accounting that goes on at the highest levels of corps, as mentioned above, there are the layers of underlings who either approvingly, or in wink and nod fashion, constantly screw with #s. Ask yourself this- how many huge corporations report 'losses' year after year, yet amazingly stay in business. Is it because the banks bail them out all the time, or because the 'losses' are a mirage in order to dodge their fair share of taxes?

And when they hand out money guess what that's income to individuals and they pay taxes on it. Or do you think it should be taxed twice? Or three times? I love all these "the way it is" examples without any proof or baking just that "everyone knows". spurious statistics? How about any statistics on your part? Anything but BS that "everyone knows"? Collectively earmarks do reach billions but find me one earmark that rises to the level of your example. One or I'll call you full of it!!

'And when they hand out money guess what that's income to individuals and they pay taxes on it. Or do you think it should be taxed twice? Or three times?'

Yeah, and the CEOs are known for their not attempting to hide their assets in tax shelters and offshore accounts.

And, still no answer to 'Ask yourself this- how many huge corporations report 'losses' year after year, yet amazingly stay in business. Is it because the banks bail them out all the time, or because the 'losses' are a mirage in order to dodge their fair share of taxes?'

Not even good agitprop EE. Try again.

'And when they hand out money guess what that's income to individuals and they pay taxes on it. Or do you think it should be taxed twice? Or three times?'

In fact, any individual dollar will be taxed more than 3 or 4 times, for as it circulates thru an economy it will be taxed thousands of times, even though it is the same imaginary piece of capital. Tax it when a company earns it, tax it when it is paid to by an earned individual, tax it when that individual uses it to purchase a product or gift it or will it to a descendant, and then the new recipients will have to have that dollar taxed when they purchase something, or put it in a savings account. This is how we get things known as the public commons, by the taxing of capital as it flows, so that the capital keeps spinning, and with each go round it is put to the greater good of all.

Civics 101.

Cosmo you want me to refute that "all those" anything then you need to give an example. Otherwise you know you'll just poo-poo the answer and call it agitprop. Give me an example and I'm more than willing to delve into the finances.

As far as the Taxes give me a break of course our money stays in circulation that isn't the same thing or even close and you know it. You complain because the corps pay dividends to get out of paying taxes on it when the dividends are taxed. They shouldn't need to be taxed twice when they were earned once. Commen sense should be enough.

EE: Since you're good at Googling for your sciolism, find a list of al the big tax giveaways of the last 10 years. I'm sure there's a watchdog site.

I never mentioned dividends, only commented on your absurd quote: 'And when they hand out money guess what that's income to individuals and they pay taxes on it. Or do you think it should be taxed twice? Or three times?'' which shows you are fairly naive re: the real world monetary system.

And when a company earns a profit on a dollar, it is taxed once, When they pay that dollar to their employee it becomes his, and is taxed once. When that person buys a good it becomes the retailer's which is taxed once. Again, this is how the world works, unless your a survivalist Libertarian sort.

Dodging the point and refusing to back any of your claims at all. Well I guess I should make a pithy comment about your "sort" of person being all sound bytes and no facts. As to your little Tax lesson you're missing or ignoring what was being discussed. On purpose I'm sure. Back up your crap!!

I did and dodged no point. I mentioned a company I worked for, and exactly what happened. The problem w sciolists like you is that all you know is from reading stats others feed you w/o delving deeper. This is a standard ploy, try to obfuscate with #s, relevant or not, and then get into ceaseless arguments with folk who can pound away with similar arguments and facts, gleaned from similarly spurious sources, w/o recognizing which info is hard and which is relevant. This is why bookkeepers have the old adage about making #s roll over and bark like a dog.

And still no reply to: 'Ask yourself this- how many huge corporations report 'losses' year after year, yet amazingly stay in business. Is it because the banks bail them out all the time, or because the 'losses' are a mirage in order to dodge their fair share of taxes?'

Because....?

Again which company and which year? Ok lets look at AT&T 2002-2006 they have shown a profit every year, and payed over 12 billion in fed taxes. Now you mentioned 900 mil and a couple of years. With that it sounds like you may be talking about the 900 mil refund that AT&T got in the forth quarter of 05. That was for disputed items on tax years 97-99. AT&T payed up the cash and 5 years later settled with the IRS. This "refund" was left with the IRS to partially offset their 05 taxes. After the 900 mil they still payed over 900 mil in addition. That is lower than the usual tax bill but the earnings were down in 05 also. So how does that support your point? Yep, now you will go on again about facts being irrelevant. I mean you know the truth and damn the facts! The truth is you can't back up your BS! You just roll in and say "This is the way it is" and god forbid anyone challenges you.

"I mentioned a company I worked for, and exactly what happened."

You mentioned AT&T and water cooler gossip. Now if you included a link to something describing the federal money and why it was given to AT&T or even just the flipping year I might be able to track it down but that is not "exactly what happened" by any reasonable persons definition.

Actually, it was in 2000 & 2001. And it was not a refund,but the gov't giving the co. 900 mill more than they paid in taxes. But, as with many such sweetheart deals, it will be very difficult to find it showing up on a balance sheet, because 'incentive packages are always laden with such terms as being used for 'American competitiveness' and 'National security interests' & other such BS. And I mentioned no gossip, but an article in the co's own newsletter.

It is the 180 degree opposite of:

And still no reply to: 'Ask yourself this- how many huge corporations report 'losses' year after year, yet amazingly stay in business. Is it because the banks bail them out all the time, or because the 'losses' are a mirage in order to dodge their fair share of taxes?'

Because....?

And still no answer, but keep the hand moving. Sooner or later something intelligent will pop its cork.

The problem, EE, is you are one of those people who think they understand things because a search engine's at hand. I've argued with atheists and theists, Libertarians and Communists, Left & Right, pro and anti-abs, and all of them bombard each other and me with this stat 'proving; this, and a counter-stat, proving the other point. And, sometimes, both diverging claims are correct, yet wholly irrelevant.

As you age, you learn these things. You can Google away all you want, but how will you find all the under the table dealings that the rich and connected can get and afford, when marked as something else, or, say, were we arguing if the rich pay their fair share, yet ignoring the fact that most offshore their wealth.

I have a close relation who has bragged of doing just that, while also bragging of his good citizenship, then whining about the poor. I argued with Pete Abel a while back about how so few people even recognize a thing as the public commons- Google it. No one, and I mean no one, has ever gotten wealthy without a major input from others- be it investors, or even the government and taxpayers whose investments in roads allowed the materiel that 'genius' needed to get to him.

It's simply laughable to hear people who have benefited so much- and I mean people, I've not the time to even go into the legal fictions of corporations, whine about having to give back to the very 'system' that enabled them to prosper. Try being Exxon in North Korea. Ain't gonna happen.

Until you learn to actually deal with the relevant, no amount of ability to look up 'your facts' will satisfy, because there will always be another person, as equally lacking in a real life, who will vociferously counter with 'facts' of their own. Of course, you know this, as I'm sure you've scrutinized every Left Wing talking points site out there, just so you can unfurl a ready made rebuttal, perfectly designed to evade the real and essential point, which in Paul's post, was:

how does the GOP defend giving tax breaks to an industry making eye popping profits on the backs of the US working class?
How do US working class citizens reconcile voting for the GOP?
How does the GOP defend obstructing and undermining efforts to move the US to renewable energy as quickly as possible?

In all your posts and links, you've not even scraped at the point, be it good or ill.

Although, that really was the point of this all, wasn't it, EE? To show how quick with the silver bullet search engine you are, even if the bullet dribbles out of the hole and falls 3 inches from the barrel end, right?

Great why not have a discussion about fact instead of going on your little rants? None of your tizzy seems to have squat to do with the discussion or your refusal to allow reality into your posts.

EE: As I showed in the other post on Loan, it's easy to Google info all day, if you've no life. But I've given you the case at AT&T, which BTW led to Armstrong's ouster when, w/in a year the gov't handout was pissed away trying to updated rotted cables, which led to AT&T's stock crash, his ouster, and its demise into SBC.

Of course, I don't have the time nor means to create a paper trail. Yet, even had I, you would simply huff and puff, and rail against the Liberal fact, or Libertarian fact, or Communist or this or that fact.

You know as well as I do that the vast amount of things that go on in the world, business, political, etc., have no clear paper trail. This is why Switzerland, the Bahama, and former Soviet Republics are rich.

I simply am not going to play your childish game. I've not the time, nor the will, for, just as I did in the Loan example, I've shown, conclusively, that it was a war crime. That might not suit your politics nor ethics. So? It's a reality, just like my ex-employers getting enough of a government handout to put a quarter of a million welfare moms on fat city.

I've dealt w the reality of the post and tax situation in this nation. You still have not. Again:

how does the GOP defend giving tax breaks to an industry making eye popping profits on the backs of the US working class?
How do US working class citizens reconcile voting for the GOP?
How does the GOP defend obstructing and undermining efforts to move the US to renewable energy as quickly as possible?

Again:

'Ask yourself this- how many huge corporations report 'losses' year after year, yet amazingly stay in business. Is it because the banks bail them out all the time, or because the 'losses' are a mirage in order to dodge their fair share of taxes?'

Because....?


....sound of tumbleweeds rollin' along....

'Ask yourself this- how many huge corporations report 'losses' year after year, yet amazingly stay in business. Is it because the banks bail them out all the time, or because the 'losses' are a mirage in order to dodge their fair share of taxes?'

Not that many. Most companies that stay in business make money and pay taxes. Of course it's easy to make empty claims that you will make no effort to back up. Except of course to insult anyone who challenges your theory's.

Actually, most companies, corps or not, seek to avoid paying taxes- ask any corporate lawyer, off the record. Of course, the real world is a place you dare not tread, for, even in the Loan thread, it's rather easy to show you up. But, since you deny reality there, when using your very own techniques against you, why would you admit to that here.

And the 2nd q was not touched. Just how do all those Fortune 500 co's swallow such huge losses, year after year? Because the losses are not really what they are claimed.

And, let's return to Paul's opening salvos:

how does the GOP defend giving tax breaks to an industry making eye popping profits on the backs of the US working class?
How do US working class citizens reconcile voting for the GOP?
How does the GOP defend obstructing and undermining efforts to move the US to renewable energy as quickly as possible?

W/o Googling, try answering in your own words, and w/o resort to the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

You are 0 for 2, in your own methodolgy and not.

Go on, make it a trifecta, kiddo.