what is communist is you continuing to argue for unneccessary state subsidization of oil exploration - lol. If state sanctioned monopolies and government assisted national champions are your thing, there are many socialist economies for you to pick from, you may be happier elsewhere.
I haven't addressed the subsidies in this thread, but I'll play along with SamFisher for a little bit. My first question for you, SamFisher: Do you agree that having an oil/gas industry that is less dependent on foreign supply is in the US's best interest? Yes or no
This move is disgusting on so many levels. First and foremost, the move undermines our system of capitalism. Who will pay for the DRAMATIC stock market valuation drop in energy companies? This is a net loser and will result in a budget deficit as there will be less capital gains taxes and dividend taxes collectible by the government. More importantly, it sends the signal to investors that when you invest money, and that investment pays off, the government could demagogue the issues and take your profits from you. Undermining the profit motive with an appeal to populism and class warfare is a very dangerous move, brought to you by a very liberal politician. I don't ever, EVER, want to hear anyone characterize Obama as a centrist or moderate ever again, after seeing this move. This is a very radical proposal, and indicative of making our own US companies out to be 'the enemy'. Will we be taxing Petrobras' profits? Petro China's? Statoil? Total? Why unfairly take money away from AMERICAN energy companies and disadvantage them on the global competitive landscape? Why do that? That's going to 'ship jobs overseas' faster than anything! It will also discourage investment at the margin. So where does this policy proposal leave you then? Higher oil prices, fewer American jobs, less taxes, and a drop in the stock market. That's a disaster. Obama is so unqualified to be President. He dismisses Bill and Hillary's decades of political leadership as 'old politics' and has the audacity to think he's qualified for the job despite a low level management trainee resume. The guy is a fraud, who every night before he goes to sleep says to the mirror, 'well, I tricked the country for another day'. America needs to wake up to the fact that this guy is a very dangerous politician with no credentials for the job.
Oh, I like games - but I can tell how this one will end - I will say "yes", then you will say "well A GIANT GOVERNMENT TRANSFER PAYMENT TO OIL COMPANIES will ASSURE this energy independence by encouraging exploration!" Then I will remind you that there are many paths to achieve this goal which do NOT involve massive government transfer payments to oil companies, such as conservation, consumpion, fuel efficiency standards etc - (things that the Bush Admin has steadfastly opposed in favor of government welfare to XOM CVX etc) - bedraggled and beaten - etc I just saved you five minutes. I will put it on your tab.
Personally, I am working researching about 1 million acres to start drilling for oil on our soil (paid for by a local small-time guy and not a multi-billion dollar global corporation). I also still support Obama regardless. However, I think there are better ways to raise tax revenue without crippling the oil & gas revenues. What happens when the price drops again? How will this affect the little guys trying to compete? We need to find a fair resolution to our economic woes without picking on certain sectors. Stockholders should not be penalized either as they have assumed risk. More oil profits => more money invested in new exploration => more oil => cost of oil dropping Thats all for now, back to gettting us more oil Gobama
That article discusses a gasoline tax, not a tax on oil, and not a tax on 'windfall profits' of oil companies. There are big differences between those three. Good grief. Logic like the above is why Obama can propose an ignorant idea like this and get away with it -- his supporters don't know their head from their azz when it comes to anything energy or economics related.
Agree 100%. What happens to the middle class family that finally saves away enough for a modest investment portfolio and buys Exxon Mobil stock yesterday? Who will make them whole on the dramatic drop in stock value that would result if this plan were ever implemented? What happens to the millions of American energy industry employees who have stock holdings in their 401k plans? Remember all those crocodile tears for the Enron employees who lost their life savings in 401k plan devaluations? Get ready for Part II. If you assume risk, you have the chance at either upside or downside. If that upside is taken away from you, you will no longer assume risk by making investments. This undermines the capitalism system at its core and is wrong for America.
This is a little bit different than the Enron fiasco (except for companies with "interesting" exploration practices such as Chesapeake). We DO have a dilemma here: 1. We have a war to pay for. 2. We have fallen in debt quicksand and we are still sinking. 3. Early signs of stagflation. While I am a firm supporter of capitalism, the government sets the rules/taxation laws. The corporations do their best to find loopholes in these laws and gain influence with those in power to help increase profit. This is a complex problem and deserves a comprehensive plan that is fair to all, including royalty, and all those with leaseheld interests in production. The first thing we can do is end the freakin war.
Tater j is squealing like a stuck pig because he is terrified that his energy holdings will take a hit. By his moronic logic the government should never make a move that will negatively effect the stock prices of any sector, no matter the overall benefit.
dubious all of that stuff is in XOM's earnings reports. if you want to find out their margins, tax rates, and how they are making and losing money then look there. and also what you are advocating is not what obama is advocating. you sound like you want a new tax bracket for the ultra mega baller income earners in america. that's fine if you want that but you just have to know that this is not obama's idea. he wants taxes on the oil being sold over 80 a barrel. unless he is being misquoted this would effect every single oil company that makes money selling oil. this plan is so freaking stupid and idiotic. maybe he can start taxing natural gas and coal if those prices get too high. or maybe he will give tax credits to refiners getting killed because they have to buy oil at these high prices. nah...lets just crusade against evil oil companies so I can get the public to rally around me... this idea makes obama an absolute joke in my eyes and kills any notion that he is a "different" kind of politician.
and obama has ZERO clue on what is really driving commodity prices. if he was really a new kind of leader he would make people understand how the weak dollar and massive amount of national debt is hurting average americans. but he isn't anything new...he would just prefer to go on a crusade against evil big oil and punish them with taxes. who cares about getting to the root of the problem (balancing the budget, controlling our out of control debt, and saving the dollar) instead let's just raise taxes. edit...to clarify I don't think ANY of the 3 candidates really have a clue about how truly important it is that we start balancing the budget and paying down debt immediately.
No, the government should not selectively target industries for 'punitive damages'. The irony of this is that if these liberal politicians had a clue, they would be trying to INCREASE oil and gas production, not create disincentives to produce it through increased taxation. Furthermore, why penalize AMERICAN energy producers? Why put our own companies at a disadvantage to Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Saudi, and all the others? Why do that? Why do liberals think of oil companies as 'the enemy'? These companies are made up of hard working Americans who pay taxes and whose job is to produce oil at the lowest cost possible. These are humans, not some monolithic Death Star intent on crippling our economy. By making them the political football, instead of all the other industries (many with much higher profit margins), you have created dramatic unfairness.
Well actually yes. I guess you could make a good argument for taxing wealthy individuals instead. The country needs more taxes for infrastructure-- schools, trasportation systems, alternative energy research that is beyond the quick buck horizon of the energy companies etc. Taxing oil or gasoline to raise the price with rebates to the needy is a better idea than lowering the price even for the wealthy which just encourages more demand.
I think Obama's plan is misplaced. He should go after companies like Dolby. It reported a 45% rise in profits yesterday with an almost 33% profit margin. That is Un-American. We need to increase the tax rate on Dolby because it is gauging every person who buys a computer, a TV, a gaming system, etc. Maybe the government should just limit every company to a 3% profit margin and keep all of the excess money as a wind-fall profit tax. For anyone who cannot tell, I am being sarcastic and my only anger is that I did not buy back into Dolby a few weeks ago when its stock was trading around $36.
WOW! You are, like, totally rich, aren't you? I mean you went to a fancy private school, too. You are rad!
Do you even know what the subsidies are? How much are they? What is their purpose. My guess is that you don't know.
no I don't know what a subsidy is, you and tj are all knowing why do you have to be such an ass hole? edit: my guess is you just can't help it
I think the commodity price spike has more to do with huge increases in world demand (and some disruptions to supply) than US monetary or fiscal policy, imho. Oh, you're right. How could I forget the huge difference between taxing production and taxing consumption? Silly me. Here's a question- what is gas made of? It's interesting how when it doesn't suit your purposes, you don't bother differentiating between the two: Next: For someone who would like to school me on economics, you really should learn where tax incidence falls in a market where supply is relatively inelastic. Oil prices will rise, but most of the tax will be paid by producers. You also need to learn what happens to quantity supplied as a result of taxation in such a market. I'll give you a hint: the answer is "not much", and the effect on jobs is the same. Also, I'd really like to see some numbers behind your claim that the decrease in revenue from capital gains taxes will outweigh the revenue from the tax on oil profits. Do you really think there will be an Enron-like collapse? I still haven't forgotten the time you suggested that the free market could solve global warming because people would have to make the choice between the environment and their own (polluting) actions. Ever since then, I just laugh when you try to call me ignorant on economics.
