Energy Bill Blocked by Senate Republicans Because of Taxes on Oil Companies

shamockery

 

In that same article-

$9.9 billion quarterly profit is mostly a function of Exxon Mobil's size. It had sales of $100 billion this quarter, more than any other U.S. company.

 

The level of ignorance in this thread is astonishing.

The oil markets have a fundamental problem regarding the balance of supply and demand. The determinants of both are undergoing extreme pressure. Worldwide economic growth is pushing up demand. Increased difficulty and costs associated with new sources of supply is making it tougher for supply to keep pace with demand. Volatile, high oil prices are the result. Energy companies MUST have incentives to supply new oil in order for supply to catch up to demand. INCREASING the tax burden on the very people who are trying to SOLVE the problem of high oil prices is the worst way to fix the problem. Any damm fool could recognize that. Higher taxes will lead to lower incentives to find and produce oil. That will jack up prices. It will also make US producers less competitive relative to foreign producers. Why punish American energy companies?! And who is the moron that want to 'break up' oil companies? Do you think they have pricing power? You are clueless.

The liberals are very happy to demonize the energy industry, and slap taxes on them, but what does that accomplish? What does it accomplish!? It leads to higher oil prices, lower economic growth, and higher prices at the pump. That's what it accomplishes. I don't know about you, but that's not a very nice outcome.

 

....thank you for explaining why the Senate Republicans blocking higher fuel efficiency standards and alteranative energy sources - which is what this bill is about - is such a travesty.

 

a ten percent net profit margin is still pretty damn good

 

you can't argue with talking points

 

anyone with money can have a professional find all sorts of holes to pay next to nothing in taxes.



Nice post trader. The oil companies are just an easy target for people and continually labeled the "bad guys" and are used as some type of rallying point.

 

its a travesty that people feel that overly taxing oil companies is the only way to accomplish such a thing

 

Sam, you have delivered some quality posts over your time on this board. You're embarrassing yourself with your performance in this thread. A better way to look at your silly argument would be to ask why Democrats couldn't just take out their oil company taxes and then we'd all get our improved fuel efficiency standards and alternative energy sources. Duh.

 

it is funny that you are of the impression that the energy lobby does not oppose this also.

 

It's a travesty that you haven't taken the time to read the post you quoted above.

Do the reasearch. The oil companies were specifically granted royalty payments breaks because of low oil prices in the early 1990's to encourage new exploration. Since the price of oil has changed, making exploration more attractive, the royalty paymens breaks are no longer necessary. Therefore the government should stop giving them billions of dollars per year - to argue otherwise is pretty indefensible and just makes you look idiotic.

 

What's the right incentives model to get oil companies to become, increasingly, cleaner energy companies? I wish I knew more details of the proposed legislation.

 

So you think we should NOT be encouraging new exploration now? We need to encourage production now more than ever.

The other thing to note is that while prices have come up, so have costs. The easy to find oil has been produced. Now people are moving into deeper waters, higher drilling depths, and tougher political climates to find oil. That's expensive. The bottom line is that the profit incentive is a powerful incentive to increase production. Clearly, it has not been powerful enough to spur ENOUGH oil. That's a reflection of just how much strain the global demand for oil has put on the oil markets. To impose a burden on AMERICAN oil companies unfairly disadvantages them versus other worldwide market participants, AND it works against solving the problem of high energy prices.

If your goal is to lower oil prices, increasing taxes on the very people trying to lower oil prices is simply foolish.

 

AT&T's journey.....

http://www.jibjab.com/view/155092

 

The right incentives model is to let the free markets work. Vote with your wallet, and encourage others to do the same. Let the marketplace, not increased regulation in Congress, decide. When it's nut cuttin time, consumers will decide whether they want environmental benefits versus lifestyle benefits.

And by the way, oil companies are investing literally billions of dollars into the search for cleaner technologies. This is being done on a worldwide level.

 

Jorge - this is pretty elementary economics and it is embarrassing to explain it. New exploration is encouraged by the fact that oil has gone close to $100 a barrel. See your post on supply and demand earlier.

 

What is embarrassing is that you are unable to grasp the concept here. You are out of your league, something which is readily obvious from your very short, apprehensive posts. Let me give you a little quiz, Sam:

If you receive $1 for finding oil, and $2 for finding rocks, which are you more likely to pursue, finding oil or rocks? Raising taxes on finding oil leads to less oil. Less oil leads to higher prices. The liberals' policies of raising taxes on the very people who are trying to bring new supply on to the market is foolhardy.

Here is the bottom line:
Oil companies invest their free cash flow into new capital projects. These projects fund new exploration activity, which then spurs new production. Raising taxes on oil companies is a ONE-FOR-ONE pull from an oil company's free cash flow. Higher taxes leads to less ability to fund capital projects. It's that simple. New supply leads to lower prices (or less of a run-up in prices). That's unquestionable.

So if you are assessing these plans, if you raise taxes on oil companies, you raise energy costs for consumers. Do you want to pay more or less to fill up your car? That's the question you have to answer.

 

yes even though i have hundreds of billions invested in finding oil and don't know how to find rocks im sure just tomorrow i'll go find rocks.

 

Jorge's position is that oil companies are better off with oil priced at $20/barrel plus a few billion in government subsidies than they are with oil priced at $100 per barrel less government subsidies.

LOLLERSKATES

 

cute but that still had nothing to do with my statement. but im stupid for not agreeing with you.

this is why i love D&D