Republicans Block Democrat Bill to Tax Oil Profits

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Windfall profits tax - bad idea.
Ending special tax breaks for oil companies - good idea.

It's unfortunate they were lumped together.

Bill, if you own any stock in companies like Exxon, then you'll see that they are taxed heavily and have very high operating expenses. They are already taxed twice (on income and from sales transactions)...where are the big breaks coming from? I don't see them on the balance sheet I get in the mail and proxy statements.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[loumeinhart 0]

billvon and I agree on something

Quote

Lowering taxes temporarily on oil companies is also a bad idea; the lower cost will not be reflected in the product (why would it be?) and the oil companies will simply make more money. When taxes go back to normal, oil companies will use the excuse to further raise prices. End result - higher prices,

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The entire world wealth is less than 100T

And how much of that changes hands in a year? A quadrillion?

Where is most money held? Checking accounts. Money moves in and out all the time. So 2 trillion? That means 2 percent of all wealth passes through the oil companies every year. Passes through, not is held on to.

Think of the gross deposits every year in the Bank of America. In the first quarter of 2001, retail deposits to BofA were $550 billion dollars - that's just RETAIL deposits. That's more than passed through Exxon in a year. That would be 2.2 trillion a year passing through BofA alone.

But that doesn't mean they are keeping it all. They, like Exxon, are merely conduits in the circulation of that money.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Trent 0]

Quote

billvon and I agree on somethingCool

I'm pretty sure you guys are agreeing on a strawman argument. The McCain "gas tax holiday" is a suspension of the consumer tax on gas from all that I've read. To make it even better... it's funded by eliminating or reducing earmarks and discretionary spending. Why are Dems against that? LOL

Oh, hello again!

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

billvon and I agree on somethingCool

I'm pretty sure you guys are agreeing on a strawman argument. The McCain "gas tax holiday" is a suspension of the consumer tax on gas from all that I've read. To make it even better... it's funded by eliminating or reducing earmarks and discretionary spending. Why are Dems against that? LOL

Interesting question. After all, the most earmarks ever came under a GOP president with a GOP controlled House and a GOP controlled Senate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Interesting question. After all, the most earmarks ever came under a GOP president with a GOP controlled House and a GOP controlled Senate.

So answer it then, smart guy? Why's it coming from a GOP guy now and now the Dem?

Never mind... LOOK OVER THERE!!! SOMETHING SHINY!!

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,473]

>Why are Dems against that?

Because it would result in higher Exxon profits (which I don't really care much about) AND higher gas prices in the long run (which I also don't really care about.)

However, it is being proposed as a way to lower gas prices. If you enact a policy to lower gas prices and you end up raising them, you are something of an idiot.

[billvon 2,473]

>Bill, if you own any stock in companies like Exxon, then you'll see
>that they are taxed heavily and have very high operating expenses. They
>are already taxed twice (on income and from sales transactions)...where
>are the big breaks coming from?

From the 2005 Energy Bill, where oil companies were given $14.5 billion in tax breaks. It breaks down to about $2 billion a year. For two such tax breaks, google "percentage depletion allowance" and "oil depletion allowance."

I have no problem with oil companies making money - PROVIDED they are treated like any other company that wants to make money. Right now they are not.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Because it would result in higher Exxon profits (which I don't really care much about) AND higher gas prices in the long run (which I also don't really care about.)

How does removing the tax that the consumer pays at the pump translate to higher profits and more expensive gas? A smart bill would have wording that would prevent companies from raising prices beyond the normal barrel fluctuations while the tax break is in effect.

Does the fact that New York, Houston, and a few other cities have declared "Sales Tax Holidays" for a week at a time cause the price of all goods to go UP?

Quote

However, it is being proposed as a way to lower gas prices. If you enact a policy to lower gas prices and you end up raising them, you are something of an idiot.

Try telling the Dems. In my opinion, their "profit tax" would more directly and quickly do that than any other proposed action.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,473]

>How does removing the tax that the consumer pays at the pump
>translate to higher profits and more expensive gas?

Let's say gas stops at $4.50 a gallon.

Tax break comes along; consumers might see 18 cents savings at the pump. Well, oil companies set gasoline prices, and they know that consumers will pay $4.50 a gallon. They have no incentive to reduce it much. So they reduce prices (after taxes) to $4.40 a gallon, say "Hey! CHEAP GAS! Come quick, before it goes up again!" They are the big heroes and they sell more gas - at a HIGHER profit to them. (They are now making (18-10) = 8 cents more a gallon.)

Now the tax holiday ends. They raise the price from $4.40 to (4.40+.18) = $4.58. "Not our fault! Congress raised the tax on you. We wish we could keep it at the lower price, but with the tax increase and all . . ." They are the victims and they get some good press - AND they are now making more money, AND the prices at the pump are higher than they would have been otherwise.

And if you think that the gas companies would be the good guys and turn down a few billion in extra profit for their shareholders - you don't understand how public companies operate.

> A smart bill would have wording that would prevent companies from
>raising prices beyond the normal barrel fluctuations while the tax break is
>in effect.

Price controls are as bad an idea as punitive taxes. If you really believe they work, then allow oil companies a one cent a gallon profit and be done with it. Prices will come down.

>In my opinion, their "profit tax" would more directly and quickly do
>that than any other proposed action.

Neither one is a good idea.

[Trent 0]

I'm not sure I agree with your logic in your example. It's actually been done before and did it raise the prices more than they would have increased on their own?

What about my question here?

Quote

Does the fact that New York, Houston, and a few other cities have declared "Sales Tax Holidays" for a week at a time cause the price of all goods to go UP?

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,473]

>Does the fact that New York, Houston, and a few other cities have
>declared "Sales Tax Holidays" for a week at a time cause the price of all
>goods to go UP?

From a Blackwell study:

The exploratory data indicate that before-tax prices are slightly higher in Florida retail establishments during the sales tax holiday . .

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/pbaf/2003/00000023/00000004/art00006

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

billvon and I agree on somethingCool

I'm pretty sure you guys are agreeing on a strawman argument. The McCain "gas tax holiday" is a suspension of the consumer tax on gas from all that I've read. To make it even better... it's funded by eliminating or reducing earmarks and discretionary spending. Why are Dems against that? LOL

Interesting question. After all, the most earmarks ever came under a GOP president with a GOP controlled House and a GOP controlled Senate.

And most of the those bills (AND the majority of the pork) were submitted by DEMs... you had a point somewhere, I think?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

And most of the those bills (AND the majority of the pork) were submitted by DEMs... you had a point somewhere, I think?

This year? Yes. The amount of pork aligns with the majority/minority split. The bright side is that 2008 is about 23% lower in total earmarked dollars than the high water mark set in 2005. If you're implying that the records set under the R led congresses and the Bush administration are due to the Dems spending, then either someone slipped something in your brownies or the Rovisionist Press just released a new report.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

And most of the those bills (AND the majority of the pork) were submitted by DEMs... you had a point somewhere, I think?

This year? Yes. The amount of pork aligns with the majority/minority split. The bright side is that 2008 is about 23% lower in total earmarked dollars than the high water mark set in 2005. If you're implying that the records set under the R led congresses and the Bush administration are due to the Dems spending, then either someone slipped something in your brownies or the Rovisionist Press just released a new report.

Perhaps YOU (and the good professor) should look at WHO authored the bills and not what party was "in charge" of Congress. They're both complicit, but the majority of the pork still gets authored by the Dems.

Of course, you won't believe it since you didn't hear it from your buddy Olberdouche on Countdown.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Trent 0]

Quote

The exploratory data indicate that before-tax prices are slightly higher in Florida retail establishments during the sales tax holiday . .

And the rest of the quote (without paying $50 to get the research) goes...

Quote

Tax relief from a sales tax holiday depends on lower final prices for the eligible goods. In this article, prices are compared for ten goods across several retail locations before, during, and after the 2001 Florida sales tax holiday period. The comparison is also extended to the same items in a metropolitan statistical area just outside of Florida. The exploratory data indicate that before-tax prices are slightly higher in Florida retail establishments during the sales tax holiday, but it is not clear whether these prices reflect less generous markdowns by Florida managers or pricing decisions for much larger regions. Whichever the case, the tax policy forces consumers to speculate on non-holiday prices and choose items where the final price is, in fact, lower during the holiday.

Not exactly conclusive. Like I said, I think the bill (if it ever had a chance) could be drafted to minimize that sort of nonsense. Profit margin limits DURING the break, etc.

BUT, free market could be fine too.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,473]

>Not exactly conclusive.

Right. They don't know why (before tax) prices were higher during the tax holiday - but they were.

>BUT, free market could be fine too.

Agreed.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Perhaps YOU (and the good professor) should look at WHO authored the bills and not what party was "in charge" of Congress. They're both complicit, but the majority of the pork still gets authored by the Dems.

Of course, you won't believe it since you didn't hear it from your buddy Olberdouche on Countdown.

I haven't tried to verify your claim as to who authored the most bills so let's say that the Dems authored ALL of the bills that the Cons decided to pass. What difference does it make when the earmarks are the biggest problem? In 2006 there were 15,832 earmarks totaling $71.77 billion. The OMB earmarks site has the 2008 summary at 11,237 earmarks totaling $16.87 billion. We're heading in the right direction.

That said, I'm still having a hard time with the notion that the Dems are responsible for massive spending under Con control yet when the Dems take over, the massive spending slows significantly. Maybe it's Bush's vetos, maybe it's simply that many of the Treasury access punch drunk Cons are out of Congress. Maybe the Dems actually do want to control spending for a couple of valid reasons (that's what they campaigned on and it would serve them well politically to pick up the fiscal responsibility banner that was tossed aside over the last six years). Maybe it's all of the above. But to summarize, I think it's pretty ridiculous to try to blame the Dems for the insanity of the last few years.

And I don't watch Olberman with the exception of the very occasional YouTube excerpt. The man's got some talent. I always thought he would be a good VP for Jon Stewart, at the very least he could be Jon's White House Press Secretary

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I haven't tried to verify your claim as to who authored the most bills so let's say that the Dems authored ALL of the bills that the Cons decided to pass. What difference does it make when the earmarks are the biggest problem? In 2006 there were 15,832 earmarks totaling $71.77 billion. The OMB earmarks site has the 2008 summary at 11,237 earmarks totaling $16.87 billion. We're heading in the right direction.

Sometimes it’s extraordinarily difficult to figure out who inserted an “earmark” … even for the folks who are supposed to send the money out. Don’t know who wrote, where they are located (even generally), or who the money is supposed to go to/be for (beyond some nebulous description).

There is also a difference between Congressional Additions and “pork.” All Congressional Additions are NOT pork. The non-partisan, taxpayer watchdog group Citizen’s Against Government Waste Congressional Pig Book, which someone linked to recently, notes that to be called “pork”:

“The 1,188 projects, totaling $2.8 billion, in this year’s Congressional Pig Book Summary symbolize the most egregious and blatant examples of pork. As in previous years, all of the items in the Congressional Pig Book Summary meet at least one of CAGW’s seven criteria, but most satisfy at least two:

Requested by only one chamber of Congress;

Not specifically authorized;

Not competitively awarded;

Not requested by the President;

Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;

Not the subject of congressional hearings; or

Serves only a local or special interest.”

Over the last 7 years, Congress has “plus’ed up” -- through Congressional Additions/"earmarks" -- administration programs that are authorized, are competitively awarded, are requested by the President, are subject to Congressional hearings, and serve broad, national interests. Notable examples include the DoD’s Chemical and Biological Defense Initiative Fund (CBDIF), which averages ~$21M additional across the BA 1-3 lines (basic research through advanced technology development) and the DoD Basic Research funding (>80% is awarded through the services). See attached slide … I take zero responsibility for the color scheme.

VR/Marg

p.s. I had know idea who Keith Olberman was ... google'd "Olberdouche," which does generate 1,590 hits. In a Bonfire-esque tribute, the first hit is to a page titled "Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Keith Olberdouche Gets a Spanking."

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

billvon and I agree on somethingCool

I'm pretty sure you guys are agreeing on a strawman argument. The McCain "gas tax holiday" is a suspension of the consumer tax on gas from all that I've read. To make it even better... it's funded by eliminating or reducing earmarks and discretionary spending. Why are Dems against that? LOL

Interesting question. After all, the most earmarks ever came under a GOP president with a GOP controlled House and a GOP controlled Senate.

And most of the those bills (AND the majority of the pork) were submitted by DEMs... you had a point somewhere, I think?

Poor attempt at weaseling. Passed by a GOP controlled Congrees, signed by a GOP president.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

billvon and I agree on somethingCool

I'm pretty sure you guys are agreeing on a strawman argument. The McCain "gas tax holiday" is a suspension of the consumer tax on gas from all that I've read. To make it even better... it's funded by eliminating or reducing earmarks and discretionary spending. Why are Dems against that? LOL

Interesting question. After all, the most earmarks ever came under a GOP president with a GOP controlled House and a GOP controlled Senate.

And most of the those bills (AND the majority of the pork) were submitted by DEMs... you had a point somewhere, I think?

Poor attempt at weaseling. Passed by a GOP controlled Congrees, signed by a GOP president.

Nice show of bias - if Jesus had been a republican, the only thing you'd say about Galilee was "Jesus Can't Swim".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Sometimes it’s extraordinarily difficult to figure out who inserted an “earmark” … even for the folks who are supposed to send the money out. Don’t know who wrote, where they are located (even generally), or who the money is supposed to go to/be for (beyond some nebulous description).

Yea, that was one of my biggest problems with the earmarking process. Many of them seem to just show up in the middle of the night, anonymously. Then the Congresscritters either don't have time to read the bills or don't bother.

Quote

There is also a difference between Congressional Additions and “pork.”

True, and I don't really care very much for DoD appropriations and funding for a Hooters restaurant being lumped into the same funding scheme so to speak. Seems like a very poor way to do things.

p.s. I had know idea who Keith Olberman was ... google'd "Olberdouche," which does generate 1,590 hits. In a Bonfire-esque tribute, the first hit is to a page titled "Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Keith Olberdouche Gets a Spanking."

That's giving Rotties a bad name. Mine would not approve (see attachment).
You should check out Olberman some time. His executive tongue lashings are quite artfully crafted and the delivery is typically delivered with relentless and stinging eloquence.
At your leisure, M'Lady.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r98BByBrhdA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE&NR=1