It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Big Oil before congress: If you take away our 18bn tax breaks, gas prices will go up.

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Who's punishing them? Taking away tax breaks is not punishment, that is not rewarding.

By continuing to support the gas companies, we have sanctioning OPEC to continuing to price gouge. If anything, causing OPEC to drop prices to hit market equilibrium may be more beneficial to gas companies than tax breaks.


And by supporting gas companies, we support terrorism, Islamic extremism, the drug trade (by paying off warlords to protect pipelines through their territories), and of course the massive military/industrial complex--a bigger threat to American freedom and prosperity than the other three combined. Without oil there's little to go to war over.




posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
Who's punishing them? Taking away tax breaks is not punishment, that is not rewarding.

In the past 25 years the oil companies have paid out more than 3 times in taxes compared to what they earned. So finally they are seeing profits and I don't think its right to take some of it away because some people believe they are making to much money.

Let's not forget that the oil companies do pay huge taxes. Besides, we have been here before because the US Senate on November 17, 2005 voted to impose nearly $5 billion in taxes on oil companies in response to record oil company profits. Let's see....looking at how things are today, how did that work out for us.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by WhatTheory]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I think we need to go and liberate these oil companies. Executives should be stripped of their wealth, left with a meager 1 million dollars (as if that were a small amount), and the American oil companies can be absorbed and run by the American people, IE NATIONALIZE the energy sector. Why not?

We can then vote on new investment opportunities, like more wind turbines along local coastal communities, those wave energy machines, take advantage of the new printing press manufacturing process for solar cells which has brought the price down significantly as a result.

Why does every insist that the energy sector, a strategic and important industry for the everyday life of all our citizens, should maintain the right to be exploited for individual profit by private and typically greedy tycoons? Nationalize the energy sector, then we can use the siezed assets to immediately jump start an economy and infrastructe based on renewable energy at record speed.

It is not like we would rip off the shareholders, we will give them their stake and call it a day ya know? It may very well be better off for them in the long run.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by lookingback
I agree to a certain extent. However, the definition of rich needs to be addressed here and it should NOT include medium managers and small business owners making $150k a year. Over $300K I would say qualifies as pretty well off. I know it also depends on a particular local economy, and the IRS does not care where you live. $150k in small town Indiana is very well off, and $150k 2 hours up the road in Chi-town is "Ok".


Agreed. The rule used to be, if you made up to $3 million annually, you were taxed at a certain percentage that was considered fair. Anything over that $3 million was taxed at over 80%. So you still get your $3 mil, anything past that is gravy and taxed accordingly. Seriously, how much more than that does a person need? How many yachts and houses can you buy and still have an actual use for?


Be careful not to regulate all businesses too much. Over regulating hurts the small companies WAY more than the large ones, because of the required support staff to keep up with the paperwork.

Believe me when I say the more regulation, the more BS forms you need to fill out and the more time you spend answering to regulators and public workers that may or may not know what they are doing. Large companies can absorb this. Small companies cannot, and the less small companies out there the worse off it is for middle class America.


Again, I heartily agree. That's why regulation has to be progressive, just like taxes. Small companies making under a certain amount per year, with a certain number of employees, have a different level of regulation. Certain things such as safety regs obviously have to be equal across the board, but other regs can be relaxed for small companies. And, one could reasonably allow small businesses tax breaks for the paperwork they have to do.

That's something I don't think a lot of people realize: Businesses already have tons of tax breaks available to them to cover operating costs. That many get more besides is icing on the cake. You can go to a $100/plate restaurant with a couple of your employees or officers, and as long as you spend five minutes talking about work it becomes a business lunch you can write off.


Now… as far as Big Oil goes, tax them like they should be. Let the price of oil go up, it will force us to invest in existing tech that will save us in the long run. Look at my previous statements regarding the collusion going on.


The collusion is real and you're absolutely right. Call their bluff. If they raise prices outrageously people who can, will stop driving. Many can't, unfortunately. I consider myself fortunate I now live in a city with public transportation. I junked my car. Didn't need it. Now a year ago, living in the sticks, I couldn't have done that--everything is too spread-out and you need to drive to survive. Something needs to be done to help people in that situation.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


You can't get stoned off of neutral hemp, lol. Not nearly enough THC, too bad though, people would be alot more mellow sitting in traffic, lol...



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
I think we need to go and liberate these oil companies. Executives should be stripped of their wealth, left with a meager 1 million dollars (as if that were a small amount), and the American oil companies can be absorbed and run by the American people, IE NATIONALIZE the energy sector. Why not?

We can then vote on new investment opportunities, like more wind turbines along local coastal communities, those wave energy machines, take advantage of the new printing press manufacturing process for solar cells which has brought the price down significantly as a result.

Why does every insist that the energy sector, a strategic and important industry for the everyday life of all our citizens, should maintain the right to be exploited for individual profit by private and typically greedy tycoons? Nationalize the energy sector, then we can use the siezed assets to immediately jump start an economy and infrastructe based on renewable energy at record speed.

It is not like we would rip off the shareholders, we will give them their stake and call it a day ya know? It may very well be better off for them in the long run.


With you 100% on this! Oil is a strategic resource. Why are we relying on private companies with a profit motive for such a necessity?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Sorry, I don't sympathize with gas companies. They still exist don't they? Their CEO's still get fat checks, right?

Why are you trying to make it seem like the oil companies have been living in the ghetto on welfare? They are fine, better than fine actually.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
Tax 'em even more, and begin building alternative energy sources.

Put them in a corner. Make their profits drop. Then we'll see who's got who by the balls.


If you tax them more, they'll just pass that along to the customer. It's not as simple as you might want to think.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
With you 100% on this! Oil is a strategic resource. Why are we relying on private companies with a profit motive for such a necessity?

Because that is how our country works with capitalism and all......
Besides, where do you draw the line. Food and just about anything you need to survive could be considered a strategic resource. You will end up with the government owning everything. Then we will be just like a socialist country bordering on communism.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Not if you take away their market corner. If Nike raised their prices to $300 a shoe because they got taxed more, people wouldn't keep paying for it, they'd switch to New Balance.

You must have missed the part where I said to begin using the excess money to grow alternative energies.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
Sorry, I don't sympathize with gas companies. They still exist don't they? Their CEO's still get fat checks, right?

Yeah, now. But they did not always make these huge profits. That's still no reason to take away their money because you don't like their 'fat checks'. I'm sure you would be singing a different tune if you owned a burger joint and the government came in and took away a lot of profits because they thought a profit margin of 8 cents per burger was extreme.


Why are you trying to make it seem like the oil companies have been living in the ghetto on welfare? They are fine, better than fine actually.

I'm not trying to make it seem like anything. I don't want the government deciding when a person or company is making to much money.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


That's a bad analogy, because under your scenario, New Balance shoes would also cost $300. I assume you were talking about taxing all oil companies right? You wouldn't have another competitor offering cheaper gas just because Exxon or Shell are getting taxed. There isn't another viable source of energy for cars to compete either at this time.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
You must have missed the part where I said to begin using the excess money to grow alternative energies.

That is a huge hole in your plan. The problem is there is no feasible alternative energy source to meet our nations needs. There is plenty of money currently being spent in this area. Hell, look how expensive food has become in part due to the demand in corn and other plants in order to try and produce alternative energy.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Fine they would switch to boots instead. Happy?

reply to post by WhatTheory
 


We have the technology to vamp up both our nuclear and solar power usage. Cmon man... really?

We can even effectively run electric cars.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Vor-Thank you for taking a crack at this...If this is indeed the culprit of the financial rape we are going through, then the next question is HOW DO WE STOP THIS? We are being broken by this, anybody who doesn't agree that this is a HUGE factor in the state of our self-destructing economy is living in a dream world...This has to stop, and not 'tomorrow', as we will be past the point of no return.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
We have the technology to vamp up both our nuclear and solar power usage. Cmon man... really?

People resist building nuclear plants because of the chance of radiation causing damage. Besides, a nuclear reactor is not going to produce oil. Oil is used for more than producing gasoline. Just think of all the lubricants and plastics made from oil. We need something to replace oil.

Solar power is no way near efficient enough to power a nation or even a large city.


We can even effectively run electric cars.

Yeah, if you want to drive a go-cart and I don't. Again, think of all the energy, material and machinery, which uses oil, required to build your electric car and batteries. If this were to happen, another corporation would arise to replace big oil. It would be the corporation who produces the most of the rare elements required to build these batteries for your electric cars. Instead of everyone complaining about 'big oil' it would be 'big battery'.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


I don't think that there's a lot that can be done at this point except ride it out. Our economy is so highly dependent upon the oil industry that even if we fast-track the alternatives (which we should, BTW), its probably still going to take 10-20 years for it to really penetrate the marketplace and for consumers to begin seeing significant benefits.

The alternative, and what is probably going to happen, is that these high oil prices are going to cause a global recession or mild depression. It may start in the US, it may not, but once it does, the dominoes will fall in short order. If there is some good news, it will result in significant demand destruction for oil, forcing oil exporters to slash prices if they want to sell anything.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
I'm not trying to make it seem like anything. I don't want the government deciding when a person or company is making to much money.


Ah, the refuge of the capitalist. "I don't want government blah blah."

This has nothing to do with deciding they have too much money. It's about making them pay their fair share back to the society that buys their products and gives tham all that money. In a democratic republic supposedly for, of, and by the People, the People decide how much that "fair share" is. As one of the People, I don't think they're paying what they should, and they're dragging their feet on alternative energy. This nation went from a couple of satellites in orbit for months at a time to a manned landing on the Moon in less than ten years. You're telling me we can't have viable alternative fuels within the same period? You know, some problems can be solved by throwing money at them. This is one of those problems. If this nation spent half as much on education, alternative energy, and health care as we do on effing war we wouldn't be facing a recession.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Ah, the refuge of the capitalist. "I don't want government blah blah."

Ah, the refuge of a socialist with a response like that.



This has nothing to do with deciding they have too much money. It's about making them pay their fair share back to the society that buys their products and gives tham all that money.

Wow, where were you when 'big oil' was not making huge profits or any profits at all?
Again, in the past 25 years, 'big oil' has paid in taxes more than 3 times of what they actually earned. So I would say they have been paying their fair share. Also, you are acting like they currently don't pay taxes. They currently pay huge taxes except you want them to pay even more. I don't know why....perhaps you are jealous or something. I'm sure you would be singing a different tune if the government was coming after you to take more money away from you only because they thought you were making to much.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by WhatTheory]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Ah, the refuge of a socialist with a response like that.


Damn right. Wanna make something of it?



Wow, where were you when 'big oil' was not making huge profits or any profits at all?
Again, in the past 25 years, 'big oil' has paid in taxes more than 3 times of what they actually earned.


You keep saying this. Source, please? And I don't count the companies' own "public" balance sheets as a credible source--corporations lie all the time about their financial health. Enron? Bear Stearns?


So I would say they have been paying their fair share.


Again, source?


Also, you are acting like they currently don't pay taxes. They currently pay huge taxes except you want them to pay even more.


Exactly how much? What percentage of their gross income? What's the actual dollar amount? No more generalities. What's your source?


I don't know why....perhaps you are jealous or something.


No, just a man who works for a living and sees prices increasing while wages remain stagnant--and knows chicanery is the cause. I want people held accountable for their actions. That includes big corps.


I'm sure you would be singing a different tune if the government was coming after you to take more money away from you only because they thought you were making to much.


Again, it's not because they're "making too much". It's because they're getting breaks they apparently don't need. We're not talking about adding new taxes. It's rolling back breaks on taxes they're already supposed to be paying, but have been given a "break" on. That's not punishment.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join