It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by djerwulfe
reply to post by Jezus
Yes, but whose morality rule are you choosing? Where is the universally acceptable standard for this "morality?"
If it means cross the picket line to feed kids, then the individual is undermining the cause, freedoms and pursuit of happiness for the union workers. It's arguably immoral in a large sense, but isn't it also immoral to deny one's progeny food?
One group's morality is anothers sin. So in a state that espouses a separation of Church & State or at least a minimization of theological influence on policy, how does a legislative-supposedly representative- body select and establish policy?
Morality is ambiguous and idiosyncratic. Cash ain't.
"-Tequila sunrise, bloodshot eyes, realize we all born to die...
-So get the money * . . . "
- B Real
Originally posted by Slothrop
reply to post by verbal kint
what is "wrong with this picture"? companies are supposed to make money. exxon is making a lot of money right now. that's the point of running a business. why do people fear and hate success so much?
Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Jezus
I'd be willing to bet that we could eliminate poverty and unemployment in this country if the following were true...
Government and big business pays basic cost of living for all citizens willing and able to work, when they are not working, for as long as they are out of work.
Of course this also means paying workers a living wage when they are working as well, about double the current minimum I would say. This must also include, of course, care for those who are in fact not able to work. Unless of course we euthanise the unfortunates.
Basically though, I can practically guarantee there would suddenly be plenty of paying jobs in this country if they had to pay people wether or not they were actually working.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Krieger
You CAN'T STOP USING IT! That is BS to say "If you don't like it stop using it!" That's like saying if the price for food gets too high stop eating.
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
no, you CAN'T "just quit using it". We're not talking a bout beer nuts here. We're talking about a substance that pretty much every aspect of our daily lives revolves around.
Then why all the hatred toward someone who produces this necessary product? You do realize that it is completely legal if every oil company in the world just decided one day to shut down, right? After all they're only making 8% profit. They could put the money in a bank and fish all day for 4%.
Thanks to both of you for making my point.
Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.
According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:
Total number of tax returns: 130 million
Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million
Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion
Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion
Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers paid in 2004 (most recent year available), which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% was only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion) in 2004, and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).
Originally posted by TKainZero
If people think that the Supply today is the same it was 2 years ago, 5 years ago, a decaade ago, you are either: Lying, or just plain Stuipid...
The GLOBAL DEMAND for OIL IS RISING...
THE Global supply is not raising with the DEMAND...
This is causeing the price to go up....
THIS ISNT HARD...
"Some people will see the truth
Other, only part of the truth
And some NEVER see the Truth..."