Big Oil, Free Trade and How We Get Pumped at the Pump, Every Day

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


If they were to get rid of FTZ's, we would just pay more though.......The price of gas at the pump now has basically no tax on it from what you are saying....

How would you get a fair price on gas if this was brought out in the open for "them" to respond to?

If we are pumping oil from the USA, refining it in the USA, how is the price not cheaper here than everywhere else on the planet? Greed......

Greed will never end, if this is brought out and they have to get rid of FTZ's, then they will just find another way around it....There is nothing the average Joe can do unfortunately...

Great job with this thread....I had no clue, I wish there was something that anyone could do to lower prices at the pump but Greed controls all.....When there is money to be made, they don't care if that money comes from overpricing it's own goods to the citizens of their own country or not.....

Kinda pisses you off to think about it.....

reply to post by BritofTexas

No, I still can't see it (the point that Wrabbit is making, I mean). So long as it arrives from abroad and is then exported, I can't see the problem, and I don't see what difference it makes HOW it arrives (or how far it travels within the US to get to the FTZ). Or whether we are talking about pork pies or oil, for that matter.

What SHOULD be taxed, in my opinion, is the value added by the refining. Since this is simply the profit made by the refinery, it should be taxed like the profit made by any other commercial organisation. Corporation tax yes, import duties no.

reply to post by lacrimoniousfinale

The largest and most critical difference between the Venezuelan tanker full of crude to refine at a Corpus Christi CITGO Refinery within an FTZ and the Tar sand oil being brought across from Canada is simply this.


* The Venezuelan Tanker is using some U.S. resources and causing wear and tear of some of it. Very very little though. Lets see.... They'll have used U.S. waterways (Which bean counters really have ways of tabulating "use" for 'wear and tear' or related reasoning), they'll have made use of docking facilities which may or may not be entirely owned by the refinery and so, may not even figure into it for this. They'll have drawn resources, however momentarily, of the US Coast Guard and whatever harbor/shipping control exists in that area to keep ships from running into each other.

^^ That's the gross cost in ACTUAL terms to what that tanker of crude from South America would "trouble" the United States for in refining it and then re-exporting some 100% duty/tax free, back out of their own U.S. based facilitiy within the Trade Zone. Some may say THAT is enough to complain about and say the FTZ system is a rip off to us all. Personally, I don't. That's not enough at all and it IS what the Trade Zone system was designed to do...in addition to the excellent example given at the end of the last page by Britoftexas.


* The Tar sands oil is a WHOLE different animal in those raw terms. First, they are building physical structures outside the Trade Zone, to say the very least. 1,600 MILES of it, to be exact. This crosses U.S. land of both private and public nature alike. Government land and imminent domain seized private land.

(I was fine with the imminent domain ....IF the project was to the direct service of the American Public for infrastructure and basic support ...which an Oil pipeline *IS* ...if it's not geared for literally leap frogging our whole market to export back out like this)

Second, they'll be causing wear and tear across the land that sits on, the highways used to access and service it over the long term and the infrastructure that makes the whole thing possible. Things like OUR electricity grid powering their pumping stations, for instance. Electric bills pay for whats used. Taxes pay for the fact it's there in the first place. They're specifically operating to avoid those taxes in every way humanly possible ..while USING everything those taxes were made to compensate the American system for.


* Finally, I want to share this. I am trying to keep it fact based. Not speculative for *MY* approach (not to say anything to everyone else chatting, of course...lol) However, this is needed for more perspective.

The following bits come from analysis as well as testimony from Trasncanada and Canadian Officials in support of the Keystone extension.

But it’s not just environmentalists who are howling in the wilderness.

“The firms involved have asked the US State Department to approve this project, even as they’ve told Canadian government officials how the pipeline can be used to add at least $4 billion to the US fuel bill,” Philip K. Verleger, president of PKVerleger LLC, a Colorado consulting firm that specializes in research on oil market economics, wrote in a Minneapolis Star-Tribune commentary last March.

Why Canadian crude oil producers would choose Keystone XL when other pipelines to the US are running well below capacity has much to do with diversifying away from the US market to more lucrative markets in Europe, China, and other Asian countries, Verleger and others argue. Trends seem to support this thesis.

. . . .

That trend was captured in testimony Sept. 17, 2009, before Canada’s National Energy Board. Seven Canadian companies were willing to pay higher pipeline tariff costs for using the Keystone XL pipeline, the testimony showed, in order to bypass Midwest refineries by sending 500,000 barrels per day, the lion’s share of the pipeline’s capacity, to Gulf refineries.

Source
(The costs they refer to, as I read and understand it, are what the Production/Refinery map in my OP displays for "Pipeline Tolls" on a per barrel basis. Similar to the Venezuelan tanker example who would STILL pay harbor fees and whatever else required to operate in US waters to GET to the dock. They DO at least pay that small amount...and happy to pay more of it to get to FTZs)

It seems they believe we suffer from artificially LOW prices that actually take advantage of THEM, so says the overall article those pieces are taken from. So....a solution is, literally, in their own presentation, to direct oil out of the Midwest to relieve this "oversupply" problem.

The overall PTB did say years ago we WOULD BE acclimated to MUCH higher fuel costs. I guess this is how. In deception and ..IMO.. fraud.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

My suggestions, then, are these:

* The US authorities should set a pipeline tariff that reflects (i.e. compensates for) the "wear and tear" costs associated with using and maintaining the pipeline.

* The US electricity companies should ensure that their bills cover not just the ongoing cost of producing electricity, but also contribute sufficiently towards past (and future) fixed costs such as building power stations.

* The US authorities should tax FTZ-based refiners as they probably do any other business, i.e. on their profits.

Oil refineries are incredibly capital-intensive and require a high through-put to achieve profitability. If Canada and Venezuela were to pull out and do their own refining (a joint-venture in Panama, anyone?), I have no doubt that the per-barrel cost of refining crude oil would rise.

would the keystone pipeline lower gas prices in north america?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


There are also intangible benefits that accrue to these practices.

Basically these Zones allow production without US taxes being applied.

As such they benefit from having their plants in a politically stable country. They are not concerned with someone destroying them or seizing them under nationalism. They gain from the protection afforded by the US Military / Police / Federal Agencies / Coast Guard, and they put nothing into these areas.

They employ Americans and yet have zero input into the taxation system that provides the infrastructure that supports these workers such as roads / schools / hospitals etc etc ad infinitum.

Pretty good if you can get these perks.

This is simply an abuse of the system but only the Multinationals can get these perks. Sucks balls.

P

For the past couple of years I have been setting off fights in comment sections on Facebook and news articles about this Keystone pipeline scam.

Like the OP, I am greatly disturbed by the amount of people who believe that this pipeline is a way for the US to get cheaper fuel from our own continent.

The reality is that the pipeline is a way to dump the oil onto the higher priced foreign market, instead of selling it at a DISCOUNT to the US.

I live in the Midwest and have always been happy to notice that gas here is always cheaper than the national average. My understanding is that this was caused by a glut of tar sand oil leading to the building of a few refineries in my state.

Once the keystone pipeline is in place, the oil flowing to our midwest refineries will instead flow to the gulf to be refined and sent along to other countries, or at least sold at full price.

The revelation in the OP that not only is this being done, but that it's being done accompanied by a legendary amount of tax evasion is simply no surprise at all.

Just another part to the big joke.
And we're still the punchline.

Great post Wrabbit gives one a lot to consider. I wonder if we look at where our infrastructure is being reinforced in this country while the rest crumbles it is tied up in extracting resources for multinationals. These guys really know how to stick it to us by having us pay for and build the devices of our own destruction. This really screams Argentina collapse to me and these guys are (politicians) being forced into a position to sell off our assets and resources once the dollar collapses. That or force us to "share" in the new global govt. The IMF and other groups do this everywhere it was only a matter of time before this happens here. NAFTA and other anti-American trade legislation has been slowly eroding our independence and putting us in debt through the globalist bankers boom and bust fiat economy. This is fascism but at least the trains are running on time (cheap gas).

The real catch is they have us by the short and curly s because if we try to correct the situation by increasing their taxation they either pull up stakes and go over seas or they put the burden on the consumer. Either way is economic destruction.

Don’t be fooled into thinking the price of gas will go down in the US if the pipeline gets built.

Currently Alberta is selling crude at up to a 35% discount because we have very little exposure to the world markets (landlocked resources). When the pipeline starts up it will be sending 600,000 barrels per day to the gulf coast to be upgraded and there is the capacity to increase that number significantly. How long before the oil giants divert from other lines just to get the exposure ?

Oh ya, I almost forgot, that idiot Harper allowed the sale of Nexxen to China, who now has a stake in the oil sands. Can you guess where the oil is going ?

nice thread wrabbit ty
lots of stars and a flag

Absolutely wonderful thread, Rabbit. Best I have read in a long time and I will be re-reading it over and over.

Recently I've been hard at work on a paper entitled "The Post-Industrial America: Effects of Globalization, Economic Liberalization, and Free Trade on Middle Class America", which has been an analysis of the damaging effects economic policy and globalization have had on working class Americans as well as a comparison to how very well multinational corporations are doing as far as profits and tax avoidance goes. FTZs are something I have studied and included as they play an integral part, and you have done an amazing job outlining how they are taken advantage of.

It's late here now but I will return and add whatever I can, if I can as it is quite well done, to this discussion. It is a lengthy and complicated system and most average Americans, or anyone for that matter, do not understand how the system has been used to simultaneously stymie middle class Americans while further enriching already super wealthy corporate entities.

You should be proud. We need to get this info out there.

Need an informed public, and all.

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

There are also intangible benefits that accrue to these practices.

Basically these Zones allow production without US taxes being applied.

No - it allows firms to import goods, components and materials without paying duty on them ONLY AS LONG AS THEY ARE RE-EXPORTED. Where they enter the US market, duty becomes payable.

As such they benefit from having their plants in a politically stable country. They are not concerned with someone destroying them or seizing them under nationalism. They gain from the protection afforded by the US Military / Police / Federal Agencies / Coast Guard, and they put nothing into these areas.

Surely they pay some form of corporation tax on their profits, don't they? In all the literature I've read extolling the virtues of FTZs, none has mentioned any exemption from this. You know, most countries love to encourage foreign investment that employs local workers. Why are you so against it?

They employ Americans and yet have zero input into the taxation system that provides the infrastructure that supports these workers such as roads / schools / hospitals etc etc ad infinitum.

Wow. Are you saying that they employ Americans who pay NO income tax? Sweet.

Pretty good if you can get these perks.

Anyone can. Just rent some space in a FTZ, and start your own import-export business. As for perks: well the only one I can see is that firms located within a FTZ pay no import duty, so long as the goods are re-exported. This is a very common business technique, used throughout the world. Of course, you could close this "abuse" and force firms in a FTZ to pay import duty, even on goods destined for re-export. I'll let you work out the consequences of that for the price of US exports, and what the impact might be on the workers employed in those exporting industries.

This is simply an abuse of the system but only the Multinationals can get these perks.

Well, they are called FOREIGN Trade Zones after all. I guess a business which imports from one or more contries and exports back out would be classified as multinational. But just have a look at the fims located in FTZs in part 3 of Wrabbit's OP: there are an awful lot of US firms in there.

reply to post by lacrimoniousfinale


"No - it allows firms to import goods, components and materials without paying duty on them ONLY AS LONG AS THEY ARE RE-EXPORTED. Where they enter the US market, duty becomes payable."

Yes I know that. But it still means they have an advantage from other firms that don't use this strategy and still export.

"Surely they pay some form of corporation tax on their profits, don't they? In all the literature I've read extolling the virtues of FTZs, none has mentioned any exemption from this."

If the 'entity' doing the production is a non us company set up in a tax haven then why would they pay any tax? They are not really in the US. It is not surprising that they do not advertise the fact is it.

"You know, most countries love to encourage foreign investment that employs local workers. Why are you so against it?"

I am not. It is one of the greatest wins by multinationals. In Australia they mine the ore that belongs to the Australian Citizens, pay almost nothing for it and then when someone mentions that they should pay a reasonable amount they spend millions on ad campaigns to convince us that they are in it for the good of out country because they provide jobs and get the hanky out because it is all hearts and flowers. They pay almost no tax and yet make billions in profits. You may get sucked in but not me!

"Wow. Are you saying that they employ Americans who pay NO income tax? Sweet."

That is not what I said. Try reading what I did say. It does raise an interesting point. If you work in a zone for an off shore company, do you have to pay income tax? I don't know your system well enough to answer this. I can say that if you chose not to, it would be hard for the IRS to find out since there would not be records available to them.

The problem is that these zones were set up to provide a necessary function and yes all countries do it to some extent. It seems to me that Multinationals can use these zones all over the globe and pay no taxes to anyone. Even if they get caught, the shell company has no assets and the cockroaches all run and hide.

The problem is that the really big companies are not paying taxes to anyone and use loopholes and slippery accounting to do it while at the same time making insane annual profits.

P

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Wow! That's a lot of information to process. I know I've spent at least a couple of hours reading your initial posts and then your follow-up comments. You have done some extremely good work, and in a relatively short amount of time. You have the beginnings of a non-fiction book here.

Unfortunately I think this topic is far too complicated for the MSM to present to the dumbed-down and impatient American public. The MSM-Industrial-Complex can't sell advertising when they're putting their audience to sleep with complicated "stuff." Now "American Idol versus the Voice ratings war," is an interesting news story that Americans can understand and really get into.

Now I'm not one to complain about some people and businesses not paying enough taxes. I work with a CPA and you might be surprised at how many ways the government can extract its pound of flesh. And if these FTZ businesses are forced to pay more of the taxes that they are currently avoiding by taking advantage of these mechanisms, these additional costs would be passed along to the consumer. But if the localities where these FTZs are located can't tax the property and inventories of these sheltered companies, then those funds have to be made up elsewhere. So local and state sales taxes and property taxes are increased on those businesses and citizens that aren't able to take advantage of these perks.

In looking at Table A-3 in Wrabbit's Post part 1, it appears that in the 17 years between 1993 and 2010, the employement level increased by 10%, while the product handled increased by 400%. Certainly the increased amount of product handled no doubt increased tax revenues in one way or another. But the fact that these transactions occured within the FTZ would lead one to believe that the tax savings were also significant. And the minimal increase in employment would tend to indicate that those tax savings are not being redirected into the local economies by increasing employment. So the argument that this behavior created massive numbers of new jobs is misleading.

One unfortunate side-effect of this "tax haven" is the fact that the true cost of petroleum products is being hidden. The government continues to borrow massively while the Oil companies rack up massive profits. When all of this government borrowing comes back around to bite us in the a$$, we'll be stuck paying for all these years of cheap oil. And then suddenly we'll also be paying for the real cost of those petroleum products. Because we've been conditioned to expect these cheap prices, we will not have sufficiently invested in other sources of energy to compensate.

If we were to experience the true price of petroleum products right now, we would no doubt have already rebelled against the oil barons. When the price of gasoline spiked a few years ago, the American public significantly cut back on consumption and began showing interest in renewable energy sources. Once big oil cut back on their greed level, prices came down and we went right back to our glutoneous consumption, forgetting the lessons we just learned. Unfortunately those fuel prices have slowly creapt back up while we were sleeping. Or while we were being distracted by reality television...

I'll admit that my initial concern with the Keystone pipeline was the fact that it crosses through the heart of the Ogallala Aquifer. Given what has happened in the Gulf and Alaska, I definitely don't trust any Oil company to properly maintain its equipment. Contamination of the Ogallala Aquifer may not be so easily reversed. It doesn't make sense to me to have an oil pipeline running through my "breadbasket." And now, based on the evidence you have presented, it would appear that we wouldn't benefit much from taking this great risk.

Excellent work Wrabbit!!!

Dex

reply to post by pheonix358

In Australia they mine the ore that belongs to the Australian Citizens, pay almost nothing for it and then when someone mentions that they should pay a reasonable amount they spend millions on ad campaigns to convince us that they are in it for the good of out country because they provide jobs and get the hanky out because it is all hearts and flowers. They pay almost no tax and yet make billions in profits.

It's so sad to hear just how global it's become on that happening everywhere now. I wouldn't have thought it had gotten that bad in Australia.

If you work in a zone for an off shore company, do you have to pay income tax? I don't know your system well enough to answer this.

There is about 0 chance, in my opinion as I haven't dug deep into tax code, for not having to pay income tax. When I had started into the process to drive trucks for KBR in Iraq (2004..and I didn't end up going) it was made very clear that I had to stay outside the U.S for a specific number of days per year (and it wasn't even enough for both R&R periods they gave their drivers to come back. I could have 1 of the 15 day periods back here.) to remain outside IRS tax jurisdiction and get the 80,000 it was then, tax free. These guys inside an FTZ would all be going home every night. So if that helps for how the tax code works.

You bring up a very interesting point that I don't have an answer for though. Do they pay any corporate related taxes IF they are headquartered outside the US? You're right about it being foreign/international soil in how a good part of the law looks at it. If anyone else wants to pick up where I left off to find that detail, I'm sure everyone would appreciate it.

Tax code and Law is one of those few areas I simply avoid like a contagious and particularly nasty disease.

@Thread

I just want to take a moment and thank everyone who has posted. I'm simply happy I was able to logically put it all together in a way that others have found informative and helpful. This one was quite a challenge.

I found something new.... This is from one of the same sources I have in the original OP. It's a section of a larger application to get a subzone status granted for a business to operate in the Foreign Trade Zone.

FTZ-Related Savings:

29. What are the total estimated annual FTZ-related savings associated with the proposed subzone activity you are describing in this application?

30. Provide the percentage breakdown for your total estimated FTZ savings into the following categories: Logistical/Paperwork; Inverted Tariff; Exports; Duty Deferral; and Scrap/Waste.

31. Provide any additional explanation or special features of the above savings that may be relevant to the review or implementation of zone procedures (e.g., formulas, Customs rulings, scrap as percentage of imported product).

32. Provide an estimated cost figure for operating your proposed subzone each year. (Components of your annual operating cost could include record keeping/inventory control, fees to the zone grantee, etc.)

33. A small number of states (e.g., Texas, Ohio) assess local taxes on business inventories. The Foreign-Trade Zones Act allows states to exempt merchandise from such taxes in FTZs. Does your state have an inventory tax or "personal property tax" for which collections will be affected by your proposed FTZ manufacturing authority? If yes:

(Source: Full Application )

That's not all inclusive for benefits as some are listed in other parts of that site, but it's interesting for what is asked about and just how it's asked. Too bad those applications aren't public record. .....they aren't, are they? Anyone have FOIA experience around here?

Phoenix358 asks "If you work in a zone for an off shore company, do you have to pay income tax? I don't know your system well enough to answer this" and you say:

There is about 0 chance, in my opinion as I haven't dug deep into tax code

So this is all just guesswork, then?

You then conclude your paragraph with:

So if that helps for how the tax code works

Well, no. actually. Because YOU DON'T KNOW HOW THE TAX CODE WORKS (capitals for emphasis, not shouting).

Then you ask:

You bring up a very interesting point that I don't have an answer for though. Do they pay any corporate related taxes IF they are headquartered outside the US?

So, another important tax-related question you don't know the answer to.

In an earlier post you accuse FTZs of being "tax shelters in plain sight", and now you admit:

Tax code and Law is one of those few areas I simply avoid like a contagious and particularly nasty disease

Well, I appreciate that you have spent a lot of time on this thread, and I have no doubt that there are tax accountants out there who are one step ahead of the tax authorities, but I really need evidence and not speculation if I am to be convinced by what you are saying.

reply to post by lacrimoniousfinale

Okay, in the interests of clarifying this to what you're starting to nitpick at outright ridiculous levels now, let me state this in the terms of factual knowledge instead of leaving things somewhat vague for individual interpretation or...as I always hope...added personal information by others to help build understanding.

In 2004, and to be specific, in May and June of that year, it was, to my CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE (as confirmed by my own tax guy after being instructed by the orientation and training people at Kellog, Brown and Root) accurate to say that a United States Citizen had to be OUTSIDE United States territory for the vast majority of the calendar tax year as counted by 24hr days under the IRS code relating to tax exempt status of ex-pat citizens or those working abroad.

This is what got Wesley Snipes in very bad trouble with the IRS. If you were, at that time, inside the United States ONE DAY over the regulatory limit set by the IRS, you were then liable for the FULL tax bill of all monies earned outside the United States for the year in question.

Specifically, after returning from Iraq (Had I boarded the plane I was set to leave on), the tax people would have examined, precisely, how many 24hr periods I'd had outside. At $80,000 pay, paid like most jobs do across the whole year period, the sudden 'Oh, you owe 30+% by the way' was something KBR indicated HAD happened and HAD utterly destroyed people over.

I hope that helps to clarify what seems to be contention for the basic facts of United States tax code relating to work performed outside the United States territory. I'm sure someone here knows tax code well enough to actually cite and quote the precise black and white wording out of the books. THAT part is what I have no desire to even touch.

HATING the tax code though, does not equate to complete ignorance of it. Ask me HOW many days the requirement was? I honestly don't recall....and WHY, in good faith, I didn't state what I did as hard fact, given the specifics of what I was stating up there. Perhaps I'm TOO picky in how I qualify my own statements but I try to be exceptionally clear when something isn't fact. Fact = Every single thing said, across the whole given statement is 100% verifiable and will prove true to others who check. What I stated in THIS ONE is, 100% Factual as it stood in late Spring of 2004 ...and how, in whatever way, it translates to this situation now.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Thank you for giving up your time to write a comprehensive reply, but I guess we are now talking at cross-purposes. My concern was NOT with those US citizens who spend part of their time abroad. We in the UK have very similar laws, and woe betide you (tax-wise) if you spend one day longer in this country than you should have done.

No, my concern is that FTZs are being vilified as tax shelters without anyone seeming to know anything about the tax laws in relation to them. All I am hearing is speculation. What is not in dispute is that businesses in a FTZ do not pay import duty on goods that are subsequently exported beyond US boundaries. What I would like to know, and hopefully someone can help us out here, is:

* Do employees of FTZ-based businesses pay income tax like employees in any other situation do?
* Do businesses based in FTZs pay corporation tax on their profits like businesses in any other situation do?
* Do business based in FTZs pay property taxes like businesses in any other situation do?

I must say that I seem to be in a minority of one here. Most posters have jumped in with huge enthusiasm for your post, and many have weighed in with their own versions of how bad FTZs are as a means of tax avoidance. I quote:

"legendary amount of tax evasion"
"refineries that pay next to no tax, in fact not even taxes that apply if you employ people"
"allowing them to completely bypass any taxes"
"this scam is so massive is just unbelievable"
"We the Tax payer are being shafted"
"They employ Americans and yet have zero input into the taxation system"

Let's have the facts. And I mean facts, not speculation or heresay. Anyone ... please? You accuse me of "nitpick(ing) at outright ridiculous levels". No, this is not nitpicking - I am looking at 3 hugely important areas of taxation, and asking for clarity on how businesses and employees in FTZs are treated in relation to them.

reply to post by lacrimoniousfinale

If anyone would like further facts on a side issue to the primary OP (Indv. Income Tax and Corporate Tax specifics)? They're more than welcome to explore that to it's conclusion and please do share whatever is found. We'll all be interested.

Beyond that, I'm far too buried in something of importance and totally unrelated to run up bunny trails for hours to get precise chapter, verse and page # on a side issue my OP didn't even cover. Please let us know about the facts you may uncover though ...since these specific tax details seem to be of real serious importance to you.