Obama - No Windfall Tax On Oil Companies

[red states rule]

Obama broke another campaign promise - and I SUPPORT this decision. Looks like Obama is moving to the right when it comes to the economy, and I doubt if this will play well with his kook base

Is the great one dumping his plan to fund green energy research that will one day plant a windmill in every backyard?????



Obama shelves oil company tax after price fall: aide

By Jeff Mason and Tom Doggett

CHICAGO/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama is not planning to implement a windfall profit tax on oil companies because prices have dropped below $80 a barrel, an aide said on Tuesday.

"President-elect Obama announced the policy during the campaign because oil prices were above $80 per barrel," an aide on Obama's transition team said. "They are currently below that now and expected to stay below that."

Oil prices have fallen from a record $147 a barrel in July to under $50 this week.

Obama, who signaled early in his campaign for the White House that he would take an active approach to oil markets as president, had planned to use the revenue from a windfall profits tax to fund a tax rebate for low- and middle-income families struggling with high energy prices.

But the aide said Obama's presidential campaign had already taken the price drop into account six weeks ago. When Obama laid out his economic plan for the middle class in mid-October, revenue from a windfall profit tax was not included because of the price change, he said.

Oil companies steadfastly opposed a tax, saying it would stifle exploration and innovation.

The switch drew applause from industry.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE4B206W20081203

[Yurt]

hey, we're almost getting mccain :laugh2:

[red states rule]

hey, we're almost getting mccain :laugh2:

or Pres Bush's third term

I am having trouble keeping up with all of Obama's flip flops. Has the light dawned on His Highness? Or was everything the messiah said to get elected was indeed crap?

[moderate democrat]

I don't quite understand. When he wanted to put a windfall tax on exorbitant oil industry profits, the oil industry was making exorbitant profits. Now that they are no longer making those profits, it makes good sense to no longer seek to tax them on exorbitant taxes they are no longer making.

[red states rule]

I don't quite understand. When he wanted to put a windfall tax on exorbitant oil industry profits, the oil industry was making exorbitant profits. Now that they are no longer making those profits, it makes good sense to no longer seek to tax them on exorbitant taxes they are no longer making.

What is "exorbitant"?

Do you have any idea what Exxon has paid in TAXES so far this year?

The government makes more off the sale of a gallon of gas then Exxon does

[moderate democrat]

What is "exorbitant"?

Do you have any idea what Exxon has paid in TAXES so far this year?

The government makes more off the sale of a gallon of gas then Exxon does

I am not sure what the tax rate has to do with the amount of profit. the fat remains that the oil companies were making an exorbitant amount - in terms of real dollars - from the sale of their product... and now they are not. IT makes sense to no longer seek to tax their profits when their profits have declined.

[red states rule]

I am not sure what the tax rate has to do with the amount of profit. the fat remains that the oil companies were making an exorbitant amount - in terms of real dollars - from the sale of their product... and now they are not. IT makes sense to no longer seek to tax their profits when their profits have declined.

Who are you to determine when a profit is exorbitant? Again, you do not seem to have a problem with the government making about 5 times what Exxon makes off the sale of a gallon of gas

How much MORE in taxes do you demand Exxon pays? Remember any tax increase will passed on to us anyway

Exxon's 2007 Tax Bill: $30 Billion

Corporate profits receive a lot of media attention, but what receives considerably less attention are the corporate taxes paid on corporate profits. Do a Google search for "Exxon profits" and you'll get about 8,000 hits. Now try "Exxon taxes" and you'll get a little more than 300 hits. That's a ratio of about 33 to 1.

I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.

By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!

[Update: The $40.6 billion and $39.5 billion figures are after-tax profits. For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income

http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion

[moderate democrat]

Who are you to determine when a profit is exorbitant? Again, you do not seem to have a problem with the government making about 5 times what Exxon makes off the sale of a gallon of gas

How much MORE in taxes do you demand Exxon pays? Remember any tax increase will passed on to us anyway

Exxon's 2007 Tax Bill: $30 Billion

Corporate profits receive a lot of media attention, but what receives considerably less attention are the corporate taxes paid on corporate profits. Do a Google search for "Exxon profits" and you'll get about 8,000 hits. Now try "Exxon taxes" and you'll get a little more than 300 hits. That's a ratio of about 33 to 1.

I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.

By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!

[Update: The $40.6 billion and $39.5 billion figures are after-tax profits. For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income

http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion


their profit was AFTER they passed on any tax increases to the consumer. Like I said....I understand why Obama might consider backing off the windfall profit tax for oil companies when their profit margins came down from the statosphere.

[red states rule]

their profit was AFTER they passed on any tax increases to the consumer. Like I said....I understand why Obama might consider backing off the windfall profit tax for oil companies when their profit margins came down from the statosphere.

Obama is backing off ALL TAX INCREASES because he knows they will harm the economy

Now if his liberal tax and spend base could learn that

Now some Dems are openly talking about increasing the federal gas tax.

Again, when is a profit exorbitant?

[moderate democrat]

Again, when is a profit exorbitant?

good question...I think it may very well be akin to the question of "what is pornography?".... you know it when you see it.

[red states rule]

good question...I think it may very well be akin to the question of "what is pornography?".... you know it when you see it.

IOW you do not have a clue - just sprewing the approved DNC talking points

OK, I got it now

[moderate democrat]

IOW you do not have a clue - just sprewing the approved DNC talking points

OK, I got it now

and when do you think that a profit is exorbitant? ever???

[red states rule]

and when do you think that a profit is exorbitant? ever???

Not when the profit is earned, and no laws broken

It is called capitalism

Oil companies had record demand for their product, they had record sales, so what is so shocking they had precord profits

AND paid a record amount in taxes

[moderate democrat]

Not when the profit is earned, and no laws broken

It is called capitalism

Oil companies had record demand for their product, they had record sales, so what is so shocking they had precord profits

AND paid a record amount in taxes

their cost of production did not increase one iota. the fact that their suppliers ramped up the cost per barrel allowed them to make enormous profits with no downside... and they passed ALL that increased per/barrel oil cost on to their consumer while their internal cost for producing a gallon of product did not change at all...

[Yurt]

good question...I think it may very well be akin to the question of "what is pornography?".... you know it when you see it.

actually you are wrong. pornography has a standard.

excess profits, eh, no, no such standard. why? think about it....you define X dollar amount today as excessive, you have set a standard. imagine setting that standard 50 years ago.

taxing "excess" profits is pure bullshit. there is nothing in this country that suppports such a tax, as if other taxes are supported, but for the sake of argument, excessive tax is about punishing those who succeed. period.

[red states rule]

their cost of production did not increase one iota. the fact that their suppliers ramped up the cost per barrel allowed them to make enormous profits with no downside... and they passed ALL that increased per/barrel oil cost on to their consumer while their internal cost for producing a gallon of product did not change at all...

That is pure BS - right of the Dem handbook

Again, taxes are 5 to 7 times what Exxon made in profit. I do not hear any outrage from the left about that

Here is what Exxon paid in taxes - yet to you it is not enough

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/2/5/exxonprofitsandtaxes.jpg

[moderate democrat]

That is pure BS - right of the Dem handbook

Again, taxes are 5 to 7 times what Exxon made in profit. I do not hear any outrage from the left about that

Here is what Exxon paid in taxes - yet to you it is not enough


their profit went up 2 BILLION dollars and they did not have to invest anything in capital to get that capital.... they had to do ZERO other than pay more for their raw materials which they more than compensated for by jacking up their prices on a commodity that our economy could not do without.

[red states rule]

their profit went up 2 BILLION dollars and they did not have to invest anything in capital to get that capital.... they had to do ZERO other than pay more for their raw materials which they more than compensated for by jacking up their prices on a commodity that our economy could not do without.


Exxon spends $1 billion/per day to operate

Why do you libs have such hate for a company that keeps America working?

[Yurt]

actually you are wrong. pornography has a standard.

excess profits, eh, no, no such standard. why? think about it....you define X dollar amount today as excessive, you have set a standard. imagine setting that standard 50 years ago.

taxing "excess" profits is pure bullshit. there is nothing in this country that suppports such a tax, as if other taxes are supported, but for the sake of argument, excessive tax is about punishing those who succeed. period.

mfm, er md, you missed this

[red states rule]

mfm, er md, you missed this

You picked up on the Virgil's alter ego as well? :laugh2:

[Yurt]

You picked up on the Virgil's alter ego as well? :laugh2:

lol, it is easy...though i never figured him for the kind of guy that would do that, so it may not be him, but looks/walks like...

[red states rule]

lol, it is easy...though i never figured him for the kind of guy that would do that, so it may not be him, but looks/walks like...

I will buy you dinner if it is not him. His arrogance, and know it all attitude shows thru for all to see

[moderate democrat]

actually you are wrong. pornography has a standard.

excess profits, eh, no, no such standard. why? think about it....you define X dollar amount today as excessive, you have set a standard. imagine setting that standard 50 years ago.

taxing "excess" profits is pure bullshit. there is nothing in this country that suppports such a tax, as if other taxes are supported, but for the sake of argument, excessive tax is about punishing those who succeed. period.

I happen to think that if your production process does not change in any way, and the only thing that changes is the price of your raw materials, and you pass ALL of that cost onto the consumer and mark up your product based upon the percentage used when your production process was established, the increased profits you generate are not based upon any improvements in your product design or quality of production process, but solely on the price of raw materials that you have passed on with no cost to yourself, your profits could be considered excessive.

[red states rule]

I happen to think that if your production process does not change in any way, and the only thing that changes is the price of your raw materials, and you pass ALL of that cost onto the consumer and mark up your product based upon the percentage used when your production process was established, the increased profits you generate are not based upon any improvements in your product design or quality of production process, but solely on the price of raw materials that you have passed on with no cost to yourself, your profits could be considered excessive.

Hey Virgil, how about the government cutting their taxes on gas? Or the corporate tax?

You have ignored my point that the government makes 5 to 7 times what Exxon made off the sale of a gallon of gas

If you are calling Exxon's profit excessive, what do you call the amount in taxes WE pay to the government?

And why are you posting under another name? :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

Hey Virgil, how about the government cutting their taxes on gas? Or the corporate tax?

You have ignored my point that the government makes 5 to 7 times what Exxon made off the sale of a gallon of gas

If you are calling Exxon's profit excessive, what do you call the amount in taxes WE pay to the government?

And why are you posting under another name? :laugh2:

I don't know what you are talking about.

the government's take is all before taxes. the profit is clear...and, I think, it WAS excessive...now: not so much.

[red states rule]

I don't know what you are talking about.

the government's take is all before taxes. the profit is clear...and, I think, it WAS excessive...now: not so much.

Come on Virgil - you have been busted. And Iam glad you fianlly admittted you do not know what you are talking about. It took a long time for you to finally tell the truth :laugh2:

The government get there share from Exxon when they file their taxes, and us everytime we fill up at the pump

[moderate democrat]

Come on Virgil - you have been busted. And Iam glad you fianlly admittted you do not know what you are talking about. It took a long time for you to finally tell the truth :laugh2:

The government get there share from Exxon when they file their taxes, and us everytime we fill up at the pump

look...red states... I just found this site... I have no idea who this virgil character is...

and my point was, regardless of the government's share, exxon takes their profit AFTER taxes and, when oil was worth twice as much as it is now, and exxon's production proces was unchanged, their profits were excessive... but that is only a judgment and we are free to disagree about that.

[red states rule]

look...red states... I just found this site... I have no idea who this virgil character is...

and my point was, regardless of the government's share, exxon takes their profit AFTER taxes and, when oil was worth twice as much as it is now, and exxon's production proces was unchanged, their profits were excessive... but that is only a judgment and we are free to disagree about that.

Once again MFM, Exxon had record demand for their product, they had reacord salaes, so it is no surprise they had record profits

Why do liberals wnat to cap how much of a prfot a compnay can make? Many other companies have a higher profit margin then Exxon

[moderate democrat]

Once again MFM, Exxon had record demand for their product, they had reacord salaes, so it is no surprise they had record profits

Why do liberals wnat to cap how much of a prfot a compnay can make? Many other companies have a higher profit margin then Exxon


look...red states rule....I am a new person here... I just found this site. I don't know who this MFM character is, but it is not me... my only point was...when a company builds a manufacturing process around a raw material that costs X dollars, and the price of that material doubles while the process does not change, the profit margin made by the company, at some point, becomes excessive...but that is only my opinion. I can well understand how other people might have different opinions.

[red states rule]

look...red states rule....I am a new person here... I just found this site. I don't know who this MFM character is, but it is not me... my only point was...when a company builds a manufacturing process around a raw material that costs X dollars, and the price of that material doubles while the process does not change, the profit margin made by the company, at some point, becomes excessive...but that is only my opinion. I can well understand how other people might have different opinions.

Whatever Virgil. Botom line we have another Obama flip flop - one that I agree with

How will the Obama Kool Aid drinkers blame Pres bush for this one?

From Obama's own website

Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan

Jumpstart the Economy
Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

[Yurt]

:lol:

that "sounds" like mfm, repeats his words...etc.....but why? i never figured for a someone to do that, but....hmmmmm

[red states rule]

I am happy to see Obama is pursuing more conservative fiscal/economic policies. Obamabots like MFM must be seething

[Classact]

I don't quite understand. When he wanted to put a windfall tax on exorbitant oil industry profits, the oil industry was making exorbitant profits. Now that they are no longer making those profits, it makes good sense to no longer seek to tax them on exorbitant taxes they are no longer making.Wanna bet? Oil companies are still kicking butt, the most profitable of all Wall Street stocks! Everyone is buying Exxon check this out http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=xom&getquote=Get+Quote

[red states rule]

Wanna bet? Oil companies are still kicking butt, the most profitable of all Wall Street stocks! Everyone is buying Exxon check this out http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=xom&getquote=Get+Quote

Perhaps the messiah went back and saw how well windfall taxes worked during the Carter years

Oil production decreased, the supply of oil went down, and prices soared.

Again. I am happy to see PE Obama come around to my way of thinking, and publicly admitting how tax increases would harm the US economy

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't quite understand. When he wanted to put a windfall tax on exorbitant oil industry profits, the oil industry was making exorbitant profits. Now that they are no longer making those profits, it makes good sense to no longer seek to tax them on exorbitant taxes they are no longer making.

do you realize your inconsistency?.....a windfall profits tax is based upon the premise that an industry has MADE too high a profit and needs to be stripped of their "ill gotten" gain......to be consistent, you would tax the profit they MADE last year, irregardless of the lack of windfall or even lack of profit they are currently making

[red states rule]

do you realize you're inconsistency?.....a windfall profits tax is based upon the premise that an industry has MADE too high a profit and needs to be stripped of their "ill gotten" gain......to be consistent, you would tax the profit they MADE last year, irregardless of the lack of windfall or even lack of profit they are currently making

and any tax imposed on the company would be passed on to their customers. Corporations do NOT pay taxes

[moderate democrat]

do you realize you're inconsistency?.....a windfall profits tax is based upon the premise that an industry has MADE too high a profit and needs to be stripped of their "ill gotten" gain......to be consistent, you would tax the profit they MADE last year, irregardless of the lack of windfall or even lack of profit they are currently making
perhaps I didn't explain myself correctly. I have no problem in taxing the windfall profits made when the exorbitant price of oil alone created their windfall profit... and now that the price of oil is down to more rational levels, those profits are, themselves, more rational.

[red states rule]

perhaps I didn't explain myself correctly. I have no problem in taxing the windfall profits made when the exorbitant price of oil alone created their windfall profit... and now that the price of oil is down to more rational levels, those profits are, themselves, more rational.

You have no problem with any tax. To liberals like you, corporate profits are bad - taxes are good. You continue to ignore taxes are 5 to 7 times what the profit margin is for the oil companies on the sale of a gallon of gas

[moderate democrat]

You have no problem with any tax. To liberals like you, corporate profits are bad - taxes are good. You continue to ignore taxes are 5 to 7 times what the profit margin is for the oil companies on the sale of a gallon of gas

I like lower taxes. I am glad that Obama is holding off on his tax increases on the top tax brackets... and regarding oil company profits, if the increased profit margin were due in any way to innovation that led to an improvement in their production process, I would applaud such a profit increase. Innovation is key to America's continued prominence, I think.

[red states rule]

I like lower taxes. I am glad that Obama is holding off on his tax increases on the top tax brackets... and regarding oil company profits, if the increased profit margin were due in any way to innovation that led to an improvement in their production process, I would applaud such a profit increase. Innovation is key to America's continued prominence, I think.

You change faster then a stripper during a raid Virgil. :laugh2:

You posted before when asked how much more in taxes you wanted the "rich" and corporations to pay - you replied "as much as we can squeeze out of them"

Being a liberal means backing whatever Obama says and does - even if it goes against what you supported yesterday

[moderate democrat]

red states rule:

I do not know who this Virgil character is, but it is not me.

I am pleased that Obama will not raise taxes on anyone. I am pleased he will give a tax cut to the middle class.

[red states rule]

red states rule:

I do not know who this Virgil character is, but it is not me.

I am pleased that Obama will not raise taxes on anyone. I am pleased he will give a tax cut to the middle class.

You are not fooling anyone MFM

Obama's kook left base is pissed over his flip flops - I am relieved over the "refining" of his postions

However, now Obama must knock some sense into Reid and Pelosi who are foaming at the mouth to raise taxes and increase government spending

[PostmodernProphet]

perhaps I didn't explain myself correctly. I have no problem in taxing the windfall profits made when the exorbitant price of oil alone created their windfall profit... and now that the price of oil is down to more rational levels, those profits are, themselves, more rational.

so you don't mind if corporations ripped people off last year, so long as they aren't ripping people off this year?.....

I am curious though.....if people make a ten percent profit off their inventory....and the inventory quadruples in price so their ten percent profit nets them four times as much money, do you figure they have an obligation to restructure so that they make a less than ten percent profit?......is there a corollary?......if the cost of inventory drops, may they then restructure so they make a thirty or forty percent profit instead of a ten percent profit.......(hint, which of the above is the real "windfall profit")........

[PostmodernProphet]

You are not fooling anyone MFM



red, why not stop wasting our time with speculations about the poster's identity.....we don't speculate whether you're a sock-puppet for Michael Savage.......

[DragonStryk72]

their profit was AFTER they passed on any tax increases to the consumer. Like I said....I understand why Obama might consider backing off the windfall profit tax for oil companies when their profit margins came down from the statosphere.

Um, yeah, every business in the world does that, that's why businesses are still in business. Wal-Mart and Exxon are not non-profit companies, and so, had Obama passed that tax, which would have gotten passed given the party control of all the necessary branches of government, You know what would have happened? Either A. Exxon would have relocated itself to another country, or, should that not work, they would simply pass the tax increase to the consumer, just like you yourself have said here.

Should they fail at being able to get around the tax, well, then, they'll be laying people off to make it up, simple as that. They will do what it takes to make their company as profitable as they can, because they're in this to make profit, period. That the great logical fallacy of taxing the companies, and taxing the rich, that they will all simply roll over and take it, when in truth, absolutely none of them will.

[DragonStryk72]

actually you are wrong. pornography has a standard.

excess profits, eh, no, no such standard. why? think about it....you define X dollar amount today as excessive, you have set a standard. imagine setting that standard 50 years ago.

taxing "excess" profits is pure bullshit. there is nothing in this country that suppports such a tax, as if other taxes are supported, but for the sake of argument, excessive tax is about punishing those who succeed. period.

Actually, all profits are excess by definition, so I agree with you here, but think about the ways in which that could get abused by the government. If all profit is excess (aka what's left over after you've paid off everyone, hence excess to your needs), then all profits are taxable.

Now, before anyone decides to go off on me about being a conspiracy nut, understand that in 1913, the income tax was a flat tax that effected only those making in excess of 200k a year, which was the top 1% of the country. I think we see where that led every time we look at our paycheck stubs.