Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/18/senate.taxes.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITI CS/11/18/senate.taxes.ap/index.html</a> Apparently, Bush thinks oil companies aren't making enough profit and wants to veto a bill that just passed that will, among other things, raise taxes on oil companies.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Windfall profit taxes are not a good idea. Averaged over a year or two, oil company profits are not excessive.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Then the taxes wouldn't be excessive either if they are averaged over a year or two.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Why, if a company makes money, and has record profits, is this a bad thing? Why, should we be in the business of telling companies what they can and cannot charge for their products? This whole notion of punishing oil companies because they made money -- albiet a lot of it -- is ridiculous. You can't force companies to 'do the right thing' and tell them they have to give heating oil at a reduced rate 'just because.' I don't like the direction this whole thing is heading. I wouldn't want someone coming into my company and forcing me to charge a certain price for what I sell, why is it okay that we do it to oil companies?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>I wouldn't want someone coming into my company and forcing me to charge a certain price for what I sell, why is it okay that we do it to oil companies?<< The entire economy of the country isn't affected by whether or not a gaffer finds a job by knocking on a door instead of through a website, Jim. That's not going to affect every aspect of the economy like oil does, from production to shipping to selling. It's not going to affect the amount of disposable income that consumers will have to spend in the stores that drive so much of our economy and so much of our local tax bases. Excessive profits to oil companies means lower sales for retailers and less tax money available for essential services. If your prices are too high, a handful of people will have to knock on doors or make phone calls or find a job outside the industry for a while. If the oil company prices are too high, then poorer people may have to decide between heating, commuting, eating, and paying their other bills.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <If the oil company prices are too high, then poorer people may have to decide between heating, commuting, eating, and paying their other bills.> Yeah, I just don't agree with this concept.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I've lived through having to make those kinds of decisions myself, so it's more than just a concept to me.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Yeah, I just don't agree with this concept." I understand where you're coming from Jim, and I think you offer a fair post (refreshing - instead of the rabid right-wing response from others). But people like you and I have benefited our whole lives because the government steps in and regulates huge industries. Everything from energy, to telecommunications, to food and drug, to entertainment, has been regulated or monitored by the government in one way or another to level the playing field. I don't always agree with it either, but I'll take it to ensure I can afford prescription drugs (and know they're safe), and my cell phone bill.
Originally Posted By itsme >>I wouldn't want someone coming into my company and forcing me to charge a certain price for what I sell, why is it okay that we do it to oil companies? ------- I put something like this in another thread here. But if you deal with insurance companies in certain businesses they tell you what your allowed to charge. One example would be the auto body biz, they are told by insurance compnays what they can charge per hour, they are somtimes told they must use used or aftermarket parts on repairs instead of oem. There is nothing they can do, either follow along or they lose the job.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <I've lived through having to make those kinds of decisions myself, so it's more than just a concept to me.> Me too Tom. Would it warm the cockles of your heart to know that I needed the assistance of food stamps in the not-so distant past?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer But it's good that there were tax dollars available that paid for the program that helped you and your family to eat, wasn't it?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Of course, but what does that have to do with penalizing the oil companies for making big profits?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The thread was about a tax cut to those same oil companies. Since they are heavily dependent on government services for their business, I guess I don't see that they are being penalized by having to pay for them.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Maybe I should have gone after VONS for charging me so much for the groceries when I couldn't afford them.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Why should we be in the business of telling companies what they can and cannot charge for their products? << Because these companies exist in a kind of vacuum. There are only about eight oil companies total, and they have formed a cartel in which they can nearly set the price for the entire market. In other industries, if one company can produce something cheaper or more efficiently, the system rewards them with greater profits and market share. Not so with the oil industry. There is the opportunity for price fixing - or "gouging" - of the public in order to reap windfall profits. The consumer is a sitting duck - we must buy their product regardless of the price. Hence, these eight corporations are incentivized to coordinate with each other to "fix" the pricing. This is a crime, but it's a crime that can only be policed at the federal level. And the current administration is just handing over the keys to these same corportations. The smart guess is that it was the oil companies who actually wrote the current energy bill and this is the reason that the oil execs are willing to lie to congress and the white house is refusing legitimate court ordered subpeonas for the records of these meetings. Never trust in the heart and good will of a corporation. They don't have the public's best interest at heart - it's just the nature of the beast. The "real" problem is that the our current federal government doesn't have the public's best interest at heart either. Proper federal regulation of these industries is a good thing. The government is supposed to protect US - the citizens, not the other way around. But with the corruption of the bush administration, the oil companies can squeeze us for all they like, and there's n o t h i n g we can do about it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There are only about eight oil companies total, and they have formed a cartel in which they can nearly set the price for the entire market.> That's an unsupportable statement.
Originally Posted By gadzuux You're right - maybe it's only five. <a href="http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm" target="_blank">http://www.globalpolicy.org/se curity/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm</a> >> Today [november 2003], a wave of mergers has given the successor companies a new and unprecedented scale, reducing the major firms to just five. In 2003, annual revenues of the leader, ExxonMobil, were an astonishing $247 billion. By way of comparison, Exxon’s revenue is vastly greater than such well-known international companies as Walt Disney ($25 billion) and Coca Cola ($19 billion) and it is larger than the revenues of 185 national governments, including Brazil, Canada, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands. Only the world’s six richest countries – the US, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the UK – had revenues above this level. Among the world’s fifteen largest corporations listed in the 2002 “Fortune Global 500,†five were oil companies. After US-based Exxon came the UK giants Shell and British Petroleum (BP), the mammoth French firm Total, and the huge US-based Chevron. Compared to the large automakers, with their anemic profits, the oil companies stand out among the world’s biggest corporations for their high profitability. In 2001 (and again in 2003), Exxon earned the world’s highest profits. In 2003, its earnings reached a record $22 billion, more than General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler and Toyota taken together.
