Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Waffle on August 07, 2008, 08:13:33 AM
-
Ok, let me know if I heard this correctly....
A certain democratic presidential nominee wants to take profits from those mean ol' "big oil" companies, and give it to us poor down trodden souls at the rate of $1000 a family?
I got a better idea - Why doesn't he just go after all business, big and small , and take their profits as well?
-
Why doesn't he just go after all business, big and small , and take their profits as well?
If elected he will. (http://smileydatabase.com/s/898.gif)
-
Ok, let me know if I heard this correctly....
A certain democratic presidential nominee wants to take profits from those mean ol' "big oil" companies, and give it to us poor down trodden souls at the rate of $1000 a family?
I got a better idea - Why doesn't he just go after all business, big and small , and take their profits as well?
I'm honestly surprised he isn't just giving away an XBAWKS for his vote - he'd get better results.
-
it's very simple, he wants to take money from the oil companies and give to to people so the people can give it back to the oil companies. Because he is taking profits which will go back to the oil companies , the oil companies will now show bigger profits on the books. That bigger profit will be then taxed, of course the govt will have to deduct shipping and handling for moving the money around.
-
It's a stupid idea, just like the previous one in 1980, which didn't work. It's just another example of selfish politicians pandering to voters who should know better. Just like the failed Bush tax rebate I might add (for titty twisting purposes).
Besides, what about food prices? Those are also going through the roof. Anybody suggesting a windfall profit tax on farmers? Of course not, because politicians aren't about to tick off the farm lobby. But a lot of idiot voters will buy into the idea of "punishing" the evil oil companies.
-
I like how an 8% profit margin is a "windfall".
-
Why doesn't he just go after all business, big and small , and take their profits as well?
You do what you can, when you can. Just keep your eyes on the prize :)
He is from Crook County, Illinois -- Tax capital of the US.
Charon
-
nope.. tax rebates are always a good thing.. taxing more is always a bad thing.
Taking money from one person and giving it to another is nothing like the government giving you back your money.
The government made more money on every gallon of gas sold than the oil companies did.. why doesn't the government get a windfall tax on them?
The states get sales tax gasoline based not on a gallon but on a dollar.. they have gotten true "windfall" profits that have more than trippled in the last few years.. you don't hear much about that tho.
lazs
-
Ok, let me know if I heard this correctly....
A certain democratic presidential nominee wants to take profits from those mean ol' "big oil" companies, and give it to us poor down trodden souls at the rate of $1000 a family?
I got a better idea - Why doesn't he just go after all business, big and small , and take their profits as well?
Make that $1000 for families that paid little or no taxes in the first place. :mad:
I'm actually surprised he's not talking about nationalizing the oil industry. :uhoh
-
Make that $1000 for families that paid little or no taxes in the first place. :mad:
I'm actually surprised he's not talking about nationalizing the oil industry. :uhoh
wait'll he's appointed.........eerr...i mean wins the election..... :noid
-
I like how an 8% profit margin is a "windfall".
The oil companies have made more profit than any company in history. Sure, it is an 8% margin but the market isn't an open market, ie HTC couldn't start their own oil company.
That said, taxing 'windfall profits' will not work as the oil company will just pass the cost onto the consumer.
-
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0807/p09s01-coop.html
In the first quarter of 2008, Big Oil had a profit margin of 7.4 percent. Over that same period, the pharmaceutical and medicine industry earned a 25.9 percent profit, the chemical industry earned 15.7 percent and the electronic equipment industry earned 12.1 percent.
What about those movie theater refreshments? Four large popcorns and four large sodas cost $31.50. The total raw ingredient cost is approximately $7.56. That equals a 76 percent gross margin. Where is the political outrage over that figure?
-
The oil companies have made more profit than any company in history. Sure, it is an 8% margin but the market isn't an open market, ie HTC couldn't start their own oil company.
That said, taxing 'windfall profits' will not work as the oil company will just pass the cost onto the consumer.
But they also paid alot of taxes themselves.....
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/2195.html
and from this article: http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-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, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes). "
Wonder if the democrats remember simple sayings like "don't bite the hand that feeds you"
BTW - I'm currently working on "Waffle's Oil Patch" But can't seem to get the neighborhood association to let me build a small rig in my front yard. :)
-
Blaming the oil companies for the price of gas is rather silly. It's the retailers that are in the public eye so obambam is just pandering to the misconception that they are to blame for the price of crude. Exxon and the others do not set the market price for oil they just have to deal with it like we do.
BTW every cost to the big oil companies is passed on to the rest of us since they are in the business of making money just like every other for profit business. This is just another disguised tax on those who can afford it the least, those who have to buy gas or diesel to get by.
-
One thing not pointed out much is the fact that MANY mutual funds have the big oil companies in their portfolio.
Slapping a windfall profits tax on them would have a negative effect on people's retirement accounts.
This is not meant to be a reason not to slap them with a windfall profits tax...they should not be subject to a windfall profits tax simply because it is pathetic to even suggest that.
-
One thing not pointed out much is the fact that MANY mutual funds have the big oil companies in their portfolio.
Slapping a windfall profits tax on them would have a negative effect on people's retirement accounts.
This is not meant to be a reason not to slap them with a windfall profits tax...they should not be subject to a windfall profits tax simply because it is pathetic to even suggest that.
Good insight Donzo. Never thought of that aspect. :aok
-
Windfall profits on the oil companies just gets passed on to consumers anyway so what Obadma is really promising the people is more taxes and they praise him for the pain!
-
Windfall profits on the oil companies just gets passed on to consumers anyway so what Obadma is really promising the people is more taxes and they praise him for the pain!
Pretty much everything Obama has promised will result in more taxes. Redistribution of wealth...that's the socialist way.
-
Anyone thinking of voting for EITHER The Obamessiah or McCain should read this article. And then vote Barr/Libertarian.
We are about to take a hosing. You can bend over or stand up for something different.
What, them worry?
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/06/what_them_worry/
...What, them worry?
Globe Columnist / August 6, 2008
...Too bad neither candidate used the occasion to speak seriously about the looming fiscal crisis. What they - and we - should be urgently focused on is not the budget deficit in any given year, but the crushing national debt that all those deficits cumulatively add up to: currently $9.6 trillion, and climbing rapidly. Just paying the interest on that debt will cost the government nearly $250 billion this year, making debt service the fourth-largest item in the federal budget.
But the surging cost of interest is nothing compared with the tidal wave of entitlement spending about to crash over us.
This is the year that the first of nearly 80 million baby boomers become eligible for Social Security payments; within three years, they will begin drawing Medicare benefits as well. Those two programs alone already account for one-third of the federal budget - 42 percent if you add Medicaid, which is also focused largely on the elderly. But in the years ahead, their costs will explode. If nothing changes, the Concord Coalition warns, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt will consume every penny of federal revenues in less than 20 years.
Clearly, things will change. They have to. Either taxes will be hiked to unprecedented levels, or spending - especially on entitlement programs - must be forcefully reined in. There is no other alternative short of continuing to run up the national debt, thereby loading our children with an unconscionable financial burden...
...The National Taxpayers Union Foundation, tallying the promises made by the presidential candidates, calculates that Obama 's "investments" would cost taxpayers another $344 billion a year. McCain's add up to an extra $68.5 billion
-
nope.. tax rebates are always a good thing..
Nope, Bush's tax rebate was stupid. Here's why:
1. It's a one time payment. Lowering the income tax rate, especially the marginal rate, encourages people to work more and spend more. On the other hand, a onetime payment doesn't change behavior. Only 10% to 20% of the rebate dollars were spent, providing relatively little stimulus, which was the whole reason for the rebates in the first place.
2. It wasn't accompanied by spending cuts. Anybody can write a check; it's paying for it that's the problem. The $15 billion in increase spending cost nearly $80 billion added to the permanent deficit. In other words, guess who pays for this? Taxpayers. Plus interest.
All Bush did was take out a loan from taxpayers so he could give everyone a check. Pandering to voters who should have known better, including you.
-
Nope, Bush's tax rebate was stupid. Here's why:
1. It's a one time payment. Lowering the income tax rate, especially the marginal rate, encourages people to work more and spend more. On the other hand, a onetime payment doesn't change behavior. Only 10% to 20% of the rebate dollars were spent, providing relatively little stimulus, which was the whole reason for the rebates in the first place.
2. It wasn't accompanied by spending cuts. Anybody can write a check; it's paying for it that's the problem. The $15 billion in increase spending cost nearly $80 billion added to the permanent deficit. In other words, guess who pays for this? Taxpayers. Plus interest.
All Bush did was take out a loan from taxpayers so he could give everyone a check. Pandering to voters who should have known better, including you.
Yep it was such a bad idea the dems decided to give it a go (wait a minute, this makes sense, if it didn't work then it WOULD make sense that the dems would recognize it and try it themselves)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5P_x5HfhQA0&refer=worldwide (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5P_x5HfhQA0&refer=worldwide)
-
Hey, if you're point is the dems are as stupid as the repubs, you're preaching to the choir.
-
Nope, Bush's tax rebate was stupid. Here's why:
All Bush did was take out a loan from taxpayers so he could give everyone a check. Pandering to voters who should have known better, including you.
I personally don't think it was pandering to voters - I think it was a stupid desperation attempt to stimulate the economy.
Didn't work - dumb idea - I agree 100%.
-
Make that $1000 for families that paid little or no taxes in the first place. :mad:
I'm actually surprised he's not talking about nationalizing the oil industry. :uhoh
They have as if they did such a good job in the 80s when there was a shortage caused by the government rationing program.
BTW, The democrats want to tax about every business on windfall profits. They also want to tax your 401k, Ira's and about anything else. This has all been said. Of course windfall is a matter of interpretation.
-
If all the democrats pooled all of their resources, they would feed, clothes and house the entire population that needs their help. They would actually accomplish on their own what they insist we accomplish. They could fund all the programs that some of us don't support, endorse or believe in, they could prove their way works while leaving the rest of us alone.
Think they'll do it? They can all live in the communes and be nice little socialist, heck, I even support the idea that We will fund the hard stuff, like infrastructure and the military so they can be safe, have water and get around. We'd still be so far out ahead, with "their" issues solved by their actions.
More oil for us, since they all want to cram themselves in high density housing downtown somewhere and ride the bus or walk. I think it's a good plan, I wish they would step up and actually do what they all demand we do. Go to your next city council meeting, ask the council who is continually enacting these stupid laws and regulations just how many carpooled or rode their bike to the meeting. None, they all drove, and justify it as convenient for them, and rightly so, they are our Leaders and have earned that right to some luxury.
Sacramento, peak hours, traffic jams, diamond lanes half capacity, other 3 and 4 lanes full of cars, guess what guys and gals that claim to be our "leaders", It Does Not Work, build wider roads, we drive places, on our own schedules, on our own errands, at our own schedules, get used to it, and plan accordingly.
It's cheaper to build a road than operate a bus line and subsidize that service. Yes, by all means, have the bus lines as there are people that need it, but don't reduce the roadway capacity down to parking lots and Force people onto the stupid things to justify them being on the road.
What does this have to do with windfall profits tax? Nothing! This does :D Hey, Experts, the economy is growing, of Course the larger companies are going to report record profits, that's what happens when things grow! Take a lesson on why the oil company recorded that profit Mr. Arnold and California who can't balance a budget, hire Them to fix your mistakes, these guys are actually good at making money.
Buncha clueless dolts in the highest offices, and not too sure about all of us who keep putting them there.
-
Why doesn't he just go after all business, big and small , and take their profits as well?
Thats pretty much what the Liberals want to do.
-
It's fashionable to quote the oil companies profits are 8% of sales, a seemingly benign return, but no one mentions their return on capitial is about 25-35%, which I think is a *much* more meaningful number. Even though that is a very high return, there's nothing illegal about it.
-
Hey, if you're point is the dems are as stupid as the repubs, you're preaching to the choir.
You say that as if theres a difference and anymore they are all the same except some real whack jobs like the myrmidons new messiah who are so screwed up they think marxism is something to strive for.
But back to the original post- the key word I believe is 'take.' Hitlary and Obadma used the same word and in exactly the same way as if the money in this country is ours to use only as long as politicians allow it. Im serious when I say its past time to march on Washington and let some real offensive behaviour ensue.
-
BTW - I'm currently working on "Waffle's Oil Patch" But can't seem to get the neighborhood association to let me build a small rig in my front yard. :)
more like "Waffle's Folly"
are you any kin to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Drake ?
-
nope myelo any time the government gives you back your money it is a great idea.. the only problem with the rebate scheme was that they gave back money to people who had not paid it in.
It would be an even better idea if they gave each and every one of us 90% of what we had paid in back.
Toad.. I had heard that Mccain pledged to not raise any taxes. I don't know if you can believe him or not but it is far better than osamabama and his promise to raise taxes in every way and every aspect of our lives.
Mccain does worry about SS.. I think that they are talking about raising the age of getting bennies again.. that seems to be the only thing that will work for the SS ponzie scheme anyway. If no one gets bennies till they are 80 it will probly all work out.
lazs
-
nope myelo any time the government gives you back your money it is a great idea.. the only problem with the rebate scheme was that they gave back money to people who had not paid it in.
lazs
Really. Here's a bit of an FYI for you Laz. We didn't qualify for the rebate. Even though the wife paid taxes last year on her pension it didn't qualify as "income" since it goes on a different line on the tax form. If you didn't have income you didn't qualify for the rebate.
-
Hmm.. my parents have not paid any taxes in decades and they both got a rebate.. they didn't even file till this year.
I know several people who didn't pay a cent (they got back all they paid in) and they got the incentive.
lazs
-
nope myelo any time the government gives you back your money it is a great idea..
You just don't seem to be getting it. The only way the government gives you back your money is by not spending it. I'm all for that.
But that's not what happened with the rebate. They're still spending our money at record levels. All they did was cut you a check that you will have to pay for, plus interest. It sounds like you go to the ATM and get a cash advance on a credit card and think you've made money.
-
no.. you don't get it. the only way the government gives back your money is to not take it in the first place..
Once they have.. any you can get back from em is good. They need to go into debt and not have any money to spend. When they quit paying their departments then maybe we can have some peace.
other than taking less and less of my money every year and taking less and less of my freedoms every year... I don't care what they do.
lazs
-
no.. you don't get it. the only way the government gives back your money is to not take it in the first place..
Once they have.. any you can get back from em is good. They need to go into debt and not have any money to spend. When they quit paying their departments then maybe we can have some peace.
other than taking less and less of my money every year and taking less and less of my freedoms every year... I don't care what they do.
lazs
THEY'LL NEVBER RUN OUT OF MONEY. they'll never stop paying their depts. they'll just keep borrowing from one to pay another. or they'll borrow from another country.....again. and of course the worst option?
they'll raise our taxes more
-
Now is this $1000 per person or per household? Not that it would make much difference. Now if he could pay me $20,000 for my vote I would seriously concider it. $1000 for a vote is chump change. That's like trying to slip the hostess a fiver to put you to the front of the list at a restaraunt. You've got to give her AT LEAST a twenty just to get her attention. Now if Obamaman would offer me $20000 he would have my attention....
-
THEY'LL NEVBER RUN OUT OF MONEY. they'll never stop paying their depts. they'll just keep borrowing from one to pay another. or they'll borrow from another country.....again. and of course the worst option?
they'll raise our taxes more
He gets it.