BlazerBob wrote: You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own set of facts. I infer from your comment you went looking for a supporting link to support "record profits" and came away empty.
Doesn't matter. The fact is, I acknowledged the "record" part of it in my post when I said the profits have been shown to be quite "pedestrian" in the article I looked at. What more do you want?
BlazerBob wrote: You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own set of facts. I infer from your comment you went looking for a supporting link to support "record profits" and came away empty.
Doesn't matter. The fact is, I acknowledged the "record" part of it in my post when I said the profits have been shown to be quite "pedestrian" in the article I looked at. What more do you want?
I do not want anything. You are of course free to frame your arguments and pov's any way you please.
You expressed this: "The profits have been shown to be quite "pedestrian" in the article I looked at. In dollar terms, though, the profits these companies make are indicative, to me, they don't need tax credits, tax deductions, or any other kinds of tax benefits you can describe.
I am just observing that your justification for that opinion seems to be "just because". Not that there is anything wrong with that.
I only bring it up because I thought it was noteworthy that you are saying that research does not support your pov but you are sticking to it "just because".
It's a personal opinion. I believe these corporations are no better or worse than the solar industry corporations with regard to monies received regardless of form.
ZHawke wrote: It's a personal opinion. I believe these corporations are no better or worse than the solar industry corporations with regard to monies received regardless of form.
I see a difference between industry wide "loopholes" and company specific grants, loans or breaks. Particularly when some people make large contributions to get those breaks for co's they own or have connections to. They pocket $ and we hold the bag. I call that corruption.
That said I have said all I care to about the part of your post I originally commented on. We seem to be drifting further afield.
Changing the subject, do you think it is obscene that there are more taxes on a gallon of gas than profits. I do.
BlazerBob wrote: Changing the subject, do you think it is obscene that there are more taxes on a gallon of gas than profits. I do.
Even though I have a penchant for having the last word I'll leave the rest of your post alone and respect your wishes that we not talk about it any more.
Regarding your question, yes. But, again, given the profits seen by companies in the oil business, it's also obscene that we, the taxpayer, are supposed to sit idly by while they reap the profits. We get screwed either way, and that pisses me off!
Want to know what is truly nefarious? The government(s) taking diesel at a higher rate than they tax gasoline. The vehicles which primarily use diesel are the heavy haulers, which get far fewer mpg than passenger vehicles, which means that the very vehicles that bring you everything you need to live your daily life are being taxed at an effective rate that is significantly higher than is normally paid, a cost to the businesses which is then passed along to every consumer in the cost of their goods.
And then we have the other hidden taxes - the regulatory costs associated with operating an oil business whether that business is exploration and extraction, distillation, transportation or retail sales of the product.
And yet somehow it is the oil companies that have the ire of some among the population for earning a modest return on their investments. Just goes to show how twisted the logic of ideology can become . . .
PrintSmith wrote: Want to know what is truly nefarious? The government(s) taking diesel at a higher rate than they tax gasoline. The vehicles which primarily use diesel are the heavy haulers, which get far fewer mpg than passenger vehicles, which means that the very vehicles that bring you everything you need to live your daily life are being taxed at an effective rate that is significantly higher than is normally paid, a cost to the businesses which is then passed along to every consumer in the cost of their goods.
And then we have the other hidden taxes - the regulatory costs associated with operating an oil business whether that business is exploration and extraction, distillation, transportation or retail sales of the product.
And yet somehow it is the oil companies that have the ire of some among the population for earning a modest return on their investments. Just goes to show how twisted the logic of ideology can become . . .
You had me until the last two paragraphs.
It might could oughter be said the regulations you decry aren't being fully enforced as it is. This, in turn, could also be pointed to as a direct causative factor in the environmental catastrophes that you and I ultimately wind up in far too many cases paying for.
I don't agree with every single one of the "regulations" in place for every industry everywhere. No one does. But to de-regulate, as some of your political persuasion advocate doing, is ultimately far more costly, not only from a financial perspective, but also from an environmental perspective, in my opinion.
Dismiss this as being a liberal "rag". I really don't care. But it presents some pretty compelling arguments on what I'm talking about:
I didn't want to interupt this debate, but I have to ask one question Z. Are you against oil companies being able to deduct all their expenses from their income? If not all, or any, which expenses would you agree and disagree with?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Rick wrote: I didn't want to interupt this debate, but I have to ask one question Z. Are you against oil companies being able to deduct all their expenses from their income? If not all, or any, which expenses would you agree and disagree with?
Rick wrote: I didn't want to interupt this debate, but I have to ask one question Z. Are you against oil companies being able to deduct all their expenses from their income? If not all, or any, which expenses would you agree and disagree with?
Seriously, though, this is one (or two) of those questions that try to paint me into a corner from my perspective. Before I give an answer, I'm going to ask you to share your views on this first.
I'll leave the rest of your post alone and respect your wishes that we not talk about it any more.
