Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Dec. 24, 2012 | 2 a.m.
Congress can save both $1 trillion and the planet by bolstering clean energy jobs and public health protections, or it can bow to the dirty fossil-fuel industry and allow devastating cuts to crucial environmental programs. Congress is debating drastic budget changes to avoid the “fiscal cliff” of automatic cuts to spending programs. Big polluters want to cut environmental programs and kill the wind energy tax credit while maintaining their own subsidies. Also on the table are potential cuts to crucial environmental programs — like the National Park Service and the Forest Service — that will leave our public lands vulnerable. Congress ...
John where do you get all that nonsense
First and foremost Conservatives want to reform taxes by getting rid of deductions and loophole to raise revenue
Since the elections they have been try to get Obama to accept elimination or capping loopholes to increase revenue instead of raising rates which will cost jobs.
Don't you watch the fiscal cliff discussions? Obama is REFUSING TO ELIMINATE LOOPHOLES TO RAISE REVENUE SAYS THE MATH DOES NOT ADD UP.
And what is nonsense about Congress is going to save a trillion dollars with clean energy and save the plant - get your head out of the sand
John Marchese,
Who let you inside the negotiating sessions on the fiscal cliff negotiations? Creating conflict or competition between two values is a known method used in arguments. You stated "Big polluters want to cut environmental programs and kill the wind energy tax credit while maintaining their own subsidies". Then you stated "Also on the table are potential cuts to crucial environmental programs -- like the National Park Service and the Forest Service -- that will leave our public lands vulnerable". How John would you know what is being negotiated? Creating conflict or competition between two values is a known method used in arguments. Here, you're pitting National Park Service and the Forest Service funding with Oil subsidies. Are you trying to create a conflicting choice John or are these two separate discussions involving tax reform and government spending reductions?
Regarding your statement "Unlike working families struggling to make ends meet, the oil and gas industry has made more than $1 trillion in profits in the past decade alone".
Exxon-Mobile's net income is as follows:
2012 Q1 = $9.45 billion
2012 Q2 = $15.9 billion
2012 Q3 = $9.57 billion
total net income = $34.9 billion for the year through 3 quarters.
Estimated taxes to be paid by Exxon is $23.6 billion.
Exxon-Mobile's operating expenses per quarter averages $100 billion. Exxon-Mobile's total net income of $34 billion for three quarters barley covers expenses for one month.
John, how would you like to have only one month of savings to cover your family expenses should you leave your job or have unexpected expenses? Thanks but I'll pass on getting any family or business finance advice from you in the future.
http://ycharts.com/financials/XOM/income...
A strong middle class begins with a strong dollar. A strong dollar begins with not printing more and more with nothing behind it except credit agency downgrades. If you want to make the argument for clean energy environmental reasons, and the heirs apparent to it, then do so. But by linking it to the economy and the dollar, you're fooling yourself and others who buy into the scam.
CarmineD
Don't let the facts get in the way when you want to demonize a person or an industry. That's the credo of the left. I'd be most surprised if good old John does not use those products that he derides as "pollutants" on a regular basis and does not enjoy the benefits they shed on us all. If John is serious let him follow in the footsteps of Ed Begley, Jr. Begley not only "talks the talk;" he "walks the walk." And, while I do not totally agree with Begley, I admire him for both his stance and his adherence to it. It's not for me.
Freeman,
"Exxon Mobile's net income for 3 quarters is $34.9 billion.Estimated taxes to be paid by Exxon Mobil is 23.6 billion".
Net profit as you have pointed out is what is called the bottom line. After all expenses are paid.34.9 billion net profit is pretty hefty for 3 quarters of income reporting by Exxon Mobile.So why would they need oil subsidies with this much profit?
Why do you right wingers support giving tax subsidies to big oil/coal or corporate welfare in general? Don't you think corporations make enough in profits?
As a matter of fact Michele Bachmann and others in Congress receive millions in subsidies to support their family businesses. Can I assume you think that's ok too?
America was agriculture based. Then, we started the industrial revolution and led the world and became rich. Years later, we pivoted into the Information Age, led the world and became rich. It is time to pivot again. Away from non-renewable, polluting energy that fuels global warming and keeps us linked to the Middle East. We need to lead in clean, renewable energy and become rich again. Minimally, we don't need to subsidize these wealthy corporations when we could be using that money for, say, mental health services.
Sam,
John Marchese presented a false dilemma. Either you fully fund National Park Service/Forest Service funding or provide Oil subsidies. Do a google search on John's name, Henderson and campaign contribution and you'll see donations to democratic candidates and to the democratic national congressional committee. The Marchese's are clearly pro-democrat so I clearly see the political motive behind the false dilemma. Why else would he pick Oil subsidies? Why didn't John pick telecommunications, utilities or financial industries that receive higher subsidies? Why not agriculture subsidies? Why not the 90 billion in subsidies for renewable energy that is basically crony capitalism handouts to political donors? John Marchese is either wanting to make a political point or wanting to pick his own winners and losers via the tax code. Why not put all the tax loopholes/subsidies on the table and reform the tax code? These loopholes/subsidies for the few shifts the tax burden to tax payers.
Sam, bottom-line, John Marchese presented a political motivated argument based on a false dilemma that does not exist as negotiations are not nearly that granular at the present time.
There is absoultely no reason to subsidize the oil industry. Teabaggers complain about the subsidies to GM and Chrysler, both of which would be dead now and millions of jobs lost, but they seem to be fine the oil company subsidies...Of course MUCH of the Teabagger organization funding comes from the oil industry!
When Exxon report taxes it has paid to the government, it bamboozles you. Those numbers include the taxes it COLLECTED and paid to the government. Payroll taxes it's employes paid but Exxon collected and paid to the government. Taxes at the pump you paid, they collected from you and paid to the government. They then say we paid x in taxes, take their subsidies, give each other astronomical salaries, and laugh all the way to the bank. They even have the people they are screwing over apologize and defend them.
From Exxons 2011 Financial statement:
Net Income = $41 billion
Income Tax Expense = $31 billion
CreatedEQL, look at the Financial Statement within the enclosed link. It clearly states "Income Tax Expense". Income tax, not sales or payroll taxes.
Sorry CreatedEQL, you are definitely bamboozled but with your own version of the facts.
http://investing.businessweek.com/resear...
Freeman: I made no mention of income taxes. I said " when Exxon reports taxes it has paid to the government" It's not to hard to argue with the words you put in my mouth.
CreatedEQL,
You stated "When Exxon report taxes it has paid to the government, it bamboozles you. Those numbers include the taxes it COLLECTED and paid to the government. Payroll taxes it's employes paid but Exxon collected and paid to the government. Taxes at the pump you paid, they collected from you and paid to the government. They then say we paid x in taxes, take their subsidies, give each other astronomical salaries, and laugh all the way to the bank".
CreatedEQL, Exxon-Mobile's corporate financial statement reports "Income Tax Expense", not the other taxes you mentioned. I would suggest taking a business finance class to help you better understand financial statements and what constitutes an "income tax".
You can take away the subsidies, but be prepared to pay much higher prices for the product. Just like all corporations they are just going pass any taxes, or reduction in support on to the consumer. As always, no matter what, we the consumer will get the shaft.
RefNV (Re Freeman): You clearly quote CreatedEQL as saying " "When Exxon report taxes it has paid to the government, it bamboozles you. Those numbers include the taxes it COLLECTED and paid to the government. Payroll taxes it's employes paid but Exxon collected and paid to the government. Taxes at the pump you paid, they collected from you and paid to the government. They then say we paid x in taxes, take their subsidies, give each other astronomical salaries, and laugh all the way to the bank". Please respond to CreatedEQL's comments on ALL taxes, rather than only to income taxes. I've seen comments that Exxon reports its sales tax payments as part of it's "taxes" i.e.http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/02/11/exxon-big-oil-profits-evil-only-until-you-weigh-their-tax-bills but have nothing definitive - yet.
I'd suggest an Intro to Accounting course for you. You'd learn that corporations do not "pay" any tax in the sense that private individuals do. Corporations roll ALL their expenses together, tack on whatever they want for a profit, and pass that entire amount on to their customers - or at least that's what they try to do. Some, like Exxon, succeed at it.
Robert Leavitt wrote "Corporations roll ALL their expenses together, tack on whatever they want for a profit, and pass that entire amount on to their customers - or at least that's what they try to do".
Robert, what do you mean by "tack on whatever they want for a profit, and pass that entire amount on to their customers"?? Are you saying corporations pass its profits onto its customers?
jldour - "You can take away the subsidies, but be prepared to pay much higher prices for the product."
Only if you continue buying those products. A lesson learned from the 70's was selling the big block engines and buying small Japanese cars during the gasoline crunch. Today, instant gratification consumers would rather moan, whine and complain about prices than give up their gas guzzling SUV's or trucks. Keeping up with the Jones' can be very expensive attempting to feed one's ego.
Salaries and expenses are administrative costs that are deducted by Exxon, since that is the protagonist of this example, to arrive at a profit/loss. The admin costs [expenses] include payroll taxes paid by Exxon. They are a cost of operations to do business. If a profit remains, then Exxon pays taxes on it. Those taxes are not deductible for the purpose of computing Exxon's profit or loss. It is a tax on doing business. If you say they are [deductible], then I suggest you follow the advice, even if it's your own, of the poster who said you should take a class in intro to accounting.
At the option of the company, Exxon included, it may deduct the taxes it pays on profits before distributing dividends to its shareholders. Or it may not.
RefNV Freeman you're right on the money!
CarmineD
"Today, instant gratification consumers would rather moan, whine and complain about prices than give up their gas guzzling SUV's or trucks. " @ Vernos Branco
Comfort, room and safety are also reasons for the SUV's. And the tradeoffs for SUV owners to lower gas mileage.
CarmineD
Trucks have utilitarian purposes for the owners, in addition to the others I mentioned above. And these are the tradeoffs to truck owners for the lower gas mileage.
How boring and dull a world we would live in if we all chose the same vehicles to drive just for fuel economy. We'd be like Europe instead the USA.
CarmineD
PS: Just as individuals can't deduct their personal income taxes paid from their wages and earnings to determine their taxable income and liability, corporations, like Exxon, can't.
CarmineD
ExxonMobile is known to have a lot of off the book accounting just like Enron, mark to market and other scams. In Steve Coll's "Private Empire- Exxonmobil and American Power" says that they really lose a lot of money on the retail down stream side. They also inventoried them Canadian tar sands as "booked assets when the SEC told them they couldn't. There's no easy oil left we ought not be subsidizing the marginal oil, and coal companies especially crooked ones and think about the future.