U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-20-2010, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,288 posts, read 7,591,879 times
Reputation: 2453

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post
I don't see how this is on topic with "why some hate tree huggers" but I'm fairly certain that you don't understand what Markey is proposing. The government assigned eligibility for deferral of royalties to some operators that met certain criteria (such criteria is narrow and not sweeping). It doesn't mean that everyone drilling in the gulf of mexico pays no royalties on produced hydrocarbons and the legislation makes sense in light of the enormous risk that operators shoulder to drill in deep water and the general, international understanding of maritime law.
Here's what it says:
The amendment, which passed by a voice vote, would offer the dozens of oil companies currently drilling for free in the Gulf of Mexico a simple choice – they can continue to drill for free on public lands no matter how high oil prices climb, but if they do so, they will not be able to purchase new leases from the federal government.

Because of an oil company court challenge to the 1995 Deep Water Royalty Relief Act authored by the then-Republican majority along with faulty leases offered by the Interior Department in 1998 and 1999, the Interior Department is currently being forced to refund more than $2.1 billion in royalty payments that oil companies had already made from these leases, including $240 million to BP. In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has estimated that taxpayers could lose an additional $53 billion over the next 25 years as a result of royalty-free drilling when oil prices are high.

Your quote makes no sense in this context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post

Also, if the Fed is losing significant tax revenues to international tax havens - that should be good indication that the Fed's taxes are too stinkin' high and it needs to compete for its money.
This is what we call the classic straw-man argument. If you believe that corporations should be receiving tax breaks so that they will stop being traitors and seeking international tax shelters, you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Furthermore, perhaps if long-ago established federal taxes (particularly during times of war) were brought back, taxes on corporations could be eased. Either way, clearly given our recurring budget deficits, the federal government is not receiving enough tax revenues- tax rates are too low, not too high.

From wiki:

By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000) to finance World War I. The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945.[citation needed]

During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments, Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to impose a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000 to help with the war effort. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70% by John F. Kennedy. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988.


In 1990, the top marginal rate was raised to 31% in a budget deal President George H. W. Bush made with the Congress.

In 1993 the Clinton administration proposed and the Congress accepted (with no Republican support) raising the top marginal rate to 39.6%.

In 2001, President George W. Bush proposed and the Congress accepted lowering the top marginal rate to 35%. However, this measure had a sunset provision and was scheduled to expire in 2011 when rates would return to those adopted during the Clinton years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-20-2010, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 34,319,555 times
Reputation: 7076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
Here's what it says:
The amendment, which passed by a voice vote, would offer the dozens of oil companies currently drilling for free in the Gulf of Mexico a simple choice – they can continue to drill for free on public lands no matter how high oil prices climb, but if they do so, they will not be able to purchase new leases from the federal government.

Because of an oil company court challenge to the 1995 Deep Water Royalty Relief Act authored by the then-Republican majority along with faulty leases offered by the Interior Department in 1998 and 1999, the Interior Department is currently being forced to refund more than $2.1 billion in royalty payments that oil companies had already made from these leases, including $240 million to BP. In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has estimated that taxpayers could lose an additional $53 billion over the next 25 years as a result of royalty-free drilling when oil prices are high.

Your quote makes no sense in this context.
I'm saying I believe you've been mislead by oversimplified rhetoric designed to prey on anti-petroleum emotion. It would make sense if you figured out exactly what the criteria for royalty relief in the gulf of mexico is.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
This is what we call the classic straw-man argument. If you believe that corporations should be receiving tax breaks so that they will stop being traitors and seeking international tax shelters, you and I will have to agree to disagree.
No. A straw man would be deliberately misrepresenting your position as one with a logical fallacy in order to refute it. I was making an (admittedly) presumptuous and emotionally charged induction about your beliefs regarding corporate taxes. Below, you prove my induction correct. Also, if you believe that corporations legally seeking refuge from astronomical taxes makes an entity traitorous, we definitely must agree to disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
Furthermore, perhaps if long-ago established federal taxes (particularly during times of war) were brought back, taxes on corporations could be eased. Either way, clearly given our recurring budget deficits, the federal government is not receiving enough tax revenues- tax rates are too low, not too high.

From wiki:

By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000) to finance World War I. The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945.[citation needed]

During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments, Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to impose a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000 to help with the war effort. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70% by John F. Kennedy. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988.


In 1990, the top marginal rate was raised to 31% in a budget deal President George H. W. Bush made with the Congress.

In 1993 the Clinton administration proposed and the Congress accepted (with no Republican support) raising the top marginal rate to 39.6%.

In 2001, President George W. Bush proposed and the Congress accepted lowering the top marginal rate to 35%. However, this measure had a sunset provision and was scheduled to expire in 2011 when rates would return to those adopted during the Clinton years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2010, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,288 posts, read 7,591,879 times
Reputation: 2453
The history of tax benefits for oil companies is long and well-documented, and has led to a most uneven playing field. But people are waking up:

Release: Sanders Amendment Would Repeal Big Oil Tax Breaks - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

Sanders noted that Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in the history of the world, last year avoided paying any federal income taxes and pocketed a $46 million refund from the IRS.

http://sanders.senate.gov/graphics/OTT10284.pdf

So your position is a US corporation setting up a shell office in say, the Cayman Islands (to pick a usual quasi-nation), to avoid paying taxes is patriotic.

My position is paying taxes which support American infrastructure and jobs is patriotic.

One of us has certainly been misled, but I don't think it's me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2010, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 34,319,555 times
Reputation: 7076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
The history of tax benefits for oil companies is long and well-documented, and has led to a most uneven playing field. But people are waking up:

Release: Sanders Amendment Would Repeal Big Oil Tax Breaks - Newsroom: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

Sanders noted that Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in the history of the world, last year avoided paying any federal income taxes and pocketed a $46 million refund from the IRS.
This is misleading. 2009 was a terrible year for commodity prices and investment in general and Exxon's profits were very significantly reduced. Exxon also significantly overpayed in 2008 and credited that overpayment against its 2009 taxes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
So your position is a US corporation setting up a shell office in say, the Cayman Islands (to pick a usual quasi-nation), to avoid paying taxes is patriotic.

My position is paying taxes which support American infrastructure and jobs is patriotic.

One of us has certainly been misled, but I don't think it's me.
Now THAT is a straw man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,288 posts, read 7,591,879 times
Reputation: 2453
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post
This is misleading. 2009 was a terrible year for commodity prices and investment in general and Exxon's profits were very significantly reduced. Exxon also significantly overpayed in 2008 and credited that overpayment against its 2009 taxes.
Those are your opinions. Exxon's profits in 2009 were $19.42 billion, which sounds like a staggering, significant number to me.

As for "overpaying"? Not by global standards - re: 2008:

Exxon: Profit Pirate or Tax Victim?

Oil-producing countries charge companies like Exxon dearly to dig for oil. Arrangements vary from country to country, but Russia and Libya charge companies up to 90% of the revenues they collect for extracting oil, according to Fadel Gheit, senior analyst for Oppenheimer (OPY).

These arrangements—whether production share agreements or royalty contracts—are not disclosed by companies and governments. In tax terms, the U.S. government is kinder to oil companies. According to Securities & Exchange Commission filings, Exxon paid an effective tax rate of 34% to the U.S. government in 2007, or $5.12 billion.


then there's this, from same link:

However, Exxon's critics point out that its stated tax rate doesn't reflect a number of deductions and tax breaks that are afforded the oil and gas industry in the U.S. Erich Pica, a spokesman for the environmental group Friends of the Earth, says the U.S. federal tax code contains more than $17 billion in breaks to benefit the oil and gas industry for fiscal years 2007-11.


That $17 billion is made up mainly of tax breaks newly offered or extended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including a "percentage depletion allowance" that allows oil companies to deduct 15% of their sales revenue, to reflect the declining value of their investment, and 70% of their drilling costs.


Additionally, oil and gas companies pay reduced royalty fees on products they recover from federally owned waters, which Pica says could cost taxpayers $65 billion over five years.

And this is why your next statement is so ludicrous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post

Now THAT is a straw man.
No, that's the state of the nation. That's REALITY. We're getting screwed and people like you confuse that with a "free market" or some other voodoo economics mumbo-jumbo.

Companies which are extractive are by definition deriving their wealth from the commons - they didn't invent that oil out of thin air. The oceans aren't private property. If Exxon wants to drill for oil out there, they can bloody well support the society which enables their operation.

And you saying that companies should feel to fleece America by making their money here but by avoiding taxes is just the icing on the cake.

Here's how that happened:

Oil & Gas | OpenSecrets

Individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle, 75 percent of which has gone to Republicans.

For the record, I'm pretty irritated at any politician taking money from the oil industry - and good luck showing how the "treehuggers" have also made lobbying donations even remotely approaching that total.

We need campaign finance reform before we cannibalize ourselves like Rome did. And companies exploiting non-renewable resources need to either return fair amounts to society, or we can nationalize the industry. We're $13,000,000,000,000 in debt, our options are running out...

U.S. National Debt Clock
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 34,319,555 times
Reputation: 7076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
Those are your opinions. Exxon's profits in 2009 were $19.42 billion, which sounds like a staggering, significant number to me.

As for "overpaying"? Not by global standards - re: 2008:

Exxon: Profit Pirate or Tax Victim?

Oil-producing countries charge companies like Exxon dearly to dig for oil. Arrangements vary from country to country, but Russia and Libya charge companies up to 90% of the revenues they collect for extracting oil, according to Fadel Gheit, senior analyst for Oppenheimer (OPY).

These arrangements—whether production share agreements or royalty contracts—are not disclosed by companies and governments. In tax terms, the U.S. government is kinder to oil companies. According to Securities & Exchange Commission filings, Exxon paid an effective tax rate of 34% to the U.S. government in 2007, or $5.12 billion.


then there's this, from same link:

However, Exxon's critics point out that its stated tax rate doesn't reflect a number of deductions and tax breaks that are afforded the oil and gas industry in the U.S. Erich Pica, a spokesman for the environmental group Friends of the Earth, says the U.S. federal tax code contains more than $17 billion in breaks to benefit the oil and gas industry for fiscal years 2007-11.


That $17 billion is made up mainly of tax breaks newly offered or extended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including a "percentage depletion allowance" that allows oil companies to deduct 15% of their sales revenue, to reflect the declining value of their investment, and 70% of their drilling costs.


Additionally, oil and gas companies pay reduced royalty fees on products they recover from federally owned waters, which Pica says could cost taxpayers $65 billion over five years.
In the article that you linked: you did notice that Exxon paid almost half of its 1st quarter gross revenue back to Uncle Sam, right? That's not a "tax bracket" 49%, that's actual percentage of gross revenue. I'm not sure how much of your gross income you paid into the Federal purse in 2008 but it definitely wasn't 49%. If you give a company like Exxon tax relief, it isn't going to sit on the extra cash. All or virtually all will be reinvested into growth, R&D, exploration, facilities, PAYROLL, etc. etc. Strangulating tax rates create a lot of ripples and I honestly don't understand why it is so difficult to grasp that there are significant returns to allowing corporations (and citizens) to keep more of the money they earn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
And this is why your next statement is so ludicrous.
Incidentally, you did concoct a textbook straw man. Oh well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
No, that's the state of the nation. That's REALITY. We're getting screwed and people like you confuse that with a "free market" or some other voodoo economics mumbo-jumbo.

Companies which are extractive are by definition deriving their wealth from the commons - they didn't invent that oil out of thin air. The oceans aren't private property. If Exxon wants to drill for oil out there, they can bloody well support the society which enables their operation.


And you saying that companies should feel to fleece America by making their money here but by avoiding taxes is just the icing on the cake.


Here's how that happened:

Oil & Gas | OpenSecrets

Individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle, 75 percent of which has gone to Republicans.

For the record, I'm pretty irritated at any politician taking money from the oil industry - and good luck showing how the "treehuggers" have also made lobbying donations even remotely approaching that total.

We need campaign finance reform before we cannibalize ourselves like Rome did. And companies exploiting non-renewable resources need to either return fair amounts to society, or we can nationalize the industry. We're $13,000,000,000,000 in debt, our options are running out...

U.S. National Debt Clock
I'm all for campaign finance reform and I'm totally against $13,000,000,000,000 debt.

As for the rest of it:



I'm reading a lot of emotion and very little practical savvy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,288 posts, read 7,591,879 times
Reputation: 2453
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post
In the article that you linked: you did notice that Exxon paid almost half of its 1st quarter gross revenue back to Uncle Sam, right? That's not a "tax bracket" 49%, that's actual percentage of gross revenue. I'm not sure how much of your gross income you paid into the Federal purse in 2008 but it definitely wasn't 49%. If you give a company like Exxon tax relief, it isn't going to sit on the extra cash. All or virtually all will be reinvested into growth, R&D, exploration, facilities, PAYROLL, etc. etc. Strangulating tax rates create a lot of ripples and I honestly don't understand why it is so difficult to grasp that there are significant returns to allowing corporations (and citizens) to keep more of the money they earn.
This is thoroughly discredited trickle-down "Reaganomics." You know, that economic school (if you can call deregulation and pure greed a school) that insisted that giving more money to rich people would make us all wealthier. The national debt doesn't lie.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that Exxon didn't "earn" that revenue so as much as they were given the privilege of extracting it from communally held natural resources.

The evidence that we're getting fleeced is that oil companies are quite content to live with the massive profits they get dealing with the Russias, Libyas, etc. of the world.

I will continue to demand that the USA receive a share closer to the 90% that other countries insist upon, you can send as much of your paycheck to Exxon as you want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,288 posts, read 7,591,879 times
Reputation: 2453
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post
All or virtually all will be reinvested into growth, R&D, exploration, facilities, PAYROLL, etc. etc. Strangulating tax rates create a lot of ripples and I honestly don't understand why it is so difficult to grasp that there are significant returns to allowing corporations (and citizens) to keep more of the money they earn.
I'm still laughing over your naivete on this one.

What part of the history of federal taxation and the national debt do you not understand? Go back and read what I posted, you apparently just skimmed it over. When federal tax rates were higher, the country was in the black. Now, we are dripping in red ink.

Significant returns come from returning the revenue derived from public assets back to the public, via the government. The government's overhead is substantially lower than a private company's, as the government doesn't need to pay obscene CEO salaries and dividends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 03:45 PM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 34,319,555 times
Reputation: 7076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
I'm still laughing over your naivete on this one.

What part of the history of federal taxation and the national debt do you not understand? Go back and read what I posted, you apparently just skimmed it over. When federal tax rates were higher, the country was in the black. Now, we are dripping in red ink.

Significant returns come from returning the revenue derived from public assets back to the public, via the government. The government's overhead is substantially lower than a private company's, as the government doesn't need to pay obscene CEO salaries and dividends.
Evidently I am having comprehension problems with that portion of the history of federal taxation that exists only in your head. If you graph historic tax rates against historic tax revenues and adjust for inflation there is not a statistically significant increase in revenue associated with an increase in tax. Higher taxes suppress transactions, suppress earnings, suppress investment and suppress tax revenues.

By the way, the Federal Government absolutely, positively, without question does not have less overhead than any public corporation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 34,319,555 times
Reputation: 7076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
This is thoroughly discredited trickle-down "Reaganomics." You know, that economic school (if you can call deregulation and pure greed a school) that insisted that giving more money to rich people would make us all wealthier. The national debt doesn't lie.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that Exxon didn't "earn" that revenue so as much as they were given the privilege of extracting it from communally held natural resources.

The evidence that we're getting fleeced is that oil companies are quite content to live with the massive profits they get dealing with the Russias, Libyas, etc. of the world.

I will continue to demand that the USA receive a share closer to the 90% that other countries insist upon, you can send as much of your paycheck to Exxon as you want.
This is so far beyond insane I have no idea where to start...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top