Republicans block vote to tax unreasonable oil profits.

[Technosoul]

One Obama dream was shot down by the GOP in the Senate. Democrats moved to tax oil profits as a means to help curb the rising cost for gasoline. But were unable to get a majority vote in favor due to GOP objections of that plan.

Republicans Block Taxes On Big Oil Profits, Senate GOP Stops Dems' Effort To Rein In Profits Of Largest Oil Companies As Gas Prices Soar - CBS News

Many Americans want our leadership to stand up to the big oil companies and "do something". But the Republicans are trying to defeat all such efforts in favor of their idea that the best way to become independant on oil is to drill for more oil.

So I guess we will just have to insure that Democrats get the majority of Senate seats come the next election. Otherwise we will continue to bow down to the oil comp-nanny.

Unreasonable profits deserve unreasonable taxes.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Wait..., how does keeping less money from entering the oil companies' pockets help lower prices?

[HelioPrime]

Could they be making record profits from the fact oil is being consumed in record amounts! No ways!

Removing some tax breaks I can understand, but taxing profits? These companies are just going to pass it on to consumers to keep shareholders happy....

[Gods_Mercenary]

Not to mention that the market obviously justifies these sort of prices, the profits are still ridiculous.

[Toxey]

Unreasonable profits deserve unreasonable taxes.

Yeah,,,that makes alot of sence.The Govt. tells the Oil companies that they are charging the public too much for gas.So in return the govt. is going to take some of the profits for itself!!!!!.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Toxey Yeah,,,that makes alot of sence.The Govt. tells the Oil companies that they are charging the public too much for gas.So in return the govt. is going to take some of the profits for itself!!!!!.

What would make even less sense would be saying screw this and going solar. Or at least kicking in the doors of the oil companies and introducing them to Mr. Oppressive Bootheel long enough to save the economy. Wait a minute...

[Gods_Mercenary]

There's an idea, if prices are inflated because of demand, create less demand. Te technology for electric cars has long been here, and we have renewable technologies well developed enough to at least push oil out of the equation when it comes to personal transport.

[Technosoul]

I honestly did not see the bill they wanted to pass, but to be effective they would tax unjustified raises in the price of the product, and then use that to lower the sales taxes that we pay at the pump. Suppy and demand can be manipulated, we know they can produce so much oil per day, if they cut back on the supply by cutting back on production, just so they can get more per unit, then they are taxed for the difference. If they turn around and try to pass that on to us the consumer then they get a big fine. All based on investigations that are staffed by experts. The idea is not to allow them to take advantage of the supply-demand system we use by phoney manipulation of oil production.

Sometimes the prices go up due to wall street "speculation" investors and so if their activities are pushing up the costs of oil then I assume that those inverstor firms or people could be taxed.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Technosoul I honestly did not see the bill they wanted to pass, but to be effective they would tax unjustified raises in the price of the product, and then use that to lower the sales taxes that we pay at the pump. Suppy and demand can be manipulated, we know they can produce so much oil per day, if they cut back on the supply by cutting back on production, just so they can get more per unit, then they are taxed for the difference. If they turn around and try to pass that on to us the consumer then they get a big fine. All based on investigations that are staffed by experts. The idea is not to allow them to take advantage of the supply-demand system we use by phoney manipulation of oil production. Sometimes the prices go up due to wall street "speculation" investors and so if their activities are pushing up the costs of oil then I assume that those inverstor firms or people could be taxed.

A sound idea. Congress's version was actually pretty close.

The details for this plan did feature a provision to give the government greater control over speculators, and also a provision to divert the revenues to renewable resource with a loophole if they invest in renewable resources on their own.

Senate blocks Big Oil windfall profits tax bill | csmonitor.com

Oh, and I recommend the Christian Science monitor to everybody. They produce some of the best written journalism inside the United States.

[linda_mary_13]

Exxon just announced they are getting out of the oil retail business. They are going to sell all their stations. They pull an 8% profit but the gov Feds and State pull a 15% tax. Would it be fair to slap excessive taxes on the beef industry when they receive only an 8% profit just because everyone cooks with beef and wants it?

I understand the hardship gas poses to the citizens of the world, but we all operate within a set of rules. The current rules yield what we all get. This model applies to all business. How do we single out one business and still maintain fairness? This proposed legislation is asking for an exception to the "fair" and "equitable" laws they passed in the past.

It should be ALARMING to all of us that a bill, that would set in motion so many other values, would be offered in such an expedient way by our lawmakers. The quick fix! If the motivation is political, we have "Yes Men" leading us. If they really believed this bill was the solution, we have men who are thoughtless, and inadequate as leaders. Whoever sponsored it should be scrutinized by the people since they revealed themselves to be representatives who are not looking for real solutions, did not seek bipartison insight, and obviously do not take the problem seriously.

Is this the beginning of the government making its move for total control over us? Through national healthcare, will the government take our individual profits and force us to purchase healthcare, college for our kids, all the things they believe will benefit society, instead of letting us decide what our extra money (effort) will do for us?

It took more than just republicans to defeat this bill in a Congress led by democrats. Thank God there's still a few level headed dems, who use their brain and are not swayed by the cheers of those who are more concerned with what others think, but do what's right!

[Apeman81]

The Feds rake in nearly 27 Billion dollar per year collected at 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline.

Who's making an obscene profit for having done nothing?

The bill was destined for defeat, which is why it was put on the docket. The Dems could whimper and whine that they were "trying to help the people" knowing this disaster would never pass.

And all too many of us fall for it.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: linda_mary_13 Exxon just announced they are getting out of the oil retail business. They are going to sell all their stations. They pull an 8% profit but the gov Feds and State pull a 15% tax. Would it be fair to slap excessive taxes on the beef industry when they receive only an 8% profit just because everyone cooks with beef and wants it? I understand the hardship gas poses to the citizens of the world, but we all operate within a set of rules. The current rules yield what we all get. This model applies to all business. How do we single out one business and still maintain fairness? This proposed legislation is asking for an exception to the "fair" and "equitable" laws they passed in the past. It should be ALARMING to all of us that a bill, that would set in motion so many other values, would be offered in such an expedient way by our lawmakers. The quick fix! If the motivation is political, we have "Yes Men" leading us. If they really believed this bill was the solution, we have men who are thoughtless, and inadequate as leaders. Whoever sponsored it should be scrutinized by the people since they revealed themselves to be representatives who are not looking for real solutions, did not seek bipartison insight, and obviously do not take the problem seriously. Is this the beginning of the government making its move for total control over us? Through national healthcare, will the government take our individual profits and force us to purchase healthcare, college for our kids, all the things they believe will benefit society, instead of letting us decide what our extra money (effort) will do for us? It took more than just republicans to defeat this bill in a Congress led by democrats. Thank God there's still a few level headed dems, who use their brain and are not swayed by the cheers of those who are more concerned with what others think, but do what's right!

The bill was defeated in the Senate not in Congress, it seems your factural knowledge is lacking on this topic.

ABC News: Exxon Axxes Its Retail Gas Business

The stations were so to distribution companies (link did not say who owns those companies but I would suspect they are the refinery companies, such that gas sales are used to bring people in to buy other goods or services.

http://www.tax.state.nm.us/rpd/rpdgaspg1.pdf

None the less the price for oil is not controlled by the distribution companies such as the 7-11 chain stores. The price is controlled by those who pump the oil and sell it to the distribution companies, and refining the oil also is figured into the cost that stations are selling gas for.

The gas tax is controlled by Washington DC and the government has a heavy hand in the deal making when it comes to trade agreements with oil producing countries.

To reduce the tax on gasoline (sales taxes) then the Government would need to find another budgeting source to use for constructing highways and related costs. As gas taxes are earmarked for transportation needs. Or convert all highways to private companies that then can charge toll fees to keep up exsisting roads and to expand that network of highways. Having a car and driving it means YOU are responsible for paying for the roads that you make use of.

One solution might be bio-fuels if they are cheaper then oil for making gasoline, that would bring down the cost at the pump and also remain a source for taxes to fund the highway systems. That plan will take some time to put it into effect.

Even if Shell, Exxon-Mobel sell their gas stations they are still showing gaint profits each year, and downsizing the gas station end of the business will only add much more to their profits. Profit windfalls that happen because they are selling oil for much more then it costs them to pump it out and market it to distribution companies. And via being international they can wiggle out of some of the taxes they must pay on such profits to our government, by placing their headquaters off shore or in a user-friendly country.

By the way, I wanted to get something cheap to eat - all beef hot dogs went up 50 cents from what they cost last week.

Oil companies are singled out because that product is needed by everyone who depends on a car, truck, or airplane to get to work or to conduct business. Where as if beef went up in price you could eat ham, chicken, beans, or a number of other food items. But your car only eats one thing (currently), with exception of a few alternative cars.

Unless you want us to stay home and collect welfare checks and no nothing we need transportation to keep the wheels turning. Your anology is missleading.

Today the pump price was $4.50 per gal. $20.00 gets you a little over 4 gals which does not last long for most drivers.

If we do not collect taxes on gasoline we must lay off millions of people who now work on those highway construction projects. Which also would make driving more unsafe if overpasses start to crumble away due to lack of funding.

The people are determining what their extra money via taxes should do for them by electing a President - members of Congress - who will find ways to mangage the costs of gasoline, healthcare, and education, so that it best benifits everyone.

Only if you depend on profits from those "rip off" companies would you object to that choice.

The government hardly needs to force people to buy gas, to get medical attention, or to seek education as a stepping stone to better paying jobs. The average "normal" person would want those things and would need them to remain a part of our society. The idea is only to make the basics more affordable for everyone in this society. The control is directed at those who seek to drive up the cost of living in a manner that is clearly unjust to everyone but their own greed.

[linda_mary_13]

When I referred to Congress, I was speaking of the institution as a whole, but never the less, your reasoning for taxing windfall is weak. Your dependency on oil was your choice. There are, to use your analogy, beans and corn out there to eat in the transportation/living world. You just choose not to use the alternative. Just because you choose to drive a car to work is not a legitamate reason to take more taxes from a business, just because they made a lot of money. Your reasoning puts all gain at risk,taking it from one who earned it and giving it to someone else who wants it.

Do you think for one minute if this was passed by Congress and implemented, that they wouldn't be making a list of all businesses that they felt they could tax under black and white guidelines they established for the oil industry?

How long do you think it would take the dems to apply this standard to wealthy individuals? Oh wait, they're already talking about that.

Is this Big Brother concept what you want controlling your spending money, free time, healthcare, raising your children, etc.? At what point do you lose control of your own destiny.Given the power of the two party system, it wouldn't take much to have a voting block of people set the ball rolling in such a direction.

You set the rules, you live by the rules. I couldn't live by the rule you impose on the oil companies. I wouldn't want to be penalized by my success and I don't think others should be either.

As far as the government being dependent on gas tax for roads, maybe they should reevaluate taxing oil and take the squandered ear mark money and use that for roads instead.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: Technosoul One Obama dream was shot down by the GOP in the Senate. Democrats moved to tax oil profits as a means to help curb the rising cost for gasoline. But were unable to get a majority vote in favor due to GOP objections of that plan. Republicans Block Taxes On Big Oil Profits, Senate GOP Stops Dems' Effort To Rein In Profits Of Largest Oil Companies As Gas Prices Soar - CBS News Many Americans want our leadership to stand up to the big oil companies and "do something". But the Republicans are trying to defeat all such efforts in favor of their idea that the best way to become independant on oil is to drill for more oil. So I guess we will just have to insure that Democrats get the majority of Senate seats come the next election. Otherwise we will continue to bow down to the oil comp-nanny. Unreasonable profits deserve unreasonable taxes.

Translation:

If you achieve the American dream, you should suffer by the paying astronomical, Socialistic taxes.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Sweet Katie Translation: If you achieve the American dream, you should suffer by the paying astronomical, Socialistic taxes.

They've achieved the dream by price gouging the rest of us. I'm not so cool with this. This is not like any other product; it is physically impossible for me to boycott gasoline. Through price fixing they've achieved a hydraulics empire and nothing besides government intervention will ever break it. Now that I think about it this is actually a very good strategy; a hydraulics empire facing resource starvation will be forced to break up. That massive quantity of financial fat that comes from being part of the price fixing scheme will no longer be there to hold it together and perhaps capitalism can return to its intended function.

[Derek Wolff]

The stupidity of such a bill is shocking. I don't think any of them took a course in basic economics, or they forgot what economics is.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Sweet Katie Translation: If you achieve the American dream, you should suffer by the paying astronomical, Socialistic taxes.

Wrong translation sweetie.

That should not make you suffer at all. Suffering is when you do not have what you really need or if you get injured. Money is not a part of your body. However if your American Dream is own an oil company then I guess you are right to use that anology. because only the oil industry would suffer the loss of some of the astronomical profits they made via the unjustified manipulation of the so-called free market.

In socialistic taxes a government would shift the money of the wealthy to poorer classes to make them all even-steaven. This plan would only recycle money back into the mainstream as a punishment for taking unfair advantages of the population, like a "bad boy fine". It would not mean more taxes for all businesses who conduct business fairly.

It is just a measure to get back money that was ill-gotten in the first place. They lowered oil production in order to gain more profits per unit. Holding back supples to create the demand that would mandate higher prices. Simular to what our government did with corn production. Only in the case of corn it was done so the farmers would not loose money growing that crop.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Technosoul Republicans block vote to tax unreasonable oil profits. One Obama dream was shot down by the GOP in the Senate. Democrats moved to tax oil profits as a means to help curb the rising cost for gasoline. But were unable to get a majority vote in favor due to GOP objections of that plan. Republicans Block Taxes On Big Oil Profits, Senate GOP Stops Dems' Effort To Rein In Profits Of Largest Oil Companies As Gas Prices Soar - CBS News Many Americans want our leadership to stand up to the big oil companies and "do something". But the Republicans are trying to defeat all such efforts in favor of their idea that the best way to become independant on oil is to drill for more oil. So I guess we will just have to insure that Democrats get the majority of Senate seats come the next election. Otherwise we will continue to bow down to the oil comp-nanny. Unreasonable profits deserve unreasonable taxes.

This is not much about tax and/or profits, but :
- markets, all over the globe
Stock Markets need to undergo some modifications. Otherwise, not much is going to be changed, since a slogan "Free Market" seems to stand as the argument for any finance-economy activity.
A governng body should monitor, control, adjust, etc. Stock Markets, and modify them as needed. As of today, e-trade is beyond control (for example).

Example :
Limited (by a governing body) Stock Market activity on selected goods and/or items, etc. :
- oil ; it affects the most crucial sector of any state
- food ; selected goods

What is more important :
- Democracy, as a state's ideological and/or political fundament
- People, who create that Democracy
???

In short :
Adjust all the required elements within a particular environment, as long as they do Not serve the People. Otherwise, we would end up as our own concepts' slaves - courtesy of political and/or ideological state's pillars.

[pubmanager]

I am not sure how you envisage the government of a state controling the wholesale price of oil on a globally traded commodities exchange.

There are a number of options of how it would theoretically be possible to try but I'm not sure they would be particularly desireable.

If the country in question is an oil producing nation with enough oil to support domestic consumption then the entire industry from mining to refining could be nationalised - this could be done through some kind of "equitable settlement" process i.e. the government pays close to market rate for the businesses in question. Needless to say this would have to be funded via taxation so ultimately a higher price would be paid by the populace anyway.

Alternatively there could be an imposed solution i.e. the government comandeers the oil industry. This sets a dangerous precedent, creates mistrust and insecurity in business. The likely result would be outflows of investment & capital and the relocation of corporations to more favorable jurisdictions ultimatetly resulting in recession and a stagnant economy. So while oil may be cheaper, the net effect on the wealth of the populace would probably be negative.

Of course, If the oil does not meet the demands of the state, oil would then need to be bought in from the wholesale market (likely to be at an inflated price due to reduction in supply as one oil producing nation has stopped selling on oil) to cover the shortfall.

Where the state does not produce oil at all, the government could subsidise the purchase from the wholesale market. The price of oil would not neccessarily come down however as the demand would not have changed and the price will continue to be set through the mechanics of exchange dealing. The reduced cost of oil to the populace would of course be offset by higher taxation, so again we are really dealing with a deferal of cost to another area of expenditure.

Perhaps you had an alternative solution that I have not considered?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: pubmanager I am not sure how you envisage the government of a state controling the wholesale price of oil on a globally traded commodities exchange. There are a number of options of how it would theoretically be possible to try but I'm not sure they would be particularly desireable. If the country in question is an oil producing nation with enough oil to support domestic consumption then the entire industry from mining to refining could be nationalised - this could be done through some kind of "equitable settlement" process i.e. the government pays close to market rate for the businesses in question. Needless to say this would have to be funded via taxation so ultimately a higher price would be paid by the populace anyway. Alternatively there could be an imposed solution i.e. the government comandeers the oil industry. This sets a dangerous precedent, creates mistrust and insecurity in business. The likely result would be outflows of investment & capital and the relocation of corporations to more favorable jurisdictions ultimatetly resulting in recession and a stagnant economy. So while oil may be cheaper, the net effect on the wealth of the populace would probably be negative. Of course, If the oil does not meet the demands of the state, oil would then need to be bought in from the wholesale market (likely to be at an inflated price due to reduction in supply as one oil producing nation has stopped selling on oil) to cover the shortfall. Where the state does not produce oil at all, the government could subsidise the purchase from the wholesale market. The price of oil would not neccessarily come down however as the demand would not have changed and the price will continue to be set through the mechanics of exchange dealing. The reduced cost of oil to the populace would of course be offset by higher taxation, so again we are really dealing with a deferal of cost to another area of expenditure. Perhaps you had an alternative solution that I have not considered?

True enough. OPEC is the ultimate unbeatable monopoly; it just can't be done short of inventing an alternative to oil. Also attempting to regulate oil commodity trading will just cause it to go to other countries.

However, the price fixing scheme as it exists in the United States can be destroyed as I explained. The people who actually sell and refine our oil don't have that option of just moving out for the same reason the pharmaceutical industry can't stop selling at reduced prices to countries with socialized medicine; our collective national bargaining power is enormous.