May 9, 2011

Democrats see high gas prices as a good occasion for raising taxes on oil companies.

The NYT passes along the Democrats' puzzling PR on the subject. Senator Menendez says: "Big Oil certainly doesn’t need the collective money of taxpayers in this country. This is as good a time as any in terms of pain at the pump and in revenues needed for deficit reduction." The collective money? Interesting use of the word "collective." It's a tell, isn't it? If anyone has money, they have the people's collective money. Somehow taking that is supposed to to help people who are feeling "pain at the pump." It's hard to see how. But maybe the key phrase is "This is as good a time as any." It's always a good time for taxing!

(Also posted at Instapundit.)

127 comments:

jr565 said...

Obama said he would necessarily bankrupt the coal companies with his dictate to force them to pay for carbon emissions.
And he told Joe the Plumber that we need to spread the wealth, and that the Bush tax cuts for the rich were EVIL. And that deregulation was the cause of all our woes (even though it was Clinton that in fact deregulated everything). Point being, Obama had no problem wading into the populist anti business rhetoric that is now being higlighted by this post.
This is what the dems are. You shouldn't therefore complain about it, if you voted for Obama.

jrberg3 said...

From the linked article:

"The proposal would end a series of tax advantages for the five companies and produce about $21 billion over 10 years"

Wow!! 21 billion you say! In 10 years!! (wait, I thought Obama changed those budget projections to 12 years?) Yes those dems are quite the deficit hawks!

The republicans should just counter with a bill that eliminates actual subsidies for clean energies and spell out how the Dems bill to raise taxes will just raise prices more at the pump.

Crimso said...

In order to be "fair," the government should only take the "collective" money that reflects profits. What percent of revenues (on average) of the oil companies is profit. Never mind. I already know the answer, and I know there's a shitload of companies (and people) who have much higher profit margins (how do you calculate the profit margin for the author of two autobiographies? I'm guessing it's pretty close to 100%).

So now some jackass, or perhaps more accurately looter or thief, a member of Congress (but I repeat myself) wants to decide how much of "our" money the oil companies deserve. "A republic, if you can keep it," indeed. I guess we can't.

Milwaukee said...

Yes, crony capitalism is alive and well. Yes, there are tax breaks for oil companies. A simpler tax code would be a great idea. BP benefited from a cozy relationship with this corrupt administration.

Speculation as a form of making money is frowned upon by both religious leaders and our socialist President and Democrats. Speculating, buying scarce goods or commodities with the intention of raising prices is one thing. Gathering the equipment and personnel to go out and find oil, develop oil wells, transport the oil, process the oil, and then sell the refined product, isn't speculation. That's creation of wealth, and we should be grateful for the men willing to undertake such risky, dangerous work to aid us in our lives of leisure. The work is both financially and physically risky. They deserve to make a profit on their labor, their brains and their willingness to step up and risk ruin.

Now, the ethanol-from-corn people, they are sucking off the government teat with a highly dubious proposal. Considering how much petroleum is required to generate a gallon of ethanol, that people actually eat corn, and how this would go no where without government intervention, it is shameful. All those leftist greenies think ethanol is some how cleaner than oil. When ethanol is run in a car, doesn't carbon dioxide come out the tail pipe?

crazy legs said...

Isn't it funny how the dems keep talking about spreading the wealth around, yet those of us who could use it never seem to get any of it. It's almost as if the promise is an empty one or something...

Forty-five years waging the war on poverty, and what do we have to show for it? A record number of people living on welfare, and a record number of people getting food stamps. With battles like that lost, it seems that maybe we should just admit defeat and stop fighting the war.

Crimso said...

Gee, I wonder who makes more off of a gallon of gasoline, Big Oil or the Federal Government. Don't bother, I know the answer. The hypocrisy reeks.

Leland said...

Obama said he would necessarily bankrupt the coal companies with his dictate to force them to pay for carbon emissions.
And he told Joe the Plumber that we need to spread the wealth, and that the Bush tax cuts for the rich were EVIL.


But Obama also said he would go after Bin Laden, even if he was in Pakistan; so he got a vote...

Jason said...

Critics suggest that the companies have been able to disguise what should be foreign royalty payments as taxes to reduce their tax liability.

How the hell would that work? Royalty payments are a business expense like anything else. They are deductible too. Who cares whether they're deducted as a tax or as a foreign royalty payment?

The Dems are being unbelieveably destructive here.

AprilApple said...

The collective left has caught on to the word "collective".

Punitive tax hikes by democrats? Not so new.

Joaquin said...

Tax our way to prosperity. Yep, that makes sense............. just like the Luxury Tax.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Democrats see sun rising in the east as a good occassion for raising taxes . . .

TMink said...

What is this our money thing? I only hold money in harmony with my wife. That is our money. The taxes they take is mine, not theirs.

Trey

Jay said...

"The proposal would end a series of tax advantages for the five companies and produce about $21 billion over 10 years"


Hysterical.

Yeah, and of course these projections won't hold true.

Jim Gust said...

The last big tax hike by Democrats on oil companies was Jimmy Carter's "windfall profits tax," which was calculated without regard to any, um, profits. Remember how that one worked out?

AprilApple said...

Obama also said he did not care if tax hikes decreased revenue. Tax hikes, according to Obama and the collective left, are about "fairness".

johnroberthenry said...

Glencore's IPO went off last wednesday and oil prices have already started to decline.

Glencore is probably the biggest company you have never heard of and had one of the biggest IPOs ever. Big in oil and commodities trading.

My suspicion is that they were artificially bidding prices up because it has a dramatic impact on their IPO. Now that the suckers have bought their shares, prices will come down again.

I would bet that we have gas back in the $2.50/gal range by Christmas. Probably in the next 2-3 months.

John R Henry

Joan said...

Companies don't pay taxes - people do. It's a regressive tax on the poor, which I support in pursuit of making taxes more fair. Too bad the poor won't get credit for paying it though.

Tax the poor and tell everyone the rich are paying it - beautiful.

AJ Lynch said...

Anyone ever see Senator Menendez' arrogant, smug "Dem strategist" daughter, Alicia, on Fox News? She is a Harvard grad yet espouses the "woe is us" amnesty for illegal immigrants bull and has never seen a tax she does not like. The apple did not fall from the tree.

johnroberthenry said...

BTW: You may never have heard of Glencore but you have probably heard of Marc Rich. He is the guy Clinton pardoned less than 24 hours before leaving office.

Glencore used to be Marc Rich & Co.

Wanna bet that Clinton got a nickle or two out of the IPO?

John Henry

Scott M said...

I would bet that we have gas back in the $2.50/gal range by Christmas. Probably in the next 2-3 months.

Maybe around Christmas, but we haven't even hit the normal summer spike yet. I'm keeping our weekly gas budget up and expecting it to continue through September.

Pogo said...

At least the Jimmy Carter years gave us a killer rabbit and punk music.

It's JC Redux, this time as farce; we got ourselves killer Muslims and Lady Gaga.

Gonna keep capitalism dead for 50 years, they are.
Their friends will do very, very well.
But us? Not so much.

The current generation in their twenties will be the first to experience a decrease in standard of living since ...the Great Depression.

Also brought to you by Democrats.

Fen said...

No more taxes until you get spending under control.

"Democrats see high gas prices as a good occasion for raising taxes on oil companies."

Brilliant. Raising taxes in oil companies will only increase gas prices further.

Scott M said...

Companies don't pay taxes - people do.

Care to 'splain that, Lucy?

Pogo said...

They pass taxes onto their customers.

Fen said...

those taxes are passed on down to the consumer.

Hagar said...

I think it's more crony socialism than crony capitalism, but then, how do you tell if there is a difference?

Fred4Pres said...

Collective money?

Can I have some?

Pogo said...

Crony socialism means that there is a meager health system and crappy trains, the tribute their vice pays to virtue.

Crony capitalism doesn't pretend it has an ideology backing it up. It's a gangster government, and everyone knows it. Bread and circuses are given, or beatings, depending on who's bitching.

The Drill SGT said...

Pogo said...
They pass taxes onto their customers.


Joan's point of course is correct.

Beyond that, can somebody explain how if gas prices are too high, how will increasing the supplier side costs do anything except both reduce production increase costs even more?

John said...

It's all crony capitalism as long as we are subsidizing them. If the Dems/Repubs were smart they'd leave the taxes alone and eliminate subsidies.

Also the price of gas at the pump is artificially high not due just due to high price of oil, but a lot of states are coming up with special requirements for refining that only two or three politically connected refineries can make.

We could drop the price of gas 40 cents a gallon if we did away with these boutique requirements, and eliminated ethanol.

This would be a trifecta of wins, no more subsisdies for oil, hence less crony capitalism (WHICH INVITES SOCIALISM), more refining capacity as states are able to use all the gas in the US and not just those refined in politically connected refineries, and a lower cost of food, when we no longer waste food on an ineffective ethanol additive that destroys engines.

Scott M said...

They pass taxes onto their customers.

That depends on the elasticity of demand, doesn't it? Do consumers get 100% of tax increases?

Mind you, I agree its regressive and hurts lower incomes more (assuming they're not living and working downtown...right where the Dems want them). I'm just trying to clear out my foggy Macro Econ 101 cobwebs.

pauldar said...

"Companies don't pay taxes - people do.

Care to 'splain that, Lucy?'

Really? You need that explained to you?

Hagar said...

Mussolini's fascists and Hitler's Nazis both had ideologies backing them up. Both were voted into office before they declared themselves dictatorships as they had promised they would.

Henry said...

I'm going to invent a car that runs on truffle oil. The greens will love it.

Rick Caird said...

I got one of those one questions polls from my Congressman, Ted Deutsch. Being a Democratic, he was angling for increasing the taxes on the five largest domestic oil producers.

I sent him an email asking him why he wanted to increase gasoline prices and reduce exploration. I also asked him why Democrats were so economically illiterate.

I do not expect a response.

Pogo said...

"Do consumers get 100% of tax increases?"
Taxes are a cost of doing business. All those costs are figured in the price of the product.

If tax increases aren't passed on to the consumer, the profit margin is less. Can the company survive that?

It depends. But in the end, the company must make a profit or it goes out of business.

Scott M said...

I'm going to invent a car that runs on truffle oil.

That will employ an awful lot of pigs.

AJ Lynch said...

Duetsch - what an appropriate name for a librul congress critter.

RonF said...

So instead of raising taxes on the American people directly they'll use the oil companies as their agents for doing so. I supposed trying to arrange things so that individuals could keep their own money in the first place would never occur to these guys.

Because it's not individual's money. It's the COLLECTIVE money. It's ALL the collective money, except for that which they decide to permit us to keep.

MadisonMan said...

Big Oil doesn't need the money? But the government does? Is that the reasoning?

I think the people need their collective money.

Greg Hlatky said...

"It's your money and we need it now!"

rhhardin said...

Anyone who owns old oil has a windfall profit.

This is a huge econ 101 rhetorical problem in the face of populists.

You're buying your expensive gas not from the oil company raking in bushels of dollars but from the last oil producer who just came online and is barely ekeing out any profit at all.

If you control prices, he goes back offline and you get no gas.

If you tax away windfall profits, those profits no longer go into new oil where the profits are minimal, and you cut off the new supply just as surely.

Phil 3:14 said...

Tax incentives/breaks aside. When a congressman says this:
Big Oil certainly doesn’t need the collective money of taxpayers in this country
I worry. I don't want my government deciding who "needs" the money. Besides, I bought a Prius last year so I've already done my part to give less to the oil companies and more to myself. Isn't that how its supposed to work?

LHogan said...

Doing away with Oil subsidies will also raise the price of gasoline at the pump. You will contribute to the Oil companies profit either through your taxes or through higher prices at the pump. For my money, away with the subsidies and let the price at the pump rise. It puts the power of consumerism in my hands and removes some of the political power from Washington politicians.
Same is true for agriculture subsudies and all other subsidies as well.

The Drill SGT said...

Scott M said...
I'm going to invent a car that runs on truffle oil.


since truffle oil is just vegetable oil with truffles, most any car that can handle bio-diesel will work today. but staying with your yuppie theme, go with a Merecedes 300D.

I went to Amazon, cuz I'm sure you'd want Meade to make something, Your Truffle oil fill-up:

18.5 gallons @ $196 / gl, your fillup will run a bit over 3600 dollars

E.M. Davis said...

I'd like a car than runs on Socialist blood.

jr565 said...

Leland wrote:
But Obama also said he would go after Bin Laden, even if he was in Pakistan; so he got a vote...


It wasn't just Mccain saying that openly declaring you would go into Pakistan if they didn't agree. That seemed to be the position of Dodd and Clinton who criticized obama for his naivete.


“I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime,” Clinton said, arguing that openly advocating military strikes might harm the fragile regime of pro-U.S. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

The issue was not so much the taking out of OBL, the issue was telegraphing the move ahead of time.

As revealed by Obama on 60 minutes the whole operation was extremely risky:
"At the end of the day, this was still a 55/45 situation," Obama told CBS's "60 Minutes" in his first broadcast interview since bin Laden’s death. "I mean we could not say definitively that bin Laden was there. Had he not been there, then there would have been some significant consequences."


What significant consequences might he be referring to, and don't those in fact validate Dodd's and Clinton's and Mccains' objection? Not only did Obam say he would openly attack Pakistan he said he would tell the American people ahead of time, on the grounds that they needed to know:

“But the fact of the matter is that when we don’t talk to the American people – we’re debating the most important foreign policy issues that we face, and the American people have a right to know,”

Which sounds an awful lot like he was advocating openly discussing covert operations with the American people. I don't care what the ultimate rightness of killing OBL turned out to be. Obama was advocating absolute folly and stupidity. And do you honestly believe that Mccain or Clinton when faced with the option of taking out OBL wouldn't have done so? Dodd might have vacilated, but he had no chance of winning the presidency, so his opinion doesn't count.
But Mccain and Clinton were arguing soundly and Obama was talking out of his butt. It's like the rules of fight club - you don't talk about fight club. You don't telegraph to Pakistan ahead of time IN PUBLIC that you are going to attack them. Rather, you go to them, like the Bush admin went to Libya, and you lay the cards on the table and say we know what you are about and we will do what needs to be done with or without your support. If you fight us on this we will DESTROY YOU, and if you help us we will reward you. And this would be done before you have an operation to get OBL, since we would be carrying out assassinations and drone strikes on not just him but on other Al Qaeda members we find.
Kind of like Obama is doing. Did we have that conversation with the american people about how we are going to bomb Pakistan and get their feedback or did we just do it. Any deals made with Pakistan would be done through back channels and not out in the open. THAT'S what Mccain and Clinton and Dodd were criticizing Obama for.

TosaGuy said...

"I think the people need their collective money."

Buy oil stock and get some of it. BP pays 3.7 percent dividend. I'd let the others gyrate a bit before investing in them.

David said...

"If anyone has money, they have the people's collective money."

Not everyone. Senator Menendez has lots of money. Tons of it. Nowhere have I seen him volunteering higher payments to the Federal government.

PaulV said...

Corporate income taxes functional equivalent of sales taxes. Screw the public and pacify base.

John Lynch said...

I agree with gas taxes. There are more honest than ever greater fuel economy standards that drive up the cost of cars, and they at least generate revenue for the government. It's also more honest than all the bailout and subsidy schemes for the automakers and "alternate" energy. I'd much rather simply pay more in taxes than have the money spent on snake oil.

Taxes also pressure the consumer to be more fuel efficient without forcing them to. If you just want to pay more for gas, that's OK.

Not a big fan of taxes, mind you, but they are a much more honest way to accomplish what the fuel efficiency crowd says they want to accomplish.

edutcher said...

I'm waiting for the Breath Tax.

Also, what crazy legs said. Anybody who remembers LBJ remembers how we were going to eliminate poverty.

Crimso said...

Gee, I wonder who makes more off of a gallon of gasoline, Big Oil or the Federal Government. Don't bother, I know the answer. The hypocrisy reeks.

The margin for the oil companies is $.07 a gallon.

The Feds get $.48 a gallon.

Do the math.

johnroberthenry said...

Glencore's IPO went off last wednesday and oil prices have already started to decline.

Glencore is probably the biggest company you have never heard of and had one of the biggest IPOs ever. Big in oil and commodities trading.

My suspicion is that they were artificially bidding prices up because it has a dramatic impact on their IPO. Now that the suckers have bought their shares, prices will come down again.


It may not be because of that. Supply and demand - no drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and people with cars - still applies.

More to the point, since housing is so lousy (worst since Sept '08), the alternate theory is prices dropped because demand is anticipated to drop, too, because we're in the double part of a double dip "recession".

MadisonMan said...

Buy oil stock and get some of it.

I will inherit some eventually. Mom has thousands of shares of ExxonMobil. One of my grandmother's aunts was one of the first secretaries for Mobil in Wisconsin.

I'm sure my retirement funds have oil.

Paul said...

Any tax on oil companies WILL BE PASSED TO THE CONSUMER. That is business 101.

How stupid these congressmen are!!!

Tax oil 10 cents a gallon will raise the price of gas AT LEAST 10 cents a gallon.

Are they fools or are do the THINK WE ARE FOOLS?

2012 can't come to soon!

dick said...

But don't worry. The economy is not a reason to vote for Obama. His national security plans are the reason to vote for Obama. the economy has nothing to do with it. Meade told us so. Don't worry about that little man behind the curtain who is going to raise taxes on the oil companies. They won't pass them on to the public. /huge snark - No matter how you portray it a vote for Obma in 2008 and in 201 will be a vote for disaster for the USA. We have already seen part of it and if this POS gets re-elected by idiots we will see the rest of it.

Original Mike said...

"Under my plan, energy prices would necessarily skyrocket".

President Obama
January 2008

Just implementing the plan.

Original Mike said...

"It's your money and we need it now!"

That's comic gold, Greg.

Sleeping Dog said...

Sorry Ann, eliminating a tax credit or a deduction is not a tax increase. Eliminating them returns fairness to the tax system. When one group, in this case oil companies, are excused from paying a tax, that unpaid amount accrues to the rest of us as either higher taxes or increased debt. Since the plan in question will use the revenue for deficit reduction it is an unalloyed good. In fact it is a twofer in that in results in the aforementioned fairness.

Pogo said...

Sleeping Dog lies.

Original Mike said...

"[Corporate taxes are] a regressive tax on the poor, which I support in pursuit of making taxes more fair. Too bad the poor won't get credit for paying it though.

Tax the poor and tell everyone the rich are paying it - beautiful."


That's an interesting observation, Joan. Hadn't thought of it that way before.

Original Mike said...

"Since the plan in question will use the revenue for deficit reduction ..."

Man, are you naive.

Marshal said...

"Sleeping Dog said...

Sorry Ann, eliminating a tax credit or a deduction is not a tax increase."

Just flat out false. It would not be a tax increase if the increased tax from deduction elimination were offset by reductions in marginal rates.

This brings up a question for me though. Do the activists who develop these talking points even consider the disrepute they bring on leftism generally? Do they believe the ability to influence a few idiots has greater long term effect than repeatedly proving how intellectually bankrupt leftism is?

I ask because leftists constantly invoke the stupidity of Americans generally, while I rarely see this from conservatives. It would seem a tactic which only works on stupid people would be more likely consciously embraced by the left given their beliefs. So is this a conscious appeal to idiots or just an example of leftism being wrong?

AllenS said...

Lay down with a Sleeping Dog, and I'll guarantee that you'll get flees. Big Oil, like all other businesses and especially those in agriculture deduct value on all things as they depreciate.

Quayle said...

Obama is working hard to make sure every citizen of this great nation can have a $1M compound like Osama Bin Laden's.

AlphaLiberal said...

Collective in terms of when we give them tax breaks, we all pay the price. Ending tax breaks does not mean raising taxes.

His point was that oil companies are swimming in money, even as more marine life swims in oil, so they can afford to lose their many tax breaks.

But conservatives still demand tax breaks for big oil. Just be honest about what you're for.

Hey, didn't all the also wingers hate on the rescue of US auto companies? They wanted the advantage for foreign auto firms (many of whom produce in the South).

Rescuing Detroit: No news about government’s good news

In the case of the car industry, allowing the market to operate without any intervention by government would have wiped out a large part of the business that is based in Midwestern states. This irreversible decision would have damaged the economy, many communities and tens of thousands of families.

Fen said...

Do the activists who develop these talking points even consider the disrepute they bring on leftism generally?

You are asking if a Leftist ever feels shame?

Scott M said...

Obama is working hard to make sure every citizen of this great nation can have a $1M compound like Osama Bin Laden's.

With roughly the same end-result.

Scott M said...

You are asking if a Leftist ever feels shame?

Eradicating shame (and it's necessary sibling, judgement) was their first trick. They convinced everyone it doesn't exist.

Original Mike said...

"Just flat out false. It would not be a tax increase if the increased tax from deduction elimination were offset by reductions in marginal rates."

Yep. It is poor analysis and/or deceptive to make the point Sleeping Dog makes; discussing tax breaks independent of the overall tax rate (and I'm not picking on him; you hear it all the time from libs).

Personally, I am in favor of removing all tax "breaks" and lowering the overall tax rate accordingly. While disruptive in the near term, I think the resulting efficiencies and improvement in price signals would be a big boon to the economy.

Original Mike said...

"Obama is working hard to make sure every citizen of this great nation can have a $1M compound like Osama Bin Laden's."

And don't forget his big screen TV.

AlphaLiberal said...

OK. So almost all conservatives are against any increased revenue to the United States treasury, even if it comes from oil companies reaping huge profits.

You claim to care about the deficit but make the mind-boggling stupid claim that deficits can not be reduced with increased revenues.

The obvious result of your policies, which we live with today, are massive deficits. Stated slightly differently:
Massive US budget deficits are an inevitable byproduct of Republican policies.

This is an intentional strategy by Repubcicans to cripple the US government. They call it "starve the
beast"


It's a deeply unpatriotic and extremist strategy, as shown here. Massive profits for polluting oil companies are more important to the con's than our country's fiscal health.

AlphaLiberal said...

Closing tax loopholes is in no way a tax hike. It is an end to tax avoidance. Making deadbeats pay taxes if not a "tax increase."

Really, this is a dumb line from the conservative camp, your outrage that people should have to meet their responsibilities.

How about if we cut these tax deadbeats off from government services? So, oil companies, no more defending oil shipping lanes for you to bring your product in.

No more Corp of Engineers projects to carve out shipping channels.

AlphaLiberal said...

Question for conservatives:

How do you propose to pay for the military budget?

You're against taxes or any other revenue collection. Wars are bloody expensive.

How do you propose to pay for this?

Scott M said...

Really, this is a dumb line from the conservative camp, your outrage that people should have to meet their responsibilities.

Now, that's hysterical. A self-described liberal waxing about personal responsibilities. You realize, don't you, AL, that a healthy chunk of the righteous black rage crowd see the mere phrase, "personal responsibility" as racist? Reaping what you sowed and/or chickens coming home to roost. Take your pick. Taking is what you guys do best.

Scott M said...

You're against taxes or any other revenue collection.

Patently false. Only pure anarchists are against taxes. Anarchy is not conservatism.

AlphaLiberal said...

Scott M:
You realize, don't you, AL, that a healthy chunk of the righteous black rage crowd see the mere phrase, "personal responsibility" as racist?

No, I don't in the slightest. Please back up that charge. Name names. Who said that? When?

"black rage crowd"?? Who is that?

But your argument boils down to this:
"I perceive that blacks call personal responsibility 'racist,' therefore there should be no responsibility by oil companies to support the US government that protects and supports them."

AlphaLiberal said...

Scott M:

Patently false. Only pure anarchists are against taxes. Anarchy is not conservatism.

So, ignore all the evidence all around us that conservatives are against any means to increase revenue. Instead, we should take as "proof" your simple assertion.

If my statement is false then please point out what means conservataives would take to increase revenues to the US government.

Scott M said...

Alpha,

Aside from my daily duties and interactions, I listen to Mark Thompson's Make It Plain nearly every day. He (a black, nationally syndicated, host) says it all the time and has had serious problems with President Obama for saying it. His guests say it and he blasts those that call in and disagree. Check it out some time and come back and discuss. Otherwise, I'd suggest your horizons aren't wide enough.

Scott M said...

"I perceive that blacks call personal responsibility 'racist,' therefore there should be no responsibility by oil companies to support the US government that protects and supports them."

Not at all. That's not my argument in any shape or form. My argument, in this context, boils down to, those that have been making excuses for personal responsibility for decades cannot turn on a dime and call for personal responsibility. The left and personal responsibility are ships passing in the night. I call hypocrisy and nothing more.

Ann Althouse said...

"His point was that oil companies are swimming in money, even as more marine life swims in oil..."

Aren't you embarrassed to crank out prose like that? It's like a parody of bad news writing (or speech writing).

Why would you want to be a person who thinks that's a good way to write?

Scott M said...

Instead, we should take as "proof" your simple assertion.

No, I'm just calling bullshit on your simple assertion.

You're against taxes or any other revenue collection.

Simply that. When a tenet of your argument is bullshit, the rest of it is suspect. We can debate that separately, but let's stick with your assertion that, I suppose, all conservatives don't pay their taxes and are against the government having any revenue at all. Demonstrably false.

AlphaLiberal said...

Scott M:

Oh now you backtrack because you are unable to back up this claim you made minutes ago:

You realize, don't you, AL, that a healthy chunk of the righteous black rage crowd see the mere phrase, "personal responsibility" as racist?

Having hurled that falsehood you go on to spread more manure:

My argument, in this context, boils down to, those that have been making excuses for personal responsibility for decades cannot turn on a dime and call for personal responsibility.

False. You have that completely backwards. In keeping with the post subject, we want oil companies to shoulder their responsibilities and pay their damn taxes. You are against that.

We want oil companies to shoulder their responsibilities and stop polluting. You are against that.

You declare your smear as a fact and all it shows is how hopelessly deluded you are. Called on one falsehood, you simple spew another.

Again, how do we pay for the wars you guys always want?

Original Mike said...

"If my statement is false then please point out what means conservataives would take to increase revenues to the US government."

An actual economic recovery would produce oodles of new tax dollars for the Feds.

Scott M said...

Aren't you embarrassed to crank out prose like that?

See an earlier comment regarding the left's relationship with shame.

(well done so far pinch-blogging for Insta, btw)

(having said that, que Titus snark)

AlphaLiberal said...

Scott M:

let's stick with your assertion that, I suppose, all conservatives don't pay their taxes

I never said that. You know my words are right here on this page, right?

I never said that. See, you can bend over backwards being polite with conservatives and all they will do is lie to your face and insult you.

Fuck you. Scott M.

Scott M said...

You are against that.

Show me, in our little back and forth, where I've even mentioned oil companies save, possible in a cite of someone else's words. By the by, how am I backtracking? I gave you a solid example of what I'm basing my opinion on and you ignore it.

Scott M said...

You're against taxes or any other revenue collection.

True. You said conservatives are against taxes (false) and any other revenue collection (false. Both are demonstrably so because, if they were true, we would have had a civil war over it by now.

I used the "suppose" exactly as it was meant. If we're against taxes, and we pay them, you're saying we pay all taxes under duress and coercion. No room in your worldview that conservatives accept that there are things that should be taxed for and bullshit that should, though, right?

LOL...you say all we do is insult you and then you say "fuck you"?

LOL

Scott M said...

and bullshit that should, though, right? = shouldn't

Fen said...

AlphaLibtard: See, you can bend over backwards being polite with conservatives and all they will do is lie to your face and insult you.

Because you already have an established rep.

So yes, fuck you.

Marshal said...

"You are asking if a Leftist ever feels shame?"

Please, I'm not that silly. I'm asking if they consciously make appeals they know will turn off intelligent voters because they believe the vast majority of Americans are stupid, and the loss of intelligent voters will be vastly outweighed by the gain in unintelligent voters. Or are they simply unable to understand that removing tax deductions increases taxes?

There's a level of stupidity it's hard to accept without believing it's a ruse. This is one of them.

Marshal said...

"Personally, I am in favor of removing all tax "breaks" and lowering the overall tax rate accordingly. While disruptive in the near term, I think the resulting efficiencies and improvement in price signals would be a big boon to the economy."

I agree with this completely, similar to the much discussed change in road funding from a gas tax to mileage based. It's fine if it replaces other taxes. But of course we know liberals intend all taxes as augmentative. They figure if they can force the mileage tax then the general funding now spent on roads can be redirected to ACORN's children.

Original Mike said...

"It's fine if it replaces other taxes."

It has to COMPLETELY replace the old taxes, not just reduce them. Otherwise, it's a Trojan Horse.

Milwaukee said...

In a year or two I will be able to take a lump-sum retirement withdrawal. I will take the lump sum, and pay the taxes. I don't want the government to know I have money in a retirement account. Once they start taking stuff which isn't theirs, there'll be no stopping them. Youse guys with Roth Accounts, with 401K, with whatever, you file that information every year with the IRS. They know who you are and where your money is, and they'll come alooking for it. No doubt y'all stole it anyhow, and they just taking it back for the rightful owners.

Milwaukee said...

With the oil companies, do we ever consider profit margins, or just total profit?

The idea is the government could spend a lot less, and have lower taxes. Why are supporting ethanol? Or NPR or Planned Parenthood or the Department of Education?

Original Mike said...

"Once they start taking stuff which isn't theirs, there'll be no stopping them. Youse guys with Roth Accounts, with 401K, with whatever, ..."

I have begun to worry about that. It is a desire among some liberals to grab control of them, "invest" them in government debt instruments, and "give" you an annuity in return.

edutcher said...

Well, that ended fast. Oil is up in NY over 100 as the int'l market has it over 114, on Drudge.

PS Alpha is trotting out some old Lefty lies.

1 Conservatives are against taxation.

Conservatives are against taxation to achieve a social agenda. They also oppose punitive or excessive taxes.

2 The oil companies are "swimming in money"

$.07 profit on each gallon sold. One of the worst margins in commerce.

3 Massive US budget deficits are an inevitable byproduct of Republican policies.

Cute. The Demos have been spending for today in the hope tomorrow wouldn't come for 80 years. There are Republicans (and not all of them RINOs, sad to say) who haven't helped, but, when one considers Little Zero spent more in 1 year than Dubya did in 8, Alpha's charge is exposed for the nonsense it is.

J said...

Given that US corporate tax rates are historically low, not to say much less than the world wide average, AND a record deficit (mainly due to the Bushco war machine and DoD), Menendez/Reid's proposal seems quite sound. BP Exxon, Cheveron et al have seen record profits over the last few years and can definitely afford it.

Now, the average teabuggers, including the ones in the House, don't know history--economic or otherwise--from their tweek stash and soon we'll be hearing another rousing chorus of Ayn Randian brainfarts --why raising taxes, that's...collectivist, goldangit...

Original Mike said...

"Given that US corporate tax rates are historically low, not to say much less than the world wide average"

You want to defend that? Everything I read says the opposite.

edutcher said...

J said...

Given that US corporate tax rates are historically low, not to say much less than the world wide average, AND a record deficit (mainly due to the Bushco war machine and DoD), Menendez/Reid's proposal seems quite sound. BP Exxon, Cheveron et al have seen record profits over the last few years and can definitely afford it.

Now, the average teabuggers, including the ones in the House, don't know history--economic or otherwise--from their tweek stash and soon we'll be hearing another rousing chorus of Ayn Randian brainfarts --why raising taxes, that's...collectivist, goldangit...


As they once said in the 2nd Bengal European Fusiliers, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?".

Smack talker is getting his material off firedoglake.

The US has the 6th highest corporate taxes in the world and even Turbo Tax Geithner has made noises they should be cut.

Always somebody who doesn't get the word.

RuyDiaz said...

Another gem from OmegaLiberal:

Closing tax loopholes is in no way a tax hike. It is an end to tax avoidance. Making deadbeats pay taxes if not a "tax increase."

Tax avoidance--not tax evasion--is the usage of legal means to lower one's taxes.

How does avoiding taxes legally makes one a deadbeat? What a genius you are, Omega. Such a towering intellect. We should all be in awe of you.

Original Mike said...

"Smack talker is getting his material off firedoglake."

Figures.

Scott M said...

What a genius you are, Omega. Such a towering intellect. We should all be in awe of you.

Careful. He's liable to say, "fuck you" at any moment. Then you'll be sorry...

J said...

For starters. and tax rates history



Big Oil has continued to rake it in under the Obama admin (ie, Exxon has posted record profits in Bush-Co, AND ObamaCo)--and the corporate tax rates haven't changed much since Reagan slashed them in 86 or so (from approx. 50%).

So much for the commie-collectivist Obama myth.

Cindy Martin said...

Dems are so stupid.

Original Mike said...

I'm not going to dispute profits; except to note that just 'cause they have it, it doesn't make it yours. The historical tax rate graph is interesting but doesn't bolster your claim very well. And your whopper, that US rates are much less than the world wide average, wasn't addressed.

Cindy Martin said...

The proposal would end a series of tax advantages for the five companies and produce about $21 billion over 10 years"

==============

How about closing all loopholes so business like GE pay taxes. Not only did GE pay NO federal income tax, they received 32 million in taxpayer money to shore up their health retirement fund thnks to the Obamacare slush fund.

RuyDiaz said...

Not only did GE pay NO federal income tax...

Again people, GE did not pay federal income taxes this year because they had a carry-over--they had lost money in previous years, and were able to offset those loses with this year's profits. There is nothing nefarious or mysterious about what GE did.

RuyDiaz said...

And your whopper, that US rates are much less than the world wide average, wasn't addressed.

No, he changed the subject, in the hope we wouldn't notice.

edutcher said...

What part of 7 cents per unit does he not understand? (I know, I know...)

When applied to the fact the Feds tax 48 cents per gallon, plus the costs of exploration and drilling, oil has one of the worst margins around. I guess he doesn't understand the concept of operating capital.

J said...

The "selective ethics" of the teabugger mind also fascinates. GE sucks according to Miss Cindy and must pay taxes, but Exxon, Chevron, and BP are cool . Must be from part of the Rush Limblow l-serv they've memorized, or something.

Scott M said...

No, he changed the subject, in the hope we wouldn't notice.

Odd, that, when you see it makes up half his premise.

Original Mike said...

"GE did not pay federal income taxes this year because they had a carry-over"

That's fine by me. But I bet they also got a whole lot of "tax credits" for renewable energy projects (just guessing, I could be wrong).

RuyDiaz said...

When applied to the fact the Feds tax 48 cents per gallon, plus the costs of exploration and drilling, oil has one of the worst margins around. I guess he doesn't understand the concept of operating capital.

Changing concepts....

ExxonMobile, however, have had a Return on Capital of about 10% for the past five year. That is, that specific oil company, has been a very good, relatively safe investment.

But a 10% RoC makes a company an efficient, well-run company, not the scene of 'obscene profits' of leftist lore.

LarsPorsena said...

"GE did not pay federal income taxes this year because they had a carry-over"

That's fine by me. But I bet they also got a whole lot of "tax credits" for renewable energy projects (just guessing, I could be wrong).


The Obama administration gave corporate giant General Electric—the parent company of NBC--$24.9 million in grants from the $787-billion stimulus package.

Original Mike said...

"But a 10% RoC makes a company an efficient, well-run company, not the scene of 'obscene profits' of leftist lore."

Not to mention the fact that they do us a great service. We. Need. Oil.

J said...

No, Educita-- you don't understand that it's not merely posted profits, but also the cap. gains from oil stocks, and commodity market in particular--ie crude-- futures/options where the oil swine rake it in, not to salaries, perqs, etc. Then, Id don't have time to explain calls and puts to you, or leverage,. Maybe google bear and bull. And bull-shit.


As I said before, the AA hillbillies don't know f*ck about politics. Add econ. to that null class as well .

(re US corp. tax rates compared to world is left as an exercise. Point and click away, yokels....da da doo dicka doo wah dicka soo wah ooo... etc)

Original Mike said...

@Lars - You reference only grants. I suspect they got a whole lot more than that. They don't gain in any way from the green energy tax credits, price supports, etc. etc.?

RuyDiaz said...

Then, Id don't have time to explain calls and puts to you, or leverage,. Maybe google bear and bull. And bull-shit.[...]

Yes, you'll explain economics to us the same way 'Jeremy' (*wink, wink*) explained mathematics a while ago. Precisely the same way.

Original Mike said...

Jeremy explained mathematics? I'm sorry I missed that. Was it as good as Freder explaining the physics of light bulbs?

Original Mike said...

"(re US corp. tax rates compared to world is left as an exercise. Point and click away, yokels....da da doo dicka doo wah dicka soo wah ooo... etc)"

Brave Sir Robin.

Scott M said...

Jeremy explained mathematics? I'm sorry I missed that. Was it as good as Freder explaining the physics of light bulbs?

Every bit, but not as good as Garage trying to pass off GWB's eco-friendly house as ManBearPig's.

Classic.

Original Mike said...

Heh.

LarsPorsena said...

Original Mike said...

@Lars - You reference only grants. I suspect they got a whole lot more than that. They don't gain in any way from the green energy tax credits, price supports, etc. etc.?

I would not be surprised. I only scratched the surface.

There's also GE's CEO...

"CEO Jeff Immelt sits on the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory board and was asked by Obama’s Export-Import Bank to the opening act for the President at the most recent Ex-Im conference."

AJ Lynch said...

Our electric company has been trying to get customers to let them install a smart meter on central air conditioners...for free. I figure somewhere the feds are paying them an incentive to get these installed and perhaps, companies like GE are making and selling the smart meter equipment. That is how crony capitalism works and we, the taxpayers pay for our "free" smart meters.

Jason said...

J,

You're bone fucking ignorant about economics. Some of us here have knowledge that's actually more than Wiki deep, shitbird.

Don't presume to lecture your betters.

Milwaukee said...

AJ: "Our electric company has been trying to get customers to let them install a smart meter on central air conditioners...for free. "

The offer I received about the meters is that during times of duress, the electric company could turn your the air conditioner off, and let it run just 15 minutes an hour. That way, they wouldn't overload the system. Of course, volunteers get a discount on their electricity.

No way in hell would I allow them to install anything like that on anything I would own. (Those On-Star commercials sound good, but then, they can turn your car off for you, or listen in on you, if so inclined. Or, so persuaded by authorities. No thank-you.)

B said...

J said:
'...you don't understand that it's not merely posted profits, but also the cap. gains from oil stocks, and commodity market in particular--ie crude-- futures/options where the oil swine rake it in, not to salaries, perqs, etc...'

Lord, what a moron. YA marginally bright individual couldn't even make this idiocy up.

Trying to pass this off as part of the rational for claiming the oil COMPANIES have 'seen record profits over the last few years' is breathtakingly ignorant. And to top that off by claiming that not understanding it to be true is an indication that the reader is hillbilly ignorant of economics? That has to put J into contention with Jeremy for the most asinine 'dig your hole deeper' effort I've yet seen on Althouse.

J, the comedic gift that keeps on giving.