Kypreos
Sophomore Author
New York
Posts:243
Points:193,555
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2006 9:44:51 PM
YES
|
247lookout
Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:4,236
Points:899,405
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2006 5:48:44 PM
Yes
|
bulldogfan
Sophomore Author
Georgia
Posts:147
Points:831,085
Joined:Dec 2005
|
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2006 2:45:57 PM
YES
|
Guido4
Champion Author
Pensacola
Posts:13,054
Points:2,672,315
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: Jan 5, 2006 7:39:57 AM
Yes
|
speedbumpone
Champion Author
Oklahoma City
Posts:13,445
Points:2,736,885
Joined:Mar 2005
|
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2006 6:17:13 PM
Profits go to stockholders and are used to Look for more oil. Let the market do its thing.
|
DDakota
Champion Author
Austin
Posts:7,285
Points:1,520,485
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2006 6:15:13 PM
Yes
|
truckdude
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:3,265
Points:1,333,820
Joined:Feb 2003
|
Message Posted: Jan 2, 2006 11:05:22 AM
Yes, because they sure aren't going to give anything back to the consumer
|
TGJ
Champion Author
Maryland
Posts:13,582
Points:2,661,540
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2005 9:23:22 AM
Yes
|
jim283
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:2,469
Points:2,462,245
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2005 8:48:57 AM
It looks like Kwikdraw 12/31 8:34 am Central Time didn't even bother to read my post of last night.
|
Kwikdraw
Champion Author
Minnesota
Posts:5,701
Points:1,000,920
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 31, 2005 8:34:37 AM
There are normal tax rates that cover corporations. Companies should have a alternate minimum tax just like individuals which would prevent large corporations from getting out of paying no taxes. I would rather see this then a windfall tax.
|
jim283
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:2,469
Points:2,462,245
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2005 9:25:29 PM
to Clevest 12/30 11:58 am Central Time
I realize that it is not the army's responsibility to teach the troops about history and economics. This is unfortunate. The troops deserve to be well informed. These are important areas of study. I encourage you to read about how Presidents Richard Nixon (Republican) and Jimmy Carter (Democrat) did when they imposed price controls on gas in the 1970s. Google will help you find numerous articles on the subject. Price controls brought us shortages, rationing, and long lines at the pump.
When Ronald Reagan (Republican) became President in January 1981, one of the first things he did was to get rid of price controls. Subsequently, domestic oil production increased and the price of gas decreased, which is what we want, isn't it?
In the 3rd quarter 2005, ExxonMobil paid over $25 billion in taxes and duties. Look it up for yourself at the Securities and Exchange Commission . Click on "Search for Company Filings". On the next page click on "Companies and Other Filers". On the next page key in XOM in the ticker symbol box. Click on "Find Companies". Scroll down to almost the bottom of the page. There is a line that says "Quarterly report". More line items keep being added to this list. By the time you read this, you might need to go to page 2 of this list to find the Quarterly report. Click on "Html" on the same line as the Quarterly report. Html is easier to read than text. On the next page click on the link to the right of "10-Q". Scroll down a short distance to where it says "Item 1. Financial Statements".
Excise taxes $8,160 million
Other taxes and duties $10,850 million
Income tax $6,132 million
Total $25,142 million in taxes and duties
Where did over $25 BILLION in taxes and duties disappear to? This money could have been used to pay for body armor, new weapon systems, robots, and medical care for the injured.
If the oil companies are taxed any more they will not have the profit motive to improve the development of new energy sources here in the United States and things will get worse. Instead they will invest more in other parts of the world where they can make more profit and where it's easier to hide those profits. The oil companies will help those countries that demand less in taxes. This is what Esso/Chad is doing to help people improve their lives in Chad and Cameroon. Esso/Chad is 40% owned by ExxonMobil, 35% owned by Petronas (100% owned by the government of Malaysia) and 25% owned by Chevron.
In the 3rd quarter 2005, ExxonMobil had a profit margin (net profit divided by revenue) of 9.85%. In the same period, Microsoft had a profit margin of 32.25%. It could be argued that Microsoft is more greedy than ExxonMobil. Should Microsoft be taxed more for having a profit margin 3 times larger than that of ExxonMobil?
If Congress ever passes a windfall profits tax, my bet is that President Bush would veto the tax. Bush used to be on the Board of Directors of Harken Energy Corporation which had some murky financial dealings with Swiss banks and Saudi investors. Bush has a lot of friends in the oil business. Bush won't hurt his friends by taxing them more.
Energy and money are complex issues. What to do about these issues should be decided by people who are well informed.
|
Clevest
Rookie Author
Akron
Posts:2
Points:30,265
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 30, 2005 11:58:23 AM
YES!
Buy the body armor the troops need, replace worn weapon systems, send robots to the hot spots and keep the troops alive. Better yet why don't those that are pro-war and anti-pay for it, go ""over there"" and replace the troops so they don't have to stay ""over there"" past their tour of duty. How about using the money for veterans benefits. People put those Chinese made magnetic things on their car and talk the talk. Try walking the walk.
Everone wants something fixed or built yet they want a tax break. The next time the Air Force needs a 22 million dollar air craft, which one of you will cut the check? Taxes must be paid to have roads in good repair, water treatment, and the strong military the chickens that call themselvs HAWKS want. Yet nobody wants to pay for it.
NO MORE TAX CUTS!!!
YOU WANT TO LIVE HERE PAY TO SUPPORT IT OR GET OUT!!!
Clevest
Army 7th Corps
|
Guido4
Champion Author
Pensacola
Posts:13,054
Points:2,672,315
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2005 6:22:54 AM
It doesn't matter. It won't change any thing
|
Guido4
Champion Author
Pensacola
Posts:13,054
Points:2,672,315
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 29, 2005 6:22:34 AM
It doesn't matter. It won't change any thing
|
KangarooMan
Sophomore Author
Spokane
Posts:205
Points:260,000
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 23, 2005 10:09:10 AM
let the market forces determine how much taxes.
|
slick6766
All-Star Author
Indiana
Posts:520
Points:91,410
Joined:Apr 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2005 3:51:21 PM
Simply taxing someone more because they make more money doesn't make a lot of sense... Especially for oil companies. Oil companies have to invest large amounts of money for exploration of new oil reserves to keep our oil supplies high. They depend on their profits to fund that exploration. So in taxing the oil companies on their profits and taking them away, we would simply make the problem worse.
If anything should be done, regulations should be imposed on what their profits can or should be spent on... i.e. oil exploration rather than just padding the execs pockets.
|
drtrouble
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:2,709
Points:162,800
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2005 2:55:39 PM
how do we balance capitalism (and it's motivational powers) and the "public good"? When is regulation needed/worthwhile, e.g., Western Electric and the original AT&T with getting telephones from the luxury (hence the federal excise tax) to the necessity/expected stage. Would every residence be wired for telecommuncations otherwise? Would it have occurred sooner or later without the intial regulation?
|
nikwv
Champion Author
Charleston
Posts:1,992
Points:431,605
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2005 12:43:30 PM
no, They already make their share of money.
|
nascar7
Champion Author
Massachusetts
Posts:5,246
Points:199,730
Joined:Mar 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2005 4:45:33 AM
why some account will find a way around it anyway
|
idrvfst
Rookie Author
Michigan
Posts:1
Points:1,720
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2005 5:06:50 PM
Only the far left would think of taxing someones profit.
|
Spiderdude
Sophomore Author
North Carolina
Posts:196
Points:463,100
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2005 5:36:12 PM
Yeah i think they should have to pay higher taxes but it will only be passed down to US the consumers
|
macsurety
Rookie Author
Allentown
Posts:88
Points:20,920
Joined:Nov 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2005 3:48:04 PM
to stopthegouging:
I understand the spirit of your comments as to the fear of speculation goosing commodities prices (think "Wall Street" with Gordon Gecko espousing the goodness of greed). I will try to introduce a different perspective.
To begin, generally speaking, free markets are efficient. Actual consumers and producers of a commodity (from petroleum to currency to lumber, etc.), that act rationally, will strive to buy inputs at prices that allow it to add value and sell a resulting good or service at a higher price. Additionally, these entities balance the need for pricing risk with prices paid - in other words, we balance the value of stability with the value of price.
The commodities exchanges provide liquidity for the marketplace - bringing together lots of buyers and sellers, and as these numbers increase, excess profits are squeezed out (think eBay). This removes risk for buyers and sellers. If this liquidity didn't exist, the resulting risk would be drive prices up, as each party would have to add cushion to ensure to cover contingencies.
Consumers of commodities can use forward trades to lock in stable prices - Southwest Airlines, apparently, pulled a masterstroke by managing forward fuel prices exceedingly well, and in the current high-fuel-price environment this favored their operating performance. Now, if prices had not been as high, SWA would have been the owner of fuel options that they would not have likely exercised. The price of risk management
Additionally, sellers of commodities can rest assured that there is a market into which they can sell. As conditions in the marketplace change - i.e. large swings in supply of the commodities - the intermediaries make markets by bringing together parties looking to sell commodities and parties looking buy, and the parties representing either side of the deal decide what price suits their needs and outlook the best.
Speculators operate in a very dicey, high risk environment. These are the parties to which you allude. Most financial people that I've spoken with strongly discourage speculation from the stand point that it offers an inadquate return for the risk taken on - we hear of the winners, but what about the losers (think Long Term Capital, the hedge fund (with a few Nobel prize winning economists at the head) that took huge bets on currency trends and blew it)? The speculators play a role in that they offer a market, and will take the other side of deals for the true producers or consumers of the commodity. They have some theory or formula for justifying the risk they're willing to accept for the price they're willing to pay.
Often times, speculators can exist because of informational assymetries - they know something about the market that others don't and they want to capture the gains associated with that. My sense is that some of these assymetries result from well-intended regulations that restrict freedom within a market. If the regulations didn't exist, and markets were free to transact unimpaired, the speculator loses the advantages of knowing how to game a system. In other words, the free market levels the informational nature of the playing field for buyers and sellers, and offers no quirks around which the speculator can make an arbritrage play.
I apologize for the long winded response. The easy cop out is to say, the topic is too complex for this forum. Really, if I were better versed in the subject, I could do it better justice. Thanks for the opportunity to try, though. I hope that you find it enlightening.
|
stopthegouging
Rookie Author
Oklahoma
Posts:19
Points:6,440
Joined:Nov 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2005 5:35:19 AM
Wasn't it interesting how the big oil executives DID NOT have to be sworn in to testify before the congressional committee they recently spoke before. Reckon how that happened....enough $ in the right pockets make it unnecessary to be sworn in. The chair of the committee said any testimony before congress is considered cause for perjury if it is found to be false whether sworn in or not. So why do most who testify before congress have to be sworn in? I bet if I were called to congress to testify, I would be required to be sworn in!
|
stopthegouging
Rookie Author
Oklahoma
Posts:19
Points:6,440
Joined:Nov 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 8, 2005 5:31:51 AM
A QUESTION FOR MACSURETY
You seem to be quite knowledgeable about economics. Can you explain to those of us who don't understand the "commodities" trade as it relates to oil prices. It seems to me futures or commodities markets insert a lot of middlemen into the economy who put nothing extra into the value of items traded in those markets. They buy only "paper" that says they control a certain amount of those commodities, then hope for the prices to go up and sell that "paper" ownership in those commodities. I know it is a "free economy" and I hate government intrusions into business, but if a person or company isn't actually doing something with the commodity it seems they should have no right to "speculate" and manipulate the markets to force the prices to go up. Tell me if you can where this is not at least a partially accurate view of these speculative market practices. Thanks for your input previously.
|
bonbon1950
Rookie Author
Dallas
Posts:48
Points:36,235
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2005 10:54:20 AM
It doesn't matter. It won't change any thing
|
Horace
Champion Author
Indianapolis
Posts:5,749
Points:1,221,050
Joined:Jun 2004
|
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2005 6:30:53 AM
What's it matter. We know they're cooking the books.
|
myds650
Rookie Author
Wisconsin
Posts:6
Points:1,335
Joined:Nov 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2005 11:49:15 AM
no the main reason why "Big Oil" makes so much money is because they are not allowed to drill for oil in places where they know were oil is, they are not allowed to build new more efficient faster refineries. I don't think they've built one since the mid 70's, look at the technology jump in the last 30 years if they were allowed to build new ones "Big Oil" (I love that phrase) would be able to handle the demand of fossil fuels today.
|
mbbb
Champion Author
New Hampshire
Posts:2,289
Points:182,045
Joined:Apr 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2005 5:07:13 PM
sure! why not? we get shafted if we make a lot of money, why shouldn't they?!
|
aei73
Rookie Author
Madison
Posts:2
Points:149,615
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2005 1:52:11 PM
Absolutely not. If anyone is angry that the oil companies profit is too high they can simply not buy their products. Seeing as this is a country where Starbucks can charge $4 for a cup of coffee, I also highly doubt that will happen.
|
nikwv
Champion Author
Charleston
Posts:1,992
Points:431,605
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2005 11:48:14 AM
No, They shouldn't profit they're make a lots of money anyways.
|
VideoDan
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:13,162
Points:2,663,625
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2005 8:07:28 AM
I really don't like government interference but the outrageous profits the oil companies are getting while the average American struggles just pisses me off. I think that instead of a tax they should be forced to bring the prices down so we can all heat our homes this winter. I live in the Northeast and I have to leave my thermostat at 60 degrees. I'm freezing.
|
jim283
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:2,469
Points:2,462,245
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2005 9:28:55 PM
LewisStudent, It is too late for a boycott to be effective. The auspicious time for a boycott was when prices were spiking higher.
In November, 1997, French truck drivers went on strike over pay and work rule issues. Hundreds of thousands of truck drivers parked their trucks on highways all over France. They did not park on the shoulder of the highways. They parked in the traffic lanes and blocked the highways. They blocked border crossings, access to industrial and commercial centers, oil refineries, ports and ferry terminals. Nearly half of the gas stations in France ran out of gas. A bunch of poorly paid truck drivers essentially shutdown the economy of France in a few days. The truck drivers got the pay increase and improved work rules that they wanted.
LewisStudent, Why will the refusal to support the status quo not succeed in the United States? Are the French more skilled at civil disobedience than Americans?
Conflating the purchase of gas with breathing shows a refusal to accept other viable options.
Several people have written below about the development of other types of energy and using other types of transportation.
How many of you have contacted members of Congress and other government officials urging them to create tax incentives for the development of other types of energy?
Ride the bus. Ride a bicycle. Certain urban areas have local passenger trains. In Chicago, some of the passenger trains are powered by electricity.
There are about 200,000 Amish people in the United States. Most of them live in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana. The Amish don't buy gas. They get around in horse drawn carriages. The Amish don't use electricity. This is how they choose to live.
Have you chosen to live far from your place of employment?
Have you chosen to live in a place that does not have easy access to the bus and passenger train systems?
Have you chosen not to buy a bicycle?
Have you chosen to drive a vehicle that gets lousy gas mileage?
Have you chosen not to walk to your destination, when your starting point is only a few blocks away?
Why should the oil companies be punished for the poor choices that people have made?
Why do you allow yourselves to be so vulnerable to the whims of the oil companies?
If you don't like the price, don't buy it. Kick your addiction to petroleum.
|
macsurety
Rookie Author
Allentown
Posts:88
Points:20,920
Joined:Nov 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2005 6:02:11 PM
Frobizzle, who is calling themself a genius simply by citing a credible resource? I don't think anyone who suggest refering to a text book is hailing themself as a genius. Speaking for myself, my interest is to add objective, credible information into a discussion, especially one that seems to be full of missinformation and speculation.
I gather from your post, that you're implying that your annecdotal experience with one local, independent gas station is worthy to extrapolate from and with which to explain the experience of the entire country. You have to admit that to be able to extrapolate, one really should have a sample of many experiences to ensure that the information being used isn't being swayed by the one or two outlier events not representative of the average (using averages and norms is the basis for extrapolation). However, even if the causal relationship is the same for each gasoline retailer across the country, I would suggest an alternative explaination. It would be helpful if I knew what field you worked in, so that I could use that as the basis for the example. Basically, the point that I'll try to make is that supply and demand impact the pricing more frequently than at the time the retailer takes supply. The pricing is forward looking, not just transactional.
Let's say that you're in the business of selling steel rebar as a supplier to concrete contractors, and that you typically take delivery on a weekly basis. If there was a highly unusual, and unanticipated event that caused a supply shock to rebar or to steel two days after you took your most recent delivery, I would suggest that you now face the prospect that your suppliers will shortly try to pass along the economic impact of this supply shock to you, which you would then try to pass along to your customers. As the "retailer", your facing the prospect of a substantial price increase from your vendors. In fact, you may have contracts with your suppliers that allow them to change the price they will bill based on some index of commodity prices (a measure that changes frequently). Perhaps you're not certain as to where their price is going to go, and you're also concerned that you won't be able to pass along the entire price increase to your customers when things do settle down. I would suggest that you might err on the side of conservatism for the sake of your business, and raise prices to as a high a level as you could as soon as you could to ensure that you cover your anticipated increase in costs. If you're saying that's unrealistic, I can look to about 3 steel fabrication contractors who are in bankruptcy right now because of significant price increases on steel supplies which they couldn't pass along to their customers.
For gasoline and petroleum, these are commodities actively trade on various commodity exchanges. The parties buying and selling the future supplies revise the bid and ask prices as soon as information becomes available, and the rate of change to these prices is more frequent than daily and probably changes every few minutes - depending on the activity that day. The prices of a given transaction are very much forward looking, and incorporate as much information as is available at that time. This dynamic and forward looking process impacts the pricing charged to retailers (though probably not directly) and consequently the price that the retailer tries to pass along to the consumer.
None of this information comes from theory. This is a description of how the supply and demand in the retail petroleum business basically works. I can understand your basic aversion to theory alone, as if you put 5 economists in a room, you'll probably get 12 opinions.
This is not a perfect analogy. I hope that you can see the basic two points. Those points being that: first, from the oil companies to the refiners to the retailers, and to the other layers in between (as I mentioned on a previous post, I do not claim to be an expert on the structure of the petroleum value chain) Katrina introduced a major supply shock to the suppliers and consistent with this was some amazing uncertainty as to where the amount of supply would be available for sale; and second, the retailer has a need to ensure that she covers her costs and the ability to do this is highly frustrated by the uncertainty of the supplier pricing. At the time that prices increased (for me it was from 2.46 to 3.19) it wasn't clear to the retailers what their suppliers were going to have and what they were going to charge for the supply that would be available.
Finally, I would ask you to consider the appropriate view if you were loaning the oil companies a large portion of your assets. I ask you to consider your position as that of lender because as a lender you only benefit by the borrower repaying their loan in accordance with the terms of the loan. This is not the same as an equity investor, who derives benefit from the market price of the stock which in turn incorporates any upside from large profit gains. As a lender, you want to see that your borrowing customer is running a business in such a way that they generate sufficient free cash flow as to service debt. This means that you want to see that the borrower is effectively charging more for what it sells than what it pays for the inputs used to make what it sells. If the borrower faces a dramatic change in supplier pricing, or in the case of an oil company it would be the availability of supply to sell over a given period, you would want to see that the borrower is pricing adequately to cover costs. Since there is uncertainty in the supply pricing, the seller would need to react conservatively - better to sell a little of something somewhat above costs, than to sell a lot of something priced below your cost. We are now only a several weeks after the event, and prices now are below where they were in the week before Katrina. The market place responded to the reduction of uncertainty - the scenario played out was that supplies were not as bad as thought possible and demand is now not as strong as expected, and prices fell. The same was true a couple years ago when supplies were very strong, driven by the Russian government looking to monetize this natural resource so that it could service its staggering debt load. It sold oil for very low prices, and as consumers we experienced unusually low retail gasoline prices.
Free markets are efficient. That doesn't mean that they're painless, but the pain is usually quicker, less overall, and necessary for changing behavior. We can look to the global migration away from centralized economies to see that socialism was tried extensively, and found generally to be less effective and in the long run, even more painful. Price controls don't work. That's not theory, that's proven by experience. Think of the gas price controls of the Nixon era. Think of the attempts by the central banks of England, Mexico, and Thailand to control the price of their respective currenices at various times in the 1990s. Free markets, while not perfect and not painless, work better.
|
bbshop
Rookie Author
Denver
Posts:17
Points:71,095
Joined:Mar 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2005 5:24:06 PM
NO! Oil companies, like any other company, deserve to make profits if they provide a good product and good service. In fact, it is each company's DUTY to its shareholders to make a profit.
Anyone who is against profits for corporations and companies is really against America.
|
jim283
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:2,469
Points:2,462,245
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2005 4:22:43 PM
ProfessorH, How do people become members of the school board? Aren't they elected? How do people get elected? The people of the jurisdiction go to a voting booth and indicate their choice on a ballot. If you don't like what the schools are teaching, then elect someone else to the school board at the next election. How do you propose to educate the ignorant masses?
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
Thomas Jefferson
|
TomT
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:8,937
Points:1,726,070
Joined:Oct 2002
|
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2005 2:07:38 PM
Let them reinvest their profits, "If they will." Hopefully they will not overpay their "CEO's."
|
wrdown
Champion Author
St. Louis
Posts:4,740
Points:1,131,470
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2005 9:37:36 AM
Didn't get to vote in the poll. But, NO.
|
Cuzilla
Champion Author
Indianapolis
Posts:12,193
Points:2,349,320
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 26, 2005 2:04:44 PM
No! Read the Congressional report regarding the "Windfall Profits Tax" that was enacted during the late 70s, early 80s. Sen. John Sununu (NH) entered it into the Congressional hearings last week, being held by the Energy Comm., on the oil companies. It collected not one penny and the report said the tax actually made a small interference with the over-all supply of gasoline and ended up adding more cost to a gallon of gas. So much for "Help" from the feds!
The amount of ignorance about how the world actually works amazes me.
|
VideoDan
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:13,162
Points:2,663,625
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 26, 2005 5:21:36 AM
Yes and let them start new development in this country.
|
ProfessorH
Rookie Author
Cincinnati
Posts:3
Points:30,660
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 25, 2005 1:48:23 PM
Jim283, I liked your reply to Autodiva except for the part about more taxes for education. I believe that education is far too important to be left to the government. The 66% who believe in a windfall profits tax were nearly all educated in government schools. When government controls the schools, it should come as no surprise that most people think more government programs are the answer to every problem. Did you know that in the days before widespread government schooling, the literacy rate was actually higher? And most people were farmers then, while horses were the main form of transportation. I'm guessing that most of what you know about economics (especially personal economics) was learned outside of school. Yet what subject has more impact on everyone's day to day life?
|
RogersUmp
All-Star Author
Twin Cities
Posts:547
Points:122,235
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 25, 2005 9:36:27 AM
The French?! Yes the french know how to strike because they don't like to work and there is no incentive to work hard in that lazy socialist country!!! We should abolutely not tax the gas companies for making a profit in a free market system. If some companies appear to be involved in illegal activities investigate them. This is the United States not France. We already tax the crap out of gas to make it more expensive! I get tired of the liberal politics that try to punish people and businesses for being successful. Are we going to add an extra tax to the company or industry that is the most successful every year?!! That would incent business to be less successful, hire fewer people and get rid of some jobs, add less to our economy... Before you jump to a tax you MUST consider what behavior you are incenting.
|
Rick52
Champion Author
Milwaukee
Posts:12,031
Points:1,198,645
Joined:Mar 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 25, 2005 8:11:33 AM
Frobizzle: Yes PRISON TIME is what they NEED.Also you know what happens when the GOVERMENT gets EXTRA MONEY,they WASSSSTE IT.... PORK FAT!!!!!!
|
rodmiser
Champion Author
Missouri
Posts:8,148
Points:2,024,235
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 25, 2005 6:20:25 AM
no
|
LewisStudent
Rookie Author
Chicago
Posts:9
Points:4,980
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 24, 2005 10:54:26 PM
Jim283, you think people should boycott gas stations? You think that would work? First of all, people would NOT do it. People need to get wherever they're going. Not using gas is like telling people not to breathe. Second, by boycotting the gas stations for a short period of time, the price would just go up by more than it originally would have when everybody at once decides to go back, because demand would be much higher. The boycotting idea is a bad one that would NEVER work.
This is not a matter of people "getting their point across." This is simple supply and demand.
[Edited by: LewisStudent at 11/24/2005 11:55:36 PM EST]
|
jim283
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:2,469
Points:2,462,245
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 24, 2005 2:23:09 PM
If you don't like the price, don't buy it.
This is not from some college textbook on economics. This is plain, Midwestern common sense.
If people in sufficient numbers had refused to buy gas when it was at $3.50, then the price of gas would have collapsed. It's a shame that there was no organized boycott of the gas stations.
The French know how to go on strike. French strikes are effective at getting their point across.
Europe sent some of its surplus gas to the United States, the supply increased, and the price of gas has decreased over the last 6 weeks. The market corrected its own excesses by itself.
If pumping gas is such a lucrative business, then go buy a gas station.
The classified ads in any big city newspaper have gas stations for sale.
The price of gas in Europe is around US$4.60 to US$6.50 per gallon. (sources: USA Today Oct. 17, 2005 and www.aaireland.ie/petrolprices) Taxes are higher in Europe.
As you enjoy this Thanksgiving holiday, be grateful that you don't pay European prices for gas.
|
frobizzle
Rookie Author
Rochester
Posts:26
Points:461,700
Joined:Jun 2004
|
Message Posted: Nov 24, 2005 8:23:12 AM
What the so called geniuses, the ones that quote from college economics text books, fail to realize (or are just ignoring) is the sequence of events when prices began to rise. The following example was the rule, not the exception: There is an independent gas station near my house, close enough for me to see through my living room window. They get gas delivered to them twice a week. When prices started rising, they dutifully followed the trend, increasing the price FOUR times in one day. Did they get a delivery that day? No. They were taking gasoline that they bought at a lower price and simply kept escalating the price. Okay geniuses...get out your books...You spend $1.60/gallon for 5000 gallons...initially sell it at $2.00/gallon. $.40/gallon margin. Now, you increase the retail price to $3.00/gallon (on the same gasoline that you paid $1.60 for) and the margin increases to $1.40/gallon. So, tell me? If this is not windfall profits, then what else could you call it? Perhaps...price gouging?
And for those that are smirking, ready to counter that this is at the local level, not the big oil corporations, consider...why did the local station raise the price again and again? Did the owner (or lessee) wake up that morning and say to himself, "Hmmm...I think I will try to wring as much cash out of the public as I can today and pump those prices up." Wrong! They were directed and the origin of those directives comes from where, boys and girls? Did I hear someone mutter the big oil corporations?
Hence, it would be more fitting if the oil companies were not subjected to a windfall tax (which they would only pass on to the consumer,) but rather prison time for the executives. Will this happen? Keep in mind who their buddy in the White House is and you have your answer.
|
BIGB1
Rookie Author
Ohio
Posts:12
Points:51,015
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 23, 2005 6:49:45 PM
not sure yet.
|
RemNEm
Rookie Author
Atlanta
Posts:18
Points:19,370
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 23, 2005 1:32:21 PM
Wow, this is really scary. I mean, I knew that there were a lot of people out there who are fairly limited in the intelligence and common sense department, but 66%!?! That's amazing and horrifying at the same time. With the exception of a very few, like Macsurety and Jim283, the majority of posts here are so uninformed that they would be funny if the situation weren't so serious. Exxon is making a 9% profit. In what world is that exorbitant? General Mills also reported a 9% profit. There are alternatives to using gasoline, ride a bike, take mass transit, etc. What alternative do you have to eating? For those who apparently think that 9% profit is too high, is General Mills also "gouging"? I'm just trying to put this in perspective, but I would be willing to bet that even this is too difficult for most people to understand.
|
Z34
Champion Author
Toronto
Posts:15,527
Points:2,689,250
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 22, 2005 11:22:05 PM
No, because the oil companies will raise their prices to cover the tax.
|
scrounger
Champion Author
Vancouver
Posts:9,778
Points:3,043,430
Joined:Mar 2003
|
Message Posted: Nov 22, 2005 11:19:02 PM
YES!!!!
|
3pointer
Sophomore Author
Twin Cities
Posts:100
Points:16,885
Joined:Apr 2005
|
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2005 3:28:41 PM
OK so demand is inelastic for fuel. The oil companies realize this and jack the price and make huge profits. So why shouldn't we tax windfall. We use the windfall to finance Bush's stupid war.
|