portisizzle Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 A few theories:Maybe they are front runners by nature. They want to side with the winner, and by all accounts, big oil has won. Or maybe they want to reserve the right to pay 8% income tax should they get to a point where they are making $182 million in salary and stock options. Or maybe they would prefer to be bumjacked than see someone get something for free. Or maybe they listen to Republican radio and believe everything they hear. Just a thought.... If you increase taxes on oil corporations they will pass that tax cost DIRECTLY on to the consumer via a price increase. By giving oil companies a "tax break" they have a lower cost basis to work from. NO corporation have EVER paid a dollar in taxes. All corporations do is collect taxes for the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 C'mon... the obvious answer is this: Conservative republicans want the government to stay out of the market or business affairs... of all businesses. The philosophical approach is that any interference by the government is inefficient, and thus bad for everyone. Welfare is the government interfering, thus bad. Corporations are largely unregulated (at least as some want them to be) and thus are good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Just a thought....If you increase taxes on oil corporations they will pass that tax cost DIRECTLY on to the consumer via a price increase. By giving oil companies a "tax break" they have a lower cost basis to work from. NO corporation have EVER paid a dollar in taxes. All corporations do is collect taxes for the government. Not convincing me that corporations should not be dealt with by the government when you point things like that out. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Welfare is the government interfering, thus bad. . Welfare condones sloth, thus bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Oil companies, though most people think they are "evil" provide a much needed commodity to society. Not sure what is so hard to grasp. On the other hand, they certainly dont need $18 billion in tax breaks over the next 12 years. But since that is already factored into the price of gas, its coming out of your pocket one way or the other.......unless you stop buying their product. Good luck with that. What i dont understand is why people hate the american oil companies and not OPEC. OPEC is the monopoly that keeps the price artificially inflated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Not convincing me that corporations should not be dealt with by the government when you point things like that out. :2cents: You just do not like the inconvenient truth. A corporate tax increase is additional overhead. And thus a cost that must be accounted for in the form of pricing adjustments. Sorry you do not see this for what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Welfare condones sloth, thus bad. As in it contributes to one of the seven deadly sins, and thus is bad. Or as in, it creates an inefficient market in which, at least in some's view, it incentivizes not working. If its the first, then we're just off the beaten path. But, I'm pretty sure we said the same thing if you're saying the second thing. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Just a thought....If you increase taxes on oil corporations they will pass that tax cost DIRECTLY on to the consumer via a price increase. By giving oil companies a "tax break" they have a lower cost basis to work from. NO corporation have EVER paid a dollar in taxes. All corporations do is collect taxes for the government. That's odd. I own a corporation that pays taxes. Am I the only one? There was a proposal a few years back that would have taxes excess profits. Basically it would have forced the huge oil companies to compete with smaller companies that were paying lower taxes. This proposal defies what you are saying, and it does so with incredibly simple principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 You just do not like the inconvenient truth.A corporate tax increase is additional overhead. And thus a cost that must be accounted for in the form of pricing adjustments. Sorry you do not see this for what it is. Oh no, I just find it hard to believe that you can't tax a corporation and regulate the amount it can pass on to consumers. As in, a law that sets a scale for how much gas can be priced at based on what oil costs, or other factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
33 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Serious question. Why don't more people on the right admit that trickle down economics don't actually work? Economics could be a non-partisan debate, but tax breaks will not likely ever be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Oil companies, though most people think they are "evil" provide a much needed commodity to society. Not sure what is so hard to grasp.On the other hand, they certainly dont need $18 billion in tax breaks over the next 12 years. But since that is already factored into the price of gas, its coming out of your pocket one way or the other.......unless you stop buying their product. Good luck with that. What i dont understand is why people hate the american oil companies and not OPEC. OPEC is the monopoly that keeps the price artificially inflated. On point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Oil companies, though most people think they are "evil" provide a much needed commodity to society. Not sure what is so hard to grasp.On the other hand, they certainly dont need $18 billion in tax breaks over the next 12 years. But since that is already factored into the price of gas, its coming out of your pocket one way or the other.......unless you stop buying their product. Good luck with that. What i dont understand is why people hate the american oil companies and not OPEC. OPEC is the monopoly that keeps the price artificially inflated. I can honestly say that I spread my hate on both equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Oh no, I just find it hard to believe that you can't tax a corporation and regulate the amount it can pass on to consumers. As in, a law that sets a scale for how much gas can be priced at based on what oil costs, or other factors. You might find it hard to believe. But in the end tax is no more or no less a cost of doing business than the cost to wash the windows. Corporations number one goal is to maximize profit. In order to do so they increase price in order to maintain profit margin. Business 101, Tulane. Whether you run Exxon or a sub shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Serious question. Why don't more people on the right admit that trickle down economics don't actually work? Economics could be a non-partisan debate, but tax breaks will not likely ever be. Would you prefer trickle up economics? Do you think that would have replace Reaganomics and its role in digging us out of our problems in the early '80s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 If a welfare mother wants an $18 billion tax cut, I'm all for it. Then again, I'm not a Republican. Did you just imply a welfare mother is a small person abusing the system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 I can honestly say that I spread my hate on both equally. I would too until you peel it back one more layer and find out that "Exxon" isnt owned by a bunch of fat robber barons sitting in a skyscraper boardroom in Manhattan lighting their cigars with kittens. Half of the shares outstanding are held in mutual funds and if you have a 401(k), you almost certainly are profitting from Exxons profits. Exxon is famous for having a very high float. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Serious question. Why don't more people on the right admit that trickle down economics don't actually work? Economics could be a non-partisan debate, but tax breaks will not likely ever be. If you think economics could be a non-partisan debate, then you know very little about economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 That's odd. I own a corporation that pays taxes. Am I the only one? There was a proposal a few years back that would have taxes excess profits. Basically it would have forced the huge oil companies to compete with smaller companies that were paying lower taxes. This proposal defies what you are saying, and it does so with incredibly simple principles. 1) No you don't. You collect money from customers and pass a required sum to the government. And if you run a successful business you probably have a provision in your expense budget to allow for your expected tax collection. Thus you are able to evaluate what your gross profit must be in order to make your predetermined profit margin. 2) Define excess profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 You might find it hard to believe. But in the end tax is no more or no less a cost of doing business than the cost to wash the windows.Corporations number one goal is to maximize profit. In order to do so they increase price in order to maintain profit margin. Business 101, Tulane. Whether you run Exxon or a sub shop. I took Business 101. The part in bold is not necessarily correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 If you think economics could be a non-partisan debate, then you know very little about economics. It definitely could be, just not here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 If a welfare mother wants an $18 billion tax cut,? explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
33 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Would you prefer trickle up economics? Do you think that would have replace Reaganomics and its role in digging us out of our problems in the early '80s? I'm pretty non-partisan on this because I don't have a plan to fix anything, but I imagine if you compare the tax cuts to corporations with jobs gained by the unemployed, or workers who entered new tax brackets we would see that the tax cuts didn't create much wealth that didn't already exist. I think Reaganomics was well intentioned but it's certainly doesn't seem to be working right now from what I've seen. And being a business owner I can say personally that tax cuts have no direct impact on my employees. Now I probably operate a lot closer to the red than most big corporations, but I really don't see them turning those tax breaks into jobs and promotions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 I took Business 101. The part in bold is not necessarily correct. Yea, they can lower their costs. (Like tax) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 It definitely could be, just not here. No, it's never non-partisan.... seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 One problem is that your question makes no sense. Oil companies ARE creating value, the welfare mother you mention does not.Both payments seem relatively liquid to me ...$1 of a tax break to Exxon will go to pay an employee, buy some equipment, maybe get paid out in a dividend ... the employee, contractor, or shareholder who gets that dollar will spend it somewhere, it might get paid again as taxes, and out again as a tax break... $1 to a welfare mom will be spent at the supermarket or maybe for bus fare, and that money will similarly be spent somewhere in the open market, maybe even at a gas station where it will make its way to Exxon. What is the real difference between the two payments, in terms of their effect on the economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.