The Gods that Failed

[Len Colby]

....of marinating roads ....

Can't let this one go....how does a road taste when properly marinated?

Chicken

[Len Colby]

There is a lot of talk about excess or abusive profits. For the second quarter EXXON posted $11.68 billion in profits on sales of $138 billion or less that 9% profit. Is that excessive or abusive profit? It should also be noted that EXXON also paid $32.36 BILLION in taxes for the same period. In other words they paid almost 3 dollars in tax for every dollar in profits. Is that abusive or excessive TAXATION?

One could also argue that they receive various indirect subsidies such as motorists only being charged a fraction of the cost of marinating roads and the rest of the infrastructure and services needed for driving and military protection in the Persian Gulf and other regions. I also wonder about Exxon’s accounting. Oil companies tend to buy from and sell to subsidiaries or companies they partially own.

You can argue until the cows come home but the fact remains they paid nearly 3 bucks in tax for every dollar of profit. I don't know about you, but that level of taxation on a personal basis would cause me to be quite upset. Yet there are those you maintain that 9% profit is considered a windfall or excessive or abusive. Would you feel the same if it was your business?

Imagine the President called the heads of the oil companies in for a meeting and proposed halving the taxes they pay but told them in return they would be billed for "military protection in the Persian Gulf and other regions" and drivers would be taxed to pay the full "cost of MAINTAINING roads and the rest of the infrastructure and services needed for driving", do you think they'd accept?

$11.68 billion in profits per quater comes out to $156 per American/year and thats just one company. I also wonder if that isn't the result of funny accounting. I taught executives from Phillips Brasil*, the buy components from Phillips subsidiaries in other countries and other parts of Brazil. Obviously they count these purchases as cost but Phillips of course earned a profit on those sales. How does Phillips report this to the Dutch tax authority? Exxon likewise buys from and sells to subsidiaries which leaves plenty of room for fudging numbers.

* It's spelt with an "s" in Portuguese.

[Len Colby]

And what would be the cost of converting? This might not be a viable option for many consumers.

The cost is really a non issue. You wanted to compare the gas utility to a monopoly. They are clearly not. Other energy sources are available and the consumer has a wide range of choices. That part of your arguement fails.

If users can't afford to convert or converting is not economiclly viable AND there is only one provider the gas company has an effective monopoly because the consumer has 2 options pay or suffer in the cold.

Secondly there are alternative sources to purchase natural gas, at least here, which also defeats the argument that there is a monopoly

Perhaps one of the UK members of the forum can fill us in on the situation there.

[Craig Lamson]

There is a lot of talk about excess or abusive profits. For the second quarter EXXON posted $11.68 billion in profits on sales of $138 billion or less that 9% profit. Is that excessive or abusive profit? It should also be noted that EXXON also paid $32.36 BILLION in taxes for the same period. In other words they paid almost 3 dollars in tax for every dollar in profits. Is that abusive or excessive TAXATION?

One could also argue that they receive various indirect subsidies such as motorists only being charged a fraction of the cost of marinating roads and the rest of the infrastructure and services needed for driving and military protection in the Persian Gulf and other regions. I also wonder about Exxon’s accounting. Oil companies tend to buy from and sell to subsidiaries or companies they partially own.

You can argue until the cows come home but the fact remains they paid nearly 3 bucks in tax for every dollar of profit. I don't know about you, but that level of taxation on a personal basis would cause me to be quite upset. Yet there are those you maintain that 9% profit is considered a windfall or excessive or abusive. Would you feel the same if it was your business?

Imagine the President called the heads of the oil companies in for a meeting and proposed halving the taxes they pay but told them in return they would be billed for "military protection in the Persian Gulf and other regions" and drivers would be taxed to pay the full "cost of MAINTAINING roads and the rest of the infrastructure and services needed for driving", do you think they'd accept?

$11.68 billion in profits per quater comes out to $156 per American/year and thats just one company. I also wonder if that isn't the result of funny accounting. I taught executives from Phillips Brasil*, the buy components from Phillips subsidiaries in other countries and other parts of Brazil. Obviously they count these purchases as cost but Phillips of course earned a profit on those sales. How does Phillips report this to the Dutch tax authority? Exxon likewise buys from and sells to subsidiaries which leaves plenty of room for fudging numbers.

* It's spelt with an "s" in Portuguese.

The problem with all of this is that you can't just single out one industry. Everything is intertwined. Quite the strawman you tried to build there Len. Your problem is that you still can't overcome the simple fact that EXXON paid almost 3 dollars in tax for every dollar in profit.

Which brings us back to this point, is 9% profit excessive? DO YOU pay nearly 3 dollars in tax for every dollar of profit?

[Craig Lamson]

If users can't afford to convert or converting is not economiclly viable AND there is only one provider the gas company has an effective monopoly because the consumer has 2 options pay or suffer in the cold.

The cost of converting and the viability of the conversion is clearly NOT the responsibility of the gas company. it is the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY of the customer. Other options exist for the consumer. One cannot hold a monoply when other choice exists.

The Gas Company is responsible to its shareholders, not society at large.

Secondly there are alternative sources to purchase natural gas, at least here, which also defeats the argument that there is a monopoly

Perhaps one of the UK members of the forum can fill us in on the situation there.

That would be of interest.