Does anyone remember the last time that happened? (1982 I think it was?) And there was almost NO oil and what happened THEN? What a dumb idea and that just means the government makes more money off of it. Is this smart??Obama wants to raise taxes on oil companies?
Source and context, please.Obama wants to raise taxes on oil companies?
The oil embargo was in the 1970's and had nothing to do with taxes on oil imports but rather with a horrible economic situation in the country and elsewhere.
Ironically many states do not allow milk companies to charge more than a certain amoung, but oil companies - which are represented by both the Predident and the Vice President - can make record making profit during these very difficult economic times.
No it isn't smart! Guess who ends up paying them! We do! But that isn't all he wants to raise taxes on. And guess who will pay for that. He will be just like Jimmy Carter was. The highest inflation ever 22%. And world respect was at it's lowest that it has ever been! Amy ran the white house. Jimmy had to ask her what to do! Yep he will be a real hum dinger of a president!
Yeah the guy wants to steal other people's money and he can't even talk.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3t…
yes
barack = jimmycarter = stagflation
big oil will pass all taxes back to us in form of higher prices
barack needs econ 101
let free markets work
hugs!
No this is a dumb idea and anything Obama believes you shouldn't second guess.
Those ignorant of history's failures are doomed to repeat them.
YUP it's smart!!
OBAMA 08
I am beginning to think Obama is drinking his own Kool-Aid. The “windfall” profits tax he proposes for our large oil companies is a punitive tax. It is a tax penalty he wants to impose on oil companies that have already paid the taxes they owe under the law. So what’s the basis for a penalty?
Obama is apparently trying to prove that he doesn’t know anything about economics. It’s already clear he doesn’t know anything about business. Maybe he spent too much time studying politics at Colombia and civil rights law at Harvard. He seems to have plenty of ideas, but they are not convergent with reality.
Our large oil companies, which are the targets of his tax attacks, are INTERNATIONAL companies; they operate all over the world. They generate their revenues in many different countries and pay their taxes to many different governments. And the management of “BIG OIL” has an ethical and legal obligation to promote the interests of its shareholders, of which there are millions, both direct and indirect (through mutual funds).
Why is Obama targeting “BIG OIL?” His interest is obviously politically-based because so many people gag when they read about Exxon’s record profits. What he doesn’t seem to understand is that Exxon earns BIG profits because it is a BIG company – it generates more revenue than any other publicly traded company in the world. But as a percentage of sales, its profits do not compare so favorably to those of many banks and pharmaceutical companies. In 2007, Exxon’s revenues were $404 billion and its net income was $40 billion (10% of sales). Bank of America had 2007 revenues of $124 billion and net income of $14.8 billion (12%). Our largest pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, had 2007 revenues of $48 billion and net income of $8 billion (17%). Exxon made more money than either BoA or Pfizer, but its profit per dollar of sales was significantly less.
If Obama and the Democrats impose a windfall profits tax on Exxon and its domestic cousins, they WILL pass that tax through in their selling prices. If they are (somehow) barred from doing so they will sell their products in other countries that do not have punitive taxes, and that may create shortages in the domestic market that will result in still higher prices at the pump. And if the anti-corporate crowd keeps using taxes as a tool to punish successful companies that are domiciled in the United States, they will eventually move to other countries that have less onerous tax environments. That’s what Tyco International did in 1997 and our Treasury is the poorer for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment