$5.00 per gallon gas strategy

[wanabeguru]

Originally Posted by KenH

Actually, I've been busy starting another business to make more money to pay more taxes so you can live off the government teet. Can I claim you as a tax deduction?

Let me guess, you don't have an honorable discharge for serving your country for 8 years[at a government job!!] And the love and compassion you show is priceless! Have a great life!

[STman]

Originally Posted by tshelfer

Sometimes living close to work isn't a choice. In today's world, very few people have the luxury of working a career at one place. Realities dictate several job changes, maybe several career changes, in a 30-40 career span. The upside of living in a gigantic metro area is that jobs are, relatively speaking, plentiful. The downside is those jobs are scattered literally over hundreds of square miles. My career took me from downtown Ft Worth to downtown Dallas to Luna Road to Los Colinas. And my career was actually pretty stable compared to many. I did the best I could by living in the mid-cities so that, while work wasn't all that close, it was never all that far either.

@XCGates - My point exactly; it's naive to think prices are going to fall; they're not. Put a Republican in the White House and they'll still rise, albeit hopefully not as fast. I can't speak for Ken, but my comments are not meant to be unkind to your wife or anybody else; they're merely a call to the reality of the situation. Is a Kia at 22-28mpg wasteful? Not if it's what you need. I made my 30-mile commute for years in a string of comfy 4-bangers - 2 Altimas, a Grand Am, a Storm, a Celica, etc. There was always something slightly more fuel-efficient available, but these were cars that gave me mid-20s mpg while being both comfortable and fun. Some people may choose an econo-box; they're choosing gas savings over comfort and that's their right. Other people may choose to make the same commute in a Tahoe or Expedition. That is certainly their right and privilege, but buying said vehicle and then complaining about the cost of running it is - well, whiny.

We're back to that change thing. Commuting is the worst and I feel for anyone that has to do it. When I was still a builder I lived in the neighborhood that I was building in. Often times I just walked to work, I didn't know how good I had it. If you visit old downtown areas especially in smaller towns, you notice an upstairs above many of the old store fronts. People lived above their businesses back then. It seems for many that we're slowly heading back that direction.

[YoDoc]

When I was still on active duty and living in the barracks, I had a Ford Expedition. I LOVED that thing. Of course, I walked 500 feet to work, and only drove it on the weekends, or when everybody piled in with me to go to lunch. I got out and had to drive that thing around Dallas for a couple of weeks and immediately got rid of it.

Long way to say, yeah, living right next to where you work is awesome. I wish we could live right next to where my wife works, but I don't like getting robbed.

[SL350]

Obama is back to blaming big oil for gas prices. Once again he pushes to reduce the "subsidies" for big oil. Wonder exactly what he means by that?

The most common tax break that I see is the one for stripper wells. Those are low volume wells that would be shut off because the taxes and expenses are greater than the revenue on these 10 barrels/day max wells. So they lower the taxes and it is a win-win; the government still collects more tax than they would if the wells are plugged and that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

If he takes that "subsidy" away, we increase our imports and lower tax revenues also.

Is there anywhere we actually give an oil company tax credits or is "subsidy" just a term for lesser taxes in politic speak?

Edit: forgot politics unwanted here. I saw the news about O and gas prices and this is the thread that came to mind.

[poser]

[Slo-Moe]

Originally Posted by YoDoc

Porsche Panamera. My bad. It's def. the Porsche

Ah the Panamera.......Porsche's answer to the Pontiac Aztec. Man that thing is hideous.............Sorry, back to $5 gas.

[wanabeguru]

Poser: That is absolutely BEAUTIFUL!!!

[Ben Eberle]

Originally Posted by SL350

Obama is back to blaming big oil for gas prices. Once again he pushes to reduce the "subsidies" for big oil. Wonder exactly what he means by that?

The most common tax break that I see is the one for stripper wells. Those are low volume wells that would be shut off because the taxes and expenses are greater than the revenue on these 10 barrels/day max wells. So they lower the taxes and it is a win-win; the government still collects more tax than they would if the wells are plugged and that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

If he takes that "subsidy" away, we increase our imports and lower tax revenues also.

Is there anywhere we actually give an oil company tax credits or is "subsidy" just a term for lesser taxes in politic speak?

I believe that taxes on corporations trickle down to consumers one way or another.

[wanabeguru]

If you mean corporate passes their taxes down to consumers I agree

[STman]

Either tax them or remove all subsidies. The oil companies are making an obscene amount of money. Why should they receive any subsidy at all?

[SL350]

Originally Posted by STman

Either tax them or remove all subsidies. The oil companies are making an obscene amount of money. Why should they receive any subsidy at all?

That is my question above, are they really subsidies? I can't imagine giving them money. More likely it is another "break" given to entice a change in their behavior. Does anyone know what exactly O means when he talks about these subsidies?

[bmcdonau]

The Congressional Research Service states the oil industry in the United States first received government assistance in 1916. That was when intangible drilling costs were able to be fully deducted from a company's expenses for tax purposes. In 1926, a write-off for cost depletion was introduced. That provision allowed oil companies to deduct costs based upon overall gross receipts and not just the actual value of the oil.


Both of those subsidies still exist. The Obama administration claims the average subsidy for huge oil companies is $4 billion per year. The bill in the Senate would have saved $24 billion in 10 years. The White House claims when gas goes up one cent per gallon, oil companies make $200 million more per month.

The American Chemical Society cites a report by Double Bottom Line Venture Capital that explains how the oil industry has reaped benefits from subsidies. From 1918 to 2009, the average annual subsidy was $4.86 billion.

When the study is adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the oil and gas industry received subsidies amounting to $1.8 billion per year in the first 15 years of the fledgling industry. The American Coalition for Ethanol estimates that when combined with state and local government aid to large oil companies, subsidies amount to anywhere from $133.8 billion to $280.8 billion annually from all sources of taxpayer aid that goes to the oil and gas industry.

[Diderich]

Originally Posted by STman

Either tax them or remove all subsidies. The oil companies are making an obscene amount of money. Why should they receive any subsidy at all?

How much are they making?

[STman]

Originally Posted by Diderich

How much are they making?

ExxonMobil alone made 41 billion last year and paid 17% in taxes.

Article here.

[jqueen]

Originally Posted by STman

ExxonMobil alone made 41 billion last year and paid 17% in taxes.

Article here.

And what was that as a percent of revenue? The only revenue # I found was 486.429 billion. That works out to 8.44% net income. Most of the management team at my company would be fired if net income was that low in 2011.

[SL350]

Originally Posted by bmcdonau

The Congressional Research Service states the oil industry in the United States first received government assistance in 1916. That was when intangible drilling costs were able to be fully deducted from a company's expenses for tax purposes. In 1926, a write-off for cost depletion was introduced. That provision allowed oil companies to deduct costs based upon overall gross receipts and not just the actual value of the oil.


Both of those subsidies still exist.

I still don't have a clue what intangible drilling costs are or cost depletion. If they are legit costs, where is the meat of the oil company tax cheating?

Even with this, it does not sound like what I would term a subsidy. A subsidy to me is cash for clunkers. If it is just eliminating a deduction, then that is no different than changing the tax rate.

[Ben Eberle]

Originally Posted by STman

ExxonMobil alone made 41 billion last year and paid 17% in taxes.

Article here.

Don't all the stockholders whom that profit is distributed to have to pay personal income tax on that money? Don't the employees and executives of ExxonMobil have to pay personal income taxes on their wages and saleries?
Isn't corporate income tax a form of double taxation?

Aren't the Obamas living large at huge government expense? Martha's Vinyard, Hawaii, Spain, Vail, shutting down Manhatten at huge costs for a "date night", why no outrage in the press?

[YoDoc]

I think profit is after expenses like payroll.

If corporate taxes are double taxation, so is sales tax, or any almost any tax levied on almost anything.

Stock holders aren't paying personal income tax, they pay capital gains taxes, right?

Perhaps nobody is flipping out on the Obama's costs to taxpayers because it's not much compared to other things like Medicare and such. Also because those are things we expect from a president.

Did you know George Washington rode in a carriage pulled by four white horses draped with leopard skins? That doesn't have much to do with anything, I just think it's neat.

[mbrew]

Originally Posted by STman

Either tax them or remove all subsidies. The oil companies are making an obscene amount of money. Why should they receive any subsidy at all?

I'm curious, just what do you think happens to those "obscene profits''?

[Ben Eberle]

Originally Posted by YoDoc

Stock holders aren't paying personal income tax, they pay capital gains taxes, right?

Right, and the reason the tax rate on capital gains is lower than income tax is because that income has already been taxed before they recieve it.

If you want investment income to be taxed just like regular income, then we need to eliminate corporate income tax. That way the widow who relies on her ExxonMobil stock for her meager pension would get more money from those stocks while the billionaires who's entire income is from investments would have to "pay their share".