Amen, bruh.

Charge what the market will pay or get a bicycle.

B

I won't paste the body of this article into the thread because I hate it when people do that, but it should be required reading, so TTT.

Oil revenues are not made by gov subsidies, they are made by selling a product.

Don't like it? Buy a horse.

B

Those were NOT NOT NOT subsidies!!! They were reduction is taxes.

Why in the heck does the gov perpetrate the fiction of taxing corporations? Why do people insist on believing it?

Bot

or walk and improve that girlish figure..

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

I never believed that BS for minute.

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL

What part of my question is "wrong again"?

.........got a comprehension problem........??

Bot, the libertarian bible says that companies that benefit from war should foot the bill.

and my horse runs on E85 thank you very much.

They do--read the article Tim Freeh linked.

1) From your second sentence I infer you think 15B in taxes on 39B of revenue is "fair" or at least appropriate given current tax law - hence your statement you would have no issues with Exxon/Mobil if they paid their "fair" share. Notice that this would be an effective rate of approximately 39% if we stick with your assumptions.

2) In your third sentence you then postulate that the application of certain unnamed/unspecified tax credits would cut a "huge chunk" out of "it". I assume "it" is the tax bill Exxon/Mobile would have to pay. As we all know this must be true because its common knowledge that rich corporations and people don't pay their fair share of the tax burden.

With me so far?

If the assumption you made in sentence #2 was correct we should see a reduction in the effective tax rate paid by Exxon/Mobil via the utilization of unfair tax credits. Maybe the tax rate would drop from 39% to say 35% or 20% of gross revenues.

According to the attached link Exxon Mobil's effective tax rate for 2005 was 39.5%

and I own a 1/16th of an F16.

You guys are right were all wrong, despite inverted supply, demand and price curves that defy all economic theory you guys are right 100% how could I have missed it? That single article changed me, I'm starting a petition for Bush to have a third term........I feel good now. My buy order is placed, I'm banking on another 6 years of gains.

sleep tight don't let the bed bugs bite. Like I said I don't give a rats ass about taxes or credits its all bogus anyway.

The article isn't what you should focus on, it is the package of legislation the Democratic Congress passed recently and how it will further ensnare us in the Middle East, while killing jobs here in the USA. http://energycommerce.house.gov/

The article Tim posted just refuted the assertion that Exxon is a welfare baby.

I simply asked a question and offered up the possibility that tax credits might reduce the company's tax burden.

You provided your typical condescending answer and gloat in your capability to prove me incorrect based upon statements that were admittedly not reinforced with any hard facts.

Glad I could make your day. Come back anytime.

Where did I say anything about the Dem's tax plan?

I am merely stating that Exxon and its shareholders should be making some generous donations, I wonder how many of the big time shareholders have children in Iraq protecting their interest? I'll bet it is same same number as congressman and cabinet members..............Zilch.

You didn't--but the dems seem to hold a similar view that the oil companies are evil, and what they have done is going to further our dependancy on foreign oil, which soldiers are being used to secure.




Exxon/Mobil and its shareholders are paying more than the typical citizen to fund Iraq (and the govt. in general), and if the house bill gets through the Senate, will be paying even more still. There are how many big time shareholders, cabinet members and congressmen? I bet that if there is one who has a kid that is serving, that sample will have a higher percentage of children in Iraq than the rest of the parents in the US. I know one of the Congressmen from South Dakota has a son that is on the front lines and several others with children over there testified in a very highly publicized hearing right before Christmas, but there probably aren't many.