Democrats Prep Bill That Would Recover Billions From Oil Cos

2»

Comments

  • WaveCameCrashinWaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    know1 wrote:
    Raising taxes on the oil companies will just raise oil costs for the consumers.

    Plus, what is the government going to do with all of this additional money? It should be given back to consumers as tax breaks, but it won't be. Our wicked, corrupt government will just use it for its own end.

    These are the questions that we should be asking, yet all we get are people wanting to punish the oil companies for high gas prices and profits. That is just childish and short-sighted.


    Right you are sir and not to mention these companies only make like 6 to 8 cents per gallon of gas sold. Obama isn't doing a damn thing about this and he's not going to. Also it's supply and demand
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    inmytree wrote:

    I asked for something to back up your "facts" and I get this...I have to admit, I'm having a hard time following your gibberish...

    I will go slowly for you. We don't just "give" tax subisidies. We trade them in exchange for promises from the company that gets them. Giuliani "Disneyfied" Times Square this way, and it is now a clean, family friendly place instead of what came before it. AND a very good tax stream for NYC (even with the subsidies).

    Now, as I said from the start, I don't know all the details of the Exxon deal, but I have to imagine employment was part of it. As in, we give you this, you maintain at least X number jobs in the US (with obviously far greater detail than that).

    Now, Ms. A has a job in Arkansas with Exxon because of that. She pays taxes on her income (or maybe not if she's not making enough, but at least she's not on welfare SPENDING your tax dollars). Most days, she needs to eat lunch. So, she occassionally frequents the deli next door. She buys her sandwich and the deli owner thanks her very much.

    The deli owner is thrilled because without that Exxon office next door, he'd be out of business. So, he can keep his deli open. Unfortunately, he has to pay taxes on his income. So, that sandwich Ms. A bought not only has sales tax that goes to the State, it is also income that gets taxed by the Feds.

    So, now we have 2 buildings occupied either as a purchase or rent. Exxon may get another tax rebate on that in order to get that location. But, their build, rent or purchase $'s go to someone who then keeps a business that is taxed that would not have the building filled if not for Exxon. And, of course, the deli owner keeps his building occupied.

    Now, if you want to do the research and argue that all that doesn't add up to the $4 billion in tax relief - then fine. That's a legitemate argument and we should be vigilant that we are "getting our monies worth." But, be assured, that tax subsidy is buying something and that value should not be ignored just because a company makes a profit.
    :lol::lol::lol:

    more theory vs. facts...

    I do find it funny that when you're called out, you want me to the research... :roll:
  • EdsonNascimentoEdsonNascimento Posts: 5,522
    inmytree wrote:
    :lol::lol::lol:

    more theory vs. facts...

    I do find it funny that when you're called out, you want me to the research... :roll:

    But, I have no (big) issue with the tax subsidies. You do. You're the one that needs to educate yourself to make a more credible argument. Plus, you'll learn more if you do the work yourself.

    I've given you the road map as to why it's not necessarily bad. It's up to you to follow it (or not - your choice). I'm just trying to educate you on the way the world works. If you don't want to dig deeper, that is certainly your perogative.

    (And BTW, not that I want to get into the I know you are but what am I - what facts have you shared other than the tax subsidy and the profit number. I could share the same and still make my argument. So, there, nah, nah, nah. I've provided the same facts as you! :lol: )
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    inmytree wrote:
    :lol::lol::lol:

    more theory vs. facts...

    I do find it funny that when you're called out, you want me to the research... :roll:

    But, I have no (big) issue with the tax subsidies. You do. You're the one that needs to educate yourself to make a more credible argument. Plus, you'll learn more if you do the work yourself.

    I've given you the road map as to why it's not necessarily bad. It's up to you to follow it (or not - your choice). I'm just trying to educate you on the way the world works. If you don't want to dig deeper, that is certainly your perogative.

    (And BTW, not that I want to get into the I know you are but what am I - what facts have you shared other than the tax subsidy and the profit number. I could share the same and still make my argument. So, there, nah, nah, nah. I've provided the same facts as you! :lol: )

    more talking in circles...

    anyhooo...you assume I have a (big) issue with subsides...

    Here's my issue...you spouted off a few talking points, tossed in some fake story about a deli, and then try to put the onus on me to do some 'research'...I simply asked you to back up your theory/story/bs...and it seems you can't... :yawn:
  • WaveCameCrashinWaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    ********Congressman Martin Frost(D) Obama not telling the truth******



    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=05F_O8RsYgo


    It must really suck for you leftist when facts get in the way...
Sign In or Register to comment.