Exxon Mobil post $39.5 Billion profit in 2006

2

Comments

  • Posts: 5,700
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
  • Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I'm saying something about giving everything. How dare you keep any for yourself....you're just as selfish as these Exxon crooks. The very computer you're typing on could be sold and the money used to feed 100 Somali children. You don't need it.

    slightly facetious? ... no matter - i still prefer to think of the "we" vs. the "me" ...
  • Posts: 3,527
    blackredyellow wrote:
    According to their Worldwide Giving Report on their website (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Citizenship/gcr_contributionsworldwide_report.asp) in 2005 they gave $132.8 million, while making a profit of $36.13 billion. By my math that is 0.3% of their profit donated to charity.

    To put that into perspective, if you make $50,000 a year (gross) and you donate 0.3% of that, you will be donating $150.00.... keep in mind after taxes and expenses your profit will be nowhere near $50,000.

    i'd love an audit of that giving ... and i wonder how much is it given to further alleviate taxes ...
  • Posts: 9,404
    polaris wrote:
    i'd love an audit of that giving ... and i wonder how much is it given to further alleviate taxes ...

    All corporate taxes are passed on to the consumer anyway.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • Posts: 4,141
    blackredyellow wrote:
    According to their Worldwide Giving Report on their website (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Citizenship/gcr_contributionsworldwide_report.asp) in 2005 they gave $132.8 million, while making a profit of $36.13 billion. By my math that is 0.3% of their profit donated to charity.

    To put that into perspective, if you make $50,000 a year (gross) and you donate 0.3% of that, you will be donating $150.00.... keep in mind after taxes and expenses your profit will be nowhere near $50,000.


    and keep in mind they never even really clean up the messes they make, like the valdeez spill
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    slightly facetious? ... no matter - i still prefer to think of the "we" vs. the "me" ...

    Of course you do. "Me" is probably worth $500, whereas your "we" is worth $393,000,000,500.

    Look, my post was meant to prove one fundamental thing: if you have the right to redistribute someone else's wealth based on your own standards, well then so do I. So you might want to hide your shirts before I decide to give them away for you.
  • Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Of course you do. "Me" is probably worth $500, whereas your "we" is worth $393,000,000,500.

    Look, my post was meant to prove one fundamental thing: if you have the right to redistribute someone else's wealth based on your own standards, well then so do I. So you might want to hide your shirts before I decide to give them away for you.

    simplifying it to this basic principle makes absolutely no sense ...

    we live in a societal system where we pay taxes for a form of governence ... it's obvious you don't like it - and we are all entitled to that opinion ... but to simplify social spending and corporate welfare as you have serves no purpose ...

    u don't wanna pay for other people's education, health care, etc - that's fine ... i believe in it wholeheartedly ... i don't believe in giving already wealthy industries direct access to gov't policy nor specific tax breaks so they can make massive massive profits ...
  • Posts: 8,209
    polaris wrote:
    simplifying it to this basic principle makes absolutely no sense ...

    we live in a societal system where we pay taxes for a form of governence ... it's obvious you don't like it - and we are all entitled to that opinion ... but to simplify social spending and corporate welfare as you have serves no purpose ...

    u don't wanna pay for other people's education, health care, etc - that's fine ... i believe in it wholeheartedly ... i don't believe in giving already wealthy industries direct access to gov't policy nor specific tax breaks so they can make massive massive profits ...

    Don't worry. Some of us get it, Polaris. :)
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    simplifying it to this basic principle makes absolutely no sense ...

    Hehe...why not??? Is the principle not exactly what you're founding your stance on? Namely, that men have a fundamental right to the products of the labor of others?
    we live in a societal system where we pay taxes for a form of governence ... it's obvious you don't like it - and we are all entitled to that opinion ... but to simplify social spending and corporate welfare as you have serves no purpose ...

    I haven't simplified it at all. The system has. It has declared itself the arbiter on ownership, thereby pitting men against each other to protect their wealth from each others' whims. I'm simply calling a spade a spade. Can you tell me how what you're proposing is different?
    u don't wanna pay for other people's education, health care, etc - that's fine ... i believe in it wholeheartedly ...

    Cool. Since I don't believe in it, I can choose not to then? Or are you going to force me to? And, following that logic, would you support a system wherein I could force you not to?
    i don't believe in giving already wealthy industries direct access to gov't policy nor specific tax breaks so they can make massive massive profits ...

    Me neither. Nowhere am I defending Exxon's tax breaks. I'm simply defending their right, my right, and your right, to own the products of their labor.
  • Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Of course you do. "Me" is probably worth $500, whereas your "we" is worth $393,000,000,500.

    Look, my post was meant to prove one fundamental thing: if you have the right to redistribute someone else's wealth based on your own standards, well then so do I. So you might want to hide your shirts before I decide to give them away for you.
    "Hyperbole, is a walk on the slippery rocks religion....."

    Wait, that's not how that song goes.


    Anyway, your money isn't really yours to begin with. Its a note on the value of the currency of this country, of which you get to share right along with the rest of us. You keep the lion's share, of which you are allowed to spend on just about anything you want. The rest is used for overhead.
  • Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Anyway, your money isn't really yours to begin with. Its a note on the value of the currency of this country, of which you get to share right along with the rest of us. You keep the lion's share, of which you are allowed to spend on just about anything you want. The rest is used for overhead.

    "Overhead"??? Hehe...come on now. I'll happily pay for the "overhead" of producing money. That would account for roughly $700M of the federal budget. How is the remaining $999,999,300,000,000 classified as "overhead"?
  • Posts: 6,801
    blackredyellow wrote:
    According to their Worldwide Giving Report on their website (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Citizenship/gcr_contributionsworldwide_report.asp) in 2005 they gave $132.8 million, while making a profit of $36.13 billion. By my math that is 0.3% of their profit donated to charity.

    To put that into perspective, if you make $50,000 a year (gross) and you donate 0.3% of that, you will be donating $150.00.... keep in mind after taxes and expenses your profit will be nowhere near $50,000.

    Well, that's a pretty impressive amount, but at the same time a pathetic percentage.

    Then again, I think charity is a matter of personal choice that should not be mandated.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    "Overhead"??? Hehe...come on now. I'll happily pay for the "overhead" of producing money. That would account for roughly $40M of the federal budget. How is the remaining $999,999,960,000,000 classified as "overhead"?
    It's more than just the printing of money. The rest can be considered "overhead" because it's necessary for the health and prosperity of the "company" and it's "employees."
  • Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    It's more than just the printing of money. The rest can be considered "overhead" because it's necessary for the health and prosperity of the "company" and it's "employees."

    That seems odd since the "health and prosperity" of those "employees" predates the "company". Furthermore, I am not your "employee", nor are you mine. Finally, we do not work for the same "company".
  • Posts: 177
    jeffbr wrote:
    I second that. We should vote on it. Wouldn't it be great to have a democracy that would allow us to vote on how to spend other peoples' money and then feel good about performing a charitable act?

    Horrible idea. I don't want anyone but me deciding how to spend the money i earn. I don't understand. Why should people be people be punished for being good at what they do. Whats the point of doing better and more business if someone else if gonna spend they money you make?
    "Be what you want to be, see what you came to see"
  • Posts: 5,700
    To all those who speak of "we" and "company", I'm curious -- why don't you support tax breaks to Exxon? The primary purpose of those tax breaks is to subsidize exploration. How come it's "we" and "company" when you talk about profits, but it's not "we" and "company" when we talk about funding exploration????? In other words, shouldn't your own moral code demand that you shoulder part of Exxon's costs of doing business?
  • Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    That seems odd since the "health and prosperity" of those "employees" predates the "company". Furthermore, I am not your "employee", nor are you mine. Finally, we do not work for the same "company".
    Of course it predates this company - but not all companies. We quit our last job in favor of this one. Overall, I'd say we made a pretty good choice. So good, in fact, that we surpassed the profit margins of our last company - and, to an extent, that last company has emulated ours.
  • Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Of course it predates this company - but not all companies. We quit our last job in favor of this one. Overall, I'd say we made a pretty good choice. So good, in fact, that we surpassed the profit margins of our last company - and, to an extent, that last company has emulated ours.

    Yet what you're proposing is enforcing many of the very same rules that made you quit in the first place.

    Good companies learn from their mistakes. You seem to be in the business of forgetting them.
  • Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    To all those who speak of "we" and "company", I'm curious -- why don't you support tax breaks to Exxon? The primary purpose of those tax breaks is to subsidize exploration. How come it's "we" and "company" when you talk about profits, but it's not "we" and "company" when we talk about funding exploration????? In other words, shouldn't your own moral code demand that you shoulder part of Exxon's costs of doing business?
    There's a general downturn among employees' opinions regarding oil exploration. Perhaps incentive to ween Exxon off of oil would be a better use of our overhead dollars.
  • Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yet what you're proposing is enforcing many of the very same rules that made you quit in the first place.

    Good companies learn from their mistakes. You seem to be in the business of forgetting them.
    The previous company didn't allow for employee input and generally sucked at profit sharing. This one manages the business quite a bit better than that one did at the time. But it's still the same business.

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories