A real buzzkill (seriously; the environment dudes)

[wufwugy]

Now back to where we were discussing... So... since there is currently no replacement for fossil fuels within a reasonable economic structure, do you expect it to stay that way? What I'm getting at, is do you feel that because the other options are so expensive today, that it will kill the economy to have to move to them? Or will we just continue to plod our way towards destruction... without any change at all?

If there is to be a change, who has to initiate it? Government? General Public? The rich guys like Ed Begley Jr.?

I'm not trying to sound overly cynical... and I'm trying to keep an open mind here, so I'd like to continue this discussion and see what comes from it.

We will continually plod towards destruction due to things like myopia and greed. I don't think that cost is the biggest deal because it will engender some healthy restructuring. There is a problem with simply running out of oil though because we don't have the tech (maybe not even the theory) to replace that kind of energy packaging. That won't be for quite a while though.

The change is gradual and initiated in several areas. The biggest change, however, will come in a long long time when oil corps lose some political power

[Monty3038]

We will continually plod towards destruction due to things like myopia and greed. I don't think that cost is the biggest deal because it will engender some healthy restructuring. There is a problem with simply running out of oil though because we don't have the tech (maybe not even the theory) to replace that kind of energy packaging. That won't be for quite a while though.

The change is gradual and initiated in several areas. The biggest change, however, will come in a long long time when oil corps lose some political power

From the sound of the earlier statements, I was going down the direction of will we continue to plod towards destruction by an increase in GHG. But ok, let's look at the greed/power thing. You mention the oil corps will have to lose power to make a big change... I have two comments on that... the first is: Do you feel technology will advance to a point where this will happen? And the second is: How do you think the oil companies get their power/how can you stop them?

[wufwugy]

From the sound of the earlier statements, I was going down the direction of will we continue to plod towards destruction by an increase in GHG. But ok, let's look at the greed/power thing. You mention the oil corps will have to lose power to make a big change... I have two comments on that... the first is: Do you feel technology will advance to a point where this will happen? And the second is: How do you think the oil companies get their power/how can you stop them?

1. I don't think that technology will be the mover in changes, but the symptom of an actualized need to change. Science has always been stymied by money interests, this will be no different. People want what they want, and tend to only do what's right or look for help and change when they're out of options

2. They get their power due to ownership of one of the most valuable resources of all time. They will lose that power as the resource becomes less important

Oil companies are arguably the most powerful entities on the planet. US foreign policy since WW2 is almost exclusively for the purpose of oil acquisition. Europe is virtually a US proxy state via relying on US for maintaining oil as well. The Middle East is what it is mainly due to oil. Not only do corps like Exxon not pay any taxes, but I think they even get subsidized. That's how insanely powerful they are

[Monty3038]

The Middle East is what it is mainly due to oil. Not only do corps like Exxon not pay any taxes, but I think they even get subsidized. That's how insanely powerful they are

Wuf, I agree, that Middle East is all due to Oil, but the fact remains, they have the oil and unless we deal with them, one way or another, we have no oil, so that I don't disparage, the people with the product you want set the price.

As towards us setting policy mostly based on oil, I can see some of that, I mean Vietnam makes no sense for the US unless you realize why we were there... and what we have never realized from going there.

Now... the Exxon thing, I don't know about the not paying any taxes thing, do you have any information to back that up?

(Note: I have only read this far, if explained in later posts, disregard, I have been very sick the last few days and online not at all. I may make a post as towards how fucked my weekend was).

[wufwugy]

Now... the Exxon thing, I don't know about the not paying any taxes thing, do you have any information to back that up?

ThinkProgress » ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated)

It's not just Exxon. It's most megacorps getting away with very little taxation. I recall Google pays <3%

So this prompts the question... is social security something that should be eliminated, as it continues to cause those who pose less productive value to society to 'hang around'?

I like that you said "prompts the question". Most will say "begs the question", which actually has nothing to do with prompting a question, but is a circular logic idiom.

Anyways, on to the question. No, social security should not be eliminated. For starters, it's not a subsidy, it's something everybody who receives has paid into. It's our money. The only difference is that it's structured in a way that benefits a populace and economy much more than if it didn't exist.

On top of that, SS is one of the things about government that works extremely well. It has an enormous 2+ trillion surplus, and it's geared up to pay out full benefits without any changes till near the end of the century. But that hasn't stopped the sociopaths in charge of the politicians from doing everything they can to convince the people that it needs to be gut

From an economic perspective, cutting SS would be disastrous. It would help about 1% of the richest richies, but would figuratively chop off the arm of the rest of the people. One of the most important aspects of a healthy economy is the flow of finances and purchasing power of the poor and median people. This isn't theory, but actual data. Return on investment of things like food stamps is infinitely higher than things like cuts in estate tax. Infinite is the correct number too because many things, particularly tax cuts for the wealthy, are fully understood to have a negative economic multiplier effect. But that doesn't stop regular people from listening to Prophet Beck tell them the world would explode if megacorps aren't allowed to molest whomever they please


As to old people "hanging around", we're not even remotely close to answering that question. As sarbox would say, that's one of our civilization's golden calves that needs to be burned, yet we ain't doing it. Human rights are not a perfect thing. Give some in one place and it will detract in other places. Engendering an older and older population will cause unimaginable problems down the road, but not doing it will as well


BTW, I would like to point out that subsidies and welfare are not inherently bad. The words have been vilified. Not only does the data show that welfare for the unfortunate is extremely beneficial for the health and happiness of an economy, but that the mega wealthy receive hidden welfare several magnitudes greater than the plebians they point their fingers at. The next time you see somebody whine about some form of welfare, remember that Wall Street is subsidized by the Federal Reserve, and they get their money straight out of the pockets of the middle class.

[Monty3038]

ThinkProgress » ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated)

I'm at work so this may have to be short, but I clicked through to the Forbes article this is picked from. On page two of the article it states that Exxon had a tax expense of 17.6 billion out of the 42 billion in profit. That is approximately 47% of their pre-tax earnings.

So, they owe 17.6 Billion in income tax for 2009. Let's then read the rest of the article, which states they also owe high income taxes to many of the countries they do business with, especially the oil producing countries. So they incur income taxes there as well... not just in the US.
-- From the article --
Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi.
--- End of Article quote ---
Which as I read it states that their income from some of the operations is legally sheltered in off shore accounts, not subject to taxation. This does not say that they pay no taxes, just that some of their income is sheltered.

--- From the article ---
Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a "substantial 2009 tax liability." How substantial? "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we."
--- End of Article Quote ---

Ok, so their financial statements don't show any net income tax liability... as mine doesn't either... that doesn't mean that I didn't PAY taxes to uncle sam, I get a fair share of what I paid in back, but not all of it. Exxon has to follow the proper filing procedures with the SEC and such as well... so unless I see better than a forbes article stating they aren't paying enough in taxes, I don't really know what they are paying in taxes.

And from what I've heard, though not researched, oil companies don't have as high of a profit margin as other industries, so taxing them futher only hurts the consumer, who it is passed along to.

I'll try to add more if work permits, got to check a server right now.

[Monty3038]

Ok, so I did some more looking, the server reboot worked

The US Corporate income tax works in a graduated percentage based upon profits of US Resident corporations. So, now on to the Exxon page...

Well, nothing I can find there on their financial statements, so I went to the SEC filings section of my brokerage account, where I find that for 2009, on their 10-K SEC statement, Exxon Mobil claims 19.2 billion dollars in profit before shareholder payments and taxes.

Searching further, I find the following in their statements:

"
Income, sales-based and all other taxes and duties totaled $78.6 billion in 2009, a decrease of $37.6 billion or 32 percent from 2008. Income tax expense, both current and deferred, was $15.1 billion, $21.4 billion lower than 2008, reflecting lower pre-tax income in 2009. A higher share of total income from the Upstream segment in 2009 increased the effective income tax rate to 47 percent compared to 46 percent in 2008. Sales-based and all other taxes and duties of $63.5 billion in 2009 decreased $16.2 billion from 2008, reflecting lower prices and foreign exchange effects. "

Which would seem to imply that they are paying a pretty large amount of income taxes. I am having difficulty interpreting all of the sections of their financial reports (I am no accountant, that is for sure)... but it appears they paid a pretty large amount of income taxes around the world...