Exxon Mobile Record Net Profit

http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion

I'm pretty sure that Exxon's tax payment in 2007 of $30 billion (that's $30,000,000,000) is a record, exceeding the $28 billion it paid last year.

By the way, Exxon pays taxes at a rate of 41% on its taxable income!

[Update: The $40.6 billion and $39.5 billion figures are after-tax profits. For 2006, Exxon's EBT (earnings before tax) was $67.4 billion, it paid $27.9 billion in taxes (41.4% tax rate), and its NIAT (net income after tax), or profit, was $39.5 billion.]

 

One point that is missing so far is that these big oil companies have so much influence in our government policy making, and that has hurt this country. They have geared us into a petroleum-based economy society, to the point that they can have a complete control and manipulation the way we live our life. If you think $14.83 billion net profit is big? Not yet, wait and see they can have $100 billions profits if they want to. Let's think for a second. We are the most weathy and technologically advanced country on earth, agree? No, not so fast, if oil is taken out of our society, we will collapse.

Look, we have the technology to make cars run much more efficient but we did not pushed that forward (And now see how that hurts our auto industry big time!). We have the capability to innovate and create new alternative energy sources but these initiatives never got funded sufficiently. Because our answer to energy has always been oil, oil and oil. We have to change the way we think about energy, we have to limit the power on these big oil companies, and we got to start transitioning into alternative energy such as solar, wind, clean coal... otherwise we will face a much serious energy crisis very soon.

 

I do not know where you got your information, but you are wrong. As the price of gas increases the demand will decrease, just as in the case of cars, notebooks, and every other commodity.

.

Yes, and you are saying that having a more monopolistic situation in the fuel sector somehow changes this drastically and that change can only be corrected by tax cuts?

The MARGIN does not stay down the PRICE does. There is an old business addage stating that you cannot control the price of an item but you can control the cost of that item and if you want to make a profit you need to watch the costs. The margin is the difference between the price (controlled by the market) and the cost (controlled by the business to a greater degree) and if the margin is not large enough the product is not produced.

Those old anti-trust laws would not have anything to do with it would they?

It seems some liberals have a better grasp of economics than some conservatives is all.

It does have economic support. It is rational. It is something the conservatives seem to support even when it is hurting them as it is now.

Now you use the market forces when you ignore them the rest of the time?

This would be what is commonly called a "strawman fallacy" where you create a separate claim similar to what was stated and then refute thenew claim. You will notice you are the only one saying there was a conspiracy involved.

I am afraid that is debatable in your case at the moment.

No, we ARE being screwed. The big oil companies ARE making record profits and those like yourslef are claiming they do not make enough so they need tax breaks to develop new fuel sources or business expansion. That IS beign screwed .... TWICE.

 

Yes, they pay a lot in taxes and the increase in the taxes on the rest of the population would have to be significant if we did not charge corporate taxes as many conservatives propose. Of course, the ROI on Exxon after taxes is still impressive, correct?

What did I leave off other than your commentary?

 

Wayne I dont have the time or the energy (I'm in the process of moving) to debate you non stop on this issue.

I'll just say I disagree with every ounce of your post. Anybody that claims gasonline is not inelastic is just not thinking clearly.

Agree to disagree.

 

And when they pay those profits out in the form of dividends, the government will collect more taxes from the recipients. All in all, the government makes more off Exxon than the stockholders. Not to mention the taxes on the gas itself. Yet liberal idiots want even more.

hope. change. socialism

 

For those lurkers who may not understand the discussion:

http://mises.org/story/1936

Go, is claiming the price of fuel does not affect the consumption because it is a unique product. In the short term flucutation, this would be true, but not in the bigger picture. I am sure anyone reading this has made some modifications to their use of fuel due to the price. That modification would be at least buying less fuel. The drop in demand has caused a drop in the prices according to the media reports, just as the law of supply and demand dictates.

 

Supply and demand is just one factor in the price of gas. For example, the value of the dollar and speculation affect it as well. Thank goodness China stopped subsidizing gasoline for its citizens which has resulted in marked decline in consumption over there.

While I'm sure we have all conserved somewhat, there's "that level" of consumption that is inevitable (going to work, school buses, public transportation, petroleum products, transporting gasoline and groceries..etc) that can't be substituted with other forms of energy. That is why there will always be the need for petroleum/gasoline until there are other forms of energy, hence, it is an inelastic entity.

The worst thing that can happen now is for everyone to relax conservation efforts due to falling prices. This will only drive up demand once again and demotivate research for alternative energies.

Beyond all of this, it is important to remember that the government makes more off of a gallon of gas than Exxon, yet, everyone screams at "big oil" for being greedy.

The answer is NOT taxing these oil companies with "windfall taxes" like Obama once/still? proposed. Not only will that deter their growth but the ENTIRE tax levied will be passed on down to the consumer while growing the government.

http://money.canoe.ca/News/TopPhoto/2008/10/30/7257636-ap.html

Clearly this has no bearing on anything because these other companies aren't "Big Oil."

 

And those factors do not affect other products? There are factors but it boils down to supply and demand as the primary driving force. If there is no demand the impact of specualtion is moot, as is the value of the dollar since there will be no purchases for those factors to impact.

That is just demand, which you earlier said does not matter.

Like more people usign public transportation and riding their bikes? That decreases the demand and thus the price.

So the price dioes not affect demand and demand does not affect price (definition of inelastic) except in the case of China's consumption?

Why are the prices falling and why would that affect the usage (demand) of an inelastic product?

Only when you look at the retail sale profit, but that is being too difficult when the profit of the various divisions are included. The profit the refinery divisions get is not really profit on the gallon of gas...really.

If the tax is passed on to the consumer why does it then deter any growth? If they can charge more to make up for the taxes why are they not doing it now and making even more profit so they can really grow. It is because neither statement is grounded in economic reality. :?

Nor did they have the volume of oil, which is as you clearly stated a necessity from a certain level downward. What other companies have such a huge volume of critical products? I love the way you jump from one to the other trying to make the oil/energy companies look better than any other group by pointing to one direction when it suits and another when it does not.

 

There's speculation of Coke? As for dollars, oil is traded in dollars so when the dollar is weak, we feel it at the pump (like we did over the summer).

I never said it "didn't matter." I said it wasn't the only factor.

You are preaching to the choir about supply and demand. I've established in the above thread that it (S&D) matters but there will always be demand for one specific product (gasoline) that can't be substituted.

I don't know what you mean here. I simply threw the comment in about China because it was contributing to the "demand factor" which, again, is still only part of the equation.

Because all the oil companies have to do is cut back production which will lessen supply and in turn increase or at least stabilize the price. OPEC has already stated they are going to do this in response to the falling oil prices. There again, it isn't all about demand. Any action of lessened demand will be countered with lessened supply on behalf of OPEC. OPEC can get away with this because, again, gasoline is an inelastic entity.

OPEC is likely to cut by a million barrels a day on Oct. 24 and will need to announce further reductions to prevent prices falling below $60 a barrel, Goldman Sachs said on Oct. 17. Merrill Lynch analysts said the group may trim supplies by 2.4 million barrels a day over 12 months if economic conditions deteriorate.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSARub6YaVDQ&refer=home

The point of providing those numbers is to illustrate that "big oil" is still making the same percentage of profit from the previous quarter when it wouldn't hurt them to make more. The other companies have competition but still choose to make a higher percentage.

Are you seriously mad at a company because it makes "too much money?" They (big oil) are making no more, percentage wise, than they did the previous quarter when in reality, unlike those with competition, they (big oil) could increase their profit percentage and hardly feel any effects.

Why don't people concentrate their anger towards the government who makes a killing off of "big oil?"

 

There is of components such as sugar and other commodities.

Like any other imported commodity or heavily traded commodity such as copper or gold, which are impacted by the same factors.

Since the two major factors are supply and demand which would define what are inelasitic products, it seems you do.

But you claim it does not affect the price nor does the price affect the demand, right?

An inelastic product is one whose price is not tied to creating supply or demand .....

Now you seem to be tying the production of raw material to the oil companies.

No, gasoline is less elastic but it is not required nor is it now cheap enough for the increase in cost to not affect the demand.

Supply and demand, but as you noted the other producers may pick up some of the slack to make more money.

They do not "choose" to make a higher percentage as much as they choose to charge what the market will bear. The fact demand is dropping but the profit is still maintained in the same percentage and even higher absolute values says a lot. It says they do not need a tax break in order to fund any expansion.

No, but I am not not pleased at somone who claims these same companies need tax breaks to expand their business when they are making such profits.

Yes, they would. If they get too greedy their lobby efforts will not be able to prevent the consumer demand for oversight.

Because that money the government makes goes into the roads on which we drive, the bridges over rivers, police protection, fire protection, the military protection, education, research, and the like that benefits society as a whole.

 

I provided the link with my information, so all I missed was your commentary ...... FYI, the copyright laws prohibit the reproduction of an entire article. :mrgreen:

 

Maybe not in a remote local board, but out in the big wide world, where I often visit, it is very much a concern. In fact copyright infirngement is right up there with hackers as a threat to boards.