The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Its the elites that blame big business for everything. They blame big oil for GW, they blame big auto and big industry for outsourcing, big Wallmart for destroying the little guy and small business, big drug for drugs that people can't afford, ect, ect,ect... The lefts response to everything is to regulate, tax and blame. That is anti-capitalist. Without all these business's we wouldn't have the way of life we have today. It seems that they want to destroy the very thing that we have to thank for our way of life.

Perhaps I asked the wrong question Specifically WHO are these elites? Name a few - then tell me specifically what power/s they have to effect a massive change on government policy in a manner that equals or exceeds the influence that high-paid corporate lobbyists and corporate campaign donations can bring to bear.

Pick about any Dem congressperson. For example: Hillary Clinton once said in a speech that she wanted to take the profits from "big oil" and use it for alternative fuels. If that isn't anti-capitalist then nothing is.

Can you site that quote? It's kind of hard to respond to hearsay.

Never mind...I found it:

In a speech delivered in late October to a group of investors gathered at the Cleantech Venture Forum in Washington, D.C., Clinton staked out her ground, outlining a plan "to get America on track for a smarter, more secure and cleaner energy future."

She argued that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita "have exposed the administration's policy for what it is -- using an umbrella to fend off a hurricane," and proposed that Big Oil, now raking in sky-high profits, pay fees that could add up to $20 billion annually for a "strategic energy fund" that would defray soaring home heating costs and bankroll alternative-energy development. Clinton called for doubling current tax credits for the purchase of hybrid and clean-diesel vehicles, and proposed that the feds stop buying "old-fashioned" cars and trucks by 2010 and start replacing government fleets with cleaner, more efficient models.

This summer, Clinton joined Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and two other senators for a tour of Alaskan areas hard hit by climate change. In September, she vigorously denounced plans to drill for oil in the Arctic refuge. "Some might say, 'Well, Senator, we have gas prices going up -- don't we need to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge?' And of course the answer is that we do not," she said. "The answer is that we need to break our addiction to foreign oil."

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature...aker/index.html

Gary, I'm curious what you call it when oil companies don't pay their share in taxes or when when government subsidies keep prices down?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm still wondering why some people are defending an energy and climate policy that is being formulated behind closed doors by special interest groups, whose activities are being shielded by a corporate-friendly VP whose office is apparently outside the remit of executive oversight.

Gary got as far as suggesting that he didn't think that they should be allowed to run the show unopposed - but from the article at least, this is exactly what is happening. Moreover, it suggests that in furthering their economic interests these groups are actually stifling climate science that support man-made GW.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, I'm curious what you call it when oil companies don't pay their share in taxes or when when government subsidies keep prices down?

I am curious what you think the oil companies "fair share" is. It sounds to me like they already do.

Oil Company Profits and Tax Collections: Does the U.S. Need a New Windfall Profits Tax?

Before rushing to create a new federal tax, lawmakers should ask two questions:

(1) Do oil companies currently pay too little in taxes compared to profits?

(2) What was the effect of the last windfall profits tax enacted in 1980?

The answer to the first question is that over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy.

These figures do not include local property taxes, state sales and severance taxes and on-shore royalty payments.

The answer to the second question, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), is that the 1980s windfall profits tax depressed the domestic production and extraction industry and furthered our dependence on foreign sources of oil.1

Figure 1. Oil Industry Taxes Have Outpaced Oil Industry Profits Since 1977.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Figure 1 illustrates the magnitude of government tax collections versus industry profits between 1977 and 2004. During this period, the 29 largest domestic energy firms earned a collective $630 billion after adjusting for inflation. These profits varied dramatically—from a low of $7.9 billion in 1995 to a high of $42.6 billion in 2004—based upon world market demand, supply, and international events.

In contrast, the taxes paid or remitted by domestic oil companies have been consistently far greater than their profits and now total more than $2.2 trillion (adjusted for inflation) over the past quarter century. The largest share of those taxes is federal and state gasoline excise taxes. In 2004, governments collected $58 billion in gasoline excise taxes. Overall, governments have collected $1.34 trillion in gasoline excise taxes since 1977.

Today, U.S. consumers pay an average of 45.9 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes. The federal gasoline excise tax is 18.4 cents per gallon while the average state and local tax is 27.5 cents. The vast majority of these taxes are levied at a flat rate per gallon—regardless of whether a gallon of gas costs $1.49, $2.49, or $3.49. Thus, the effective rate of these taxes can vary wildly, from roughly 31 percent in the former case to 13 percent in the later.

Federal and state governments also collect a substantial amount of excise tax from the sale of diesel fuel. In today’s dollars, governments have collected $160 billion in diesel fuel excise taxes since 1977.

Oil companies also pay taxes to governments for the right to extract oil from public lands and waters. For example, the federal government has collected a total of $48.8 billion in royalty payments from oil companies in exchange for their ability to explore and drill in the U.S. outer continental shelf. Oil companies also pay severance taxes to state governments for the right to drill on state lands. Unfortunately, complete data on state severance tax collections for the period is not available at this time.

In contrast to excise taxes, corporate income tax payments vary as widely as industry profits. As mentioned above, domestic energy companies earned a total of $630 billion in post-tax profits between 1977 and 2004. Tax Foundation economists estimate that companies paid $518 billion in corporate income taxes to federal and state governments during the same period. These payments varied from a low of $5.1 billion in 1995 to a high of $40.4 billion in 1981.

The 1980 Windfall Profits Tax

As is also illustrated by Figure 1, during the 1980s the federal government experimented with a new tax intended to limit the “windfall profits” of domestic oil companies. In reaction to the rise of energy prices during the late 1970s and the removal of price controls on the energy industry, President Jimmy Carter signed the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act into effect on April 2, 1980.

The tax was technically misnamed because it was in fact an excise tax, not a “profits” tax. The tax was imposed on the difference between the market price of oil and a government-determined base price. For example, a 70 percent tax was levied on the difference between the market price received by oil companies and the average base price of $12.81 per barrel. Independent producers, stripper wells and heavy oils were taxed at different rates.

As shown in Figure 2, the windfall profits tax was forecasted to raise more than $320 billion between 1980 and 1989. However, according to the CRS, the government collected only $80 billion in gross tax revenue ($146 billion in 2004 dollars). The net amount was actually less than this—roughly $40 billion—because the tax was deductible against corporate income.

Figure 2. Tax Revenues from the 1980 Windfall Profits Tax Were Dramatically Less Than Projections.

Source: Congressional Research Service.

CRS also found the windfall profits tax had the effect of decreasing domestic production by 3 percent to 6 percent, thereby increasing American dependence on foreign oil sources by 8 percent to 16 percent. A side effect was declining, not increasing, tax collections. Figure 1 clearly shows that while the tax raised considerable revenue in the initial years following its enactment, those revenues declined to almost nothing as the domestic industry collapsed.

The 1980 windfall profits tax was also found to be highly burdensome for the industry to comply with and for the Internal Revenue Service to administer, especially in years when no revenue was raised. It seems unlikely that a new tax could be designed in a less burdensome fashion. Tax Foundation economists estimate that U.S. companies currently spend nearly $150 billion annually to comply with the federal income tax alone. Enacting a new windfall profits tax would add an additional layer of complexity to the federal tax system.

The past year has clearly been a good year for oil companies. However, these large profits should be viewed in proper perspective, given the staggering amount of tax the industry currently pays and remits to governments at the federal, state, and local levels. As the experience of the past quarter-century has shown, governments have actually “profited” more from the oil industry than the industry has earned for its shareholders.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html

Edited June 25, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, I'm curious what you call it when oil companies don't pay their share in taxes or when when government subsidies keep prices down?

I am curious what you think the oil companies "fair share" is. It sounds to me like they already do.

And how is that amount determined, Gary? Doesn't that involve government?

[Portlander 0]

Well, I guess that depends. Fair is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, fair isn't really the right question anyway. Moralistic arguments are so easily twistable that you can argue everything and nothing from the same set of beliefs. For me, I am all about what works, and what doesn't work. I'm a big fan of reality.

We don't have a capitalist society, and never have. We protect coorporations, provide tax breaks, military support, cushy laws, and bail out big coorporations all the time. Nobody wants lassiaz faire. Big coorporations want to use their money to influence decisions in their favor. Kickbacks and the like have existed since before history. Corruption is a fact of life, and Adam Smith never addressed it. He assumed a level playing field, and we simply don't have one.

The real question is what are the laws for? Are they to prevent corruption? Ensure opportunity? Protect people? Make everyone happy? Enforce morality?

Regarding capitalism in particular:

What about laws to

* prevent monopolies?

* ensure food safety?

* workplace safety?

* minimum wage?

* limit the people you can lend to?

* protect domestic companies from competition?

* protect multinational/foreign companies from competition?

* provide favorable tax breaks to specific entities?

* child labor laws?

* pollution laws relating to financial activity - such as banning DDT or mercury?

* land use planning laws?

We can step iinto the issue about whether or not oil companies pay their fair share of tax or not, but first we have to decide on what fair means.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, I guess that depends. Fair is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, fair isn't really the right question anyway. Moralistic arguments are so easily twistable that you can argue everything and nothing from the same set of beliefs. For me, I am all about what works, and what doesn't work. I'm a big fan of reality.

We don't have a capitalist society, and never have. We protect coorporations, provide tax breaks, military support, cushy laws, and bail out big coorporations all the time. Nobody wants lassiaz faire. Big coorporations want to use their money to influence decisions in their favor. Kickbacks and the like have existed since before history. Corruption is a fact of life, and Adam Smith never addressed it. He assumed a level playing field, and we simply don't have one.

The real question is what are the laws for? Are they to prevent corruption? Ensure opportunity? Protect people? Make everyone happy? Enforce morality?

Regarding capitalism in particular:

What about laws to

* prevent monopolies?

* ensure food safety?

* workplace safety?

* minimum wage?

* limit the people you can lend to?

* protect domestic companies from competition?

* protect multinational/foreign companies from competition?

* provide favorable tax breaks to specific entities?

* child labor laws?

* pollution laws relating to financial activity - such as banning DDT or mercury?

* land use planning laws?

We can step iinto the issue about whether or not oil companies pay their fair share of tax or not, but first we have to decide on what fair means.

[GaryC 7]

Well, I guess that depends. Fair is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, fair isn't really the right question anyway. Moralistic arguments are so easily twistable that you can argue everything and nothing from the same set of beliefs. For me, I am all about what works, and what doesn't work. I'm a big fan of reality.

We don't have a capitalist society, and never have. We protect coorporations, provide tax breaks, military support, cushy laws, and bail out big coorporations all the time. Nobody wants lassiaz faire. Big coorporations want to use their money to influence decisions in their favor. Kickbacks and the like have existed since before history. Corruption is a fact of life, and Adam Smith never addressed it. He assumed a level playing field, and we simply don't have one.

The real question is what are the laws for? Are they to prevent corruption? Ensure opportunity? Protect people? Make everyone happy? Enforce morality?

Regarding capitalism in particular:

What about laws to

* prevent monopolies?

* ensure food safety?

* workplace safety?

* minimum wage?

* limit the people you can lend to?

* protect domestic companies from competition?

* protect multinational/foreign companies from competition?

* provide favorable tax breaks to specific entities?

* child labor laws?

* pollution laws relating to financial activity - such as banning DDT or mercury?

* land use planning laws?

We can step iinto the issue about whether or not oil companies pay their fair share of tax or not, but first we have to decide on what fair means.

Right, give a thumbs up to someone that didn't answer the question.

The answer to the first question is that over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy.

Name me another company that pays 3 times it's profits in taxes. And then tell me why you would want to tax them more. And then tell me how wanting to tax them more amounts to anything other than anti-capitalism.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, I guess that depends. Fair is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, fair isn't really the right question anyway. Moralistic arguments are so easily twistable that you can argue everything and nothing from the same set of beliefs. For me, I am all about what works, and what doesn't work. I'm a big fan of reality.

We don't have a capitalist society, and never have. We protect coorporations, provide tax breaks, military support, cushy laws, and bail out big coorporations all the time. Nobody wants lassiaz faire. Big coorporations want to use their money to influence decisions in their favor. Kickbacks and the like have existed since before history. Corruption is a fact of life, and Adam Smith never addressed it. He assumed a level playing field, and we simply don't have one.

The real question is what are the laws for? Are they to prevent corruption? Ensure opportunity? Protect people? Make everyone happy? Enforce morality?

Regarding capitalism in particular:

What about laws to

* prevent monopolies?

* ensure food safety?

* workplace safety?

* minimum wage?

* limit the people you can lend to?

* protect domestic companies from competition?

* protect multinational/foreign companies from competition?

* provide favorable tax breaks to specific entities?

* child labor laws?

* pollution laws relating to financial activity - such as banning DDT or mercury?

* land use planning laws?

We can step iinto the issue about whether or not oil companies pay their fair share of tax or not, but first we have to decide on what fair means.

Right, give a thumbs up to someone that didn't answer the question.

Do you really want to debate over what is a fair amount of taxes paid by oil companies?

[GaryC 7]

Do you really want to debate over what is a fair amount of taxes paid by oil companies?

Do you? I would say you wouldn't have much of a platform to stand on if you think they haven't been paying their fair share. Unless of course you want to pull a Chavez and nationalize the oil industry.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Do you really want to debate over what is a fair amount of taxes paid by oil companies?

Do you? I would say you wouldn't have much of a platform to stand on if you think they haven't been paying their fair share. Unless of course you want to pull a Chavez and nationalize the oil industry.

Who owns the oil, Gary? Take that as a socialist view if you want, but I'd like to know who you believe 'owns' the oil?

[GaryC 7]

Do you really want to debate over what is a fair amount of taxes paid by oil companies?

Do you? I would say you wouldn't have much of a platform to stand on if you think they haven't been paying their fair share. Unless of course you want to pull a Chavez and nationalize the oil industry.

Who owns the oil, Gary? Take that as a socialist view if you want, but I'd like to know who you believe 'owns' the oil?

Who owns the oil??? Whoever bought it I guess. I don't know where you are going with this. But if you insist here is the way I see who "owns the oil". If it is domestic oil then there is a land owner that has oil under that land. The land owner owns the oil at that point. Then that land owner sells the rights to that oil to a drilling company. At that point the oil belongs to the drilling company. Then a refiner buys the oil. Then the refiner sells the final product to us.

For imported oil it's the same except the oil belongs to the country or company that drilled it and is selling it.

Why do you ask? Do you think the government or the people own the oil? Please explain.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Do you really want to debate over what is a fair amount of taxes paid by oil companies?

Do you? I would say you wouldn't have much of a platform to stand on if you think they haven't been paying their fair share. Unless of course you want to pull a Chavez and nationalize the oil industry.

Who owns the oil, Gary? Take that as a socialist view if you want, but I'd like to know who you believe 'owns' the oil?

Who owns the oil??? Whoever bought it I guess. I don't know where you are going with this. But if you insist here is the way I see who "owns the oil". If it is domestic oil then there is a land owner that has oil under that land. The land owner owns the oil at that point. Then that land owner sells the rights to that oil to a drilling company. At that point the oil belongs to the drilling company. Then a refiner buys the oil. Then the refiner sells the final product to us.

For imported oil it's the same except the oil belongs to the country or company that drilled it and is selling it.

Why do you ask? Do you think the government or the people own the oil? Please explain.

I certainly don't think anyone can claim rightful ownership to oil, although I would agree, in cases where the oil is found under the ground of someone's land, they should have first dibs at it. But Gary, think of all the offshore drilling, drilling on public land, or drilling in the Alaskan wilderness - who then owns the oil? Or who has rightful claim to it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

George Soros.

How do you think that guy made his money?

Hint: it wasn't from the socialist revolution...

His economic positions could hardly be called 'anti-capitalist' - anti-corporate maybe. But even so - this guy isn't running key elements of government policy in the way that certain multinational corporations currently are - through the closed-office door of the VP.

Got any other names in the hat BTW?

not yet, but he's trying.......

No, I am getting ready for work. It isn't hard to find out that Hillary's major contributers are big tax, big government, anti-capitalist types. Anyone that does not believe that is just fooling themselves.

Later guys.

Bump

I don't support Hillary by any stretch of the imagination, but I'd like to see that statement specifically quantified.

Edited June 25, 2007 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

I certainly don't think anyone can claim rightful ownership to oil, although I would agree, in cases where the oil is found under the ground of someone's land, they should have first dibs at it. But Gary, think of all the offshore drilling, drilling on public land, or drilling in the Alaskan wilderness - who then owns the oil? Or who has rightful claim to it?

Whoever bought the mineral rights! Who else would? Why should oil be any different than some other resource? Are you advocating nationalizing mineral rights to privately owned lands? Are you advocating the government not selling drilling rights to private companies? Please explain!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I certainly don't think anyone can claim rightful ownership to oil, although I would agree, in cases where the oil is found under the ground of someone's land, they should have first dibs at it. But Gary, think of all the offshore drilling, drilling on public land, or drilling in the Alaskan wilderness - who then owns the oil? Or who has rightful claim to it?

Whoever bought the mineral rights! Who else would? Why should oil be any different than some other resource? Are you advocating nationalizing mineral rights to privately owned lands? Are you advocating the government not selling drilling rights to private companies? Please explain!!

Should we privatize well water that is on public land, Gary? Where do you draw the line? Point being - it's not a given that natural resources on public land be automatically sold off to private interests, particularly when the general public has a strong dependency on that resource. Call that socialism if you want, but it makes logical sense to me. Now I could see the government licensing contracts for private companies to extract the oil, but to say that the bulk of their profit belongs to them and should not be heavily taxed is ludicrous. Alaskan residents are compensated by the oil companies in the form of an annual payment - what do see that as?