<p>^The land of people who want to be rich so they can do anything they want.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What extravagant programs? Staying in Iraq?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>His health care program.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Poor little rich people. The average CEO in America pays less taxes than his/her secretary. Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your attitude toward the very people responsible for so much job creation and economic growth is quite revealing. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the average CEO pays less than his secretary? I've heard Buffet's complaint before, and it's obvious why he pays less in taxes. Most of his net worth is tied up in Berkshire Hathaway stock. His salary is a rather modest $100,000 a year. The income that he received that year was probably mostly in capital gains. It's kind of hard to make a lot of conclusions about his statements since we don't have enough information, but it's likely that the total amount of taxes paid on what he made is more than meets the eye. Since he probably made most of his money on capital gains, his "income" was fueled by the appreciation of some asset, likely a corporation's stock. The profits and growth that created that appreciation were taxed at the corporate tax level, and then sort of passed on, resulting in an appreciation of the stock's value. </p>
<p>Regardless, I hope you realize that when you increase taxes on the "wealthy" or on the corporations to unreasonable levels, those increases might well trickle down to lower-income individuals. If a small-business owner sees his tax bill increase, he might realize that he can't afford to employ those two cleaning ladies or that he has to cut out the Christmas bonus of his secretary. If a discount store pays more in taxes, they have to come up with that money somehow. They'll cut salaries or benefits, or they will raise prices. </p>
<p>As I noted already, the top one percent pay forty percent of the income tax bill in this country. Why is that not enough? Keep screwing around with them, and they'll simply find ways around paying the taxes. They'll leave the country, or they'll just stop producing taxable income. Just ask London what happens when you keep increasing taxes on the wealthy. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Achievement? You don't seriously think that income is directly correlated to achievement, do you? Ask Angelo Mozilo.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd say it's pretty self-evident that usually one who makes $300,000 a year has received more education, worked harder, and produced more than someone who makes $32,000 a year. If you have any data on the matter, I'd very much like to see it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ROB the oil companies? You mean Exxon-Mobil's $12 billion profit quarter?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh...yes? That is what I mean. The company has spent a substantial amount of capital and resources to create that kind of profit, and it's outrageous for some government bureaucrats to decide that it's too much profit. We live in a system that is built on the capitalist model: profit is a good thing. Aside from the moral implications of a "windfall profits tax," there are also practical consequences. Exxon Mobil employs over 100,000 people. Hurt the company, you hurt the employees. If you hurt the company, you also hurt those who are invested in the company. Millions of people own stock in the top oil companies, and that includes middle-class individuals and retirees. Why should we punish them for investing in a profitable company?</p>
<p>Additionally, it's smart to look at more than just the sensationalist headline "$12 billion made by big oil company!!!" If you look at the quarterly report, Exxon didn't even make most of its money in the United States. They made about 80% of it outside the United States. You might find this next fact surprising. As I'm sure you know, oil companies usually classify net incomes as coming from either "downstream" sources or "upstream sources." The downstream portion of the company's activities include refining, transporting, and retailing the finished product (gasoline, heating oil, natural gas, etc.). When you compare the 2Q07 and 2Q08 numbers on Exxon's US downstream net income, you see that they were actually 83% lower this year, which seems to contradict the screams about the company ripping off US consumers and needing to be taxed heavily. </p>
<p>Sen. Obama's whole scheme is nothing more than populist pandering. That fits right in with another ineffective economic policy being trotted out this year: protectionism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
His health care program.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>America currently has the most inefficient health care system in the world. We spend more per capita than any industrialized nation yet we rank somewhere in the 30s in health care quality. We're spending tonnes as it is. Why not try to fix it? Unless, of course, you're going to advocate making cuts to a system that leaves over 30 million Americans uninsured as a solution. Survival of the fittest! Only the strong have the ability to be born into a good family with parents who have jobs that provide health care!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your attitude toward the very people responsible for so much job creation and economic growth is quite revealing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You come off like a guy who likes to read up on his economics. Don't you know about marginal returns (or whatever that's called)? It goes something like this: as you accumulate more money, each dollar becomes less valuable to you because after a certain point, you have every basic necessity and many (reasonable) luxuries available to your purchasing power. This is why taking 50% from a poor person is worse than taking 50% from a rich person. Half of a $30 000 salary can hardly buy food and gas, whereas half of a $1 000 000 salary is just one less Maserati for the kids. This is why we have a progressive tax system.</p>
<p>Not only that, but the U.S. loses $1.5 trillion in tax revenue due to "creative bank accounting" by the wealthiest Americans.
Business</a> - Americans stash away $1.5 trillion in tax havens - INQUIRER.net</p>
<p>
[quote]
those increases might well trickle down to lower-income individuals
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Reagan presided over a $200 billion deficit. Trickle down economics doesn't work, at least when combined with egregious (usually) military spending. But you wouldn't advocate that, would you? Then we'd lose the "War on Terra".</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd say it's pretty self-evident that usually one who makes $300,000 a year has received more education, worked harder, and produced more than someone who makes $32,000 a year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So a board member "works harder" than a miner, soldier, teacher, and all those other people who make less than him/her? The wage gap between CEOs and their employees has been growing at an unjust level, and it's not because these CEOs are "working harder" than everybody else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The company has spent a substantial amount of capital and resources to create that kind of profit, and it's outrageous for some government bureaucrats to decide that it's too much profit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Considering that the government gives substantial subsidies to oil companies, not to mention rampant speculation and no-bid contracts, I think that government bureaucrats DO have a right to decide that it's too much profit. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Exxon Mobil employs over 100,000 people
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Doesn't mean they're Americans or being paid fair wages.
U.S</a>. Oil, Imported Workers</p>
<p>The whole oil debate is actually quite simple. Why are prices so high? If the high prices are fair, then it'd probably be because supply is low while demand is high, right? If supply is low, that probably means that the oil companies have to drill in hard-to-reach areas and use expensive refining techniques because all the easy-access oil is gone. But if that is so, then why are they making a $12 billion PROFIT? If the cost of supplies is what drives up the price of the product, then the net profit should be the same as before, not higher. What could've caused that then? Oh I know, price gouging and market manipulation.</p>
<p>I don't get it. US tax is conspicuously low already. Where I am, tax is about 45%. I know someone in another country paying almost 60% without complaint. We're both a long way from being 'freeloaders', and what better idea would you suggest? Spend it person-by-person? Can you (well, are you willing to) buy a bridge? How about a lab? The money is more effective in a bundle, so I can't currently fathom a reduction in taxes.</p>
<p>Anyway, inheritance tax is just plain natural. It would be fair to take it as high as it can go.</p>
<p>Oh, and I forgot to add, one can also reason that the reason the wealthy pay more taxes is because they actually use the nation's public infrastructure more. They can afford more of the cars that use the public roads, bridges, highways, etc. They utilize the nation's justice system more in business litigation and lawsuits. They have more of the commodities that are likely to be stolen, so they are more dependent on the police and investigative forces.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't get it. US tax is conspicuously low already.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True dat. But many conservative Americans believe in some kind of Hinduistic reincarnation system. They believe that somehow, maybe due to a virtuous life in a previous existence, they deserved to be born into a good family who could afford to send them to good high schools, give them SAT tutoring, afford their elite college educations, etc. Thus, they greedily tout all their unearned privilege as some kind of entitled reward.</p>
<p>Well that and the fact that elite America has Johnny Sixpack convinced that he too can become Bill Gates, as long as the blacks and communists don't interfere.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Well that and the fact that elite America has Johnny Sixpack convinced that he too can become Bill Gates, as long as the blacks and communists don't interfere.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>This came up in a conversation with someone maybe about a year ago. Not the part about blacks and communists, but the fact that Americans are deluded into thinking that they can become rich. The American Dream is not a farce per se, I'd say I'm living it, but, you'd think that the majority of people would realize that they won't become rich enough to be complaining about a 40% tax on the rich.</p>
<p>If America was filled with high school girls, then there are far too many wannabes thinking if they suck up to the Queen Bee long enough, they'll become her. Nuh uh, only one Queen at a time. She's just using you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The whole oil debate is actually quite simple. Why are prices so high? If the high prices are fair, then it'd probably be because supply is low while demand is high, right?
[/quote]
Correct.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If supply is low, that probably means that the oil companies have to drill in hard-to-reach areas and use expensive refining techniques because all the easy-access oil is gone.
[/quote]
Incorrect. They only do this if the price of oil allows it to be economic. It's because the supply is low relative to demand.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But if that is so, then why are they making a $12 billion PROFIT?
[/quote]
You mean 9% margin? Speak in non-idiotic terms please. Do you believe companies should be taxed if they make over an 8% margin?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the cost of supplies is what drives up the price of the product, then the net profit should be the same as before, not higher.
[/quote]
Good thing cost of supplies has <em>never</em> driven price of the product. This is clearly demonstrated by the real cost of full size trucks and SUVs currently. The cost to produce the vehicles has been relatively stable but the price has been in a freefall due to the drop in demand.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What could've caused that then? Oh I know, price gouging and market manipulation.
[/quote]
Price gouging? How does one price gouge on the NYMEX oil market? Can you explain that concept to me?</p>
<p>Can you also explain the concept of market manipulation and how major oil producers make it happen?</p>
<p>How do oil companies price gouge?</p>
<p>Public</a> Citizen | Press Room - Oil Companies Manipulate Markets and Gouge Consumers, Harming Both Economy and Environment
Let</a> ’Em Gouge: A Defense of Price Gouging</p>
<p>Even the Cato Institute admits that oil companies are gouging prices, although they try to defend it by saying that it will eventually lead to better energy policies by discouraging demand. </p>
<p>The big oil companies get subsidies and get to operate under lax market regulations under the assumption that American oil is of national interest (remember the Unocal incident?) and that somehow, oil companies are helping Americans. Yet oil companies invest nothing in alternative energy technologies that are obviously needed for the future and use most of their profits to buy their own stock in order to create a cycle of perpetual cash flow. They're just self-interested businessmen leeching off the government when it suits them while pretending to be self-made and independent.</p>
<p>Wiki:
[quote]
In precise, legal usage, it is the name of a felony that applies in some of the United States only during civil emergencies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So basically, price gouging has not occurred. No IOC has been convicted of price gouging.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The big oil companies get subsidies and get to operate under lax market regulations under the assumption that American oil is of national interest (remember the Unocal incident?) and that somehow, oil companies are helping Americans.
[/quote]
1. Most American businesses get subsidies (really, usually tax breaks) of some sort.
2. "American oil" is better than foreign oil. Much more stable in supply due to no political instability and no cartel governing it's production. Oh yeah, it employs more Americans than foreign oil.
3. Oil companies are helping Americans. They provide a good that most of us use on a daily basis. If they weren't helping Americans, then Americans wouldn't buy the good.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet oil companies invest nothing in alternative energy technologies that are obviously needed for the future and use most of their profits to buy their own stock in order to create a cycle of perpetual cash flow.
[/quote]
Oh, you mean they operate like a business that keeps their shareholders at heart. Investors decide how businesses are going to operate. Oil company investors (ie: private investors, mutual funds, pension funds) want cash flow. That's why they buy oil company stocks. Is your critique of oil companies actually a critique of their investors?</p>
<p>And why should oil companies invest in alternative energy? Why not power companies? Why not airplane companies? Why not insurance companies? There is no reason that oil companies have more of an onus to invest in renewable energy than any other form of business. In fact, it seems to me that broad heavy industrial companies like GE or Samsung would be much better companies to invest alternative energy because they likely have the broadbased skillsets and technical talent to do that work.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They're just self-interested businessmen leeching off the government when it suits them while pretending to be self-made and independent.
[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about? This doesn't even make sense.</p>
<p>"The oil industry" has been through tough times before. It didn't ask for hand outs when the price cratered and they shed ridiculous amounts of staff in order to stay solvent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So basically, price gouging has not occurred. No IOC has been convicted of price gouging.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, if you're going to talk in Legalese, use a better source than Wiki.</p>
<p>Secondly, it doesn't matter what the Legalese definition of "price gouging" is. You know what I'm talking about. Are you going to give a legal and economic lecture to the Cato Institute as well? Make sure to bring your Wiki source.</p>
<p>Thirdly, you said that it was impossible to tamper with market prices. It is apparently not. Until you can prove that your previous assertion that it is impossible to price gouge (or "tamper with market prices") on the "NYMEX oil market", which is really the heart of this argument, I see no further reason to continue this discussion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Secondly, it doesn't matter what the Legalese definition of "price gouging" is.
[/quote]
Yes, it does. That is the only acceptable definition.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You know what I'm talking about.
[/quote]
No. I do not. The price of oil can be set at whatever the seller wants. The consumers can choose to buy or not to buy at that price. If the seller wants to make money they will usually sell the product at a price that maximizes their profit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you going to give a legal and economic lecture to the Cato Institute as well? Make sure to bring your Wiki source.
[/quote]
Price gouging is a completely <em>subjective</em> phrase. Subjectively, I don't understand price gouging as a intellectual concept, so I can only revert to the legal definition.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thirdly, you said that it was impossible to tamper with market prices.
[/quote]
Quote me where I said it was impossible to tamper with market prices.</p>
<p>This is also a foreign concept. I believe every actor in a market "tampers" with "market prices". In fact, that's exactly how markets work! Markets basically aggregate the supply and demand forces and the cost comes out of it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is apparently not. Until you can prove that your previous assertion that it is impossible to price gouge (or "tamper with market prices") on the "NYMEX oil market", which is really the heart of this argument, I see no further reason to continue this discussion.
[/quote]
Quote me where I said it was impossible to price gouge or tamper with market prices on the NYMEX crude exchange.</p>
<p>You've dropped virtually your whole argument at this point, so yeah, I don't really see any need to continue this conversation either.</p>
<p>nbachris doesn't understand why a measly 9% margin can equal $12B? It's so simple, but apparently another thing a deaf liberal will fail to try to understand.</p>
<p>XOM</a> - Exxon Mobil Corporation - Google Finance</p>
<p>Exxon had $138 billion worth of revenue this quarter, they profited just $12 of that.</p>
<p>AAPL</a> - Apple Inc. - Google Finance</p>
<p>Apple had $7.5B, they made $1B. Apple is more efficient in terms of profit/revenue. Why not tax Apple? If we tax them, they'll still have plenty room to pay salaries, run stores, etc. etc.... Except they'd have little profit, therefore the company will have little value, which puts them susceptile to control by another company, and they loser THEIR direction. Exxon has to not only sell oil, they are a public company and are in the business of fulfilling their sharefholders, either with dividends or with continued growth.</p>
<p>This high price of oil is cool. On one hand, people can't eat out and do whatever they want whenever they want anymore so that sucks. On the other hand, it's killing Ford, GM, boosting Toyota, and renewing interest in alternatives. :)</p>