Big Oil Rakes In Billions, Still Complains Taxes Are Too High

Sat, 2012-03-10 14:42Laurel Whitney
Laurel Whitney's picture

Big Oil Rakes In Billions, Still Complains Taxes Are Too High

The President rolled out his FY2013 budget recently, which includes eliminating $40 billion in tax breaks from Big Oil companies, such as BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. Meanwhile, the American Petroleum Institute's response would have you believe that cutting the subsidies would be the equivalent of moving back into their parents' basement.

It's propaganda at its most repetitive, crying that they are “job creators” and that it's so “unfair” to raise taxes because they already contribute millions to the economy every day, and if you do they swear to god prices will rise and the inevitable dependency on foreign oil will bring about the apocalypse itself if you don't let them have their way.

That's like Donald Trump begging to not get kicked out of rent-stabilized, low-income housing even when raking in billions annually, and then threatening to trash the place once the landlord actually puts up an eviction notice.

It's true. The combined profit of the “big 5” oil companies listed above was $137 billion last year, with ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips coming in first, fourth, and 15th, respectively, on the Fortune 100 list of most profitable companies.

As for being “job creators”, it's a bit of a far-fetched label when oil companies have cut more than 11,000 jobs over the past few years, despite record profits.

And while those record profits have increased their earnings 75%, production of oil and petroleum products decreased by 4% compared to the previous year. Fewer jobs, fewer products, more profits, and they are still claiming tax breaks are necessary to create jobs and increase production.

API also claims that the oil and gas industries “pay taxes at far higher effective rates than most other industries.”

However, their federal tax rate for 2010 was only 18%, while most Americans paid 21%.

Lower tax rates are supposed to be a trade-off to spur reinvestment, but big oil companies even fail at that. In 2011, $38 billion was spent on buying back stock (which lines the pockets of top executives, not workers) and had $58 billion in their corporate savings account.

If you throw all that together, Big Oil companies made $137 billion, spent $38 billion on buying their own stock, put $58 billion into savings, all the while getting rid of thousands of jobs and lowering their product output.

Yet they're complaining that taking away tax breaks will just be too hard and is an unfair punishment.

Perhaps instead of $40 billion in subsidies, the government should send them a $40 billion violin.

Previous Comments

“Perhaps instead of $40 billion in subsidies, the government should send them a $40 billion violin.”

Wow, only $40B now? I’ve seen much higher estimates. I think that only takes into account domestic subsidies.

When are the free market advocates going to fight for the removal of fossil fuel subsidies and advocate a level playing field? Let the free market do its job and remove the artificial price people pay at the pump or on their power bill.

“As for being “job creators”, it’s a bit of a far-fetched label when oil companies have cut more than 11,000 jobs over the past few years, despite record profits.”

Maybe they think that all the jobs that are created to clean up their mess is a good thing.

 

When is a depletion allowance a subsidy?  That allowance in a common allowance throughout the mining and oil industry.

Talk about distortion of reality.

the diminishing resource is a common good.  The extractors should instead be paying a royalty.

“When is a depletion allowance a subsidy?  That allowance in a common allowance throughout the mining and oil industry.”

Yeah commercial fisherman are missing out big time from that gig.

 

Judging by the articles on Desmogblog, the intent of the articles is not to educate, so much as it is to spread propaganda and advance a leftwing narrative.  This article is no exception.  Clearly your intent is not to win any debate – the facts simply don’t support your claims – but to preach to the converted.

I notice you repeatedly make a point of describing the oil and gas industry in terms of gross  industry profit – while carefully avoiding the much more honest fact of NET PROFIT MARGIN.

But that wouldn’t advance your deceptive narrative, would it?

In the case of oil and gas, the most recent industry average net profit margin is a rather modest 7.9%.

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html

That’s right, “Big Oil”, as you like to call it, made the same as the cleaning products industry in net profit.  To put that in perspective, that’s less than HALF the profit margin of the soft drink industry, 15%.

And since when is an industry which pays far more in taxes, royalties and licensing fees being “subsidized” by what it might qualify for in tax credits available to most any other industry?  Surely this is some bizarre new definition of “subsidy”.

What you say may be true, but there HAS to be a bad guy out there somewhere, right? What about the Koch bros, aren’t they the bad guys?

Lol! It’s refreshing to see someone spell it out as you have, PJames, but you’ll hardly sway any of the regulars in this forum. They believe what they are spoon fed by this group of paid propagandists at Desmog.

some of us reject Ayn Randism and are committed to the common good.

Even yours.

See, Hank?

People like David Benson know what’s best for “the common good” – whether we like it, or not.

Why can’t we just shut up and do as we’re told by our betters?

And more a matter of the authors & commenters here knowing more of what they’re talking about, whether you like it or not, unlike the anti-science deniers & dittoheads at WUWT who haven’t a clue.

For the Common Good by Daly & Cobb.

Among other things devestating critique of The Invisible Hand and Free Trade.

“the intent of the articles is not to educate, so much as it is to spread propaganda and advance a leftwing narrative.”

Obviously, the only narrative your confirmation bias is going to accept will come from a right wing perspective then.

“I notice you repeatedly make a point of describing the oil and gas industry in terms of gross  industry profit – while carefully avoiding the much more honest fact of NET PROFIT MARGIN.”

Because that is the actual figure before capex, opex, cogs etc is taken into account. Anyone who has been in business can tell you, that at that point, the money can effectively be siphoned off. Clever accounting can really make a difference.

“To put that in perspective, that’s less than HALF the profit margin of the soft drink industry, 15%.”

Coca cola has a product that requires billions in government investment to clean up spills, or  mitigate CO2 emissions? Coca cola has protectionist tariffs enforced on its competitors? Coca cola has a price that is on par with market levels, oil & coal do not. Coca cola can claim a depletion tax break as their stock levels go down? Coca cola has the US go to war on its behalf & negotiate coca cola pipelines throughout other countries on its behalf?

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/43/46575783.pdf

“And since when is an industry which pays far more in taxes, royalties and licensing fees”

By your limited worldview.

“being “subsidized” by what it might qualify for in tax credits available to most any other industry?  Surely this is some bizarre new definition of “subsidy”.

The International Energy Agency, The OECD & World Bank define it as:

“an energy subsidy is defined as any government action that lowers the cost of energy production, raises the revenues of energy producers, or lowers the price paid by energy consumers”



 

I paid $2066 in taxes this year alone for for EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) in Alberta.

This is corporate welfare, pure and simple.  Why can’t they run a business without me giving them money?   What is wrong with their business model?

Are you seriously trying to claim the oil and gas industry in Alberta operates at a net loss to Alberta taxpayers?

Really?

We’re seriously talking about good old-fashioned separation of Big Oil & state.

The federal and Alberta governments struck up a secret, high-level committee in early 2010 to coordinate the promotion of the oilsands with Canada’s most powerful industry lobby group, a document obtained through an access to information request reveals.

“The committee brought together the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) with deputy ministers from Natural Resources, Environment Canada, Alberta Energy and Alberta Environment to synchronize their lobbying offensive in the face of mounting protest and looming international regulations targeting the Alberta crude.

“I’m old-fashioned enough to believe that there should be a separation between oil and state, but with these types of secret committees it’s hard to see any daylight between them,” said Keith Stewart, a climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace.

“He said the federal government is working increasingly closer with oil companies as they attempt to polish the image of the “dirtiest oil on earth” and undermine climate-change policies in the United States and Europe that stand to curb the industry’s expansion.

“We’re seeing that the government is becoming the advocacy arm of the oil industry, whether that’s to kill environment regulations abroad or to rhetorically attack environmental groups and First Nations,” Stewart said.”

Alberta, Ottawa, oil lobby formed secret committee

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1144579–alberta-ottawa-oil-lobby-formed-secret-committee?bn=1

My opinion on these facts is a lot more straightforward… Why do these guys have to keep it secret?  Why can’t they tell the truth?  Is it because people will be angry with them?

So… a man Harper kept extremely close, so close he was permitted to bypass security and criminal checks, switched a green research project to a green wash PR campaign.

http://www.tarsandswatch.org/former-harper-adviser-altered-partnerships-mandate-improve-oilsands-image

I don’t know why I have to subsidize a profit heavy industry.  I’m employed in the drilling industry and I don’t see a dime of that money.

I also think they should pay their share.  I know I do.

But in the mean time I have doctors being intimidated into not complaining about the quality of health care they can provide.

“I don’t know why I have to subsidize a profit heavy industry.”

So, by avoiding the question, can we assume you concede the oil and gas industry in Alberta receives no net subsidy from Alberta taxpayers?

“I’m employed in the drilling industry and I don’t see a dime of that money.”

They don’t pay you?  You work for free?

“I also think they should pay their share.”

And what, precisely, in dollars and cents, do you consider their “fair share”?  And how did you arrive at that number?

“I know I do.”

Do you?

“But in the mean time I have doctors being intimidated into not complaining about the quality of health care they can provide.”

Does the oil and gas industry run health care in Alberta?  And here I thought it was the government.

Subsidies to these guys are simply lining the pockets of their investors.

It is irresponsible and wasteful to give them money.  If it were a capitalist venture they should be able to make a business case to do the work, go to a bank, or dip into their hefty profits.


I mention health care because its always chronically short of cash.  Yet here we are just handing the stuff out to these corporate bums.

“I mention health care because its always chronically short of cash.  Yet here we are just handing the stuff out to these corporate bums.”

And yet, you’ve already conceded the oil and gas industry is a net revenue generator for Alberta taxpayers.  In other words these “corporate bums” are the ones who are handing cash to the government.

These would be the same “corporate bums” who presumably make it possible for you to earn a living … or at least you would, if you ever stooped so low as to accept a paycheque from your “corporate bum” employers, LOL!

So… I just just ask for half my tax back… and I’d still be a net contributor?

I like that logic.  Do you use it often?

That statement doesn’t make any sense, and we’re not talking about you and your tax circumstances.

The question, which you continue to evade, is very simple: 

Are you seriously claiming the oil and gas industry is a net financial loss to the taxpayers of Alberta?  Yes or no?

I didn’t claim anything vaguely like what you are attempting to shove in my mouth.

I’m saying that they aren’t paying their fair share of the bills, like I do.  They aren’t entitled to getting anything back any more than I am.

My statement makes perfect sense.  You see I contribute a healthy $24,000 a year to our health care system (via taxes), but being in perfect health, I’m not costing it any.  So… I should just get all my money back because I’m a net contributor.  That is your logic.

That is no different than oil companies paying taxes, then demanding a claw back. “Oh oh oh these environmental regulations cost money… we’re less rich, so give us money.”

Here is your original statements:

“This is corporate welfare, pure and simple.  Why can’t they run a business without me giving them money?   What is wrong with their business model?”

and,

“I don’t know why I have to subsidize a profit heavy industry.”

Since when does a a “welfare” recipient pay more to the government than they recieve?

The question, which you continue to evade, is very simple: 

Are you seriously claiming the oil and gas industry is a net financial loss to the taxpayers of Alberta?  Yes or no?

Why so frightened of a simple question?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare

“Corporate welfare is a pejorative term describing a government’s bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment on corporations or selected corporations.”

Even Cato thinks its a real problem.  Surely that’s a source you trust.

“According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.”


Now go get a job you hippy.

The question, which you continue to evade, is very simple: 

Are you seriously claiming the oil and gas industry is a net financial loss to the taxpayers of Alberta?  Yes or no?

PJ,

While greedy Big Oil companies rape Alberta’s boreal forests & wetlands & ecosystems for short-term mega-profits, the true long-term costs of extracting oil from the tar sands are a devastating loss to the people & wildlife of Alberta

http://garthlenz.com/#/touring-exhibit–the-true-cost-of-oil/editorial-42

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM

And, as leading climate scientist, Dr. James E. Hansen, has pointed out time & again, a climate catastrophe in the making.

“Advertisements that tar sands and shale oil are beneficial, providing energy independence and jobs, repeated hundreds of times a day, are an attempt to brainwash the public into supporting policies that enrich the few, while screwing the public, especially young people.”

“You cannot turn on television without seeing advertisements for clean coal, clean tar sands (sanitized as “oil sands”), clean gas fracking. However, no matter what efforts are made to minimize damage during the mining process, Figure 1 implies that the only way to retain a planet looking like the one that has existed the past 10,000 years, with stable shorelines and a reasonably stable climate, is to phase out fossil fuels as conventional oil and gas are depleted. Most of the total coal resource and unconventional fossil fuels should be left in the ground.”

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120130_CowardsPart2.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZsQqAQxh_Y

I never ever ever claimed that the oil and gas industry is a net financial loss to the tax payers of Alberta.   Furthermore I never implied it.

I suggest you to get educated on this old and well understood term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare

What I said was;

This is corporate welfare, pure and simple.  Why can’t they run a business without me giving them money?   What is wrong with their business model?

To which you replied;

Are you seriously trying to claim the oil and gas industry in Alberta operates at a net loss to Alberta taxpayers?

Really?

In answering your question. No.  But then I never claimed what you imply.  You are in fact asking a meaningless question.

Furthermore you also need to learn a lot more about conservative and capitalist values which you seem to be lacking so much of.  I’m with CATO on this!

“I never ever ever claimed that the oil and gas industry is a net financial loss to the tax payers of Alberta.   Furthermore I never implied it.”

You have a very short and selective memory:

“I don’t know why I have to subsidize a profit heavy industry.  I’m employed in the drilling industry and I don’t see a dime of that money.

I take it you withdraw your previous statement?  Evidently you DO see more than just a dime now.  I guess you just needed thicker glasses.

I did not see a dime of the $1.6 billion we spent on EOR\CCS.  Not even a penny.

Your argument stating that because these industries pay someone enough “to earn a living” and so should be considered a good thing overall, is nonsensical in that the same thing could be said of a slave-master in the Old South……without the food and shelter they provided their slaves, it would have been extremely difficult for most of them to simply survive given the system and society they all found themselves in. And indeed, I can say with certainty that many of those plantation owners, and to be sure, even a few of the “uncle Tom’s” among the slaves rationalized the status quo by pointing out that very fact….just as you have.

Now to be sure, I’m not drawing an equivelance between today’s work environment and slavery. Not at all. I’m merely pointing out the poverty of your own argument. It’s not about whether they pay their workers or not, but about matter’s of fairness…about truth-telling, and about the neccesity of having these giant corporations to step up and bare some of the weight imposed on everyone else by the economic downturn. That they do this as part and parcel of one’s own social responsibility….a responsibility that every other person* in society is required to entend by law. 

*if they want to assume the legal definition then they can assume the legal responsibility as well, no?

 

So now I’m a slave-owner, or something?  Er, … what?

Can I take it you agree with the assertion that the Alberta oil and gas industry is a net public revenue source for taxpayers, and therefore not in receipt of any net subsidy?

I’ll mark you down as a ‘yes’ on that one, shall I?

FYI, education, and hopefully (tho doubtful) enlightenment, there’s a very good reason why both anti-AGW & anti-Darwinism occurs primarily among those who also self-identify as “conservative” and/or “right-wing” individuals. And that is that researchers consistently find that conservatives are the one’s who are far more likely to engage in avoidence behaviors, confirmation biases, and other forms of motivated cognition than any other sociopolitical subgroups of a given society - and certainly much more likely than those who identify with left-wing or liberal ideas and belief systems.

So you’re skating on extremely thin ice when you make assertions regarding the gullibility of those who agree with the main idea of this blog when you make that assumption based on their leftwing/liberal political stance.

If you don’t believe it (and I know you won’t because…..) go to Google Scholar and enter the terms “motivated cognition, conservatism”.

The oil companies in Alberta should be paying much higher royalties and they are getting subsidies which should all be cancelled.

Most of the oil money that does come in goes to corporations, not to Albertans or public services for Albertans:

http://www.albertadiary.ca/2012/01/kevin-taft-follows-albertas-money-and.html

Website about this:

http://richestplaceonearth.edmontonriverview.com/index.html

Incidentally, two investigations of Bruce Carson, by the Lobbying Commissioner and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, were completed three months ago, but the results have not been released by the Harper Conservative government:

http://sixthestate.net/?p=4038

Well, if you are so much against subsidies, then you must be completely beside yourself with outrage at the annual $1.2 billion subsidy given to the CBC – which happens to pay back to the taxpayer roughly, um, …. $0.

PJ,

Subsidies & other tax expenditures for mature fossil fuel industries no longer benefit the taxpayer but merely increase the record $137,000,000,000 mega-profits of Big Oil’s Big Five even as oil production decreased.  Such subsidies are even more counter-productive when you consider that fossil fuels spew gigatons of CO2 emissions & other pollutants that cause mega-billions in damages to our health & property, air & water, forests & wetlands, ecosystems & climate.

The public is much better served by shifting these subsidies & tax expenditures from the mega-profits of dirty fossil fuels & tar sands over to incentivize private investment to rapidly develop & deploy clean, renewable energy technologies to reduce our reliance on dirty fossil fuels & foreign oil.

“Subsidies & other tax expenditures for mature fossil fuel industries no longer benefit the taxpayer”

The oil and gas industry is a net public revenue source, and an extremely large one.  How can you claim that doesn’t benefit taxpayers?

“mega-profits of Big Oil’s Big Five”

The average profit margin of major oil companies was 7.9%.  And that’s what you consider “mega-profits”? 

Give your head a shake.

“… incentivize private investment to rapidly develop & deploy clean, renewable energy technologies…”

Sure, that way we can be on the hook for $100,000 every time GM sells a Chevy Volt.  Well, up until the point were they closed the assembly line and laid off the workers, because nobody was actually buying them.

Yes, let’s go down the same road that Germany, Spain, the UK, and Denmark have done, only to discover the bottomless money-pit that is “alternative energy”.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html

“…to reduce our reliance on dirty fossil fuels & foreign oil.”

I think you’ll find you are profoundly misinformed on the most basic facts on which you base your strident opinions:  Canada is a net energy exporter.

re: “Subsidies & other tax expenditures for mature fossil fuel industries no longer benefit the taxpayer”

That’s right, PJ, and in addition to the taxpayer subsidies & other tax expenditures, the external costs are also picked up by the taxpayers in Canada & the U.S. – you know, the mega-billion-dollar damages to taxpayer health & property, air & water, forests & wetlands, ecosystems & climate caused by the gigatons of CO2 emissions & other pollutants from unabated extraction of oil from the tar sands & the refining & burning of fossil fuels.

And the external costs of the unconscionable destruction of Alberta peatlands which releases mega-metric tons of CO2 equivalent have not been factored in to Big Oil costs.

“A new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that existing industry plans for exploiting the tar sands will destroy over 29,500 hectares (65%) of local peatland. Peatlands are better known as bogs, moors, mires, and swamp forests. Their decaying organic matter is rich in carbon and already emerging as a major amplifying carbon-cycle feedback.”

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/13/443245/study-finds-tar-sands-has-higher-co2-emissions-calls-restoration-pledge-greenwashing/

“We quantified the wholesale transformation of the boreal landscape by open-pit oil sands mining in Alberta, Canada to evaluate its effect on carbon storage and sequestration. Contrary to claims made in the media, peatland destroyed by open-pit mining will not be restored. Current plans dictate its replacement with upland forest and tailings storage lakes, amounting to the destruction of over 29,500 ha of peatland habitat. Landscape changes caused by currently approved mines will release between 11.4 and 47.3 million metric tons of stored carbon and will reduce carbon sequestration potential by 5,734–7,241 metric tons C/y. These losses have not previously been quantified, and should be included with the already high estimates of carbon emissions from oil sands mining and bitumen upgrading. A fair evaluation of the costs and benefits of oil sands mining requires a rigorous assessment of impacts on natural capital and ecosystem services.”

Oil sands mining and reclamation cause massive loss of peatland and stored carbon

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/06/1117693108.full.pdf+html

Not to mention the external costs of tar sand pipeline mega-spills.

“There is strong evidence that tar sands pipeline spills occur more frequently than spills from pipelines carrying conventional crude oil because of the diluted bitumen’s toxic, corrosive, and heavy composition. Tar sands oil spills have the potential to be more damaging than conventional crude oil spills because they are more difficult and more costly to clean up, and because they have the potential to pose more serious health risks. Therefore both the frequency and particular nature of the spills have negative economic implications.”

The impact sands pipeline spills on employment and the economy

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_Impact-of-Tar-Sands-Pipeline-Spills.pdf

re: “mega-profits of Big Oil’s Big Five”

$137 billions are record mega-profits (aka windfall profits) in one year for the Big Oil Big Five alone, much of which is used to buy back their own stock & lobby Parliament & Congress. No reason for the taxpayer to subsidize their stock mega-buybacks & lobbying.

re: “… incentivize private investment to rapidly develop & deploy clean, renewable energy technologies…”

This is more of what we had in mind – clean, renewable, non-polluting solar energy.

“One Third of Americans Reach Solar Grid Parity by 2021… Nearly 100 million Americans could install over 60,000 megawatts of solar at less than grid prices – without subsidies – by 2021.”

Rooftop Revolution: Changing Everything with Cost-Effective Local Solar

http://energyselfreliantstates.org/content/rooftop-revolution-changing-everything-cost-effective-local-solar

 

re: “Canada is a net energy exporter.”

And you best double-check where most of those Big Oil Boys, who are tearing up your boreal forests & wetlands & ecosystems to extract their mega-billions in corporate profits, hail from, amigo – Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Occidental, Koch Industries, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Statoil, Sinopec, PetroChina, CNOOC, etc. from the USA, China, France, Britain, Netherlands, Norway, etc.

Make no mistake, amigo, these Big Oil Boys will rape Alberta forests & wetlands the same way Dirty Coal Corps ravish West Virginia mountains & streams, then move on, leaving the health & environmental & climate damage to the citizen taxpayers.

“The Raping of Alberta”

My, aren’t we melodramatic?  Pull the string and listen to him go …

Funny, but I don’t feel “raped” at all.

“thinkprogress.org/romm”

You’re good at mindlessly parroting the leftwing party line, as dictated by George Soros and his mouthpiece.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax6O1Xun7cI

Last year, Big Oil’s Big Five — BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell — who are still gangbanging Alberta & the American taxpayer, had record profits of $137 billion & still received $2 billion in U.S. taxpayer subsidies but produced less oil.  So where did they put those mega-billions to work?

  • They produced 4 percent less oil and “oil equivalent” in 2011 compared to 2010.
  • They spent a total of $38 billion, or 28 percent, of their profits to repurchase their own stock.
  • They are sitting on more than $58 billion in cash reserves as of the end of 2011.
  • They spent $1.6 million on campaign contributions and $65.7 million on lobbying efforts.
  • For every $1 spent on lobbying in Washington, the big five received $30 worth of tax breaks.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/big_oil_banner_year.html

I notice you’re careful to avoid the fact that the government takes in about $70 billion per year from various oil and gas tax revenues. 

That pays for a lot of Solyndras and Chevy Volts.

In 2010, oil and gas companies had an effective corporate tax rate of 41.1% compared to the rest of S&P Industrials, which had an effective corporate tax rate of 26.5%.

You still think you’re going to pay down your $14 trillion debt with windmills and scented candles?

With all its taxpayer subsidies, Exxon Mobil, the biggest of the Big Oil Big Five, only paid $39 million federal income tax on its $9.91 billion profits over the last two years.  That’s an effective tax rate of 0.4%.

“Over the past two years, ExxonMobil reported $9,910 million in pretax U.S. profits. But it enjoyed so many tax subsidies that its federal income tax bill was only $39 million—a tax rate of only 0.4 percent.”

And in 2009, XOM paid no federal taxes at all, nada, on its $2.6 billion domestic profits by funneling its profits through the Cayman Islands.

“The company paid no taxes at all to the U.S. federal government in 2009 on its domestic profits of nearly $2.6 billion. It appears that they avoided the tax man that year by legally funneling their profits through wholly owned subsidiaries in countries like the Cayman Islands, and reinvesting their earnings overseas.”

For the 3 year period 2008 to 2010, Exxon Mobil paid an average 17.6% effective corporate tax rate on $6.8 billion.

“Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate on its annual earnings in the three years spanning 2008 to 2010. Its average domestic profits exceeded $6.8 billion.”

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/05/tax_man.html

No, PJ, we plan to terminate tax loopholes & taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil & Dirty Coal and put those mega-billions to work modernizing & expanding our infrastructure, our electric power grid, our roads & bridges, our ports & railways, our public buildings & schools for better energy efficiency, & incentivize private investment to rapidly deploy clean, renewable energy technologies & reduce fossil fuel emissions & put people back to work.  No doubt, wind & solar technologies are a big part of building America’s 21st Century clean energy economy.

Next time you come to a debate, PJ, bring some facts & leave the denier talking points over at WUWT.  You have no limb to spare.

http://thewisecracker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Black-Night-monty-python-and-the-holy-grail.jpg

Oh, man, if you actually believe even half of what you’re cutting-and-pasting here, you’ve got bigger problems than I thought.

If nothing else, you’ve proven yourself a good little soldier in slavishly parrotting George Soros’ radical leftist talking points.  Are you even capable of thinking for yourself anymore?

Time you saw the dirty truth, PJ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkwoRivP17A

Yeah, even though I’ve worked there, your Youtube video convinced me.

But for your own sake, please stop using all oil in any form from now on.

Carbon-dense coal & oil have very important applications in the clean energy economies of the 21st Century, PJ, just not as extracting by the giga-barrel & gigaton & burning as dirty, polluting fossil fuels, esp. on an anthropogenically overheating planet.

We discontinue taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels, implement carbon taxes & cap & trade mechanisms, incentivize private investment to rapidly deploy renewable clean energy technologies & create millions of new jobs, & phase out the mega-extraction & burning of polluting fossil fuels.

I listen to it going to work, from work, and on weekends Randy’s Vinyl Tap.  He gets letters all the time (and from all over the world) about how his show is so much better than anything you find outside of CBC.  Many even come from the US where they can’t get this kind of entertainment.  Its not possible to enjoy it.

If they went off air, I’d probably stop listening to radio.

It works the way it does because its not a business.  (Why you think it is, is simply confusing to me.)  They seem to be very sensitive to local interests.  They rarely if ever jump on oil and gas or even global warming in Alberta.

http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/mandate.shtml

Now… $1.1 Billion = $32 per person or $128 for my household.  I have no problem with that.

“Its not possible to enjoy it.”

The first true thing you’ve said.

“They rarely if ever jump on oil and gas or even global warming in Alberta.”

This casts serious doubt on your claim that you listen to the CBC.

“Now… $1.1 Billion = $32 per person or $128 for my household.  I have no problem with that.”

Yet I, and many others do have a problem with that.  You are forcing others to pay for your “entertainment”.

So when can I expect your cheque to chip in for my Sirius subscription?

Back in the USA, National Public Radio (NPR) receives only 2% of its funding from the federal government.  Most all is from programming fees, grants from foundations or business entities, contributions and sponsorships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding

Different in Canada?

In Canada the CBC has been sucking the public teat since it’s inception.

CBC Radio is 100% taxpayer funded, even as the listenership continues to plummet to near undetectable levels.  Okay, sure, there are a few die-hards who tune in to the CBC’s phone-in shows about “What’s your favourite muffin?”, or the second-rate Garrison Keillor immitator, but they’re mostly shut-ins who can’t reach the dial, and their vegetative state is to be pitied more than anything.

CBC TV is a combination of government subsidy, but they also run commercials, so as to undercut legitimate private broadcasters, who, ironically have to pay taxes, which funds their competitor.  The French CBC channels run porno movies at least.

Total cost to taxpayers: $1.2 billion.  Per.  Year.

Pages

[x]
CP Rail train

Earlier this month Hunter Harrison, the CEO of Canadian Pacific told the Globe and Mail that he thought regulators have “overreacted” to the oil-by-rail disaster in Lac-Megantic that killed 47 people. 

Lac-Mégantic happened, in my view, because of one person’s behaviour, if I read the file right,” Harrison said.

...

read more