Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Tax oil profits? Not so fast
money.cnn.com — With all the money Big Oil is making -- the top five pocketed more than $120 billion in 2007 -- and with an election on the horizon, it's easy to see why politicians are eyeing oil profits. But analysts tell Money.com that going after oil profits could backfire on consumers.
zaibatsu- 772 diggs
- digg it
- nahsrocketeer75, on 05/11/2008, -47/+18I don't much care if it backfires, tax them back to the dark ages just out of principle. (Aren't you glad I'm not running things?)
- mciampa1214, on 05/11/2008, -5/+22I bet you would care. What principle? And yes, I am glad you're not running things.
- heliox, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4exactly!
- spyd3rweb, on 05/11/2008, -3/+30They'd just raise prices to offset the tax.
- rahamm, on 05/11/2008, -8/+12Not if you made it a flat tax. ie. "You make 100 billion then we take everything after that."
- InsaneMachine, on 05/11/2008, -5/+16And where is the incentive to keep producing oil once you reach that point.
- noahhoward, on 05/11/2008, -9/+6Staying in business.
- thcobbs, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6HAHAHAH!
No, you'd get all the companies making 100B and then calling it a year. - scubajim, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6Okay, so I just create 2 oil companies that own each other but only make 95 billion each. I agree with getting rid of the subsidies, but tax them just like any other business.
- thcobbs, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Its called taxing the owning entity. So, now you have two companies that can only make a total of $100B
- Laughsatyou, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4economic geniuses in here!
- Lynxpro, on 05/11/2008, -1/+13...then they'll just buy gold plated toilet seats and other shenanigans so that on paper they aren't as profitable.
- doctechnical, on 05/11/2008, -2/+14Brilliant. "OK, we've maxed out our profit for this year, turn out the lights and everyone go home. See you next year! Enjoy your rationing!"
Not a terribly good idea, that. - rahamm, on 05/11/2008, -9/+19Good then when they stop producing the government can open a gas company and compete them into the ground and all the profits will go to the people.
- mciampa1214, on 05/11/2008, -1/+10Commie or /sarcasm?
- rahamm, on 05/11/2008, -7/+7Democratic socialist actually. It is how we brought the price of car insurance down in Manitoba, and health care down in Canada.
- Corrosionx, on 05/11/2008, -4/+6So the solution is a monopoly? You're not too bright are you?
I can tell you that right now: the people NEVER see the profit. They get ***** by lack of choice and lack of a functioning price system. - ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5Total horse *****. This is how we get places like Zimbabwe.
- rahamm, on 05/11/2008, -4/+5Your right Canada cheep free Health Care America not so much. Makes perfect sense the people never see the profit cause you run it so there is not profit.
- dagnome1984, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Yeah Canada is so great with it's rationing. The higher costs and less skilled workers is a bad result of a lack of a for profit system. The U.S system is not even free market given the almost total lack of the use of pricing.
- rahamm, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2"In 2005, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was US$6,401; in Canada, US$3,326.[5] The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 9.8%"
I usually consider the word higher to mean more but I see you were using it to mean less money was spent in that sentence. That is the only way your statement makes any sense and isn't an outright lie. - 1randomguyO8, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Yep, I'm pretty sure that's how Pemex and Saudi Aramco are run.
- rahamm, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Don't forget Petro-Canada until the 90's after which it started losing money and deunionizing locking out 240 workers last year alone.
- dagnome1984, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1""In 2005, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was US$6,401; in Canada, US$3,326.[5] The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 9.8%"
I usually consider the word higher to mean more but I see you were using it to mean less money was spent in that sentence. That is the only way your statement makes any sense and isn't an outright lie."
Yeah, I'm sure America being the nation of fatties has absolutely nothing to do with that. - tech42er, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1@CorrosionX
Sure it's a monopoly, but it's controlled by the super-good government, not those mean, nasty corporations so the people win! Yay people! - Corrosionx, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1tech42er: Here I was thinking corporations were operated by people... how silly of me.
- tech42er, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2That's not a flat tax. A flat tax is a flat PERCENTAGE, not amount.
- rahamm, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1It would be a 100% after whatever amount you set. A FLAT TAX!
- InsaneMachine, on 05/11/2008, -5/+16And where is the incentive to keep producing oil once you reach that point.
- Charlotte_Web, on 05/11/2008, -4/+14Taxing oil profits is an incredibly naive response to the problem.
As with most businesses, the profit margin of oil companies is based on a percentage over cost. Therefore, if cost rises, the dollar amount of profit rises, even though the percentage profit remains the same.
There are no shenanigans going on by the oil companies. The people who are the problem are the members of OPEC, and the way we need to attack them is to open up more of our own country to drilling, adding more nuclear power plants, and upgrading our electrical grid in preparation for electric cars to replace the internal combustion engine.- kublerross, on 05/11/2008, -6/+3sleep america, sleep, the oil companies are your friends.
- 1randomguyO8, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Exactly. The oil companies are only oil making 10% profit margin which is an incentive for them to actually grow their company and look for more oil or what not, that's how capitalism works.
If we do what you said it may actually put downward pressure on prices or hopefully at the very least stabilise prices. I think the government should give more incentives for alternatives such as hybrids and electric cars.
- rahamm, on 05/11/2008, -8/+12Not if you made it a flat tax. ie. "You make 100 billion then we take everything after that."
- Lyph5, on 05/11/2008, -6/+16So you're a Democrat?
- jamesmon01, on 05/11/2008, -7/+23Do you have a 401K??? a pension??? ANY sort of mutual fund??? If so, (and you should for god's sake), if you want to blame someone, look in the mirror. A company looks out for its shareholders, that's the whole point of its existence. Friggin democrats are always harping on corporations, but then they bitch when "working class white americans" can't find a decent job. Do they want everyone to work for the government? Who in their right mind wishes they had a government job?
For fairness, friggin republicans are spending how many billions a month in Iraq?? both parties are full of it.- Lynxpro, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5Government jobs often pay lower than their private sector equivalents, and often there's burn-out because it is so hard to change things, but most government sector jobs have pensions that are unrivaled by the private sector because corporations have time and time again raided and dismantled their pensions...IBM comes to mind.
It is in the best interest of shareholders to insist that their companies invest in their employees to increase satisfaction and productivity, but most of the investor class is only interested in short-term profits and not the long term. And as such, Corporate America is involved in the race-to-the-bottom in terms of scaling back benefits and outsourcing as much as possible.
I want to see the private sector bring back the pensions. In the long run, it would strengthen our economy.- jamesmon01, on 05/11/2008, -0/+10Have you ever worked as a contractor? I say this because you will quickly realize how much corporations are willing to pay in order to NOT provide benefits. A pension is a benefit, and as such exerts downward pressures on salaries. All a pension does is "force" part of your pay into investments.. Without a pension, you can always do it yourself, but you get a choice. I understand that alot of people won't save, and that that is a bad thing, but personally, I am always in favor of choice.
- bigj480, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3I agree in theory, but you are assuming that pay always increases with the loss of a pension. Even if it does increase, is that increase equal to what was lost? I wouldn't be surprised if employers pocketed the money saved.
- thcobbs, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4"I wouldn't be surprised if employers pocketed the money saved."
And if they do, then they will lose their employees. Look at it this way:
I get $X salary + benefits at company A
I get $X salary at company B
I say screw you B, I'm going to A.
Only a moron of an employee doesn't compare all offerings that come with the job. - Lynxpro, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Pensions are guaranteed; a 401k is not. I'd like to see a CalPERS style pension open to the public where business and employees can participate where you get a 2% (or realistically, 1.5%) per year worked, etc. set for retirement at 65. That's what Social Security needs to be replaced with, and then you can have a separate 401k/457/whatever to supplement the pension.
Pensions don't downward pressure on salaries; it puts downward pressure on short-term stock prices because benefits reduce maximized profits, not taking into account increased productivity/satisfaction and reduced shrink and turnover.
- jamesmon01, on 05/11/2008, -0/+10Have you ever worked as a contractor? I say this because you will quickly realize how much corporations are willing to pay in order to NOT provide benefits. A pension is a benefit, and as such exerts downward pressures on salaries. All a pension does is "force" part of your pay into investments.. Without a pension, you can always do it yourself, but you get a choice. I understand that alot of people won't save, and that that is a bad thing, but personally, I am always in favor of choice.
- Lynxpro, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5Government jobs often pay lower than their private sector equivalents, and often there's burn-out because it is so hard to change things, but most government sector jobs have pensions that are unrivaled by the private sector because corporations have time and time again raided and dismantled their pensions...IBM comes to mind.
- macweirdo42, on 05/11/2008, -5/+8I fully endorse that view. Pollution concerns aside, and peak oil concerns aside, this whole OPEC ***** is ***** up. Okay, so I'm not being completely serious, it would devastate the economy to have such a rapid change, but I like the principle behind it - we need to kill off the oil companies sooner or later.
- 1randomguyO8, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4I agree. Those kunts are slugging us every time we go to fill up. OPEC is like "meh, I could increase oil supply but nah" and then you got these oil companies who can't even maintain enough refining capacity. At ***** $126 barrel I think you can afford to build a couple oil refineries and prevent the bottle necks.
- GroundhogBoy, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2They're not talking about charging OPEC the windfall taxes, but the people who have to pay OPEC for the barrels. These companies just calculate a percentage of profit and that's how it's given them record profits.
As for refineries, they're actually doing quite poorly with the increasing prices. Look at stock charts for companies like Valero, Sunoco, Tesoro and other refiners. It's not pretty if you're an investor in refineries, lately. And as was mentioned above, if you've got a 401K, pension, or any other retirement account that holds these companies, you're getting screwed because the refineries are hurting. - macweirdo42, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Damnit, I keep telling people, the oil companies have no desire to build more refineries - they're not running at capacity and in fact, plans to massively expand capacity were recently scrapped because the oil companies saw no need. Sorry, I've been up to my eyeballs in research on this oil crisis all day, and I'm tired of hearing this myth about refineries. Oh, and if you want to know why, eh, I was just bored. For some reason when I get bored I have a tendency to research topics like this.
- GroundhogBoy, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2They're not talking about charging OPEC the windfall taxes, but the people who have to pay OPEC for the barrels. These companies just calculate a percentage of profit and that's how it's given them record profits.
- 1randomguyO8, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4I agree. Those kunts are slugging us every time we go to fill up. OPEC is like "meh, I could increase oil supply but nah" and then you got these oil companies who can't even maintain enough refining capacity. At ***** $126 barrel I think you can afford to build a couple oil refineries and prevent the bottle necks.
- johnpaul191, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3The "windfall tax" concept would be something they should not so easily pass onto consumers. The idea is not to tax companies making a lot of money. Things like how they raised prices at an unreasonable rate after Katrina, yet still cried to the feds for corporate welfare. You can look up the specifics on how politicians think it could work, though i agree that the corporations will weasel out of it somehow.
Probably the biggest problem is Wall Street. Making a profit is not enough every quarter. Companies have to increase market share, increase profit margins etc etc. Look at Comcast. They make a crapload of money, are a borderline monopoly in home cable service and are still under massive pressure to grow in some way, or their stock will drop. That may be why they are heavily investing in WiMax? I'm NOT saying boo hoo poor comcast by any means.... quite the opposite. I wish the investors were not putting the screws to them to extract every possible cent from their customers. - digdug2020, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Take a basic microeconomics class or use basic common sense; any tax hike ultimately gets passed on to you and me, you can bet they will keep their profit margins which they can virtually guarantee from the various companies colluding to keeping the profits. You should also realise until one of the cartel companies decides they can break away and make more money by selling lower that the oil companies will continue the course that they are on. The only thing you can really do is buy less gas and sell the SUV.
- kublerross, on 05/11/2008, -3/+1yes and this is the problem. corporations having more power than government. it should never have come this far
drastic action is required to enact any change at this point
- kublerross, on 05/11/2008, -3/+1yes and this is the problem. corporations having more power than government. it should never have come this far
- ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -3/+6Corporations do not pay taxes, ever. They are fictitious entities. Only real flesh and blood humans pay taxes.
If you raise taxes, that money is taken away from real people in the form of lower wages for employees, lower pension benefits for retirees, lower dividends and capital gains for stockholders (many of whom are pension funds), higher prices for customers, fewer orders for vendors, and decreased donations for local charities.
Corporate taxes take money from average people who don't even know it is being taken from them. That is why Democrats and other voracious tax-eating filth love corporate taxes. It is a way for them to steal money from Joe Sixpack's pocket, even as he votes for them because they are standing up for the "little guy."- kublerross, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4yes, so we get it. you dont like paying taxes.
fine do away with them
privatize all your support services. police, roadwork, sewer, etc
ill be long gone and laugh when you find out how completely ***** you are- Laughsatyou, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2he didnt say anything as stupid as what you just said.
- tech42er, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Why not? Taxes should be voluntary.
- locojones, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Wow, stop the presses, because that's news to me! One of the major disadvantages of forming a corporation is that you pay taxes not once, but twice. First, you're taxed on profits. Then you're taxed again based on distributions to shareholders. The nonsense in ShadowMerchant's post is mind-boggling, but then again, he looks to be from Arizona, which explains a lot.
- kublerross, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4yes, so we get it. you dont like paying taxes.
- mciampa1214, on 05/11/2008, -5/+22I bet you would care. What principle? And yes, I am glad you're not running things.
- The_Wallbanger, on 05/11/2008, -4/+140At least take away the billions in subsidies already.
- johnpaul191, on 05/11/2008, -1/+10That seems SO MUCH EASIER than the legal wording of a "windfall tax" bill that would not punish a breakout company with some awesome new technology, and not leave loopholes for the old ones.
- TJ11240, on 05/11/2008, -1/+15It wont let me digg you twice
- AngryFox, on 05/11/2008, -0/+11YES! YES! Oh God yes! If a company posts a profit *greater* than the size of the subsidy which they received to make said profit, why the hell are they allowed to keep the subsidy??!
- jonnyboy1544, on 05/11/2008, -1/+10How about we end all subsidies and mandates and let the market work. We all see what's happening to food costs because of ethanol.
- tech42er, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Stop corrupting and skewing the free market!
- bruce86, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1damn right lift the ban on child porn and slavery and let the free market sort it self out.
- tech42er, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Stop corrupting and skewing the free market!
- dagnome1984, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2That depends on what you mean by subsidies. If that is just a code word for "not paying their fair share" like some socialists spin it, than no. If by that you mean stop funding wars that benefit oil interests, than yes.
- kublerross, on 05/11/2008, -3/+12subsidy is not a valid word. its CORPORATE WELFARE
people need to stop equating welfare with poor single moms and realize its corporations (especially the military providers recently) receiving welfare in the form of no-bid contracts and 'subsidies'- Sentinel88, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry, but you can't just makes words you don't like go away.
- RonnyIsRondo, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Yeah the oil companies are stupid. If they take money away they will just frown and take it. Doubtful. Any money the government takes from them the oil companies will take from us. Sounds like a win-win in their books.
- carve, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6Why is it that Neocons are ultra conservative when it comes to taxes, but ultra liberal when it comes to subsidies?
- infectaphibian, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Yep, taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor is a socialistic outrage, but taking it from the middle class and redistributing it to the rich is da' bomb (diggity.)
- tech42er, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Exactly, both are wrong. The government should not be redistributing money, period.
- carve, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Exactly my point. The "neocons" think they are conservative, but they aren't at all!
- tech42er, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Exactly, both are wrong. The government should not be redistributing money, period.
- infectaphibian, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Yep, taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor is a socialistic outrage, but taking it from the middle class and redistributing it to the rich is da' bomb (diggity.)
- Venar, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Those subsidies exist to help american companies, in fact if you look at the biil its not -just- oil companies its all sorts of companies than benefit from that bill. Its there to protect american jobs and interests, because without them our oil companies would not be able to compete with foreign oil. So if you want oil independence, you are barking up the wrong tree.
- lucidguru, on 05/11/2008, -19/+56Yeah stop taxing gas and stop giving oil companies subsidies... had we let the free market function in the first place then we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place.
- swordedge, on 05/11/2008, -4/+45fine, stop taxing gas, also stop bitching about road conditions. Gas taxes is what pays for those roads.
- fotbr, on 05/11/2008, -7/+16Judging from the roads around here, and the lack of work that goes into doing anything other than putting up road cones and signs saying "work zone, increased fines", I can't say that losing gas tax funding for the roads would make one bit of difference.
- mikedoth, on 05/11/2008, -4/+8Agreed.
- thcobbs, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3you'd both be surprised.
- tech42er, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Yeah. Privatize them or at least make them tolls.
- mikedoth, on 05/11/2008, -4/+8Agreed.
- Lyph5, on 05/11/2008, -2/+19Yeah, so explain toll booths. I know that in my state the line we were fed was that they'd be taken down once they paid for the improvements to the highway. They're still up and making millions of profit for the state every year.
- MtheoryX, on 05/11/2008, -0/+11And now, more and more, private corporations.
Leasing toll roads to private industry FTL.- 1randomguyO8, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Sydney is the absolute worst, when it comes to this sort of stuff. Our government allow private companies to build tunnels and highways and in the return I think the companies are allowed to collect the tolls for say 20 years.
But the problem is hardly anyone is actually willing to pay to use these new tunnels. So what the government does is close of roads which are actually working fine to force people into these tunnels they dont WANT to use. GFG
- 1randomguyO8, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Sydney is the absolute worst, when it comes to this sort of stuff. Our government allow private companies to build tunnels and highways and in the return I think the companies are allowed to collect the tolls for say 20 years.
- wc3452, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2@Lyph: There's something called the Federal Highway Trust Fund, look it up.
- ZenMojo, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4What next, have a "super easy pass" where rich people are allowed to drive faster? (Hurray for the endemic stratification of the classes!)
- Ebeach, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3@ zenmojo
Dugg you up. Sadly, you're closer to the truth than you think. In todays non-soviet Russia, the rich buy blue police/emergency lights for their vehicles. Google it.
- MtheoryX, on 05/11/2008, -0/+11And now, more and more, private corporations.
- bigj480, on 05/11/2008, -0/+12 All taxes imposed on the oil companies are simply passed on to the consumer. Is it right? Yes, the only reason I say this is he consumer votes with their dollar. People have not cut down on consumption much and the whole supply/demand factor comes into play. Don't like "big oil"? Buy less of it! Every tax is simply passed on to the consumer, if you realized what percentage of your earnings went to the government I doubt you would be so pro-tax. Heres a better idea, end ALL elective programs and then you can cut the taxes that used to be needed to support those programs. The government is the biggest thieve of them all. One of may favorite politician had a plaque on his desk that read: "Don't steal, the government hates competition". Sad but true.
- kHealy, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2He's one of my favorite politicians too! :)
- jhshukla, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1good. because then i can have my flying car sooner.
- dagnome1984, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3The socialized road system has created much of the sprawl we see today. If it wasn't for the huge interstates. Travel from the suburbs to the city for work would be difficult. The interstate highway system encouraged people to move away from the city given how easy travel became.
- fotbr, on 05/11/2008, -7/+16Judging from the roads around here, and the lack of work that goes into doing anything other than putting up road cones and signs saying "work zone, increased fines", I can't say that losing gas tax funding for the roads would make one bit of difference.
- wc3452, on 05/11/2008, -16/+35Had we let the free market function, we'd be screwed even more. Companies tend to form monopolies and collude in the free market, government regulation prevents that.
- schnikies79, on 05/11/2008, -11/+16The government is the biggest monopoly of them all.
- allan17, on 05/11/2008, -5/+10But is the only monopoly that looks out for the people - or is supposed to at least.
- macweirdo42, on 05/11/2008, -4/+10Aye, but it's a monopoly that we, the people, control, if we're smart about it.
- InferiorWang, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2At least that's what they tell us. I can't help but thinking there must be better candidates out there, but look at the crap we're stuck with. The next election is just about going to be giant douche vs turd sandwich all over again.
*braces for buries from obama fans* - macweirdo42, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2If we're smart about it, it'll be us telling them what's what. If everybody thoroughly researched candidates, if everybody took voting seriously, things would be a lot better. We have the power to hold politicians accountable, but we just don't exercise it.
- InferiorWang, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2At least that's what they tell us. I can't help but thinking there must be better candidates out there, but look at the crap we're stuck with. The next election is just about going to be giant douche vs turd sandwich all over again.
- afruff23, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Yeah, we can direct how to use the violence of the State towards our own goals. That's a perfectly moral thing to do....You people disgust me.
- carve, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1No it isn't- there are plenty of governments out there in the world to choose from.
- 1randomguyO8, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5"monopolies and collude in the free market"
Doesn't sound like OPEC and the oil companies at all. I think we need to get oil prices down ASAP. It is causing inflation and is allowing billions upon billions of dollars to go into the hands of countries Saudia Arabia, Russia, Iran, Venuzuela etc. Which I don't think is in the west best interests.
/sarcasm- 1randomguyO8, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Sarcasm for the first sentence only, sorry.
- afruff23, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Did you ever think why refineries haven't been built since the 70's? It's all the legal hurdlles you have to jump through and all the environmental groups you have to battle.
Furthermore, I think oil prices have been artificially low for a long time because the navy provides free protection for ships transporting oil across seas.
- fotbr, on 05/11/2008, -6/+13Yep, breaking up AT&T worked out real well, didn't it? All the "baby bells" created by breaking up AT&T getting bought up by the remnants of AT&T to form the new AT&T monopoly is SOOOO much better than having only AT&T.
Except now AT&T has even more gov't regulation helping it out, preventing competition.- bjornski, on 05/11/2008, -0/+9It was because the deregulation and activist appointees that came later allowed them to merge again.
Mergers are really only a good deal for the shareholders. Everyone else suffers because of lack of competition. - Lynxpro, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7New technology is a competitor to the AT&T system. Putting back together the Bell System isn't a problem in theory but where the FCC/government screwed up was in not preventing the land-line companies from owning mobile phone businesses. They should be in competition with each other. That's why SBC/Cingular should not have been allowed to buy out AT&T Wireless; it should have went to Vodafone.
- thcobbs, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2The main thing that the breakup of AT&T caused was equal access to telcom lines. consolidating while keeping the open access won't hurt as much as closed access and small private companies.
- bjornski, on 05/11/2008, -0/+9It was because the deregulation and activist appointees that came later allowed them to merge again.
- BaseballGuyCAA, on 05/11/2008, -4/+9I assume that you have never taken a basic economics class, and therefore don't know what "decreasing returns to scale" is. Let me teach you.
When smaller companies expand, specialization of labor outweighs bloated bureaucracy, and the company experiences increasing returns to scale.
When companies pass a certain size, which is different in each industry, the drawbacks of corporate bureaucracy outweigh the minute gains of specialization, and the company experiences decreasing returns to scale.
Therefore, because of this, in a TRUE free-market system, a monopoly would not survive. In the long run, it would eventually be taken down by smaller competitors who, because of less middle-management quagmire, can adapt to changing technologies quicker.
To say that government regulation prevents monopolies is to assume that politicians are not corrupt, and that no palms are greased in our government.- wc3452, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7You know what happens when you assume, I am an Econ major with plenty of economics courses under my belt. I disagree wholeheartidly, because once a monopoly exists you have economies of scale production which makes it much harder for other companies to enter the market. Competition decreases and market innovation stagnates. Monopolies overcome decreasing returns to scale because they experience economies of scale and monopoly power. In a market where analysis is done strictly on cost-benefit, you may be correct, but in the real world people are fueled by greed and power.
A true free-market system would not exist, just as a pure socialist system would not exist. There is a reason why laissez-faire economics doesn't work and is hardly practiced today.- thcobbs, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2The only time a Monopoly is BAD is when it actively manipulates the market, creates higher and higher barriers to entry and crushes competition by selling its product at a loss.
A monopoly, in of itself, is not bad. Its what people do to protect that monopoly that causes the problems. - wc3452, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Which is all non-regulated monopolies. Monopolies will never sell a product at a loss because they set their prices above marginal cost. If they can't do that, then they produce a smaller amount or charge a higher price. Like I said, monopolies stifle innovation and competition which is inherently bad for most markets. I agree, monopolies are good in some instance, but in most instances they are bad.
- thcobbs, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2The only time a Monopoly is BAD is when it actively manipulates the market, creates higher and higher barriers to entry and crushes competition by selling its product at a loss.
- kublerross, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3and all economics is theory NOT fact or law
you act like youre quoting the 2nd law of thermodynamics or something.
so what some asshole wrote a book about what usually happens.
if anyone knew anything concrete about economics theyd be ruling the world right now (even more than the people whom already are)
- wc3452, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7You know what happens when you assume, I am an Econ major with plenty of economics courses under my belt. I disagree wholeheartidly, because once a monopoly exists you have economies of scale production which makes it much harder for other companies to enter the market. Competition decreases and market innovation stagnates. Monopolies overcome decreasing returns to scale because they experience economies of scale and monopoly power. In a market where analysis is done strictly on cost-benefit, you may be correct, but in the real world people are fueled by greed and power.
- rdoger6424, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Adam Smith > Free Market
- MellerTime, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Had we let the free market decide, I imagine one of the existing oil companies would have developed an alternative by now to undercut their competitors. As it is, there's too much profit in maintaining the status quo to bother investing in anything new.
- schnikies79, on 05/11/2008, -11/+16The government is the biggest monopoly of them all.
- slothlovechunk, on 05/11/2008, -3/+28Stop taxing gas? WTF? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
The gas tax is the perfect way of collecting money for roads. The people who drive pay for it, and they are the ones who use the roads. Also, if they drive inefficient vehicles or they drive more than others, they pay a larger portion of this tax. How is this not the perfect tax?- doctechnical, on 05/11/2008, -10/+5I wouldn't say it's "perfect" - my mother has a driving radius of maybe 20 miles, and she can't stand highways. So how is that federal tax helping *her*? The guy who does the landscaping: that gasoline's for the mowers and trimmers.
A better way would be a universal EZ-Pass type system, the technology exists. Pay-as-you-go.- publiclurker, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5for one thing, without those highways, your mother would find the remaining roads so clogged as to be unusable. Also, whth that small of a range, she could easily fins a method of transportation that does not use any gas at all.
- Egoist, on 05/11/2008, -0/+15How is a gas tax not a "Pay-as-you-go" system? No gas, no go.
- slothlovechunk, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6I would rather have the inefficient cars taxed more than worry about people not driving on federal highways who pay the tax. The EZ-Pass would tax people who drive a SUV the same as a compact car. The gasoline tax, as it is, is completely proportional to how efficient your car is and how much you drive.
Your grandmother also pays a state gasoline tax, I'm sure, which pays for the roads she drives on. Also, we all benefit from a good federal highway system because of trucking. It is probably better to overlook little problems in the tax than trying to implement some big bureaucratic EZ-Pass system. - mcquitty, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3@sloth
But haven't you heard? With hybrids going on the road, they want to tax them higher, because they wear out the road faster but give less tax through fuel purchases.- thcobbs, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2So, buy a fully electric, CNG, LPG, or methanol powered car.
- mcquitty, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1@thcobbs
Wait until they start taxing the hell out of that, too..
I have heard legislators in some states want to tax on the miles driven in addition to the gasoline tax.
- bigj480, on 05/11/2008, -2/+8 I'm not arguing that you are wrong, but let's see where else that applies. I don't want to pay school taxes, I have not kids and, if I ever do, I would still prefer to keep MY money and send my kid to private school. I don't want to pay for welfare, corporate or otherwise, I have never used it and never will. Come to think of it, I only want to pay taxes for basic needs like infrastructure, emergency services and defense. Everything else can be cut. Why should I pay these taxes? I do not benefit from them.
- slothlovechunk, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6That's a good point.
I do doubt though that all of the money for highways comes from the gas tax. I'm sure that a lot of it also comes from other taxes, especially special projects.
This all works out well, you have most of it paid for by people who use it, and some of it paid for by everyone (as it benefits everyone).
With things like welfare, you can't really tax people on it, they don't have money, and with things like education, you can't really tax people with children more because children are ultimately a good investment for society, assuming they become productive members.
So, yeah, with gas it's a little different. People can probably drive less or car-pool more, so any incentive to get them to do that, while at the same time collecting revenue is probably a good thing.
One problem though is that the tax is not progressive, and it hurts poor people more than rich people. As rich people probably couldn't care less about it, and changing it may actually make a difference in a low-income person's life.- bigj480, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2 As far as gas taxes go, I don't have a real problem with it except that I hate taxes. Yes, you can not tax people on welfare but is it right to tax those not on welfare to pay for it? You could argue that we all benefit from helping others but I would argue that the government should not mandate charity.
Children are a good investment for society? Sure, but public education? Not so much. This is still charity because all are paying for the education of some. Why shouldn't parents make that worthwhile investment? Where do we stop this thinking? Lots of things are worthwhile, should we socialize all(or any) of them? Of coarse not, we would be broke and lose the freedom to chose what we do with our own money.
Progressive taxes, AKA wealth redistribution, is a bad idea. If we continue down that path we will subsidize everything for poor people and over-tax everything for the rich. Thus removing the incentive to work towards ones own well being. It sounds like I'm saying it's a slippery slope but what I mean to say is that I, nor anyone, owe poor people anything. By that same token, we deserve nothing but what we earn.
Can being poor be hard and put you at a disadvantage? Sure, I grew up fairly poor, I know how hard it can be. That said, growing dependent on others only makes matters worse. I do give money to charity, if I paid less taxes I would give more. This is not the responsibility of government and they are horrible at it. - slothlovechunk, on 05/11/2008, -1/+21. If the government doesn't mandate charity, no one else will. The problem is too big for any organization or individual to take on. This should obviously be done in a smart way. In a way that gives people incentives to work very hard at finding a job and improve their situation.
2. If you choose not to have kids, that is your own reward, you don't have to pay for them. You have much more disposable income than someone who did choose to have children. However, the children are the future of society. It is in everyone's best interest to make sure that they all are educated and given opportunities to succeed. These interests extend to people without any children, because just like everyone else, they benefit from an educated, highly-skilled populace. There is no reason why everyone should not have to pay for developing this kind of society, as everyone benefits from it. Parents pay for the bulk of raising their children. If we made public education a choice and not a socialized part of the government, the education level of our populace would decline and the entire economy would suffer. That would be a very bad decision. We do not want to force parents to choose between sending their kids to school and feeding their children.
3. Progressive taxes are not wealth redistribution. They account for the FACT, THE ABSOLUTE FACT, that a dollar is worth more to someone who makes less than someone who makes more. Taxes like the gas tax are in-fact regressive, as they are not even proportional, assuming a rich person and a poor person drive a similar amount. Even a proportional tax does not account fully for this disparity in worth of a dollar. The fact is, the more dollars you make, the less they are worth to you. A progressive tax attempts to approximate this worth, not the face value.
As far as 'deserving' only what we 'earn.' The biggest indicator of whether or not someone will be wealthy is how wealthy their parents are. Also, a good amount of luck is involved, as far as opportunity goes and even genetically. Should stupid people starve to death? Beyond this, all americans are rich by the standards of the world, and this is really because we are all rich. That is, Warren Buffet would never be Warren Buffet if he grew up in Zaire. Our government, our country, all of the people around us are what allow us to be successful. We probably only really 'earn' a very small proportion of what we receive if we put things into this global perspective. The point is, there is nothing wrong with wealth redistribution as long as it maintains incentives for people to continue working hard.
4. I disagree about the government being horrible at charity. The government does more good for poor people than any other charitable entity. They have more money at their disposal and they have the power to effect real change. Charities can help on a case-by-case basis, the government can alter the entire social structure. Things like the EIC, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., they all make a big difference and really improve the economy as a whole. - MellerTime, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Lots of our state's road-work funds come from property taxes on vehicles. Basically works out to the same thing as the gas tax - those who use the roads pay for them.
As for slothlovechunk's argument that children are the future and it's in everyone's best interest to educate them, that's 100% true. My problem with funding public education is that I don't see the money I'm spending being spent wisely, which makes me bitter.
I would much rather have some sort of option (tax credit, whatever) to be able to take that money and apply it to an education program (like a private school) that I personally think works better for my child (assuming I had any). Until we get school vouchers, I will continue to rail against public education because I think it's so utterly broken as to be beyond repair. Again, let the free market work things out and we'll be all the better for it. - bigj480, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1@ slothlovechunk
#1"If the government doesn't mandate charity, no one else will."
Exactly! What is the difference between mandated charity and theft? It goes to what a few bureaucrats deem worthy? Sorry, it's theft and it's immoral. There is more than one charity that I give to, so no ONE charity or person has to take on all of the problems. Besides, you are arguing that one of the most inefficient forms of charity be used.
#2 "If you choose not to have kids, that is your own reward, you don't have to pay for them."
Reward? No, choice. Now, if someone else does have a kid, it is my PUNISHMENT to have to pay for their education (among other things)? No, it's not right.
"There is no reason why everyone should not have to pay for developing this kind of society, as everyone benefits from it."
Yes there is, because not everyone will agree with you claim that they will benefit. Stop looking for reasons people without kids shouldn't pay, tell me why it is not the parents responsibility. Why not pay for EVERY kid to go to collage? Why not pay for them to have internet access at home, or a proper diet, or decent cloths, or health care, or ANYTHING? Because it is not my responsibility or the gov's responsibility to force me to do so.
#3 So this is an attempt to make it easier on the poor by making the rich pay more taxes? I believe in a flat percentage, if we must have income tax. Make 10X as much? Pay 10X as much. THAT is fair. Again, this is mandated charity, take more from the rich and less from the poor and spend it on programs that tend to only benefit the poor. Rich people also have the right to fair treatment, not to have money stolen in the name of charity. Are all rich people great people that deserve what they got? NO, but that does not give ANYONE the right to take what they have. The same rule applies to the poor, many work hard just to scrape by. I have sympathy for them, I am not rich, I give to charity. I EARN my money and it is not the governments to tell me what to do with it. You also contradict yourself by admitting that this is a form of wealth redistribution. It is wrong because IT IS THEFT. I know that we have it good where I live when compared to some other nations. Would that make it right for the government to start taxing ALL Americans more and give that money to third world nations? NO!
#4 "I disagree about the government being horrible at charity. The government does more good for poor people than any other charitable entity. They have more money at their disposal and they have the power to effect real change."
The only reason they are even slightly effective is because the have the authority to STEAL money rather than convince you of their cause and ability. Here is a hypothetical question or you. The US gov set up a voluntary charity that citizens could give money to in order to help the needy in America. Spending would be handled by the same people who handle our budget now. Would you stop giving to private charities to give that money to the gov? If so, I'm wasting my time. They would waste much of it. This provesm that they are ineffective as a charity.
- bigj480, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2 As far as gas taxes go, I don't have a real problem with it except that I hate taxes. Yes, you can not tax people on welfare but is it right to tax those not on welfare to pay for it? You could argue that we all benefit from helping others but I would argue that the government should not mandate charity.
- InferiorWang, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1There's a dirty little secret about private schools. Many of them are loaded with people who got kicked out of public schools and needed to go *somewhere.* I've heard more horror stories from my friends who went to private school than I could tell about my crappy under-funded public school.
- slothlovechunk, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6That's a good point.
- SillyRabbits, on 05/11/2008, -1/+12It was a great tax until some municipalities started using those funds to subsidize public transport, then parks, then schools, and who knows what else. Fortunately, some states still only use that money solely for road maintenance and improvement (it's the reason why Georgia has nice roads - they can't spend the money on anything else).
- slothlovechunk, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7I think it's excellent if they subsidize public transport with it.
- bjornski, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Less wear-and-tear on the roads, and less congestion.
It's a win-win situation. - SillyRabbits, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5The problem is that public transport is horribly expensive and if they are subsidized they then have no incentive to be self-supporting. It starts off by small levels of funding and then increases to be a major expense as the transport system expands. Before long their isn't enough money to do all the necessary road maintenance and repairs. In the end you have a very expensive public transport system that is completely inefficient and a huge money pit coupled with a deteriorating road/bridge infrastructure. The precise problem we have in some cities today. I'm not arguing there is never a reason to subsidize public transport, it's just too easy to hide the magnitude of that cost when you start siphoning it off the gas revenues - and puts the road infrastructure at risk.
- MellerTime, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Also, for most of the south, everything is far too suburbanized. Why build in a central location (like, say, a city) when you can build 10 miles outside the city for 1/4 the land cost. As a result, public transportation has to cover an immense amount of ground, and it's very difficult to do efficiently.
Public transit (metro lines more so than buses) doesn't seem to fit the current pattern of society anymore. Society has changed its living and travel patterns and public transit is no longer able to keep up with their needs in any efficient manner. If we're going to siphon off gas tax money to subsidize something, let's use it to subsidize alternative fuel or something - anything that will actually benefit 90% of our citizens, instead of the 2% that actually use our public transit system.
- bjornski, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Less wear-and-tear on the roads, and less congestion.
- MellerTime, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Have you been on I-85 between Atlanta and the SC line lately? They could sure use some of your fabled gas tax money on that baby...
- swordedge, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yes and it is in better shape than many highways around the country.
- slothlovechunk, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7I think it's excellent if they subsidize public transport with it.
- doctechnical, on 05/11/2008, -10/+5I wouldn't say it's "perfect" - my mother has a driving radius of maybe 20 miles, and she can't stand highways. So how is that federal tax helping *her*? The guy who does the landscaping: that gasoline's for the mowers and trimmers.
- HotSaucePanCake, on 05/11/2008, -10/+8Gas should be free!
- wc3452, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6So should clean water, but hey what are you gonna do about it.
- marx2k, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7Why?
- rficwizard, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Excellent sarcasm. It always makes me laugh (and want to cry) when people say that someone else should produce something and then have it taken away. You have NO right to the product of someone else's labor. If you want something that someone else has produced, you need to negotiate with them to exchange something that you have (rightfully) produced or acquired. Anything else is theft. Oil doesn't just magically turn into gasoline and appear at the end of a nozzle. There is a huge infrastructure that required massive investment and continuous maintenance required to get the oil from the ground, turn it into gasoline, and get it to your neighborhood. The companies don't do that work for charity, they do it to put food on the table for themselves, their employees, and their investors (which includes many of us responsible enough to be saving for the future).
- jonnyboy1544, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Is that you Chavez?
- swordedge, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1stop eating baked beans, I don't want to smell your free gas!!!!!!
- Amazetbm, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1Stop taxing gas?!? So you have no problem riding on ***** roads, huh?
- swordedge, on 05/11/2008, -4/+45fine, stop taxing gas, also stop bitching about road conditions. Gas taxes is what pays for those roads.
- fusen, on 05/11/2008, -19/+46You are screwed either way to be fair, if you tax the oil companies they will simply raise the cost of oil so they can get more money as they'll see it as lost profit, if you don't tax them then they will get away with the billions they have earned and raise the cost of oil so they can get more money...
At the end of the day, they will keep raising the cost of oil as people are still buying at the pumps even with today's prices. They will simply keep raising the cost till they run out of oil.
When Britain talked about the idea of a windfall tax on BP, they simply said "if you tax our earnings we will move abroad". Oil companies are evil and are simply out their to get as much money as possible. Only solution - stop buying their product.- mciampa1214, on 05/11/2008, -4/+41Evil != simply out there to make money. It's a business not a charity.
- NotOptium, on 05/11/2008, -11/+3That's true. Evil != Money.
Money = All Evil * All Evil
Whoever gets it gets a cookie.- phort99, on 05/11/2008, -1/+13No, you fail at basic algebra. Money is the root of all evil, or stated differently, Money = √(All Evil), therefore Money² = All Evil.
- tunapez, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Then Time must be also evil, for Time=Money. What a conundrum to be surrounded by all this evil. Change is inevitable, which direction does ankle-biting and fractioning into camps(Rep/Dem) take us? Take personal responsibility and vote w/ your ballot and your $$$. VOTE OUT THE INCUMBENTS!!!
(not talking directly to phort99, I just like your mad math skilz) - mcquitty, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3I thought the statement was "The love of money is the root of all evil"?
- NotOptium, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Damnit. I should have never even tried.
- tunapez, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Then Time must be also evil, for Time=Money. What a conundrum to be surrounded by all this evil. Change is inevitable, which direction does ankle-biting and fractioning into camps(Rep/Dem) take us? Take personal responsibility and vote w/ your ballot and your $$$. VOTE OUT THE INCUMBENTS!!!
- phort99, on 05/11/2008, -1/+13No, you fail at basic algebra. Money is the root of all evil, or stated differently, Money = √(All Evil), therefore Money² = All Evil.
- ZenMojo, on 05/11/2008, -8/+2Evil = simply out there to make money at detriment to others. So, yeah, evil.
- doctechnical, on 05/11/2008, -3/+11I'm missing the part where my having a full tank of gas is a detriment to others.
This is just class envy ***** - so and so is making a lot of money and I'm not, it's not fair! WAA! MOMMY! Make him stop making profits!
- doctechnical, on 05/11/2008, -3/+11I'm missing the part where my having a full tank of gas is a detriment to others.
- fooljoe, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0Evil == politicians who take said money in exchange for providing continuing subsidies and looking the other way when oil companies eliminate the competition, e.g. Chevron/Texaco buying NiMH battery patents and Standard Oil/GM buying up electric trolley cars.
- NotOptium, on 05/11/2008, -11/+3That's true. Evil != Money.
- gquaglia, on 05/11/2008, -2/+26"Only solution - stop buying their product."
Let us know how that works out.- macweirdo42, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7You got a better solution? Accept it - this is no temporary flux, this is the proverbial it. Oil's days are numbered whether we like it or not, so we better damn well be coming up with a backup plan.
- Lynxpro, on 05/11/2008, -1/+11*****. There's plenty of oil left to be discovered/revealed. The oil industry profits off this scam of scarcity. The Falkland Islands oil hasn't been tapped, Canada's oil production keeps increasing, and there's more oil underneath North Dakota than Saudi Arabia.
- macweirdo42, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Do you know why that oil hasn't been tapped? Because it's only just recently, with oil shooting up to $100 a barrel, that it's become profitable to tap those sources. It's a lot more expensive to get that oil, which means that prices are sure as hell not coming down anytime soon.
- Lynxpro, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4No, it is because labor costs are higher in the US for oil production versus Middle Eastern oil.
- frsrblch, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Don't know about North Dakota, but the oil in Alberta is mostly in the form of oilsand, which is WAY more expensive to extract and turn into the synthetic crude that can be sold.
- mciampa1214, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4^a lot of these methods were 'too expensive' when oil was back at $40, which is what most of the calculations are based on... Now that it's almost triple that the oil companies are sure as hell going to start throwing money at development.
- doctechnical, on 05/11/2008, -2/+16Nuclear was a really nice option until the hippies decided it was going to China Syndrome the world away. Drilling in Alaska or off-shore would increase domestic supplies, but those damned hippies again! And no one wants a refinery in their back yard... well, enjoy your $10/gal gas, folks.
- gquaglia, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5***** Hippies! Cartman is right. Someone get the hippie drill ready.
- macweirdo42, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Oil companies have no desire to build more refineries. They aren't even running at full capacity - in fact, plans to make major expansions to refineries over the next couple of years were canceled because they were deemed unnecessary. As for ANWR, that's another red herring - it isn't going to magically save the oil market. Nuclear is our best option.
- mciampa1214, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Yeah oil's days are numbered... in the tens of thousands. No way in hell it's going anywhere too fast.
- Lynxpro, on 05/11/2008, -1/+11*****. There's plenty of oil left to be discovered/revealed. The oil industry profits off this scam of scarcity. The Falkland Islands oil hasn't been tapped, Canada's oil production keeps increasing, and there's more oil underneath North Dakota than Saudi Arabia.
- bjornski, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8Exactly. They've got the nation by the balls and they know it.
Isn't being able to charge "what the market will bear" awesome? I mean, it's sucking money out of every other sector of the economy, but hey! It's awesome! Look at those profits! Stop using their product? JUST TRY!
When a country can be basically "held hostage" on a MANDATORY product, it's time to change the business model.- doctechnical, on 05/11/2008, -1/+11Do you know that the oil companies are making about the same profit per dollar sold that they did a couple years ago? The reason they've making so much money is because THEY'RE SELLING SO MUCH PRODUCT, not because they're gouging people. The big increases in consumption are coming from China and India, whose people are now close to getting a lifestyle like the kind you've enjoyed all your life, car, internet, video games and all.
You blame the oil companies because China wants to have a good time?
You've got bigger things to worry about than how much the oil companies are making: there's a projecting population increase of 3+billion people by 2050. And they're going to want oil, and internet, and beef, and Wii, too. We're in for interesting times. - marx2k, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Yes, you are correct. Let's change the business model. Start at the local level and urge your local legislators and city planners to build a better, more efficient infrastructure. More public transport, more emphasis on local foods, build up and not out, emphasize denser inner cities with open planning for urban spaces, etc. You're "held hostage" due to poor infrastructure planning based on faulty notions of perpetual cheap fuel.
- doctechnical, on 05/11/2008, -1/+11Do you know that the oil companies are making about the same profit per dollar sold that they did a couple years ago? The reason they've making so much money is because THEY'RE SELLING SO MUCH PRODUCT, not because they're gouging people. The big increases in consumption are coming from China and India, whose people are now close to getting a lifestyle like the kind you've enjoyed all your life, car, internet, video games and all.
- macweirdo42, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7You got a better solution? Accept it - this is no temporary flux, this is the proverbial it. Oil's days are numbered whether we like it or not, so we better damn well be coming up with a backup plan.
- SilverBlade2k, on 05/11/2008, -2/+15Unfortunately, the 'only solution' (stop buying oil) is impossible. Try hauling 4 bags of groceries on a bike, try riding a bike in the winter when it is -35C outside, try hauling anything besides yourself on a bike. All impossible.
- marx2k, on 05/11/2008, -5/+6"Try hauling 4 bags of groceries on a bike"
Bookbag + basket + a few trips or take a friend.
"try riding a bike in the winter when it is -35C outside"
Obviously most of America does not have this issue. However, I do ride a bike in Wisconsin in the winter when it's -20F outside. A few layers and proper planning.
"try hauling anything besides yourself on a bike."
Yes, when you need to haul something, a vehicle is probably your best bet. And at that point, a vehicle is used as a utility. However, looking at most non-commercial vehicles on the road, the only thing those vehicles are hauling are the single passenger.
Argument = nullified.- gryphon50, on 05/11/2008, -1/+12you clearly are a teenager just hauling yourself around. Good for you. But a bicycle is not going to work for a woman with two kids and a ton of groceries. For you to act like a bicycle is the solution is completely ridiculous.
- marx2k, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5I'm 32 and my job is 18 miles away. The bicycle is the solution for me. Obviously it's not the solution for everyone, but it's a solution for a hell of a lot more people than are currently taking advantage of it. By the way, I've seen lots of women with two kids with tons of groceries making the trip by bike. Each kid has a bicycle and the woman has a bicycle with a trailer in which the groceries go.
- ell0bo, on 05/11/2008, -0/+118 miles, in the snow i presume, at temps that can easily cause frostbite (-20), requiring all those extra clothes to stay warm, so weighing you down, and moving so adding to the wind chill factor. You my friend are either full of ***** or should be kicking ass doing competitive bike riding.
- marx2k, on 05/12/2008, -2/+0thermal shirt, 2 t-shirts, sweater, heavy overcoat. Eskimo hat, ski goggles, ski mask, thermal pants, jeans, snow boots, heavy gloves. It's not as hard as you think once you're doing it. I sometimes bike in the snow but last year we got 100"+. When there's a lot of snow on the ground I don't bike. It's hard enough to walk through. I do end up taking the bus though. And it's not always -20 but reaches -20 sometimes overnight for a week or two here and there. But again, this is the worst case scenario. I am just saying it's not impossible or even that hard to do. I'm just tired of people crying me a river when they talk about how their job is 10 miles away and if they bike there they might smell.
The only change I make with my biking is in the winter I switch to a single speed because when it's really cold, the rear cog on my 21 speed loses its grip or something and slips which makes for an irritating ride.
I ended up not using my car at all the winter before last and the air in two of my tires went out and deformed my tires.
By the way, what sort of competitive biking requires you to bike through extreme cold to win? :)
- gryphon50, on 05/11/2008, -1/+12you clearly are a teenager just hauling yourself around. Good for you. But a bicycle is not going to work for a woman with two kids and a ton of groceries. For you to act like a bicycle is the solution is completely ridiculous.
- CanIGetAWitness, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1You are not looking past your nose. "Stop buying the product" doesn't mean we all go back to horse and buggy, how about finding a different (most importantly, implementing it) to get our groceries home?
- osko2052, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I tried to ride my bike to work for several months. I finally decided to quit for safety reasons. I came very close to getting hit by cars who did not see me.
- marx2k, on 05/11/2008, -5/+6"Try hauling 4 bags of groceries on a bike"
- BesideYouInTime, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7You simply cannot do without oil, unless you live off the land in the middle of nowhere. Every product in every store utilizes oil somhow. Your groceries were grown via petrol-derived fertilizers, trucked or flown to the store using oil, and the plastic wrap around it was derived from oil too.
- marx2k, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Of course, you can minimize the impact by buying local, organic produce. And before you say that's not always possible, I say yes... it usually is. Farmers markets being a perfect example.
- Laughsatyou, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2or *gasp* grow your own food, like people have been doing for awhile.
- marx2k, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Of course, you can minimize the impact by buying local, organic produce. And before you say that's not always possible, I say yes... it usually is. Farmers markets being a perfect example.
- ZenMojo, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Consolidation FTL. This is what happens when you privatize your finite natural resources and necessities. Oil, water, at some point the only solution is to switch to renewable resources so we can shake the yoke.
- scamper22, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1yes I too am evil for I would also contemplate changing my jurisdiction of the government raised my taxes too high.
- sassip, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1"He who's got the gold makes the rules."
- BTraina, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1"if you tax the oil companies they will simply raise the cost of oil so they can get more money as they'll see it as lost profit, if you don't tax them then they will get away with the billions they have earned and raise the cost of oil so they can get more money..."
that is true and false. It is true that the prices will raise, however the prices wont raise by the amount it is taxed. Taxing will drive a wedge between what the consumer pays and what the supplier pays. So, in the end, the benefit of taxing will not all be directed towards the consumer.
- mciampa1214, on 05/11/2008, -4/+41Evil != simply out there to make money. It's a business not a charity.
- dupswapdrop, on 05/11/2008, -31/+28nationalize them and send the CEO's to gitmo!
- jamesmon01, on 05/11/2008, -9/+24Yes, because the government can solve the problem! Has the government EVER reduced inefficiency? Have you ever dealt with a government agency that didnt just ***** you off with their incompetence?
- fotbr, on 05/11/2008, -3/+22You're arguing with people that think that any profit is bad. They don't care about how much worse it would be if things were government-run, they just don't want anyone making any profit.
- Lynxpro, on 05/11/2008, -9/+3Yes...government has. Big business has not worked as efficiently as it did when the government controlled all the major aspects of the economy during WWI. In effect, the US was a fascist - excuse me, corporatist - economic system during WWI.
- marx2k, on 05/11/2008, -0/+9Trust me, Government does not need to get any bigger.
- ZenMojo, on 05/11/2008, -9/+2That's not the question. Inefficiency is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. The question is, has government ever created a more level marketplace? Yes. Has government ever protected consumers and workers from exploitation by businesses? Yes. Has government ever increased the safety of consumers AGAINST the machinations of business? Yes. Accountability sacrifices efficiency as a rule, but you know what you get instead? Accountability.
- Corrosionx, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Accountability would be the government needs to do a good job or I don't pay for them anymore. But they have men with guns to come get me if I try that.
UL (a private company) has made me a lot safer than any government bureaucracy ever did.
Government is just men and women doing business at the barrel of a gun. They can't even sell their services on a voluntary basis and you think they will solve our problems? I don't want your crappy force-fed one-size-fits-all solutions and I shouldn't be threatened with violence because I don't want the same thing as you.
- Corrosionx, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Accountability would be the government needs to do a good job or I don't pay for them anymore. But they have men with guns to come get me if I try that.
- doctechnical, on 05/11/2008, -3/+17Because that's worked so well in the past, comrade.
- ordig, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4In Venezuela, a gallon of gas cost 20 cents. just sayin'
- geddon, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1With an additional $9 Billion / year in revenue for the state...
http://digg.com/world_news/Venezuela_to_Tax_Foreig ...
- geddon, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1With an additional $9 Billion / year in revenue for the state...
- ordig, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4In Venezuela, a gallon of gas cost 20 cents. just sayin'
- pyronik, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3read "red bread" or "behind the urals" and tell me thats a great system of government.
learn how ***** communism is by taking a class on it taught by pro-communist
learn both sides of a system and how they work theoretically as well as empirically. - gtluke, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4GTFO commie
- geddon, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Regan and Thatcher convinced us that it would be in our best interests to sell off our assets to the highest bidder. The fact that everything costs 300 times more than it used to is lost on all of us working two jobs or 60 - 80 hour work weeks just to get by. We no longer trust a government that merely handles the paperwork for the Corporations. Instead, we trust the Corporations themselves to provide, or imprison us if we fail to pay.
- Corrosionx, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2That's not what they did, they gave sweetheart deals to their corporate friends, instead of marketizing and allowing competition in those markets. You've been had.
- jamesmon01, on 05/11/2008, -9/+24Yes, because the government can solve the problem! Has the government EVER reduced inefficiency? Have you ever dealt with a government agency that didnt just ***** you off with their incompetence?
- sgiffy, on 05/11/2008, -8/+53Raw profits are irrelevant, what is important is profit margin. Oil companies are only slightly above average in that regard. a 10% to the average of almost 9%.
We have plenty of money to begin subsidizing and researching alternative fuels. We just need to do it.- jamesmon01, on 05/11/2008, -4/+25EXACTLY!!! Thank you. I vomit a little every time i hear some dipsh** on the TV talk about excessive profits in terms of a dollar figure. 9.9 billion on sales of 100 billion is NOT EXCESSIVE. and its not a windfall. And for god's sake, everyone with a pension plan or 401K owns part of these oil companies, so quit equating Exxon/Mobil to one guy.
- Lonyo, on 05/11/2008, -1/+9You forgot the other element, don't just encourage alternative fuels, discourage current fuels (and not by taxing the oil companies).
If oil companies see market reason to spend their huge profits on alternative fuels, they will. The longer they see oil as hugely profitable for them due to people consuming it in ever increasing amounts, the longer they will keep pushing oil as a solution.
You can be sure that they ARE thinking about alternative energy, but there is no incentive for them to invest as much in it. If governments want to stop oil companies having huge profits through oil, stop making it such an attractive fuel.- MellerTime, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I think eliminating their subsidies is probably the best (not to mention easiest) way for the government to encourage that kind of transition. In essence, return control of the industry to the free market that originally governed it. Had we not started subsidizing in the first place, it's likely that at least one of the oil companies would have actually tried to *gasp* innovate by now in order to get a leg up on their competitors.
- Spektr4, on 05/11/2008, -11/+10Actually, the dollar figure does matter. Why should their profits rise in relation to raw material costs? How often does that happen in other industries? Consider, when gas cost $1.00 wholesale, a ten percent profit would make it $1.10. But when gas cost $2.00 wholesale, the oil companies would raise the price to $2.20 to keep the same margin--only now their profit doubled. Wholesale price rises to $3.00, so they charge $3.30--again, same profit margin, triple their earlier profits.
But why not charge $3.10? The dollar figure of their profits would remain constant, but the margin would shrink. But it should shrink under those conditions. For the margin to remain constant, they're actually jacking up prices in proportion to the increasing cost of crude.
Plus, oil is a commodity--why not compare like with like? 10% profit is pretty high for a commodity.- diggrnumber1, on 05/11/2008, -3/+7"Why should their profits rise in relation to raw material costs?"
Fail. The cost of raw material has not risen. Exxon is an OIL company, which means they actually drill for the oil and operate refineries. It doesn't cost them any more now to get the oil out of the ground than it did a few years ago. They don't buy the oil - they drill for it themselves. - Egoist, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8Oil companies don't raise prices nor select the profit margin that they make. They are tied to whatever price oil has in the futures market, so if they spend $100B doing oil explorations and oil is at a price that they make $109B a year, that's a 9% profit. If oil falls in price, as it did in the 90s, they take a bath and lose money.
Your solution is flawed because your understand of how the markets work is flawed. - mordero, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Because a business isnt about the absolute dollar figure, its about the percent. If you dont get a good rate of return on an investment, its not worth it. Any good business would do the same if they had an increase in the cost of raw materials. Charging $3.10 a gallon that cost them $3.00 would be a horrible, horrible return and you'd ***** off a lot of investors.
There is also the fact that a good portion of the price of gas is taxes and not the oil companies trying to price gouge. - Troy64, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Profit margin is why people invest in a companies not profit dollars. When people invest they are looking for the greatest return on investment and weighing that against the risk. If I invest a dollar how much am I going to make and what are my odds of losing money. In you example I went from making 10% to making 3.3% at that point most investors would find another company to invest in. After all you can get that kind of a return by putting you money in CDs.
- junyamint, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Well I sort of agree with you but if your company was making 3.3% profit instead of 10% profit by keeping the price of their product down consumers would buy from you. Therefore the people making the 10% profit would have to bring it down.
The problem is price setting by the oil companies!- Troy64, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3There are a lot of companies outside of the oil industry that make 10% profit margins, if the oil company I invested in drops its margins to 3.3% I sell my investment, take my loss an invest my remaining money in something that has a better return.
- junyamint, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Well I sort of agree with you but if your company was making 3.3% profit instead of 10% profit by keeping the price of their product down consumers would buy from you. Therefore the people making the 10% profit would have to bring it down.
- bigj480, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3 I assume that it's a risk/profit potential ratio that they try to keep constant. They have to take a finite amount of investment dollars and produce a certain profit percentage. If they didn't, profits would go down and stock would lose value. It happens in ALL industries all of the time, companies don't just eat the extra cost of raw materials, believe me. Have you noticed that many products have increased in price as a result of gas prices? These costs are even less related to the final product than raw material and it still gets passed on to the consumer. Now, if you hate profit, I suggest you move to one of the many great communist countries that exist around the world.
- diggrnumber1, on 05/11/2008, -3/+7"Why should their profits rise in relation to raw material costs?"
- nukethewhales, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7Its not about the amount of money they are making its that while prices are going up, they are raking in record profits year after year. So unless I'm missing something here, that means that rather than simply raising the prices to match the cost, they are raising the prices even more.
Also, the article states that they're not using the money to look for more oil, they're using it to buyback shares and maximize their profits.- pyronik, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3nukethewhales, their operating profit margin percentage (net profits/revenue) from 2007-2008 only went up 2.8% meaning that they really werent dipping into your pocket, instead increased global demand is to blame driving prices up
- mcquitty, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3What is wrong with buying back shares? Companies want a sustainable business model. If you want to lower prices, you have the choice. Reduce demand or increase production out of proportion with demand.
The reason they are making more money? The are extracting more oil. - Thud, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Are you also upset about the windfall tax revenues that the government is getting? Taxes account for a much larger portion of fuel costs vs. the profit of the oil companies.
- novacham, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3The falling dollar has everything to do with gas prices. A quick example:
If I produce a barrel of oil for $1 and sell it for $1.10, my profit margin is 10%. If I produce a barrel of oil for $2 and sell it for $2.20 the next year, my profit margin is still 10%, but I just made record profits.
This is what has happened to the oil companies. Their costs are going up, so they're passing it on to the consumer (like any business does). Only the media needs a bad guy, and Oil companies make awesome targets for sensationalized headlines.
- SillyRabbits, on 05/11/2008, -0/+11I take it as a failing of the school systems. Companies are there to do one thing - make a profit. Taxing them is not free money. Any tax on them is passed straight through to the consumer. The company must have a minimum level of return on investment to make it worth their time, and oil companies are only making a standard rate of return. If they can't get that, they might as well liquidate and buy bonds and CD without the risk of a loss. It is a great trick the politicians have learned by calling it a "tax on greedy corporations". You can actually get people to fight for what ends up being a tax they pay for themselves. I guess the only bright spot is that everybody ends up paying for it, instead of just targeting it at higher income earners.
- mordero, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Thats one mistake everyone makes (but there rest of your post is spot on):
Taxes on a business are split between the business and the consumer equally. The increase in tax, will increase the price to the consumer, which will decrease the quantity purchased, which decreases money earned by the company.
Oh, sweet, wikipedia has a nice graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_taxes_and_s ...- pyronik, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4mordero, i am pretty sure that depends on the elasticity of demand, a fairly inelastic demand curve will allow the oil companies to raise prices with much less impact on demand than they receive from benefit from raising prices. I think the scenerio you are talking about is when the elasticity of demand is equal to 0 in which case it would be passed along evenly. This, I believe, would not be the scenario for a substance like oil.
- mordero, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I was thinking about that right after I posted but you cant edit if you leave the page. :(
Thanks for pointing that out, though. :)
- mordero, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I was thinking about that right after I posted but you cant edit if you leave the page. :(
- pyronik, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4mordero, i am pretty sure that depends on the elasticity of demand, a fairly inelastic demand curve will allow the oil companies to raise prices with much less impact on demand than they receive from benefit from raising prices. I think the scenerio you are talking about is when the elasticity of demand is equal to 0 in which case it would be passed along evenly. This, I believe, would not be the scenario for a substance like oil.
- mordero, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Thats one mistake everyone makes (but there rest of your post is spot on):
- dildoolielly, on 05/11/2008, -22/+44$120 billion profit for the one per centers in 2007?!
Annual Cost of Improving the World
• $19 billion: Eliminates starvation and malnutrition globally.
• $12 billion: Provides education for every kid on earth.
• $15 billion: Provides access to water and sanitation.
• $23 billion: Reverses the spread of AIDS and Malaria
• $522 billion: U.S. Military budget this year.
• $484 billion: Cost of Iraq War thus far.
Sources: World Bank, National Priorities Project- B1663r, on 05/11/2008, -18/+22Im a three percenter. I didn't benefit from the Bush tax cuts. So why does Obama want to double my taxes?
- LogicalWisdom, on 05/11/2008, -13/+23Because Obama hates your freedom :), in all seriousness increased taxes hurts everyone but the mass of slobs, bums, and incompetents. They cheer it on because they will benefit for doing nothing, they somehow believe they are right because there are more of them. Grab a chair, sit back and watch the race to the bottom...
- tcpip4lyfe, on 05/11/2008, -5/+2Whoops wrong arrow. Someone digg him up please.
- Tuto, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2Nice characterization douche bag. I just cant stand snobs that think they are better than the rest of us. People at the bottom are not happy about taxes like these and I doubt they even care because they have other things to worry about.
- dildoolielly, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5-----------increased taxes hurts everyone but the mass of slobs, bums, and incompetents. They cheer it on because they will benefit for doing nothing,-------------
Yeah, right. "Transients, slobs and Bums" are why we have record deficits and we're spending 5k a second in Iraq.
Your rant is just some more posturing by an egotistical right-wing twit who thinks he's got it all figured out, but fails to see the own limits of his average intellect, and can only compensate for his own insecurity by claiming that all those who disagree with him are lazy bastards without jobs.
Someone who get their news and opinions from a whacked out drug addict on the radio, or a dildo using pervert and his screeching she-male cohort on FOX.
Keep telling yourself your own version of history, Corky. Because why would you want the truth? You can't handle the truth. Obviously.- LogicalWisdom, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1Funny, you call me names, pathetically attempt to insult my intelligence, and claim I gather information via the propaganda machine. Please tell me how exactly you contribute to society. I put myself through college by working in a factory with the very lazy slobs I speak of, the family I grew up in which I've now disowned is my lower middle class background. I know exactly what these people are like, I on the other hand am now an accomplished software development manager. I'm also working with a like minded group of individuals to create a prototype and soon a product to launch my own company. I have earned every right to look down on those in society that slide through life grabbing the low hanging fruit and bitching when the gravy train stops.
Perhaps if you spent more time being productive (working smarter not harder) and less time claiming to know what others are thinking you too would realize that the majority of people out there need to stop bitching and do something with their lives.
Also what makes you think I support the war and the ridiculous empire building that's being done under the lie of "spreading democracy"? I would love nothing more than to pull all of our military back home and have it focus only on national defense at a fraction of the size and cost of the current military.
And if you want to know the real truth, the neocons (republicans in name only) and the democrats are so similar that voting either one in will just get you more of the same, the supposed differences are only there to keep you distracted from what's really going on... - Tuto, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Funny how even with all the life experience you claim to have you have learned very little about life and people in general. Its pathetic.
- LogicalWisdom, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1Funny, you call me names, pathetically attempt to insult my intelligence, and claim I gather information via the propaganda machine. Please tell me how exactly you contribute to society. I put myself through college by working in a factory with the very lazy slobs I speak of, the family I grew up in which I've now disowned is my lower middle class background. I know exactly what these people are like, I on the other hand am now an accomplished software development manager. I'm also working with a like minded group of individuals to create a prototype and soon a product to launch my own company. I have earned every right to look down on those in society that slide through life grabbing the low hanging fruit and bitching when the gravy train stops.
- dildoolielly, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4----------I put myself through college by working in a factory with the very lazy slobs I speak of, the family I grew up in which I've now disowned is my lower middle class background. I know exactly what these people are like, I on the other hand am now an accomplished software development manager.-----------
Buddy, I'm glad, really glad that you are not yet affected by the realities of the New economy. It's good to know that someone is doing alright, though a little discouraging how smug so many of them are. But the truth, the verifiable with your senses truth, the truth you just don't want to hear, is that there are lots and lots of people struggling, not because they're lazy, not because they're uneducated, but simply there are just not enough high paying jobs goig around for families to face the brave new world of million dollor homes and, overpriced educations, skyrocketing medical expenses and goods and services in a state of long term inflationary creep.
My story is the story of nearly everyone I know who's lost their job in recent years. I can only find a new job if I settle downward on my salary; it's getting genuinely hard to imagine how we're going to get our kid through school, and hard to imagine that whatever education she get's will be worth the job market of deflated expectations that will await her since she won't go to a top of the line school.
We live in a plutocracy. Merit and experience are useless. The public's dreams are popcorn fed with idolatry; athletes with ridiculous salaries lure kids into believing impossible live can be gotten easily,singers and musicians have no work and can only hope to get picked in a stupid tv roman circus lottery, writers had better be gorgeous and wealthy and ready to crank out crapola to get published and hard working, inventive scientists increasingly find the only work out there involves cranking out worthless trash for corporate propaganda,
Buddy, you can sit there thinking all is well; doesn't affect you. I know the steamroller just hasn't found you yet. Give it time, The system has no place for any but the profoundly corrupt and the self serving wealthy. If you haven't noticed reality, you are might be one of these, but since I encounter you on these boards you are more likely one of the brainwashed zombies who still believe the superwealthy are going to pee some pennies your way. So I suppose you should keep a cup handy for the trickle down.
Me, I'm going to keep trying. But I will not be told by any smug Republican that I cannot point out the nastiness, and call like a plainly see it. If hearing the real story bugs you, there's always total sensory derivation. Nothing will touch you there. Wallow in your lack of feelings.
And then we won't have to listen to you whining about "bums and jobless slobs" when all we're doing is speaking aloud that which your political gods would rather remain unsaid.
- ZenMojo, on 05/11/2008, -6/+8Three percenter? You realize that the top 6% of money earners in this country are "rich," right? You probably did benefit from those tax cuts (mostly because EVERYBODY benefitted from those tax cuts).
- B1663r, on 05/11/2008, -6/+4Oh so a 150k a year is rich now? No, I am not rich.
- pyronik, on 05/11/2008, -2/+9since when does a dollar figure determine how rich you are, standard of living is what needs to be examined, and 150k in Manhattan for example is not "rich"
- B1663r, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3It is middle class here in Michigan. Im doing alright. I will probaby lose my house however when my taxes go up 30k a year.
- jamesLankford, on 05/11/2008, -6/+4150k in Manhattan is rich
there are 1000's of people in manhattan that make less than 60k,
hell, the starting salary for nyc cops is less than 30k, teachers make less than 50k, nurses less than 65k
150k in manhattan is dfefinitely rich; you're just another rich idiot crying about how poor your are
I live in Manhattan across from columbia university; I know what I'm talking about - Black6x, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2You called yourself a 3 percenter. I would think it would be safe to assume that top 3% = rich.
- flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2In Manhatten 150k is the starting salary for an associate at the top tier law firms. 150k a year in manhattan is VERY rich. you guys are talking out of your ass.
- jamesLankford, on 05/11/2008, -4/+8yes, 150k a years is rich, if you say you aren't, its because you spend too much on crap, which also proves you're rich
- B1663r, on 05/11/2008, -6/+5Yeah, I spend it on crap like... My mortgage on my business, my mortgage on my house, utility bills, food, putting some away so my kids can go to school someday.
Oh, yeah, I also spend it on frivolous crap like 35k a year in taxes already.
Why, you are right, I am a bonafide rich person. How inconsiderate of me to want to keep my house that was a fixer upper when I bought it in 2000.
Thank you though, with each post like that I grow more at ease with the reality that I will be voting McCain this fall, a republican vote for the first time in my life. - flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Ignore B1663r, all he does on digg is bash Obama and whine about how rich people have it so hard.
My favorite is when he claims to be a democrat. - bruce86, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1@ B1663r
Its funny because with a republican mindset, they would say what you are complaining about is not their problem. They do this all the time if you are poor. "I know you are living in poverty, but hey its living deal with it!". If I were a republican giving advice, I would say something like:
*You don't have to live in a house thats a luxury
*You don't have to put your kids to college high school is more than enough
*You don't need to have a car, you can save thousands of dollars there
*health insurance?! another luxury.
Well i guess you have to be poor for them to tell that to you, weird sounds like hypocritical to me.
- B1663r, on 05/11/2008, -6/+5Yeah, I spend it on crap like... My mortgage on my business, my mortgage on my house, utility bills, food, putting some away so my kids can go to school someday.
- bigj480, on 05/11/2008, -3/+9 You see how you are dugg down for even asking why your taxes should be DOUBLED? They will not even respond with a logical argument. Do not question the Righteousness of Robin Hood tax practices on a site full of socialists/communists who feel that you owe us poor folk something for your success. Unless, of coarse, you don't give a ***** about their feelings. If that's the case, welcome to the club.
- bruce86, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Well i am glad you aren't making up ***** on how you are actually helping poor people. I seriously respect that. It frustrates me when people don't wanna look bad so they pretend what they want is best for poor people.
Even though you are selfish, you are honorable in my book.
- bruce86, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Well i am glad you aren't making up ***** on how you are actually helping poor people. I seriously respect that. It frustrates me when people don't wanna look bad so they pretend what they want is best for poor people.
- pell, on 05/11/2008, -3/+6Because you have to start paying off the debt Bush put you in. Money has to come from somewhere. Your pocket.
- bigj480, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5The question is, why should some peoples taxes increase and not others? Bush sucks, no doubt. However, we should all pay our fair share. Why should the rich pay a higher percentage? Come to think of it, what percentage of their income do the rich pay in taxes?
- flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Because some people have disposable income, and some people can't even afford healthcare.
- veloscaper, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Imagine if the US was invaded, who would lose the most? The homeless poor walking the street begging? nope, nothing would change for them. It's the rich who would most likely lose everything, so they should pay more. Defense is the largest portion of the federal budget.
- philhatesyou, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3The rich should pay more because for them, 30% of their income is far less pain than it is for some poor guy who has his kids 6 to a room in some ***** apartment downtown.
- LogicalWisdom, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0It's not the rich person's fault that some piece of ***** had 6 children they could not afford, nor is it society's job to steal from the rich to give to the poor, being bitter because people made poor choices doesn't make it right to make everyone's life miserable too....
- bigj480, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5The question is, why should some peoples taxes increase and not others? Bush sucks, no doubt. However, we should all pay our fair share. Why should the rich pay a higher percentage? Come to think of it, what percentage of their income do the rich pay in taxes?
- flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Actually, anyone who was in the to 15% benefited enormously from the Bush tax cuts- Anyone in the top 10% benefited a whole lot more- and anyone in the top 1% hit the jackpot. So if you're in the top 3%, you were in the middle of a tremendous tax holiday.
- LogicalWisdom, on 05/11/2008, -13/+23Because Obama hates your freedom :), in all seriousness increased taxes hurts everyone but the mass of slobs, bums, and incompetents. They cheer it on because they will benefit for doing nothing, they somehow believe they are right because there are more of them. Grab a chair, sit back and watch the race to the bottom...
- Stuart750, on 05/11/2008, -10/+14Can we stop using these statistics please? While I am in favour of helping the impoverished of this planet, I'm tired of regurgitated statistics...
- HotSaucePanCake, on 05/11/2008, -7/+17And all you are doing is posting numbers. The war in iraq has lasted 5 years now almost... thats nearly 100 Billion a year. Penies compared to our 2.4 trillion budget. Military spending will not let up nor should it. To have peace you must be able to instill fear!
The thing about world hunger is saddening, but unfortunately there isn't really a way to correct it. You know you have to teach them at some point how to fend for them selves. If you give a mouse a cookie, he is going to want some milk with it.- ZenMojo, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7Replace peace with "unending war in third world countries" and you've got it.
- bruce86, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Teaching them how to fend for themselves cost money too.
- noliberalbull, on 05/11/2008, -1/+15what you're neglecting in your stats there is that their $120 billion in profits at 10% means they took in a total of 1.2 trillion dollars and spent 1.08 trillion of it, putting it back in the economy.
- ZenMojo, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Ah, but where. The economy is not a giant well, it's a series of reservoirs and capillaries. If the oil industry is overinflated it does not mean that entertainment or service increases.
- SillyRabbits, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7Yeah, because those hundreds of thousands of people employed by the evil oil industry don't need any entertainment and don't use any services.
- pyronik, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3its more than that it, the benefits of that spending and the profits they make that get reinvested act as a ripple effect in the economy ... the money they spend props up a series of industries and people who go out and buy more stuff and employ more people. Putting windfall profits tax on exon for example will have a widespread negative effect much greater than one individual dollar amount that you see
- ZenMojo, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Ah, but where. The economy is not a giant well, it's a series of reservoirs and capillaries. If the oil industry is overinflated it does not mean that entertainment or service increases.
- SillyRabbits, on 05/11/2008, -1/+20"$12 billion: Provides education for every kid on earth."
Wow, the US much be getting ripped off then. Even in 2004, we spent $500 billion and still can't get more than %50 to graduate in some districts (and that's just here in the US).- pyronik, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7and i guess i shouldn't invest the money I earn in a oil company to earn a 10% return on my investment for my kids education, because you feel that some other kids education is more important
- digdug2020, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5just remember 83.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot. There is no way in hell it only costs 12 billion to educate every child on the planet.
- HotSaucePanCake, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Ya what does that mean, give every kid a book?
- bigj480, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Yes, the war sucks. No, I don't think I should be required by law to fund charity through taxes. I'll do that on my own and choose who I give to. Mandated charity is theft, plain and simple.
- BECoole, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7"• $19 billion: Eliminates starvation and malnutrition globally.
• $12 billion: Provides education for every kid on earth.
• $15 billion: Provides access to water and sanitation.
• $23 billion: Reverses the spread of AIDS and Malaria"
That's a lot of money to stuff in some dictator's pocket!- MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Only some countries have Dictators.
- SillyRabbits, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Yep, the other ones have warlords and monarchies (who make many dictators look like angles).
- jhul, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0Obtuse?
- BECoole, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Other ones have entirely corrupt bureaucracies too.
OK, so that's still a lot of money to bribe bureaucrats with.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Only some countries have Dictators.
- scubajim, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6If only it were so easy to just give that amount of money to cure hunger. How naive. The hunger problems are usually caused by local political problems and over crowding for the area. I guess we could (sarcasum on full) nuke them and solve the over crowding problem and thus eliminating hunger. We have plenty of spare nukes laying around. (sarcasum off)
- sanosuke001, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0haha, my brother once said something similar.
"put everyone with an incurable disease on an island and nuke them all. no more AIDS"
- sanosuke001, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0haha, my brother once said something similar.
- jamesLankford, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2what a stupid ass post
yes, I'm sure if we gave the rulers of Burma 3 billion dollars they would distribute it fairly to their people.
I'm sure they would build schools and hospitals.
yes, let's give the leaders of Hamas, Afghanistan and hte Sudan billions of dollars and all their problems will magically disappear!
of course the leaders won't keep the money for themselves, of course they won't use it to buy weapons.
what an idiot - usbserial, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3According to the world fact book 27.4% of the world's population of 6,602,224,175 are between the ages of 0 and 14. How many of those are in a low education (for basic education) range of 7 to 14? Even with a conservative estimate of half that... let's guess at 13%. 13% of 6.6 billion = 858,289,142. If it only costs 12 billion$ to provide education to them all: that $13.98 per year. Uh huh. Yeah, education only costs $14 a year.
Oh, you might make the argument that in third world countries it is cheaper to educate people... but no. If we tried to hire 8 million teachers (1 teacher per 100 students) you can be sure as hell that the cost teacher salaries would rise. - tucsonsun13, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1* Your Iraq War cost figure is out of date :0)
- B1663r, on 05/11/2008, -18/+22Im a three percenter. I didn't benefit from the Bush tax cuts. So why does Obama want to double my taxes?
- Hrodrik, on 05/11/2008, -16/+19"going after oil profits could backfire on consumers."
No *****. It already did and it's still backfiring. But that's unrelated.
Tax their asses.- pyronik, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4why? name one good reason other than you don't think its "fair" .. i dont think its fair that exon pays more in taxes than the bottom 50% of wage earners combined
- Hrodrik, on 05/11/2008, -5/+2Whaat?
I think their ***** huge profits are not fair, when the world's economy is going to the ***** with the rising oil prices.
There is so much than can be done to improve everyone's living conditions, but these companies and their moguls keep hoarding all the wealth, taking advantage of the real workers, the ones that find a difference in paying 5% less on taxes (that bottom 50%).
Tax the rich bastards.- pyronik, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4you realize that attitude, taxing the rich into the ground, will just hurt everyone ... rich and poor alike... even if your ideology is ***** the rich which wreaks of envy and class warfare
- jonnyboy1544, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Guess who employs all you bastards... the RICH! Guess who will have less money to pay you when you tax them...
- Hrodrik, on 05/11/2008, -5/+2Whaat?
- jonnyboy1544, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Such wisdom... reread that article
- pyronik, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4why? name one good reason other than you don't think its "fair" .. i dont think its fair that exon pays more in taxes than the bottom 50% of wage earners combined
- HolmWrecker, on 05/11/2008, -18/+29Just like any business that has increased costs...they pass it on to us and the company doesn't lose a penny. Real ***** smart you dumb ass dems. Go ahead, tax the ***** out of the evil oil companies. All that will happen is our prices will go up even more.
My God, the stupidity of the dems blows my feeble little mind.- DangerCollie, on 05/11/2008, -15/+16If you're a Republican, you don't get to call anyone else stupid. Not now, not ever.
- bigj480, on 05/11/2008, -5/+8 How mature of you. You are no better than he is by responding in the same manner. Neither side has a monopoly on logical ideas. If you disagree, you are simply a mindless puppet. The two party system sucks. I voted in the republican primary, you are stupid.
- AngryFox, on 05/11/2008, -6/+1DangerCollie didn't call HolmWrecker stupid... he just said that he's not allowed to call anyone else stupid. L2read.
- SouthsideIrish, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3I am a Republican, and I never voted for any Bush, so I can call someone stupid for thinking this will do anything other that raise the price of gas. Stupid dems!
- bigj480, on 05/11/2008, -5/+8 How mature of you. You are no better than he is by responding in the same manner. Neither side has a monopoly on logical ideas. If you disagree, you are simply a mindless puppet. The two party system sucks. I voted in the republican primary, you are stupid.
- DangerCollie, on 05/11/2008, -15/+16If you're a Republican, you don't get to call anyone else stupid. Not now, not ever.