Conoco Calls Obama's Oil Tax 'Un-American'

[marshabar1]

A Democratic senator blasted oil giant ConocoPhillips for using the term "un-American" to describe his proposal to strip tax subsidies from the five largest oil companies in the U.S. and use the savings to pay down the deficit.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, said it is "truly outrageous" for ConocoPhillips to use the term in a press release it issued Wednesday and said he expects the company's top executive to apologize when he appears at a Senate hearing Thursday examining the tax proposal.

"For ConocoPhillips to question the patriotism of those public officials who believe they do not deserve billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies is simply beyond the pale and I expect an apology from the CEO tomorrow at tomorrow's hearing, Menendez said at a news conference staged at an Exxon gas station on Capitol Hill to highlight the Democrats' proposal. "It is simply not acceptable."

nation.foxnews.com/oil-subsidies/2011/05/11/conocophillips-calls-obamas-oil-tax-un-american#ixzz1M6ErfmYC

Hey it's Conoco's opinion based on reality. Obama's decision is based on make-believe.

[billisonboard]

They certainly can't say don't end them because they need the money.

[marshabar1]

"Our performance has delivered significant value to our shareholders, and our 2010 total shareholder return of 39 percent was the highest among our industry peer group," said Jim Mulva, chairman and chief executive officer. "We have continued our commitment to increase shareholder distributions in 2011, announcing a 20 percent increase in the quarterly dividend rate and an additional $10 billion share repurchase program."


Over the next two years, ConocoPhillips plans to execute a $28 billion capital program, almost 90 percent of which has been allocated to Exploration and
Production, supporting the company's greater-than-100-percent reserve
replacement target. During this timeframe, the company plans to sell an additional $5-10 billion of non-core assets. ConocoPhillips continues to increase spending on
maintenance and safety.


Further expanding on the outlook for the company, Mulva expressed concerns about the challenging political environment facing the energy industry, in particular, the potential impacts of increased regulatory burdens and proposed tax increases.


"These unprecedented proposed taxes, targeted at only five companies, wouldhave serious effects on our company. We already have the highest effective tax rate among companies in the United States and these proposals unfairly single us out for additional taxes," said Mulva. "Not only would increased taxes cost jobs, raise consumer prices and shrink government revenue, but they would
also hamper our ability to remain competitive and reinvest in jobs, new energy technologies and resources in the United States and internationally."




www.istockanalyst.com/business/news/5137213/conocophillips-highlights-solid-results-and-raises-concerns-over-un-american-tax-proposals-at-annual-meeting-of-shareholders#

Chicago thugs only know how to shake people down for money. No new ideas.

Doing , we need money! Quick! Go grab a few companies!

[formerexpat]

From XOM's 2009 financial statements:

Profit before all taxes: $95.5 billion
sales based taxes: ($26.0 billion)
other taxes & duties: ($34.8 billion)
income taxes: ($15.1 billion)

Profit after taxes: $19.7 billion

Tax rate = 79%

So the governments [of all countries] profit is nearly 4x that of XOM.

Who is greedy in this equation?

[marshabar1]

May 11, 2011 22:06:23 GMT -5 formerexpat said:

From XOM's 2009 financial statements:

Profit before all taxes: $95.5 billion
sales based taxes: ($26.0 billion)
other taxes & duties: ($34.8 billion)
income taxes: ($15.1 billion)

Profit after taxes: $19.7 billion

Tax rate = 79%

So the governments [of all countries] profit is nearly 4x that of XOM.

Who is greedy in this equation?

Why the evil corporation of course. The government is my friend.

[Deleted]

Butbutbut-- they still have some left!!! Shouldn't that be aftertaxed or something, just because?

[ugonow]

And Rand Paul said criticizing B/P was unAmerican. Just more rhetoric,imo.Why is it unAmerican to question if oil needs all those tax incentives when we are talking about cutting medicaid and medicare for Americans? Why is it unAmerican to question why oil companies need ethonol or dry well subsidies at the expense of taxpayers? IMO,just more rhetoric spewing.J

[ugonow]

Perhaps Obama should propose a share the wealth tax on them,like Palins?You know,a windfall tax based on the price of oil and redistributed to citizens? Lol... Nothing will come from this,just as nothing came from it last time oil execs were called on the carpet,imo. Political posturing.

[floridayankee]

May 12, 2011 7:29:47 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Why is it unAmerican to question why oil companies need ethonol or dry well subsidies at the expense of taxpayers? IMO,just more rhetoric spewing.J

Perhaps the fed needs to drop their requirement for refiners to use ethanol before they drop the subsidy. It's a prime example of why government needs to stay the hell out of private business.

EPACT2005 requires that the use of renewable motor fuels be increased from the 2004 level of just over 4 billion gallons to a minimum of 7.5 billion gallons in 2012, after which the requirement grows at a rate equal to the growth of the gasoline pool [19]. The law does not require that every gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel be blended with renewable fuels. Refiners are free to use renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, in geographic regions and fuel formulations that make the most sense, as long as they meet the overall standard. Conventional gasoline and diesel can be blended with renewables without any change to the petroleum components, although fuels used in areas with air quality problems are likely to require adjustment to the base gasoline or diesel fuel if they are to be blended with renewables.

[ugonow]

I agree.Drop farm subsidies also.Two of politicians favorite entitlement programs. Oil companies play along with that ethonal game because they get good money from the subsidies. So why is it unAmerican to discuss why oil companies need taxpayer subsidies? I think they can get away without our backing them against a dry well. Let them prove they need our help.

[floridayankee]

May 12, 2011 7:46:11 GMT -5 ugonow said:

I agree.Drop farm subsidies also.Two of politicians favorite entitlement programs. Oil companies play along with that ethonal game because they get good money from the subsidies. So why is it unAmerican to discuss why oil companies need taxpayer subsidies? I think they can get away without our backing them against a dry well. Let them prove they need our help.

Subsidies reduce the cost for producers to make an unprofitable product. We see it in solar. We see it in wind generators. A lot of "green tech" is subsidized to artificially make these products a competitive alternative. If subsidies are cut without also dropping the mandate, the cost at the pump will increase to cover that increased costs to produce and use ethanol. There's nothing unAmerican about discussing it...it's simple business sense to figure it out though. Either way, it's "us" that pay. The subsidy simply hides the true cost a little better.

[ugonow]

Ethanol requirements should go.It is more of a handout to farm states and oil companies than an air quality issue,imo. So should dry well subsidies.for the bigger oil companies. I also find it disturbing politicians are recieving hundreds of thousands in farm subsidies and are protecting them,despite rhetoric about entitlements. Would it be unAmerican to question their need for them also?

[floridayankee]

May 12, 2011 8:12:12 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Would it be unAmerican to question their need for them also?

Not at all. As I've said many times...everything needs to be on the table in order to rein in our runaway budget deficit.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

I am curious as to what exactly are these subsidies that "everyone is pontificating" about?
I've only heard of one subsidy, which is a deduction for royalties paid to foreign govts.
For politicians to mischaracterize what is a valid business deduction(say "depletion allowances", or depreciation) as a subsidy is legendary.

[ugonow]

IMO,subsidies don't reduce the cost of gas. They transfer the payment of costs from the pump to the taxpayer. We still pay. But with sibsidies those that don't use the product pay just as much as those that waste tons of it.
Why not let the users pay for what they use?

[Deleted]

The time of government subsidies has passed. That's true for our company subsidies, farm subsidies, & subsidies to other countries. If you can't make money from what your doing then you need to go out of business.

Sadly they probably won't though. Politicians still need to get elected & to end subsidies won't get them elected. It's not just big business but almost everything that gets subsidies that has special interest groups pushing it. End a subside for something as basic as wind power & people will be up in arms. Well even with government subsidies it can't compete (prices for each unit are STILL higher than other means of generating power).

Farm subsidies are the same thing. Nobody gets elected for taking away the land from a 4th generation farmer just because they can't make a living at farming without government money.

Someone needs to step up to the plate & have the gonads to just say no (even if they won't be elected again).

[ugonow]

"Intangible Drilling Costs – Companies which engage purely in energy exploration and discovery can recover their costs related to exploration at tax time at a rate of 100%. This lessens the burden on energy providers for the number of “dry holes” which may be found in the process. Integrated companies (i.e. “big oil”) can recover these exploration costs at 70%" -- Maybe technically by defination not a subsidy, but should it really not be looked at because it would be unAmerican to do so?

[floridayankee]

May 12, 2011 8:36:03 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

I am curious as to what exactly are these subsidies that "everyone is pontificating" about?
I've only heard of one subsidy, which is a deduction for royalties paid to foreign govts.
For politicians to mischaracterize what is a valid business deduction(say "depletion allowances", or depreciation) as a subsidy is legendary.

Split hairs much SF? Actually, it is officially a "tax credit". Whether or not it fits the exact definition of "subsidy" is immaterial, IMHO.

But, for your reading benefit, CATO just happens to have an article on this.
www.cato-at-liberty.org/of-tax-credits-and-government-subsidies/

[floridayankee]

May 12, 2011 8:41:53 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

The time of government subsidies has passed. That's true for our company subsidies, farm subsidies, & subsidies to other countries. If you can't make money from what your doing then you need to go out of business.

There's the rub that most don't even put together. Government subsidizes farmers which reduces the prices of crops. They also pay farmers to stop farming and convert to grass in their CRP program which increases crop prices.

Contradictory government meddling at it's best.

[ugonow]

Sometimes I don't understand people.Questioning subsidies to companies that make tons is unAmerican, but Palins windfall tax on oilcompanies that is redistributed to citizens is a brainstorm.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Split hairs much SF? Actually, it is officially a "tax credit". Whether or not it fits the exact definition of "subsidy" is immaterial, IMHO.


Just attempting to get to the truth. In my example(royalties) is a legitimate expense, that happens to be a credit against taxes paid to the US Treasury. Just like you, I and everyone else who get to deduct/offset income taxes paid to the state you work in, against your home state's income tax, commonly referred to as a reciprocity agreement between border states.
The word "subsidy" stirs up emotional anger, in the ignorant masses that vote for these morons.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Sometimes I don't understand people.Questioning subsidies to companies that make tons is unAmerican, but Palins windfall tax on oilcompanies that is redistributed to citizens is a brainstorm

I do not believe that is a windfall profits tax, but merely a form of Alaskan state tax on industry profits, which the oil industry more than likely takes as a business expense.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Anybody actually believe that any extra money from this will actually be used to pay down the debt (on top of what is already paid)? Personally I think the senator is on a power trip in demanding an apology.

[magichat]

May 12, 2011 9:24:43 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Sometimes I don't understand people.Questioning subsidies to companies that make tons is unAmerican, but Palins windfall tax on oilcompanies that is redistributed to citizens is a brainstorm

I do not believe that is a windfall profits tax, but merely a form of Alaskan state tax on industry profits, which the oil industry more than likely takes as a business expense.

At worst the Alaskan permanent fund is socialism at best it violates the interstate commerce clause.

[ugonow]

At worst the Alaskan permanent fund

is that the same as Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share plan where the tax is based on oil prices and distributed to citizens under the rationalism the resources belong to the people, a socialist idea?

[ugonow]

Personally I think the senator is on a power trip in demanding an apology.

You could be right. Do you think a meeting to discuss these subsidies, whatever you want to call them is unAmerican,as this guy from Conoco claims?

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

You could be right. Do you think a meeting to discuss these subsidies, whatever you want to call them is unAmerican,as this guy from Conoco claims?


One subsidy that needs ridding is the residential mortgage deduction. 10s of billions, if not 100s, in lost tax revenue would be reclaimed by eliminating this deduction.

[ugonow]

One subsidy that needs ridding is the residential mortgage deduction. 10s of billions, if not 100s, in lost tax revenue would be reclaimed by eliminating this deduction

That has been brought up often.... as a matter of fact just recently once again in a rare bipartisan measure. Personally I would like to see the dry well subsidies go first.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 12, 2011 9:41:37 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Personally I think the senator is on a power trip in demanding an apology.

You could be right. Do you think a meeting to discuss these subsidies, whatever you want to call them is unAmerican,as this guy from Conoco claims?

I'm saying that people say stupid things all the time. Oil companies are being scape goated in this debate and to honestly argue "it's for the deficit" is not really honest.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 12, 2011 9:45:41 GMT -5 ugonow said:

One subsidy that needs ridding is the residential mortgage deduction. 10s of billions, if not 100s, in lost tax revenue would be reclaimed by eliminating this deduction

That has been brought up often.... as a matter of fact just recently once again in a rare bipartisan measure.

I'm guessing this will wait to be passed until after an election.