TheShiznit Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Yeah. There is a pipeline from the ports where the tankers deliver. The pipeline goes to distribution stations. And then it is TRUCKED to the gas stations. And that trucking has a cost. The farther the station is from the distribution center, the higher the cost for the delivery. Hence my statement about geographical location. The pipelines don't go to the gas stations, numbnuts. They serve greater geographical regions. READ MY FREAKING RESPONSE TO YOU.....that was exactly my point. Most stations are within a close proximity of the pumping stations.....some are far off....that would be the only difference in distribution cost....are you like Az and can't read as well? It would be nice to know up front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Unless you know what your market penetration is going to be ahead of time....you would have to guess what your corporate tax is going to be because you have no idea what your profit will be. So, Maybe in 2009 the consumers will help pay for the 2008 costs for taxes? I dunno, but it seems to me you are advocating that there is no cost to doing business....I think Yo Mama is 100% correct. People get paid a lot of money to project quarterly sales for corporations and understand what their tax burden is going to be. You have a very good idea of what your EBIT will be and thus a very good idea of what your Net Income will be. To assert otherwise is incorrect. Corporations will react much more quickly to adjustments in taxes than on an annual basis for a number of reasons. The main one is because the report earnings and pay income taxes quarterly. Most of them have monthly closings as well to account for any fluctuations or to flag any potential operating/income issues. There are costs to doing business, definite costs, and these costs are passed on to the consumer in the price of the goods manufactured by an individual company. THe company sets a base line profit margin that it can live with. That is profits less the costs of doing business. If a company can not hit these targets, it is not worthwhile for that company to stay in business, whether the profit, in total dollars, be 2 million or 200 billion. If the margin were not high enough investors and the company itself would have to consider the opportunity cost of using that money to make a 2% margin rather than deploying that capital into a venture that yielded something higher. THus if they were yielding a lower margin, whcih would happen if you hit oil with a windfall tax and they did not pass on the tax increase to the consumer, the capital would be sucked out of the oil companies and find another home that offered that capital a higher yield. Essentially, if you hit the oil companies with a windfall tax one of two things will happen. They will pass on the cost to the consumer through a price increase or they will fold as people will not infuse the capital for R&D, exploration, etc... due to the lowered returns that the oil companies will yield on an individual dollar invested (that investment dollar will seek out a higher yiled). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 (edited) Of course, consumers pay the subsidies through taxes, so they're screwed either way. Government subsidies and tax credits are even worse than companies passing costs on to consumers, because many of the taxpayers chipping in for those government subsidies aren't consumers of the products/services being offered by the companies receiving those subsidies. Its an involuntary redistribution of wealth from private citizens to corporate America. Edited June 13, 2008 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 What is this "Mobile" oil company I keep reading about here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 What is this "Mobile" oil company I keep reading about here? Mobile has a refinery in Joliet, Illinois. Exxon Mobile? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Mobile has a refinery in Joliet, Illinois. Exxon Mobile? LOL Oh, you mean "Exxon Mobil." Gotcha. I thought this was some new travelling oil company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 LOL...CEO prices are rediculous.....they are not the whole problem....but a start. Kid Cid covered it, but you don't really want to go down this path again, do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Oh, you mean "Exxon Mobil." Gotcha. I thought this was some new travelling oil company. Oh.... I thought it was a regional comapny from Alabama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Mobile has a refinery in Joliet, Illinois. Exxon Mobile? LOL Maybe the fact that he has clients that work for "Mobile" would explain why they're out of work. There is no such oil company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Maybe the fact that he has clients that work for "Mobile" would explain why they're out of work. There is no such oil company. It is a gas refinery......do you want me to send you a link? It is right off of I55 in Illinois, 1 mile south of the Bluff Rd. Exit just over the Des Plaines River. Dow Chemical is on the other side of the Interstate. Jeremy Mayfield and Ryan Newman used to race the Mobil car....I think I was adding an E on the end...don't know why!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 Essentially, if you hit the oil companies with a windfall tax one of two things will happen. They will pass on the cost to the consumer through a price increase or they will fold as people will not infuse the capital for R&D, exploration, etc... due to the lowered returns that the oil companies will yield on an individual dollar invested (that investment dollar will seek out a higher yiled). You put a windfall tax with price caps. I don't believe Exxon would fold if it only got to keep $30,000,000,000.00 of it's $40,000,000,000.00 2007 profit. Are you trying to tell me that Exxon doesn't count it's 2007 R & D expenses against it's 2007 profits before it comes up with that $40,000,000,000.00 profit figure? That doesn't make sense. From the damage to the environment, to corporate BS that does not benefit the American economy, to the scumbags we have to buy it from, to the poor foreign policy decisions we make to keep it flowing, to the fact that ANWAR is at best a band-aid and not a solution anyone who believes that anything other than getting our nation off oil as much as possible as soon as possible has an agenda other than America's best interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 I think I was adding an E on the end...don't know why!!!! When you want people to believe a lot of facts you cite about a company, it generally helps that you have the fact of the company's name correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 .I think I was adding an E on the end...don't know why!!!! Dan Quayle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 14, 2008 Share Posted June 14, 2008 You put a windfall tax with price caps. I don't believe Exxon would fold if it only got to keep $30,000,000,000.00 of it's $40,000,000,000.00 2007 profit. Are you trying to tell me that Exxon doesn't count it's 2007 R & D expenses against it's 2007 profits before it comes up with that $40,000,000,000.00 profit figure? That doesn't make sense. From the damage to the environment, to corporate BS that does not benefit the American economy, to the scumbags we have to buy it from, to the poor foreign policy decisions we make to keep it flowing, to the fact that ANWAR is at best a band-aid and not a solution anyone who believes that anything other than getting our nation off oil as much as possible as soon as possible has an agenda other than America's best interests. You're getting lost in the intricacies of the argument. Big difference between profit and profit margin. Investors don't seek mere total dollar profit, it doesn't make sense to do that. Money seeks high returns, or a high profit margin. When someone is looking to deploy capital thet look at how that money is going to grow over time. For instance, a pension fund that is investing billions of dollars into the stock market is going to have a yield that they are going to attempt to hit on their investment portfolio. They will diversify their investments across a broad spectrum of holdings in order to limit the risk, but will review these investments pretty regularly. If they have a lump of money in an industry or company that is not yielding a high enogh return, irregardless of how much whole dollar profit said company is making, they will with draw said monies and divert it into something that will result in a higher yield. This will decrease the operating capital that a company has and could cause the company great difficulty. More simply, if someone comes up to you and says "hey, if you give me 30,000, in six months I'll give you 31,000 back". Wow, you'll make 1,000 or 3.333% return. Conversely if someone says, "hey, if you give me 100, in six months I'll give you 200 dollars back", you'll make 100 or a 100% return. Who do you think will attract more investors? This is the same with all companies, capital is seeking a yield. You decrease that yield, the capital will find another home. In this case, the oil companies will not take a huge hit on their margin. They need to post good yields to attract investment money for exploration and infrastriucture. Thus, the oil companies will pass the tax increase on to the consumer so that their margin will not drop and thereby they will not lose capital from investors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 When you want people to believe a lot of facts you cite about a company, it generally helps that you have the fact of the company's name correct. Thanks for the lecture....I hope to do better in the future...spelling after all is the deal breaker! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 From the damage to the environment, to corporate BS that does not benefit the American economy, to the scumbags we have to buy it from, to the poor foreign policy decisions we make to keep it flowing, to the fact that ANWAR is at best a band-aid and not a solution anyone who believes that anything other than getting our nation off oil as much as possible as soon as possible has an agenda other than America's best interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 15, 2008 Share Posted June 15, 2008 You're getting lost in the intricacies of the argument. Big difference between profit and profit margin. Investors don't seek mere total dollar profit, it doesn't make sense to do that. Money seeks high returns, or a high profit margin. When someone is looking to deploy capital thet look at how that money is going to grow over time. For instance, a pension fund that is investing billions of dollars into the stock market is going to have a yield that they are going to attempt to hit on their investment portfolio. They will diversify their investments across a broad spectrum of holdings in order to limit the risk, but will review these investments pretty regularly. If they have a lump of money in an industry or company that is not yielding a high enogh return, irregardless of how much whole dollar profit said company is making, they will with draw said monies and divert it into something that will result in a higher yield. This will decrease the operating capital that a company has and could cause the company great difficulty. More simply, if someone comes up to you and says "hey, if you give me 30,000, in six months I'll give you 31,000 back". Wow, you'll make 1,000 or 3.333% return. Conversely if someone says, "hey, if you give me 100, in six months I'll give you 200 dollars back", you'll make 100 or a 100% return. Who do you think will attract more investors? This is the same with all companies, capital is seeking a yield. You decrease that yield, the capital will find another home. In this case, the oil companies will not take a huge hit on their margin. They need to post good yields to attract investment money for exploration and infrastriucture. Thus, the oil companies will pass the tax increase on to the consumer so that their margin will not drop and thereby they will not lose capital from investors. I'm getting lost in the intracicies? 5 paragraphs and I still can't tell from that information if Exxon is subtracting it's 2007 R & D costs out of the $40,000,000,000.00 in profts it reported for 2007 or not. And if they aren't what's up with that? And again, I advocate a windfall tax that cannot be passed on to the consumer by statute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 I'm getting lost in the intracicies? 5 paragraphs and I still can't tell from that information if Exxon is subtracting it's 2007 R & D costs out of the $40,000,000,000.00 in profts it reported for 2007 or not. And if they aren't what's up with that? And again, I advocate a windfall tax that cannot be passed on to the consumer by statute. Yes they should be deducting those costs from a YE P&L, OS or whatever... But again, the whole dollar profit is not what is important. You may as well go ahead and nationalize the petro industry then. Or subsidize even more heavily, either option, however, would only increase the income taxes you pay and I'm not really fond of funding another's petro needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 If the oil companies are taxed, they will pass that cost on to the consumer. They are already operating at very low margins. Sure when you look at the amount of profit they make by itself, it seems huge, but when you compare that profit to the investment they have made in order to make that profit it is relatively small. The idea of a windfall tax is pandering pure and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 16, 2008 Author Share Posted June 16, 2008 As a matter of fact 4 of my clients from Mobile... Harde to imaginee withe suche a consumatee professionale representinge theme... Did they get nuked before or after they got laid off? Why are you trying so hard to come across this way? You lose a bet to someone? This is such a joke, you must be an alias, no way someone could really be this ignorant and make up so many things from nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 They are already operating at very low margins. I weep for them. :crying: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 If the oil companies are taxed, they will pass that cost on to the consumer. They are already operating at very low margins. Sure when you look at the amount of profit they make by itself, it seems huge, but when you compare that profit to the investment they have made in order to make that profit it is relatively small. The idea of a windfall tax is pandering pure and simple. Perch, are you trying to tell us that investment is only just less than profit? You can't be serious unless you are including routine operating costs as investment. Their profit is $40 billion so if their profit is 10%, their operating costs must be $400 billion - $40 billion = $360 billion, roughly. Are the operating costs of Exxon-Mobil really $360 billion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 (edited) Perch, are you trying to tell us that investment is only just less than profit? You can't be serious unless you are including routine operating costs as investment. Their profit is $40 billion so if their profit is 10%, their operating costs must be $400 billion - $40 billion = $360 billion, roughly. Are the operating costs of Exxon-Mobil really $360 billion? 07 06 05 REVENUE 404,552.0 -- 377,635.0 -- 370,680.0 Cost of Goods Sold 232,852.0 -- 213,255.0 -- 213,002.0 Gross Profit 171,700.0 -- 164,380.0 -- 157,678.0 Gross Profit Margin 42.4% -- 43.5% - - 42.5% SG&A Expense 87,571.0 -- 83,857.0 -- 86,698.0 Depreciation & Amortization 12,250.0 -- 11,416.0 -- 10,253.0 Operating Income 71,879.0 - - 69,107.0 -- 60,727.0 Operating Margin 17.8% -- 18.3% - - 16.4% Nonoperating Income -- -- -- Nonoperating Expenses 400.0 -- 654.0 -- 496.0 Income Before Taxes 70,474.0 -- 67,402.0 -- 59,432.0 Income Taxes 29,864.0 -- 27,902.0 -- 23,302.0 Net Income After Taxes 40,610.0 -- 39,500.0 -- 36,130.0 Continuing Operations 40,610.0 -- 39,500.0 -- 36,130.0 Discontinued Operations -- -- -- Total Operations 40,610.0 -- 39,500.0 -- 36,130.0 Total Net Income 40,610.0 -- 39,500.0 -- 36,130.0 Net Profit Margin 10.0% -- 10.5% -- 9.7% - http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/fi...37&period=A THEY PAID ALMOST 30 BILLION IN TAXES, WOW. I guess that isn't their fair share, though. Now Imagine if they didn't have to pay the 30 BILLION IN TAXES. They could cut the price of gas by 10% and maintain the same profit margin..... Edited June 16, 2008 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Harde to imaginee withe suche a consumatee professionale representinge theme... Did they get nuked before or after they got laid off? Why are you trying so hard to come across this way? You lose a bet to someone? This is such a joke, you must be an alias, no way someone could really be this ignorant and make up so many things from nothing. Dude......they aren't needed. I don't feel the need to make Athenae up on a message board for idiots like you who really don't care, just want to disrupt discourse. If Muck were to post something that some of his clients who work in an industry in Missouri are going through....you had better damn well believe I would listen to him because why would he lie first off....second off....WHY WOULD HE LIE? Go have fun handing out the happy meals.....GOOD DAY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 16, 2008 Author Share Posted June 16, 2008 If Muck were to post something that some of his clients who work in an industry Well muck is known as a standup, honest, informed and intelligent person. I don't really think you are anywhere NEAR hitching up to his cart n00b. Telle mee againe howe wee nukede japane fore noe reasone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.