TheShiznit Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 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. I am pretty darn sure you can ask anyone in Huddle Ladder or Huddle Rejects about my "standup"edness. Just because drunk and high 6th graders have more brainwave activity than you....does not mean you can project your shortcomings on to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 07 06 05REVENUE 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..... Excellent info, thanks. Worth noting that gross profit is $171 billion and they paid $30 billion on that for an effective tax rate of 17%. I wouldn't call that onerous in any way. It's a damn sight less than I pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 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..... Yes. I have no reason to believe the oil industry wouldn't pass the savings on to their customers. They are in the business of being beneficent to people. That's pretty much the argument people have been making throughout this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Yes. I have no reason to believe the oil industry wouldn't pass the savings on to their customers. They are in the business of being beneficent to people. That's pretty much the argument people have been making throughout this thread. Could not agree more I was at an Exxon Gas station recently and the attendant even squeegied my front and back windows clean ..for free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Yes. I have no reason to believe the oil industry wouldn't pass the savings on to their customers. They are in the business of being beneficent to people. That's pretty much the argument people have been making throughout this thread. I know when I think of selfless organizations I think of people like the Shriners, March of Dimes, and Chevron Texaco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Excellent info, thanks. Worth noting that gross profit is $171 billion and they paid $30 billion on that for an effective tax rate of 17%. I wouldn't call that onerous in any way. It's a damn sight less than I pay. So were going to start arguing percentages and comparing it to others' taxes? Why can't we then begin to argue profit margins compared to other companies rather than arguing whole dollar figures on that side. You can't have it both ways. People have been stating that it is audacious that oil companies post these huge profits by quoting the profit in whole dollars, so, I thought it would be prudent to do the same with the taxes to give a little perspective on the fallacy of the argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 So were going to start arguing percentages and comparing it to others' taxes? Why can't we then begin to argue profit margins compared to other companies rather than arguing whole dollar figures on that side. You can't have it both ways. People have been stating that it is audacious that oil companies post these huge profits by quoting the profit in whole dollars, so, I thought it would be prudent to do the same with the taxes to give a little perspective on the fallacy of the argument. It was you that pointed out the hugh taxation level (in whole $$$). It is you that has defended Exxon et al by mentioning several times their enormous taxation and, in whole $$$, you are right. The fact remains, however, that taxes are typically looked at in percentage terms and in those terms Exxon et al pay less than I do. Period. And, given that the corporate tax rate in the US is usually stated as 35%, it is instructive to note that Exxon appears to only pay half that. In reality, very few corporations pay 35% in tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Excellent info, thanks. Worth noting that gross profit is $171 billion and they paid $30 billion on that for an effective tax rate of 17%. I wouldn't call that onerous in any way. It's a damn sight less than I pay. I'll bet you didn't. The rate you use might be higher, but you put that rate against your ADJUSTED gross income - after all your deductions. Just a thought... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 I'll bet you didn't. The rate you use might be higher, but you put that rate against your ADJUSTED gross income - after all your deductions. Just a thought... It isn't hard to reach 17% income tax rate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 (edited) I'll bet you didn't. The rate you use might be higher, but you put that rate against your ADJUSTED gross income - after all your deductions. Just a thought... You should be calculating your tax burden from your Net Operating Income. You are allowed to take out expenses, depreciation, etc... for that calculation. I believe that number was somewhere around $70 billion, so $30 billion is right at 43% tax rate. I missed it early what he was calculating the tax burden off of. Edited June 17, 2008 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 You should be calculating your tax burden from your Net Operating Income. You are allowed to take out expenses, depreciation, etc... for that calculation. I believe that number was somewhere around $70 billion, so $30 billion is right at 43% tax rate. I missed it early what he was calculating the tax burden off of. No, hold on, wait up. They reduced their tax exposure by declaring very large SG&A and amortization / depreciation expenses but how did they pay 43% when the top rate of income tax for corporations is 35%? Something not right here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 No, hold on, wait up. They reduced their tax exposure by declaring very large SG&A and amortization / depreciation expenses but how did they pay 43% when the top rate of income tax for corporations is 35%? Something not right here. State taxes and possibly deferred taxes from previous years, not really a detailed enough operating statement to be able to tell. SG&A is a normal expense that any company incurs. The SG&A isn't a tactic to get out of taxes, believe me, most companies don't want a high SG&A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 oil companies pay a much lower rate. I posted a link on the first few pages which show the federal corporate tax rate they pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 I found this to be interesting: Blitzer: You know that Barack Obama says if he's president, he wants a windfall profits tax. He wants to take a chunk of your profits right now and give it back to the American people. John McCain opposes that, as you know. So I assume you would like to see John McCain elected president? O'Reilly: Well, I would like to see no windfall profit tax. And I will tell you why. First of all, we are already heavily taxed as an industry. Our tax rates last year were at 45 percent, compared with in the 30s for the average of all industry. Of course a lot of this has to do with the large revenues/incomes these companies have http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/chevron.blitzer/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 How has Exxon's massive profits benefited the economy of the United States since 2005? Who cares about the rest of the US, Houston is rolling!!! :texas: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 O'Reilly: Well, I would like to see no windfall profit tax. And I will tell you why. First of all, we are already heavily taxed as an industry. Our tax rates last year were at 45 percent, compared with in the 30s for the average of all industry. Of course a lot of this has to do with the large revenues/incomes these companies have I can spot double-talk in a half-second. "Tax Rate" is different from "Tax paid" My "Tax Rate" is a hell of a lot more than my "effective tax rate". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 O'Reilly: Well, I would like to see no windfall profit tax. And I will tell you why. First of all, we are already heavily taxed as an industry. Our tax rates last year were at 45 percent, compared with in the 30s for the average of all industry. Of course a lot of this has to do with the large revenues/incomes these companies have Um, the corporate RATE is the same for all corporations. Right there in the ever elusive Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. So O'Reilly's comment is not true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 (edited) Um, the corporate RATE is the same for all corporations. Right there in the ever elusive Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. So O'Reilly's comment is not true. Ummm... no, really it isn't. The Corporate income tax is based on income: Corporate Income Tax Rates--2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2000 Taxable income over Not over Tax rate $ 0 -- $ 50,000 -- 15% 50,000 -- 75,000 -- 25% 75,000 -- 100,000 -- 34% 100,000 -- 335,000 -- 39% 335,000 -- 10,000,000 -- 34% 10,000,000 -- 15,000,000 -- 35% 15,000,000 -- 18,333,333 -- 38% 18,333,333 -- .......... -- 35% http://www.smbiz.com/sbrl001.html Edited June 19, 2008 by SEC=UGA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 I haven't fully delved into this whole windfall profits tax thing, exactly what is it supposed to accomplish and what is the logic behind it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 I haven't fully delved into this whole windfall profits tax thing, exactly what is it supposed to accomplish and what is the logic behind it? When a few corporate entities have such a controlling affect over our country's government and economy, it's not good for the security of the nation. They need to be regulated more closely than... say... McDonalds. At least, that's my understanding of this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 (edited) Whatever the answer - as a consumer, you flat out cannot tell me that oil companies like Exxon are making record profits - in the $40B range - but are not charging more than they could. The issue to me is this - gasoline prices, like it or not, have an enormous impact on our economy and in fact our society. And while no one company is a monopoly unto itself, the industry as a whole is. Gasoline is not a want, it's a need. And yes, the government absolutely should regulate the amount of profits those companies are allowed to make for the greater good of the country. Socialization? Maybe. But so be it. And yes, we also have to find alternative sources for the future. Figure out a way to get the Middle East countries to not gouge us now for the present - all those things. But in the absence of those or in addition to them, the government has to do what they can to reduce prices. It is absolutely not a free and open market but yet our government treats it like it is. Just my Edited June 19, 2008 by Cunning Runt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y has now also expressed a desire to nationalize the oil industry. The secret is out... this is what the Democrats want. And I can guarantee that if they were to gain control of the US oil industry, our price per gallon of gas would sky-rocket even more... the Democrats would ration oil as a way to control us and force us to use public transportation and reduce urban sprawl. Sorry, but I prefer capitalism and personal liberty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 i hope oil goes to 1000. clear out the roads. traffic sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y has now also expressed a desire to nationalize the oil industry. The secret is out... this is what the Democrats want. And I can guarantee that if they were to gain control of the US oil industry, our price per gallon of gas would sky-rocket even more... the Democrats would ration oil as a way to control us and force us to use public transportation and reduce urban sprawl. Sorry, but I prefer capitalism and personal liberty. Kind of like how stamps are $10 a piece? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Kind of like how stamps are $10 a piece? In all fairness, the Post Office was a completely retarded mess before direct competition from FedEx and UPS. Now it is a slightly less retarded but still complete mess. 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.