Get your Forestry Forum Hats while they last!
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
That is sure a wonderful idea, another Windfall Profits Tax. But then again the last one, enacted in 1980 only returned less than one fourth of the money that was projected, primarily because the oil companies found ways around the tax including moving some things offshore. Plus it has been credited with the beginning of the move to make us dependent on foreign oil supplies that we are so desperately trying to get out from under. If you want to see more, just Google Windfall Profits Tax and see if you can find anything positive that was said about that 1980's tax.And speaking of Google, if we are really going to start taxing excess profits, shouldnt we start with companies like Google and Microsoft that have made profits of 25% as compared to Exxon at only 10 %?And do you as businessmen really want a profit police that could declare your profits as excessive and due and payable to the US Treasury?As the old farmers saying goes, "be careful what you wish for, cause you may not like what you get!"
Gary, I'm confused. I never mentioned a Windfall Profits Tax... I started this thread by talking about a bill that would have extended tax subsidies for the solar industry... by shifting tax subsidies from the oil & gas industry, which already has plenty. Aren't this and a windfall tax (tax on their profits) separate issues?-Norm.
Their second paragraph, last line, reports that their profit was 14%. I'm not sure if you are looking at refinery profits, chemical profits, or crude oil production profits, or overall profits? The 14% is the overall profit that each part of the company brought into Exxon-Mobile.
Can we all at least agree that these buffoons are out of touch with reality?
Testing New Bottom Sponsor Area