Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (118441)	3/2/2009 11:38:49 PM
From: buckbldr	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206188

"We've had these subsidies in place for 8 years and our reliance on foreigh energy supplies as well as our consumption has gone nowhere but up. The "foreign dependency" arguement doesn't pass the sniff test." If one then uses this simplistic format upon which to base one's "credible" response to an intended rational discussion, then one must expect a similar simplistic assumption in answer to one's stated conclusion. Fair enough? So, one must conclude that if we abolish "all these subsidies", then our domestic energy industry will respond with enough increase in production to virtually eliminate our reliance on foreign sources as well as significantly reduce our overall consumption. Methinks this conclusion would also not pass the sniff test, but may even fail the "stink" test.(G) Based upon your replies to this topic, since the Commander and I have both expressed a serious dislike for a Socialistic governance, are we to assume that you are desirous of such a change? Buck

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (118441)	3/3/2009 12:32:11 AM
From: 8bits	4 Recommendations Respond to of 206188

We've had these subsidies in place for 8 years and our reliance on foreigh energy supplies as well as our consumption has gone nowhere but up. The "foreign dependency" arguement doesn't pass the sniff test. First let's look at those subsidies.. Exxon.. one corporation paid more in (income) taxes than 65 million people: seekingalpha.com In 2006 they had a tax rate of 41%. Subsidized with a 41% tax rate..? And notably no E&P company, even though there has been a tremendous decline in the price of their main products recently.. has come to the US government asking for a handout.. unlike multiple banks, insurance companies, autos.. umm anyone else..? "The "foreign dependency" argument.." Well for oil that would have been basically impossible absent a huge decline in the usage of oil consumed in this country.. however for natural gas (which was predicted to be the next energy crisis..) we are now have a glut and could easily turn away everything produced in Canada and all LNG shipments. We are also net coal exporters. So for two major forms of energy we do not rely (or don't need to rely..) on foreign sources. For oil... with much of the offshore areas locked out.. and the huge lead times needed to develop an oil field.. I would never expected the US to be oil independent in 8 years.

To: Archie Meeties who wrote (118441)	3/3/2009 12:37:48 AM
From: 8bits	5 Recommendations Respond to of 206188

We've had these subsidies in place for 8 years So who is subsidized..? Look at the tax returns and not the statements issued by congress. "Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective. According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available: Total number of tax returns: 130 million Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes). Exxon paid 41% of their income to taxes in 2006 (27 billion dollars..) and Cisco and Microsoft didn't pay any federal income taxes for the fiscal year 2000 (which was a very profitable year for both..) sfgate.com (10-10) 04:00 PST SAN JOSE -- Cisco Systems, the second-most valuable company in America, paid no federal income taxes for its latest fiscal year thanks to a little-known corporate tax break on employee stock options. More Business Microsoft, which ranks No. 4 in market value, did not pay any federal taxes either, it seems. Like many high-tech firms, Cisco and Microsoft are allowed to take a tax deduction for money their employees earn when they ``exercise'' options and buy stock in the company at a preset price. These options have become an increasingly popular way for businesses to reward employees, but they also have huge benefits to the companies themselves. The tax break was established decades ago, when companies doled out stock options to only a handful of top executives and the tax benefit they generated was minimal. But now that many companies -- including Cisco, Microsoft and most other new-economy firms -- give options to everyone, the tax break is becoming enormous. In Cisco's case, this benefit wiped out $1.8 billion in federal taxes, and probably more than twice that for Microsoft.