Here is a great one for readers of The Slow Bleed to debate…
Big oil companies dodged an attempt yesterday that would have taxed them on windfall profits being made during these record-breaking gasoline prices.
As gas hit a national average of $4.04 per gallon (higher in other areas) the five largest oil companies together made $36 billion in the first quarter of the year (that is “billion” with a “B”).
The proposal would have imposed gasoline companies a 25 percent tax on any “unreasonable” profits.
Tough call.
On one side, taxing oil companies additional monies would never make it back to the pockets of the average American, nor would it lower gas prices. It, most likely, is just more money that would disappear in Washington spending.
Vs.
On the other side, how much money “should” be made off the general public when you are talking about a natural resource needed by most and the trickle down theory of how rising gas prices are affecting the economy?
So? What do you think? Click “comment” and add your thoughts!
Fine, I suppose this is where you look for some witty insights to my mind. A "bio" of sorts. Here is the deal... I ride motorcycles, smoke cigars, golf, kayak, fly, race my car through the mountains, write (a lot), and travel extensively. I am almost old enough not to care what other people think about me...almost. ~Godfadr
The government needs to control the prices of gas. Keep is low enough that we can all afford it.
Why do they get to make all that money?! I know there are stock holders, but still.
It won’t help the country if we can’t move around anywhere and spend money.
Therein lies the overall problem. How much profit is too much? Is there such a thing in a free enterprise system?
If you create a product that everyone purchases, does the government get to come in and say when you are making too much money?
Where do you draw the line?
Also, how do you reconcile those that choose to drive cars with poor gas mileage? In Florida we have a bizillion trucks, Hummers, and 4×4 vehicles– we just don’t have any hills.
Two of the factors that presently affect gas prices are supply (why aren’t we allowed to increase this when we know it is available) and the taxes already imposed by the government on a gallon of gas. It has been said that the government makes more on a gallon of gas than the oil companies. Explain what the up side is for more taxes on the oil companies. Dave B.
First off, supply is one issue…refining capability is another issue. As I have stated in a political forum on another site, we could import every ounce of oil the middle east pulls out of the ground, but if we can’t increase our refining capacity, it won’t do any good. Another huge issue with the price of oil jumping at greater strides than even supply and demand issues dictate, is the rumored speculators, who drive up the price of crude oil to gain their own profits. Oil companies I heard, (I believe it was Glenn Beck’s radio show that I heard this on), depending on who you talk to, only make 8-10% profit ont heir product. Compare that to other products we use everyday, and you will find that to be on the low end. However, record profits are being made, mostly because of higher product volume going through the markets.
As for further taxation…I guarantee you, the taxation will merely be spent by you at the pump from the costs being passed on to the consumer.
Greed abounds. And it will take government intervention to stop companies that provide essentials from making too much profit. How much is too much? If you were rich three years ago, you can do with less than you made then.
Yes greed does abound….but government intervention (also known as Greed’s personal shopper) will only make you poorer (no matter your current economic level). If the government decides to control the price itself, instead of taxation, guess what happens to the supply?
Those of you who think that government intervention will solve the problem (HelenL, Milton), should just leave the US and move to…oh let’s say China. History has already proven that the socialist and/or communist methods of “wealth redistribution” and “government intervention” are catastrophic and colossal failures. Please see (again) China, North Vietnam, North Korea, 20th Century Italy and Spain, Chile, and let’s not forget the USSR. The only way these problems get solved is capatalism and the private sector; without government intervention! You can’t do anything in this country without permission from the government. What makes anyone think that more oversight will lower taxes, lower fuel prices, create jobs, or grow the economy. Congress should pass a tax break for the oil companies so they can go get more oil for us! Privatization works; please see most recently the House and Senate cafeterias.
It’s possible the government use to make more money on taxes, but clearly now the Big Oil Companies are making huge profits at the consumers expense.
When will we as a nation realize this greed will only hurt us all. Maybe with 5 dollar gas we will be motivatied enough to find a true alternative fuel.
We could tax the oil companies and use the money to pay down the debt !!
Great comments people!
I have mentioned before I think the exploration of other fuels is important as well as decreasing our reliance on other countries.
See the following related article…
http://theslowbleed.com/2008/05/15/gas-at-4623-gallon%e2%80%a6/
We live in a society where “the right” to do or “the right” to have gets taken advantage of. Should the government control the prices… tough call. I don’t want them coming into my business and telling me I can’t sell my items at certain price points. Do I believe there should be a system in place to prevent the oil prices from breaking the peoples wallet? Sure I do. Do I know what the answer is? No. Our government and the oil companies aren’t going to tell us the whole story. I do know there are other alternatives for our vehicles but by the time it’s mass produced and available we’ll be at the $46.23 per gallon mentioned earlier. At this point you must say to yourself “Do I really need to eat three times a day?” Because that’s the direction we’re headed in.
Okay, aren’t we being just a little dramatic here. Heading to a place where we have to choose whether or not we need 3 meals a day so we can afford gas.
Lets get serious here. Until you have done the following gas prices haven’t hurt you.
Stopped buying 3 dollar coffee
Turned off your cell phone
Started shoping at 2nd hand stores
Turned off the tivo
or even your cable
changed jobs for a shorter commute
become a 1 vehicle family
started taking public trasportation
sold a kidney
Yes gas prices are ridiculous but aside from vacationing closer to home, admit it, you haven’t changed anything about how you live.
Isn’t it funny that we accept the premise from professional politicians, most of whom have never actually run a business or done anything substantial to contribute to our economy, whom establish with a sweeping hand what is and what is not excessive profits. I have heard a wide variety of discussions on oil company profits and typically the domestic verses internation distribution is rarely brought up. Yes, they (the oil companies) are making record profits. That is to be expected with a record market (i.e. number of buyers in the international arena). The oil companies have spent hundreds of billions of dollars over the last two decades on alternative energy research and nothing substantial has come of it. (I refuse to believe the conspiracy theorists who claim that they are suppressing their findings to keep us dependent – you don’t spend that kind of money to suppress your returns and market domination in whatever new technology or energy sources that would supposedly be developed). At the same time, they have been begging to be allowed to resume drilling operations using modern technics and technologies. They have also been pleading to be allowed to expand existing refineries and open new ones. They keep getting told “No!”.
Who is to blame for high gas prices? Us mostly. We elect people that talk out of both sides of their mouths and stand in the way of real efforts to break our dependency on foreign sources of energy. We refuse to accept the today’s economic realities, so much so that we stand on the verge of being forced to take some serious steps backward into the 1970′s energy policies. Oh well. At least we can feel good about ourselves. We’re saving the planet, right? Balderdash!
That’s my two cents.
Thanks Jim, I think those comments are worth a lot more than 2 cents!
I checked the Futures market on comments, indexed for inflation Jim’s most recent comment is coming in up 3/8 to 1.62 a share!
{Godfather: Wow, that is really good. Jim’s comments are getting very valuable indeed!}
I like Jay’s comments. We are a spoiled society that just needs to give up a few things first!
That free market capitalism is the solution is a real derangement of historical facts. Pure capitalism is what lead to the Great Depression due to greed and overspeculation. Only social democracies incorporating communist ideals, and government oversight have survived after WWII, and these are far from true free market(check your tax statements). Social progressive, and dare I say communist ideas, have been just as important in creating stable societies and thus stable economies throughout the world as have free market capitalism. Although there have been big economic problems in purely communist states, communist societies have produced technological progress (sputnik), great intellects (Sakhorov) and great athletes (tune into the olympics). Where do you think our materialistic culture is heading for the improvement of the human achiement? It is true that communist societies have failed economically but there is a problem blaming the underpinning ideology, the main being that 20th century socialism/communism has been tainted with totalitarinism and corruption. Whose to say this will be true with better models which could incorporate the real reasons our “free market” economies have traditionally been successful, namely true demoncracy, free speech, and self-determination. Communism simply means sharing the wealth fairly. Indeed one could make the argument that the free market in its current perverse interpretation as entitlement for the rich and their non-productive heirs is only driving monopolism and economic enslavement of less fortunate individuals, in addition to ruining and interfering with the intellectual devlopment of our youth through a materialistic culture. I have more respect for a plumber or roadworker who produces something useful for our lives, than Donald Trump who builds casino’s to cash in on the materialistic greed of other gamblers. If we lose the real reasons why our economies and life have thrived, we will see a day when free markets economies fail badly, and perhaps much worse, then communist ones.
Sorry about the communist rant, comrades! But just to add one thing, wealth redistribution was NOT a colossal failure. It looks like a failure from the outside because it produced an upheaval in the society, but what other ways does a country like China or Japan have to take away inherited wealth from feudal lords to produce a more efficient economy. China did it the communist way. Japan did it a different way. But in any case wealth and entitlement to that wealth had produced economic stagnation, and it HAD TO BE BROKEN, for future progress to be made. Japan and now even China are doing fine. One could argue that when we Americans came to the U.S. are wealth was very much lost, and thus functionally was redistributed, because we started as more or less equals. We needed a equal stance to get things started FAIRLY, and perhaps we need to incorporate this into our society to some extent to prevent the stagnation of wealth.
It could also be said that “progressive” policies caused the Great Depression” to last as long as it did, and that free market capitalism, if allowed to operate out from under heavy handed government policy, would have corrected the economic situation in a much quicker fashion.
The problem with socialism, communism, and progressivism, is that it almost entirely requires the totalitarian aspect, and in fact relies on the relentless propagandizing of the majority by a small powerful minority to control to populace to continued adherence to policy, effectually reducing the importance of an individual to a moot point in the name of the “people” (usually referred to as the mandate of the controlling government)