"MACK DADDY" <pepsivanilla@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:f7d6328b-4252-400b-bdba-c6abe86ba231@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 12, 12:41 pm, "Dionysus" <no surren...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Day Brown" <daybr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ik0Wj.115852$Ft5.44062@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>> > Dionysus wrote:
>> >> FROM IBD
>>
>> >> HEAD: DEMOCRATS' WINDFALL TAX -- ON YOU
>>
>> >> In their ongoing war against U.S. oil producers, Senate Democrats
say
>> >> they'll slap Big Oil with a windfall profits tax and take away $17
>> >> billion in tax breaks, among other punishments. The planned 25
percent
>> >> tax on windfall profits would be imposed on oil company earnings
above
>> >> what the Senate's wise members decided was "reasonable." Never mind
>> >> that
>> >> what's "reasonable" to one person might be punitive to another, says
>> >> Investor's Business Daily (IBD).
>>
>> >> The last time the United States had a windfall profits tax on oil
>> >> companies, the results were [disastrous]:
>> >> --Over the entire 1980-1986 period, the (windfall profits tax)
reduced
>> >> domestic oil production from between 320 million barrels . . . and
>> >> 1,268
>> >> million barrels according to the Congressional Research Service.
>> >> --Oil companies were hit hard by the tax, and in line with basic
>> >> economic
>> >> theory, they produced less oil, not more.
>> >> --The effect of reducing domestic oil production was to increase the
>> >> level of im****ted oil, says IBD:
>>
>> >> At the time, the United States im****ted about 30 percent of its oil;
>> >> today, we im****t about 60 percent.
>>
>> >> In part, that jump in oil dependency was due to the huge tax
advantage
>> >> we
>> >> gave foreign oil companies in the 1980s -- and to the continuing
>> >> advantage we give them today by refusing to let our oil companies
>> >> produce
>> >> more crude from our own reserves.
>> >> Revenues from the windfall tax were far less than expected, because
>> >> producers pumped less and non-taxed im****ts flooded our market.
>> >> Compared
>> >> with a forecast of $393 billion in windfall tax revenues from 1980
to
>> >> 1988, Congress got a mere $80 billion.
>> >> *********
>> >> Dose dim Dems..."stupid is as stupid does" indeed.
>> > Where the rubber hits the road, is what big oil does with profits.
>> > Paying the head of Exxon 400 million a year has not done jack schitt
to
>> > increase oil production or drive down the price at the pump. Au
>> > Contraire,
>> > what the high cost of management has done is drive prices up.
>>
>> > And if the tax makes them keep more American oil in the ground and
buy
>> > more foreign oil, that's good. Use up their oil first. Any investor
can
>> > see the profit in doing that.
>>
>> > You'd think economic conservatives could figure out capitalism.
>>
>> ********
>> Puh-leeze, you sputter mere spittle spewed nonsense. What the head of a
>> company is paid has no bearing on what the company charges for its
>> product.
>> And, oil is fungible, makes no matter where it is...the price is the
>> price.
>> The only meaningful way to lower the price is to increase production.
>>
>> You'd be better off limiting your trolling to the **** sites; there
your
>> embarrassment would be due to mere physical under development.
>>
>> Dionysus
>>
>>
>>
>> - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh **** OFF! The cost of production is the same whether it's
> underproduced as if it's overproduced. Please getcho head outya ass,
> biotch!
**********
Okay, everyone all together now...on three...one, two, three...."Dung
Beetle, you imbecile." Thank you, thank you very much.
Dionysus
|
