You are Big oil

[allrollsin21]

"Why don't we impose an environmental tax (which I believe already exists but have to verify) on the companies?"

The reason we do not is because of lobbyists. The people paying for the elected officials campaigns. Any current environmental taxes are nonsense. The externalities associated with these huge corporations are beyond the scope of most peoples understanding. Gas SHOULD cost well over 5$ a gallon. A t-shirt should cost a Hundred... This applies to everything at the cherished walmarts. The cost should be increased and companies should be responsible for cleaning up the mess being made of the environment. If they don't want to do it, which they have shown they do not, then they need HUGE taxes imposed so the government can do it for them. All this freedom, and american dream nonsense...if the government would let them, these companies would be pouring their toxic wastes in a hole underneath your homes.

[dragonrider]

I do not think the windfall profits tax is a good idea, but I also do not agree with the premise that EVERYONE has a stake in the profitability of oil companies.

The idea that "you are big oil" is not necessarily true. First of all, not everyone has a 401k, IRA, or other mutual fund investments. And second, even for those who do, just because you have a 401k does not mean you are necessarily invested in oil companies.

401k investment options usually include several options that are not invested in stocks at all --- there may be money market accounts, bond funds, real estate investment trusts and other non-stock investment options. Almost certainly you will have some stock mutual funds as well, but there are many mutual funds that are not invested in oil. Since most oil companies are large and highly capitalized, almost any small cap fund will have very little invested in oil. Also there are many funds out there that include some kind of social responisbility component to their investment strategy and intentionally exclude investments in companies such as oil comanies, gross polluters, environmentally irresponsible industries, tobacco companies, companies that use child labor, or other industires or campanies that they define as socially irresponsible. If you want to know what your mutual funds are invested in, read the prospectus. You are only invested in Big Oil if you choose to be.

A lot of the debate so far has centered around whether policies favorable to industry and/or the "rich" are favorable or disfavorable to "the rest of us."

There is a certain percentage of our population who are the "rich" who, if they always support policies favorable to themselves, will always support policies favorable to industry and/or the "rich," even at the expense of the "poor" or the "middle class."

And there is a certain percentage of our population who are the "poor" who, if they always support policies favorabe to themselves, will always support policies favorable the "poor," even at the expense of industry and/or the "rich" or the "middle class."

But the most important swing constituency is the "middle class," who are neither rich nor poor. In good economic times, the middle class sees a chance that they themselves may become rich, and they tend to support policies favorable to industry and/or the "rich." In bad economic times, the middle class fears the prospect that they themselves may become poor, and they tend to support policies favorable to the "poor."

If you are middle class right now, do you think you have a better chance of becoming rich or poor in the future?

[dragonrider]

Do you own a 401k? If you do you know that the options you can invest are actually collections of various stocks. Some/most of which include Oil.

It is true that a mutual fund is a collection of stocks, but it is NOT true that "Some/most of which include Oil." It is very easy to find out what your mutual fund is invested in, and if you do not want to invest in oil, it is easy to avoid it.

[dragonrider]

BTW, Exxon/Mobile has a profit margin of 8%, for every dollar they take in, they make 8cents. They already pay more in taxes than thier after tax profit, would any of you want to pay out over 60% of your paycheck in tax? And I'm not going to provide the link to thier financials, they are readily available to anybody with 2 fingers.

This is not true. It is completely false. A total fabrication. And I am not going to back up it up with any facts, becasue it is easy enough for you to do it yourself.

[dragonrider]

It sounds like you don't know how to manage your mutual fund. Yes you have someone to do that for you but you know what.. if you're losing money multiple years in a row then it's time to change funds or find a new person to manage your mutual fund.

Actually if you look at the overall performance of the stock market, it has been esentially flat since around the begining of the year 2000. It goes up, it comes back down, but overall there have been very little gains for most of the decade. With fees and operating expenses, it is not surpirsing that many people have seen a decline in portfolio value during this time.

If you have actually been actively investing during the whole time, buying on a periodic schedule regardless of the market conditions (like a little each paycheck in a 401k), then you have probably made some money. This is becasue you buy more shares when prices are low, and fewer when prices are high --- so if even if there are a lot of ups and downs, as long as the market still returns to the same value, you generally stand a good chance of still making money. But if you invested a lump sum of 20,000 at the begining, you have probably lost money.

Or do what makes most sense. Take control and invest your own money.

If the money is in a 401k, then there are is little opprtunity to "Take control and invest your own money." The most you can do is choose from among the investment options offered.

[dragonrider]

When you get right down to it. Any person that owns stock by way of thier 401K witch most people have. They are big oil. They are the share holder that the company is trying to make a profit for.

Not true. Just because you have a 401k does not mean you own stock in oil companies.

[dragonrider]

I don't buy any of this thread, but didn't George Bush basically do the same thing a few months ago? Sent about $200-$600 to everybody as an "economic stimulus package", which every economist later agreed did NOTHING to stimulate the economy, while wasting millions in public money.

Big difference here, the money Bush sent to people was their money to begin with! The money wasn't stolen from a company that earned it and then given to people that had nothing to do with earning it. The money Bush gave out was money that Americans had given to the federal gov in the form of income taxes. Hence, "income tax rebate". Now whether or not it helped the economy, who knows? That's debatable. But fact is that money belonged to the people to begin with!

Wrong. The money was BORROWED and given away. It wasn't taken from some huge pile of cash that the government has saved up from income taxes --- it was borrowed and added to the national debt. If it was stolen from anyone, it was stolen from the future generations of taxpayers who will have to pay off the debt with interest. It is not a "tax rebate" --- it is a tax INCREASE on future generations so that we can buy crap now. What a waste.

[khronik]

No but it's a socialized service. Which comes out of our pockets one way or another. Increase Capital Gains tax and guess what's going to happen.. unemployment rate will shoot up. Companies want to protect their profits. So guess who still ends up paying for this.. WE do in the form of a higher unemployment rate.

Hey we may be unemployed and starving, but at least we have health insurance :thumbsup:

You're exaggerating. A lot. There's more wrong here, but I'll get to that later.

What are you talking about here? No one ever spoke about rescinding the payroll tax and as far as I know neither has Obama. He has talked about rescinding the Bush tax cuts. If I'm wrong please let me know. I sincerely don't recall the payroll tax; my brain is on overload these days.

This whole article is pretty good, but this page covers the tax cuts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/ma...l?pagewanted=5

And he has specifically said that the stimulus package would be funded over the next 5 years by a windfall profits tax placed on companies. I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be.

Here are some non-conservative sites I posted earlier in the thread:

The windfall profits tax isn't enough to make up for the payroll tax cut, so that can't be entirely accurate, no matter who says it.

Correct... he does want to raise it from 15% to between 20-28%. Do you honestly think that 5% more of a companies profits is not a big deal??? How do you think companies make budgets for.. oh.. let's say raises, benefits, new hires. What factors do you think a company takes into account when trying to price their product.. profit is one of them... Trust me having worked for a number of fortune 500's where all companies deal in very large numbers.... 5% is a massive increase. And in all likely hood he'll probably move the number somewhere closer to 23-24%. I believe that article I posted outlined something like that.

Let's do some math.. company XYZ made $4billion in profits last year and got hit with a 15% tax..

$4,000,000,000 - 15% = 600,000,000 or $600 Million.

Now let's increase that to 20%

$4,000,000,000 - 20% = 800,000,000 or $800 million or 1/5th of their profits.

now let's set that in the middle at 24%

$4,000,000,000 - 24% = 960,000,000 almost 1 billion dollars.

The figure for the full 28% is 1.2 billion.

That is a substantial chunk of money that you are now taking from companies.. which in turn takes away money from investors. Investors sell due to declining profits.. companies cut jobs to appease investor and to save it's profits.

Look at Wachovia bank very recently when it reported it's losses. It cut thousands of jobs right there on the spot without even batting an eye.

If you own a home then you know that even though the numbers are small.. there is a pretty substantial increase between 2.8% tax and 3.4% tax. For my home the difference is from 4k to almost 5k. That is significant despite such a small increase.

It works the same for companies who EMPLOY YOU... who make the products YOU use.. who provide services YOU need. Do you think that these people won't roll the tax over onto you somehow either through job layoffs or increase in the cost of products and services?

In the end we all suffer for capital gains.

You're confusing corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. Capital gains taxes are taxes on money gained through investments in things like stocks and bonds. Corporate taxes are the taxes levied on businesses.

This disgusts me. You are obviously wanting to lash out against people who may have a tendency to lean to the right. Honestly I think that coined term is a load of Bologney. I have a very strong moral core and a concrete value system that does not align with conservatives or liberals perfectly. Yet people want to label me. Toss aside your labels that are used at attempt to insult others. If you're conservative then embrace it (as many conservatives already do) and if you're liberal then stop being chicken shit and just say that this is what you believe (honestly most liberals do seem to be ashamed of the word liberal and I've never understood why).

Fine. Everyone's been labeling me a liberal, and it's pissing me off too. But I never accused you of supporting the war in Iraq, or anything like that.

Now if someone were to say it is not in the United States best interest to elect Obama then I would have to STRONGLY agree.

And I would disagree. And Warren Buffet would disagree. And plenty of others would disagree.

You always have a choice. This is America, don't put your losses off on someone else.

I'm not, I'm merely stating that my investment account did far worse under Bush than say, Clinton. And I imagine that that holds true for just about anyone else with invested money too.

You're right.. it is a shit ton of money. Now take 30% of that 8%... That's a pretty hefty chunk you just took out of that 8%. 1/3 of that is gone now. Where do you think jobs, benefits, raises, cheap products and services come from? Certainly not from heavy taxation of companies!

I could list all the services governments provide, but you should be able to figure them out yourself.

2 terms in the senate constitutes a career?

He was also in the Illinois state senate for six years. And he's actually been in the US senate for less than a term.

Name 5 major accomplishments Obama has made during his time in the senate.

Please provide sources and elaborate how these were 'accomplishments' when compared to other long standing politicians.

Too much work.

Even other senators who back Barack Obama can't name any of his accomplishments

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o[/YOUTUBE]

First of all, he's not a US senator, he's a Texas state senator. Second, just because he's acting like a deer in the headlights on national TV, doesn't mean Obama hasn't accomplished anything. The guy did an interview later where he listed a bunch of Obama's accomplishments.

[Bong30]

Not true. Just because you have a 401k does not mean you own stock in oil companies.

They should if they have half a brain.

[daihashi]

You're exaggerating. A lot. There's more wrong here, but I'll get to that later.

Looking forward to it.

This whole article is pretty good, but this page covers the tax cuts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/ma...l?pagewanted=5

Ok, thank you for posting it. I have read this and it's nothing new. The amount of money saved saved per American is negligible here.

McCainâ??s various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obamaâ??s proposals would bring $900 a year in savings.

That example was given in the article you posted. Wow, a whole extra $700 a year, that amounts to $13/week. I'm reeling in the money now.

To be honest I would rather pay that extra $700 and have my government do some good with it.

And by the way, that article was actually really bad at outlining Obama's 'payroll tax' cut. I am confident you could've found a better article as I actually had to go out and search with keywords I found in that article to truely understand what his plan proposed.

What is interesting is what he had to say a year ago about this.

Obama's idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday's Quad City Times as being "one possible option" and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax. Half of the tax would be paid by employees and half would be paid by employers.
ABC News: Obama Floats Social Security Tax Hike

Now he proposes his cap at 250k.

The windfall profits tax isn't enough to make up for the payroll tax cut, so that can't be entirely accurate, no matter who says it.

You realize that the payroll tax cut isn't really a cut but more accurately a shift in who pays the taxes. So you're right, windfall profits tax isn't enough to make up for the payroll tax cut, because there's not an actual cut in the payroll tax.

You're confusing corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. Capital gains taxes are taxes on money gained through investments in things like stocks and bonds. Corporate taxes are the taxes levied on businesses.

Last I checked I was talking about capital gains. Matter of fact if you were paying attention I quoted you when you listed the 20-28% figure that obama proposes to raise the Capital gains tax to. So really you seem to be the one that's confused.

Last I checked companies keep their own investment portfolios.. last I checked capital gains still effects big business in more ways than you can imagine.

Fine. Everyone's been labeling me a liberal, and it's pissing me off too. But I never accused you of supporting the war in Iraq, or anything like that.

uhh.. that's great because I never accused you of supporting the war either. What are you talking about, you went way out into left field.

And I would disagree. And Warren Buffet would disagree. And plenty of others would disagree.

Warren Buffet I would be willing to listen to, but you're a self confessed person who knows nothing about investing. And you're hanging on the words of Obama, even though you don't really understand what he's saying.

I'm not, I'm merely stating that my investment account did far worse under Bush than say, Clinton. And I imagine that that holds true for just about anyone else with invested money too.

Again you realize that the president is not responsible for what the stock market does and is not responsible for your fiscal well being? Who is just about anyone else with invested money.

Since I actually take the time to analyze my stocks and pay attention to what the companies are doing I have not lost any money. My stock portfolio has risen between 15-22% each year for the last 3 years.

I am better at investment than most but you are making a huge assumption by saying "I imagine that holds true for just about anyone else with invested money too." Just because you are bad with money does not mean other people are who take the time to understand the market.

I could list all the services governments provide, but you should be able to figure them out yourself.

Last I checked the constitution granted us freedom, not socialized services. Socialized services are services that cost money that you may or may not take part in.

For example, I pay medicare... but I do not get to participate in medicare, or medicaid for that matter. I didn't participate for free lunch program at school, I never qualified for any government programs growing up yet my family still had to pay into it.

That means that we were paying for other people, we'll say you for example, to take advantage of these benefits.

That sir is a form of socialism and is the opposite of what our nation stands for.

Honestly I feel that a good majority of the services the government provides should be done away with. It is a waste of our tax dollars. I am not talking about welfare or medicare but our government is notoriously bad with spending our money. Why should we have to pay more money so they can spend more on programs that the majority of the population won't get to use.

He was also in the Illinois state senate for six years. And he's actually been in the US senate for less than a term.

So I stand corrected. He has LESS experience than I originally was led to believe.

Too much work.

You took the time to obviously read through my long response and try to rebuttal with your own, yet this is too much work?

More like you can't do it, and even if you can you've probably been working the google on your internet machine to try to dig something up. The fact is that in comparison to other senators his list of actual accomplishments is pathetic and just about non existant.

First of all, he's not a US senator, he's a Texas state senator. Second, just because he's acting like a deer in the headlights on national TV, doesn't mean Obama hasn't accomplished anything. The guy did an interview later where he listed a bunch of Obama's accomplishments.

Texas state senator, US congressmen or a city council person. It doesn't matter, this is a guy who went on national TV to endorse Obama. If you are going to say you support someone and that you stand behind them you better have a good reason for doing it.

If you can't name even one accomplishment from that candidate then it raises alot of flags. Why would a state senator support someone he knows nothing about. This doesn't alarm you AT ALL?