Does anyone here actually think it's good that oil companies have to defend profit? - Page 3

motivez · 05-21-2008, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

It would seem you've also taken advantage of the framework provided by the government to thrive in our country and be able to afford to buy things that are not necessary.

And I'm also not bitching about the taxes I pay right now.

Originally Posted by thewise1

If you wanted to buy it and you could afford it without calling for other people to be taxed at a higher rate than you, I wouldn't have any beef with that - in fact I would encourage it. That'd be awesome!

The only people in this thread I've claimed should be taxed at a higher rate are oil companies that my tax dollars have gone to when they're extremely profitable.

Originally Posted by thewise1

But instead, you're saying that you can't afford to donate money to the government, but rich people can afford to have it taken forcefully. Even though you're buying things you don't need at all.

No, I never said I couldn't afford to. I said rich people were better able to afford it. There's a difference, reply to what's been said instead of what you think makes the point you're trying to make pack more of a punch.

Originally Posted by thewise1

I don't mean to make this a personal attack on you, but it seems hypocritical to me (and I know that this applies to much of the general population of the United States as well) that you would go out and buy a video game console or 1080p tv as you mentioned in that thread instead of investing that money and working to become successful so you can pay for your fair share.

Is it possible that you're happy living the way you live and you don't see much benefit in becoming 'rich'? This is what makes me disdain this line of thought - it's not like you're working to become one of these people that gets taxed more to support the system you use, you're making choices that help to prevent or at least delay it somewhat, while simultaneously saying 'well, they're rich, they can afford it to support it'.

Oh, so there's a problem with people who aren't millionaires saving up their money for however long it takes them and then spending it on something they want? Any time us 'poor' folks buy something we want we're hypocrites?

I have an IRA, I invest money every month, I work, and I'm going to school to get an education and a degree so that I can get a better job. Don't talk about me like you think you know what my life is about or try to stereotype me as some sort of leech, thanks.

When I get a job after I graduate I'm not going to complain about paying in, I'll argue for more efficiency in government spending, not the elimination of it. I think there's a need for taxes, a social safety net for people, and other things, and when I'm making more money than I am now I'll gladly pay into it while trying to make sure there's as little waste as possible.

Originally Posted by thewise1

The same concept applies to the rest of the country. We shouldn't be spending our stimulus check on items, we should be investing it - or if you really insist that taxes aren't high enough, and you really weren't greedy and cared about your fellow man, you might go ahead and donate it back to the government so they can redistribute it to people who need it more.

And those rich people who have many multitudes more than I do sitting in a bank account are the ones who can afford to do that and not feel any difference in their lives.. So if anyone should be doing it, it's the ones who can afford it the most.

Originally Posted by thewise1

That's the funny thing with this kind of socialism. Everyone is willing to call for the redistribution of wealth from people richer than themselves, but when it comes to giving up their own pleasures, suddenly it hits home just how asinine their system really is. Greed isn't abolished in this system, it's just outlawed for anyone who is especially successful.

If I was making as much money as the top 5% I wouldn't have any trouble with higher taxes. You talk like you know what I'd do, or what I'd say in the future when my circumstances are different, but you don't.

motivez · 05-21-2008, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

It's state sponsored theft. Just because there is a law making it legal doesn't mean it's right.

Slavery (the kind with black folks) was legal at one point as well, and I doubt you'd use your modern day knowledge to say

a) move somewhere else
b) try to change it while accepting that in the meantime, you'll have to abide by the rules

In case b, nothing is wrong because the law allows for slavery

There's a huge difference in that slaves had no ability to leave, because they were considered property and would be shot / killed if they tried.

The government wont stop you from giving up your citizenship and living elsewhere if you wanted..

motivez · 05-21-2008, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

I didn't say all your spare money had to be taxed. But you could clearly afford a higher tax rate than you are currently being taxed. Somehow you feel you should be exempt from it, though, while applying it to those who are more well off than yourself.

If they want to raise my taxes and people making the same amount of income that I am they're free to. But the people best able to shoulder the burden of higher taxation are those with more money.. not those with less.

I'm not sure how we went from talking about taxing an extremely profitable industry that we subsidize to trying to get me to defend something entirely different, but whatever I guess.

You're again, trying to make a case based around something completely separate from what I said earlier in the thread.

thewise1 · 05-21-2008, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

No, I never said I couldn't afford to. I said rich people were better able to afford it. There's a difference, reply to what's been said instead of what you think makes the point you're trying to make pack more of a punch.

Actually you did-

Originally Posted by motivez

That's actually for my birthday, but why would I? It's something I want and I can afford to buy it. I can't afford to buy it and send the rebate check to the government. Rich people can.

They can because because they've taken advantage of the framework provided by the government for their business, investments, etc, to thrive in our country.

And you didn't answer any of my questions.

Oh, so there's a problem with people who aren't millionaires saving up their money for however long it takes them and then spending it on something they want? Any time us 'poor' folks buy something we want we're hypocrites?

No. But any time you call for the theft of money from those who are rich and 'able to afford it', while simultaneously buying unnecessary items that you 'want', you are being hypocritical.

And those rich people who have many multitudes more than I do sitting in a bank account are the ones who can afford to do that and not feel any difference in their lives.. So if anyone should be doing it, it's the ones who can afford it the most.

So should it be the guy that can afford it the most, or the ones that can afford it most? Who decides? Is the test 'can we take this money away from them and not have them feel any difference in their life'? If they can no longer take their private jet to the bahamas on the weekend, is that acceptable? What about the shareholders for Exxon who are middle class folks who will receive less profit because you planned to tax the company that was successful more, purely because they can afford it? Oops, you just screwed the middle class!

If I was making as much money as the top 5% I wouldn't have any trouble with higher taxes. You talk like you know what I'd do, or what I'd say in the future when my circumstances are different, but you don't.

I know that the chances of you ever being in the top 5% are pretty small - not that I'm saying you couldn't, but the chances are pretty damn small anyway, same for myself - and I think that's a really REALLY easy statement to make before you've walked a mile in their shoes.

Again, I maintain - this caring for your fellow man thing is nothing more than greed designed to hold them to a different standard than yourself and vote yourself cheaper goods or more wealth at their expense. We're not so different, the socialist and the libertarian. We both recognize the power of greed, but the socialist uses the law to vote himself or others money - even if you aren't directly receiving a check, that's a program you don't have to be taxed more to support - whereas the libertarian harnesses greed to produce something to sell, thus generating wealth through mutual and voluntary trade.

thewise1 · 05-21-2008, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

There's a huge difference in that slaves had no ability to leave, because they were considered property and would be shot / killed if they tried.

The government wont stop you from giving up your citizenship and living elsewhere if you wanted..

I was speaking from the standpoint of an abolitionist, which is similar to my standpoint in this conversation as I am certainly not in the top 5% of wealthy people.

David Octavius · 05-21-2008, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Interesting justification. At least you can admit that profit is required to be the number one economy, why you wouldn't want to strive to be the best is beyond me, though.

Why we ought not strive for number 1? Because there is a point of diminishing returns, just like one should not strive to buy everything their neighbor does because that could put him in the poor house, the same with us trying to be the greatest economy - we may cause more harm to ourselves then good.

And besides, complete market freedom will lead to tyranny, just like pure democracy. The concepts of a market economy and a democracy are excellent, but excess in both can be just as terrible as dictatorship for one and communism for the other.

motivez · 05-21-2008, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

No. But any time you call for the theft of money from those who are rich and 'able to afford it', while simultaneously buying unnecessary items that you 'want', you are being hypocritical.

I never advocated that everyone should give all excess wealth not spent on necessities to the government, you're still trying to make me defend something I didn't say.

It's also not theft because you have, of your own free will, agreed to pay for it by being a citizen of this country and have agreed to abide by the laws that are in place.

Originally Posted by thewise1

So should it be the guy that can afford it the most, or the ones that can afford it most? Who decides? Is the test 'can we take this money away from them and not have them feel any difference in their life'? If they can no longer take their private jet to the bahamas on the weekend, is that acceptable? What about the shareholders for Exxon who are middle class folks who will receive less profit because you planned to tax the company that was successful more, purely because they can afford it? Oops, you just screwed the middle class!

Society decides, that's who. They decide through elections by electing people with policies they don't like.. and in a free society, those who don't like the results aren't forced to live under them, they have the option of leaving or not participating in our country at all (through investment or whatever else) if they feel like it's too burdensome.

motivez · 05-21-2008, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

I know that the chances of you ever being in the top 5% are pretty small - not that I'm saying you couldn't, but the chances are pretty damn small anyway, same for myself - and I think that's a really REALLY easy statement to make before you've walked a mile in their shoes.

Just because I'm not independently wealthy doesn't speak to anything about my family. I'm not going to get into details, but there will be a point when my circumstances change, and I doubt very seriously my convictions and feelings will change drastically enough to say there should be no taxes whatsoever or that those with more money aren't better able to handle higher taxes.

Spideynw · 05-21-2008, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Should a company be allowed to profit extremely at the expense of the American people "suffering"?

I love liberal wording. "At the expense"? The gas companies are providing a product to people at a price they are willing to pay. Reducing profit incentives will just reduce the supply, which will reduce wealth, which will result in more suffering. It just comes down to the short-sightedness of liberals means more suffering for all. Aren't you happy?

thewise1 · 05-21-2008, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Just because I'm not independently wealthy doesn't speak to anything about my family. I'm not going to get into details, but there will be a point when my circumstances change, and I doubt very seriously my convictions and feelings will change drastically enough to say there should be no taxes whatsoever or that those with more money aren't better able to handle higher taxes.

It took everything I had to resist saying 'ohio state, son'

And then I still shared the fact that I thought it with you anyway

look what the other place does to you, even after 4 or 5 months of being gone

beanmonster · 05-21-2008, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Spideynw

I love liberal wording. "At the expense"? The gas companies are providing a product to people at a price they are willing to pay. Reducing profit incentives will just reduce the supply, which will reduce wealth, which will result in more suffering. It just comes down to the short-sightedness of liberals means more suffering for all. Aren't you happy?

Not sure if it's truly willing to pay if the gas companies have people held hostage in terms of their fuel options.

05-21-2008, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by beanmonster

Not sure if it's truly willing to pay if the gas companies have people held hostage in terms of their fuel options.

Get a car that gets better mileage

move closer to work? There are definately some problems with us being dependant on gasoline/oil. But thats not the fault of the oil companies. Furthermore government for 25 years was lax in getting cafe standards updated. If cars got double the mileage they do today it'd have about the same impact as gas being back at 2 bucks a gallon. So government blaming the oil companies is kind of hilarious. They're simply providing the fuel to drive this economic engine. The government, automakers and the people ahve been very relaxed with their use of oil. The result? When price spikes it bites us in the ass.

motivez · 05-21-2008, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Get a car that gets better mileage move closer to work? There are definately some problems with us being dependant on gasoline/oil. But thats not the fault of the oil companies. Furthermore government for 25 years was lax in getting cafe standards updated. If cars got double the mileage they do today it'd have about the same impact as gas being back at 2 bucks a gallon. So government blaming the oil companies is kind of hilarious. They're simply providing the fuel to drive this economic engine. The government, automakers and the people ahve been very relaxed with their use of oil. The result? When price spikes it bites us in the ass.

How realistic is it for someone who has trouble affording gas to pick up and move?

Chances are taxes are higher in the business districts than where they live if they live far away from work anyway, at least that's the case here.

seangone · 05-21-2008, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Get a car that gets better mileage move closer to work? There are definately some problems with us being dependant on gasoline/oil. But thats not the fault of the oil companies. Furthermore government for 25 years was lax in getting cafe standards updated. If cars got double the mileage they do today it'd have about the same impact as gas being back at 2 bucks a gallon. So government blaming the oil companies is kind of hilarious. They're simply providing the fuel to drive this economic engine. The government, automakers and the people ahve been very relaxed with their use of oil. The result? When price spikes it bites us in the ass.

Those are mitigating factors as to the cost to the consumer, which could help, but does not explain why the companies should be able to take advantage of the national dependence on oil for record profits. There wouldn't be much to discuss if they were not rolling in profits while consumers faced rising fuel prices.

Spideynw · 05-21-2008, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by beanmonster

Not sure if it's truly willing to pay if the gas companies have people held hostage in terms of their fuel options.

More liberal speak. No one is being "held hostage". People survived for thousands of years without fuel.

Spideynw · 05-21-2008, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Get a car that gets better mileage move closer to work? There are definately some problems with us being dependant on gasoline/oil. But thats not the fault of the oil companies. Furthermore government for 25 years was lax in getting cafe standards updated. If cars got double the mileage they do today it'd have about the same impact as gas being back at 2 bucks a gallon. So government blaming the oil companies is kind of hilarious. They're simply providing the fuel to drive this economic engine. The government, automakers and the people ahve been very relaxed with their use of oil. The result? When price spikes it bites us in the ass.

CAFE standards!? Are you kidding me? Those are a joke. The only things the CAFE standards did was to increase the number of SUV's being driven. As far as the new "standards" are concerned, it is highly doubtful they will do anything either, since they are not relevant to trucks/suv's. They will just reduce the number of large cars being driven and force people to buy more SUV's.

Spideynw · 05-21-2008, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

How realistic is it for someone who has trouble affording gas to pick up and move?

Chances are taxes are higher in the business districts than where they live if they live far away from work anyway, at least that's the case here.

My wife and I did it, and I would consider our situation at the time in the "poverty" level. We have a lot of credit card debt, but life goes on.

Spideynw · 05-21-2008, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by seangone

Those are mitigating factors as to the cost to the consumer, which could help, but does not explain why the companies should be able to take advantage of the national dependence on oil for record profits. There wouldn't be much to discuss if they were not rolling in profits while consumers faced rising fuel prices.

More liberal speak. They are not "taking advantage" of the national dependence on oil. They are simply trying to provide a product at the lowest possible price. Maybe you should focus more on the government letting companies build more refineries. Or how about the government letting companies drill for more oil in the U.S.

beanmonster · 05-21-2008, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Spideynw

More liberal speak. No one is being "held hostage". People survived for thousands of years without fuel.

If survival is the only measure of what makes an activity acceptable then there'd be a lot less complaining on all sides of every issue, though I think both you an I would agree that the ability to survive through something does not make it acceptable.

seangone · 05-21-2008, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Spideynw

More liberal speak. They are not "taking advantage" of the national dependence on oil. They are simply trying to provide a product at the lowest possible price. Maybe you should focus more on the government letting companies build more refineries. Or how about the government letting companies drill for more oil in the U.S.

If they were, as you claim, trying to provide a product at the lowest possible price, then they would not have record profits. It's not about the prices going up, it's about the companies making so much profit. There's dozens of reasons, fixable and not, for gas prices to go up, but not a reason for record profits at the same time.