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

thewise1 · 05-21-2008, 03:00 PM

In our capitalist society, which is not without flaws, the one thing that has driven us to accomplish so much is profit, both personal and corporate.

Corporate profit not only enriches shareholders, it creates jobs, enriches its employees, and if they are profiting, provides an obviously valuable service to the people of this nation.

Yet, here we have our senators making companies testify on how they are justified in doing the only thing they exist for. Saying "Don't you have a conscience?" to people who have executed their job well. Thinking it's logical to compare a CEO's pay to someone who can't afford the $4/gallon gas.

Can any of you who actually support this articulate why a company should bother staying in business when well educated, 'intelligent' lawmakers of this country are out to loot everything they do successfully?

motivez · 05-21-2008, 03:12 PM

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

I imagine that's where it's coming from.

I think they should be allowed to profit for sure, but when their profits are as high as they are for a single quarter, I have no problem with them being taxed at a higher rate.

thewise1 · 05-21-2008, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

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

I imagine that's where it's coming from.

I think they should be allowed to profit for sure, but when their profits are as high as they are for a single quarter, I have no problem with them being taxed at a higher rate.

Can you articulate, then, why a company should bother to create a wildly successful product that makes them profit higher than is 'allowed under the norm', knowing that doing so simply will place them under scrutiny for being successful?

Scrum · 05-21-2008, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Can you articulate, then, why a company should bother to create a wildly successful product that makes them profit higher than is 'allowed under the norm', knowing that doing so simply will place them under scrutiny for being successful?

Because we are stuck using their product no matter what.

motivez · 05-21-2008, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Can you articulate, then, why a company should bother to create a wildly successful product that makes them profit higher than is 'allowed under the norm', knowing that doing so simply will place them under scrutiny for being successful?

Create a wild successful product?

Come on, the energy industry isn't like anything else, because they're selling something everyone in our society is forced to buy.

They go and find and extract and refine and make it available, and aside from technology that makes that process easier, that's the extent of their innovation.. so I'm not going to buy into a pity party about their 'creation' of a product.

When everyone is forced to buy a product because our society requires it to function, non-inept companies are going to be wildly successful as it is, not because they're winning some free market battle of ideas, but because their product is a necessity, like water.. and a transition that enables alternatives to exist take time to overcome the framework that's been built up that massively benefits their company and the industry in general over the last 100 years.

When those kinds of conditions are in place, I have 0 problem with higher taxes.. especially considering we subsidize them. Tax them in the amount we have subsidized the industry, and lets call it even.

thewise1 · 05-21-2008, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Create a wild successful product?

Come on, the energy industry isn't like anything else, because they're selling something everyone in our society is forced to buy.

They go and find and extract and refine and make it available, and aside from technology that makes that process easier, that's the extent of their innovation.. so I'm not going to buy into a pity party about their 'creation' of a product.

When everyone is forced to buy a product because our society requires it to function, non-inept companies are going to be wildly successful as it is, not because they're winning some free market battle of ideas, but because their product is a necessity, like water.. and a transition that enables alternatives to exist take time to overcome the framework that's been built up that massively benefits their company and the industry in general over the last 100 years.

When those kinds of conditions are in place, I have 0 problem with higher taxes.. especially considering we subsidize them. Tax them in the amount we have subsidized the industry, and lets call it even.

We lived for thousands of years without it. It's only needed if you want to live your life like it is today; You wouldn't die without it (speaking of gasoline).

They have improved your life through its existence, and now you say they are making you suffer because you have to pay for it, yet without them you would have nothing at all.

What you propose is slavery. Because they sold it and we got used to it, now they have to be forced to produce it and not profit too much off of it.

motivez · 05-21-2008, 03:35 PM

The use of the product has improved our lives, the companies themselves only by being involved in it's transportation from location a to b, not because they're motivated by improving our life.

I didn't say they were making people suffer, I asked if a company could be allowed to profit extremely while people suffer due to prices over their product.

It's not slavery. That's hyperbole and nothing more. Our tax dollars have subsidized the industry for decades, so why would I have a problem with taxing them at a higher rate to get some of the people's money back now that they're making so much money?

thewise1 · 05-21-2008, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The use of the product has improved our lives, the companies themselves only by being involved in it's transportation from location a to b, not because they're motivated by improving our life.

I didn't say they were making people suffer, I asked if a company could be allowed to profit extremely while people suffer due to prices over their product.

It's not slavery. That's hyperbole and nothing more. Our tax dollars have subsidized the industry for decades, so why would I have a problem with taxing them at a higher rate to get some of the people's money back now that they're making so much money?

The companies are involved in its distribution and its refinement - you couldn't just take a bunch of crude on a truck and be a mini oil company, the investment required is immense.

Yes, I believe that company should be allowed to profit while people 'suffer' (hyperbole?) due to the prices of their product. Find another product if you don't like it.

You should have a problem with taxing them at this higher rate because all business have good and bad times. They take the money from the good times and roll it into the bad times to help create stability. They should be investing this money in new discovery or production (both of which actually might alleviate the price problem), not giving it to the government.

thewise1 · 05-21-2008, 03:43 PM

And of course they aren't motivated by improving our life. They shouldn't be. Their job is to make money - which means they sell a product at a profit. Improve your own life.

motivez · 05-21-2008, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

The companies are involved in its distribution and its refinement - you couldn't just take a bunch of crude on a truck and be a mini oil company, the investment required is immense.

And a lot of that investment was through subsidization by our tax dollars. Again, why should I have a problem with the government taxing them higher when we gave so much money to an industry that's extremely profitable?

Originally Posted by thewise1

Yes, I believe that company should be allowed to profit while people 'suffer' (hyperbole?) due to the prices of their product. Find another product if you don't like it.

Yeah, it's hyperbole, they're not suffering like they would by being stabbed with a cattle prod

But like I said, everyone is forced to buy their product. Finding another one isn't easy because our entire society has been built around the use of this one product, infrastructure has been built, and subsidized by our tax dollars again, to make the use of their product easier.

Originally Posted by thewise1

You should have a problem with taxing them at this higher rate because all business have good and bad times. They take the money from the good times and roll it into the bad times to help create stability. They should be investing this money in new discovery or production (both of which actually might alleviate the price problem), not giving it to the government.

That's a good point, but at least since they've been profitable we shouldn't have been subsidizing them. I'm sure you can agree with that. Since the money they've made during the 'good times' is more than enough to put some aside to create stability, what's the problem with the government taxing to get the money we've given them back?

David Octavius · 05-21-2008, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

And of course they aren't motivated by improving our life. They shouldn't be. Their job is to make money - which means they sell a product at a profit.

And this is where corruption and tyranny starts by the unscrupulous

7960 · 05-21-2008, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

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

I see people changing because of gas prices. I don't see many "suffering."

thewise1 · 05-21-2008, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

And this is where corruption and tyranny starts by the unscrupulous

It's also where our success has come from as a nation.

motivez · 05-21-2008, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

And of course they aren't motivated by improving our life. They shouldn't be. Their job is to make money - which means they sell a product at a profit. Improve your own life.

This is what I dislike most about the libertarian political philosophy, that aside from greed, there should be no other considerations.

thewise1 · 05-21-2008, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

And a lot of that investment was through subsidization by our tax dollars. Again, why should I have a problem with the government taxing them higher when we gave so much money to an industry that's extremely profitable?

Yeah, it's hyperbole, they're not suffering like they would by being stabbed with a cattle prod

But like I said, everyone is forced to buy their product. Finding another one isn't easy because our entire society has been built around the use of this one product, infrastructure has been built, and subsidized by our tax dollars again, to make the use of their product easier.

That's a good point, but at least since they've been profitable we shouldn't have been subsidizing them. I'm sure you can agree with that. Since the money they've made during the 'good times' is more than enough to put some aside to create stability, what's the problem with the government taxing to get the money we've given them back?

I don't think we should have subsidized them. I think you know that.

Fine, if you want to make that argument, have them pay it back. Then will you continue to tax them at a higher rate?

Viv · 05-21-2008, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

And of course they aren't motivated by improving our life. They shouldn't be. Their job is to make money - which means they sell a product at a profit. Improve your own life.

They are allowed to make a profit. But it should be a reasonable profit.
If they are working for themselves and not interested in anyone else, why should people let them do what they want and not be accountable?

motivez · 05-21-2008, 04:00 PM

No, I don't think raising taxes on them aside from getting money we've invested in them is going to help anything.

But I think when you have an industry that's extremely profitable, and we've been subsidizing them, higher taxes is justified as a means of getting the people their money back.

David Octavius · 05-21-2008, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

It's also where our success has come from as a nation.

Sure, but there needs to be a balance - I don't think we need to be the number 1 economy to be happy, in fact it may injury us more than help

thewise1 · 05-21-2008, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Viv

They are allowed to make a profit. But it should be a reasonable profit.
If they are working for themselves and not interested in anyone else, why should people let them do what they want and not be accountable?

Maybe because we live in the United States of America, where we're supposed to be a free country?

thewise1 · 05-21-2008, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

No, I don't think raising taxes on them aside from getting money we've invested in them is going to help anything.

But I think when you have an industry that's extremely profitable, and we've been subsidizing them, higher taxes is justified as a means of getting the people their money back.

How will that give the people their money back? Taxes won't be lowered, it will just be spent on whatever pet programs exist for the party in control at the moment.