exxonmobile 10.7 billion broken out

Post #342,158 by boxley 5/2/11 11:08:55 AM 5/2/11 11:11:22 AM Reply	exxonmobile 10.7 billion broken out http://www.exxonmobi...ar-in-washington/ Let me start by putting our earnings into context for U.S. motorists. ExxonMobilÂs earnings are from operations in more than 100 countries around the world. During the first quarter, more than three-quarters of our operating earnings came from outside of the United States. The part of ExxonMobilÂs business that refines and sells gasoline, diesel and other products in the United States represents less than 6 percent Â or 6 cents on the dollar Â of our earnings. Why so little? Because we actually buy more crude oil to refine into gasoline and diesel in the U.S. than we produce ourselves. And these purchases are made on the open market at the prevailing rates. During the first three months of this year, for every gallon of gasoline and other products we refined and sold in the United States, we earned about 7 cents. Compare that to the 40 to 60 cents per gallon that went from gasoline consumers to the government (state and federal) in gasoline taxes. snip edit add let me state it unequivocally. Last year, our total taxes and duties to the U.S. government were $9.8 billion, which includes an income tax expense of $1.6 billion. Over the past five years, we incurred a total U.S. tax expense of almost $59 billion, which is $18 billion more than we earned in the United States during the same period. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep Edited by boxley May 2, 2011, 11:11:22 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #342,159 by Another Scott 5/2/11 11:14:52 AM Reply	Um, so they count FICA, etc., as taxes paid???
Post #342,161 by beepster 5/2/11 11:59:25 AM Reply	They can because they do and you skip over the fact that gasoline sales are 7 to 10 times more profitable for the government than they are for the oil company. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #342,162 by S1mon_Jester 5/2/11 12:07:27 PM Reply	Interesting I thought FICA was paid by the employee, not the company. (If the employee didn't have FICA, he would/could be paid 15% more.)
Post #342,164 by Steve Lowe 5/2/11 12:14:12 PM Reply	50/50 50% paid by employee, 50% paid by employer. http://money.cnn.com...sson18/index4.htm
Post #342,167 by S1mon_Jester 5/2/11 1:06:03 PM Reply	Re: 50/50 That's why I said 15% more.... It's paid by the company...but in theory, the employee would be paid those fund if the company didn't pay them to the government. (According to those who wanted Social Security to disappear)
Post #342,174 by Another Scott 5/2/11 2:32:18 PM Reply	Is FICA a tax on their profits? No, it isn't. They're obfuscating. You know that. Cheers, Scott.
Post #342,176 by beepster 5/2/11 2:48:37 PM Reply	So are you by skipping over the profit the government makes on the same sale. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #342,177 by Another Scott 5/2/11 3:07:26 PM Reply	The topic is Exxon's earnings and taxes on same. HTH.
Post #342,178 by beepster 5/2/11 3:53:00 PM Reply	Really? Cause I read in Box's post.... During the first three months of this year, for every gallon of gasoline and other products we refined and sold in the United States, we earned about 7 cents. Compare that to the 40 to 60 cents per gallon that went from gasoline consumers to the government (state and federal) in gasoline taxes. HTH Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #342,181 by Another Scott 5/2/11 4:18:58 PM Reply	It has nothing to do with how much tax they pay on earnings. It's obfuscation. As I said. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #342,182 by beepster 5/2/11 4:54:02 PM Reply	Why not? Because its additive. The roughly 16% on profit paid in income taxes..plus the duties and all other tax impacts of Exxon as a going concern PLUS the 40-60 cents a gallon...and we are considering them undertaxed? Want to pick on someone that is really undertaxed...like GE, GM. Microsoft, Boeing, etc...? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #342,183 by Another Scott 5/2/11 5:21:04 PM Reply	You need to review the definition of "earnings", I think.
Post #342,184 by beepster 5/2/11 5:24:54 PM Reply	I don't think so... you are artificially limiting the discussion to earnings...I didn't see that limitation anywhere but in your posts. So, who is obfuscating? In this case, since BILLIONS of payments to the government are simply being ignored for purposes of >your< argument...my guess is that would be you :-) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #342,186 by Another Scott 5/2/11 5:45:04 PM Reply	Heh... http://www.exxonmobi...ar-in-washington/ ExxonMobilÂs earnings: The real story you wonÂt hear in Washington April 28, 2011 \| Posted by Ken Cohen Big numbers make headlines Â like our announcement of $10.7 billion in earnings for the first quarter of 2011. The rest of it was obfuscation. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #342,187 by beepster 5/2/11 5:53:59 PM Reply	Ah, I see.. the 6 cents a gallon vs the governments take of 60. I get it. Thats just a ruse. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #342,189 by Another Scott 5/2/11 6:10:54 PM Reply	Riddle me this, Batman. Are governments supposed to make a profit? Are governments designed to have "earnings"? Are we to believe that nobody would buy gasoline if Exxon-Mobil didn't sell it? Maybe they should get credit on their taxes for using a San-Serif font in their press release - it makes as much sense as their "argument". :-/ Their press release talking about paying FICA and what consumers pay in gasoline taxes and the like is obfuscation. It has nothing to do with taxes on their $10.7B quarterly earnings. That is all. EOT. Cheers, Scott.
Post #342,190 by beepster 5/2/11 7:14:46 PM Reply	And my other point.... that they, at least, paid income taxes...unlike several other very high profile companies...but we aren't vilifying >them<, now are we?...oh no...its much more sexy to pick on the oil companies. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #342,193 by Another Scott 5/2/11 8:03:46 PM Reply	The thread's not big enough to handle all of them... ;-)
Post #342,195 by folkert 5/2/11 9:34:57 PM Reply	I'll vilify them just as much as the Oil Companies. I don't think any of them pay enough.
Post #342,205 by Another Scott 5/2/11 11:22:18 PM Reply	Beep's a big Bernie Sanders supporter, donchaknow. http://blogs.suntime...nies_avoidin.html ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #342,194 by boxley 5/2/11 8:45:56 PM Reply	yes it is any cost that involves a percentage of their gross being transferred to the government is a tax on their profits. the fact that their total American tax burden exceeds their profit and loss from doing business in America is appalling but you are greedy, you want more. As one of the shareholders mentioned they would be better off moving elsewhere and refuse to sell any product in the US Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #342,196 by Another Scott 5/2/11 9:46:56 PM Reply	No it isn't. FICA is an insurance payment that comes out of employees compensation. The federal government takes out FICA for its employees. The federal government is not in "business" and doesn't earn a "profit". FICA's not a tax on profits. Attempting to redefine terms doesn't strengthen whatever argument you're attempting to put forward. Cheers, Scott.
Post #342,197 by beepster 5/2/11 10:23:41 PM Reply	FICA Boy I wish we had search....because now you've flipped. When we talk about income taxes..you talk about how the poor are overtaxed...and use FICA in that calculation... Now...you ignore FICA as insurance when its the corp side. I KNOW there are examples of this in banter between us. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #342,198 by Another Scott 5/2/11 10:27:43 PM 5/2/11 10:28:31 PM Reply	;-) It's still got nothing to do with Exxon's corporate income taxes on their earnings. HTH. Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott May 2, 2011, 10:28:31 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #342,199 by beepster 5/2/11 10:35:17 PM Reply	Re: ;-) But the poor corporation is taxed multiple times, with excise taxes, payroll taxes..why should they have to pay a higher net tax rate than Obama? After all, he's rich! Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #342,200 by Another Scott 5/2/11 10:40:32 PM Reply	...
Post #342,201 by beepster 5/2/11 10:48:51 PM Reply	Re: ... You seemed to like that argument before... ;-) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #342,211 by boxley 5/3/11 7:28:50 AM Reply	feds dont take out fica for their employeees they are exempt feds take out fica for exxon mobile because it is a tax they want to collect. That tax cuts into the profits of the company Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #342,212 by Another Scott 5/3/11 7:36:32 AM Reply	You're wrong about that, too. Things change. ;-) http://www.opm.gov/s...al_procedural.asp Social Security Deductions Employees subject to the FERS or CSRS Offset systems are subject to Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) deductions from their pay. (CSRS employees are not subject to FICA deductions.) Therefore, in any case involving a FERS or CSRS Offset employee, FICA deductions (which are offset against the total employee retirement deduction) must also be withheld. http://www.opm.gov/r...re/fers/index.asp Congress created the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) in 1986, and it became effective on January 1, 1987. Since that time, new Federal civilian employees who have retirement coverage are covered by FERS. FERS is a retirement plan that provides benefits from three different sources: a Basic Benefit Plan, Social Security, and the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Two of the three parts of FERS (Social Security and the TSP) can go with you to your next job if you leave the Federal Government before retirement. The Basic Benefit and Social Security parts of FERS require you to pay your share each pay period. Your agency withholds the cost of the Basic Benefit and Social Security from your pay as payroll deductions. Your agency pays its part too. Then, after you retire, you receive annuity payments each month for the rest of your life. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #342,215 by beepster 5/3/11 8:52:09 AM Reply	Only because he stated an absolute.. instead of saying "most" Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #342,221 by Another Scott 5/3/11 10:02:21 AM Reply	No, he was wrong because he was wrong. HTH.
Post #342,223 by beepster 5/3/11 10:31:15 AM Reply	Forgive us for being old... we remember 1980 :-) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #342,224 by Another Scott 5/3/11 11:19:10 AM Reply	:-) I'm getting up there too.
Post #342,166 by boxley 5/2/11 12:31:26 PM Reply	is it a tax? Yeah because you cant opt out as a company Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #342,168 by S1mon_Jester 5/2/11 1:14:54 PM Reply	Not sure that's true I've seen HR systems where the employee is FICA exempt and that includes both their wages and the employers. http://wiki.answers....for_that_employee http://www.iasonline...a/W2Problems.html
Post #342,170 by boxley 5/2/11 1:21:08 PM Reply	rare corner case for a very few employers and governments http://www.extension...the-united-states religious, students, and opt out government employees Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #342,172 by S1mon_Jester 5/2/11 1:23:01 PM Reply	Ahem...didn't argue that it wasn't rare. It's for any employee not to have to pay FICA. But, if you're hiring the Amish... IRC 1402(g) says that members of certain religious faiths (called "religious sects or divisions thereof" in the statute) can be exempted from paying self-employment tax if they file Form 4029 with the IRS and have it accepted. Moreover, IRC 3127 says that if both the employer and the employee file the form, then the employee is exempt from FICA and Medicare tax (both the employer and the employee portions). If the forms aren't filed by both employer and employee and accepted by the IRS, FICA and Medicare tax still apply with full force. http://benefitslink....s_employer&id=194
Post #342,173 by mmoffitt 5/2/11 2:05:01 PM Reply	Dunno if they do now, but ... Long Beach Unified School District teachers didn't pay FICA for decades. TALB (Teachers Association of Long Beach) anyway.

Welcome to IWETHEY!