It has nothing to do with how much tax they pay on earnings.

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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!