PDA

View Full Version : Reasonable Profits Board



osoab
20th January 2012, 01:53 PM
Dems propose 'Reasonable Profits Board' to regulate oil company profits (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/205085-dems-propose-reasonable-profits-board-to-regulate-oil-company-profits)



Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a "Reasonable Profits Board" to control gas profits.

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784 (http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/jan2012/hr3784.pdf), would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding "a reasonable profit." It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.

The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board, as it says members "shall have no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the Board."According to the bill, a windfall tax of 50 percent would be applied when the sale of oil or gas leads to a profit of between 100 percent and 102 percent of a reasonable profit. The windfall tax would jump to 75 percent when the profit is between 102 and 105 percent of a reasonable profit, and above that, the windfall tax would be 100 percent. The bill also specifies that the oil-and-gas companies, as the seller, would have to pay this tax.

Kucinich said these tax revenues would be used to fund alternative transportation programs when oil-and-gas prices spike.

"Gas prices continue to rise, creating a hardship for the American people," he said. "At the same time, oil companies are making record profits gouging their customers. This bill would tax only the excess profits and create forward-thinking transportation alternatives."

Specifically, he said the money would be used to fund a tax credit on the purchase of fuel-efficient cars and set up a grant program for mass transit programs when oil-and-gas prices are high.

The bill does not estimate the size of these grants or the amount of money that might be collected through the tax.

Co-sponsoring the bill are five other Democrats: Reps. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio), Jim Langevin (R.I.), and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.).
http://www.deviantart.com/download/129023693/The_Stupid__It_Burns_by_Plognark.png

GeneBlaze
20th January 2012, 02:07 PM
Considering the fact that the gov. collects more money in taxes from gasoline than the oil companies that sell it, maybe the gov. should better regulate itself.

Glass
20th January 2012, 02:07 PM
We had a whole thing down here in Australia about our resources sector and they want to introduce a SUPER! tax because that would be just thuper.

Exactly the same as your article. Exactly. And of course that excess of profits will be well spent by the government for your benefit. the stupid does hurt but the socialism hurts more. You gotta be amazed at what the government thinks free enterprise is all about.

osoab
20th January 2012, 02:16 PM
We had a whole thing down here in Australia about our resources sector and they want to introduce a SUPER! tax because that would be just thuper.

Exactly the same as your article. Exactly. And of course that excess of profits will be well spent by the government for your benefit. the stupid does hurt but the socialism hurts more. You gotta be amazed at what the government thinks free enterprise is all about.

Well, I think at least half of the degenerates up there are just complete zealots being used as tools for the nefarious ones. The dumbasses that will implement the boards recommendations will have no trouble sleeping at night. Kucinich is one of the zealots. He knows the game, but he is still a zealot. A zealot that will change his mind for an airplane ride at that.

Now for the stupid part. That relates to two groups. The zealots that will implement and the sheep that have been eating up the propaganda on the gas price subject.

My favorite quote is.


The bill also specifies that the oil-and-gas companies, as the seller, would have to pay this tax.

Businesses don't pay taxes. It doesn't matter what the .gov zealots want to say.

Glass
20th January 2012, 03:58 PM
My favorite quote is.



Businesses don't pay taxes. It doesn't matter what the .gov zealots want to say.

You mean they don't because they use price shifting so their income is in a low tax jurisdiction or do you mean, that because business income ultimately comes from the people that the people pay the taxes, because it's built in to the price?

They should say oil-and-gas companies will be required to "remit" this tax.

Remit is an interesting term in commerce. It's worth looking into. Remittance/remit etc. Remittance advice, that kind of thing. What is a remittance is a nice rhetorical question. A good place to look is UCC codes. I can't quote one but well worth poking around.

osoab
20th January 2012, 04:07 PM
You mean they don't because they use price shifting so their income is in a low tax jurisdiction or do you mean, that because business income ultimately comes from the people that the people pay the taxes, because it's built in to the price?

They should say oil-and-gas companies will be required to "remit" this tax.

Remit is an interesting term in commerce. It's worth looking into. Remittance/remit etc. Remittance advice, that kind of thing. What is a remittance is a nice rhetorical question. A good place to look is UCC codes. I can't quote one but well worth poking around.


Whatever tax they pay is priced into their business model. If taxes goes up they will raise the prices or just up and move operations offshore.

Offshore is the more likely choice.

Probably need to do some more digging on who actually wrote the bill. Could be that big oil wrote it for a different angle that we are not seeing yet.

Hatha Sunahara
20th January 2012, 07:22 PM
Has anyone noticed that we live in an 'oligopoly'? Has everyone been sleeping through the decade of 'mergers and acquisitions'? Has anyone noticed how everything is owned by a small number of business empires? And that there is no competition among these business empires? They all conspire to concentrate wealth and power in their own hands, and to enslave their 'human resources'? What we have is a near monopoly on everything. One of the proper uses of government power to to limit the power of monopolies. The whole idea of regulation started in London in the 17th century, when a handful of wealthy people owned the London Docks, and charged exorbitant prices for merchant vessels to use those docks. The King--it may have been Henry the 8th--declared the docks a public utility, and claimed the right to tell the dock owners how much they can charge for ships to dock on their premises. Most states have a public utilities commission--a governmental agency--telling the Public Utilities how much they can charge for electricity, water, and gas, and other utilities. This is done on the recognition that these companies are monopolies, and are not 'regulated' by the market. So, they are artificially regulated by a government agency that is charged with 'balancing' the interests of the Owners of the Utility, and its customers. This, in my opinion, is a perfectly reasonable way to deal with monopolies.

Gas and oil producers do not compete with each other. They collude with each other to keep the prices as high as they can get away with. Competition among them is a sin. The marketplace has a hidden hand which doesn't work on them because they are monopolies. Oil companies use their profits to maximize their stranglehold on our need for energy. Why shouldn't they be regulated? It's not socialist. It's good public policy. I believe that if the government limits the profits of the oil and gas companies, it is a form of price control whereby the excess profits of the oil and gas companies are passed down to their customers by a drop in price of oil and gas until an amount of revenue equivalent to the excess profits is 'lost' by the oil and gas company. So, you might get cheaper oil and gas for a few weeks each year. I don't see anything wrong with that.

The problem I see with this scheme is that it's decision process will without a doubt be corrupted because it is a 'chokepoint' of control, and the oil and gas companies will buy out the regulators. Corruption is the main enemy here. It's not socialism, or communism--This is just an intelligent way to deal with monopolies.


Hatha

Mouse
20th January 2012, 09:33 PM
No Problemo....the accountants calculate ebit and determine if the company is "too profitable". If it is, then it's time for BIG ASS BONUSES, BOONDOGGLES and CAPEX. You could easily forecast your earnings forward, realize you are making too much, and launch huge capital projects to jam in the numbers. There are enough ways to shift money around through derivatives with the NPNS exemption, that you could put calendar spreads on your excess profits. There is always a way to manage earnings. This is just more hot air.

Neuro
21st January 2012, 03:37 AM
As the Hatha and Mouse already mentioned there are hundreds of ways to increase costs or just move the company abroad, for a multinational oil company to avoid showing 'excess' profit. That it is just silly to propose something like this...

If they really want less profits for the oil companies, lift the sanctions on Iran, and stop talking about waging war in the Persian golf. Should half the price of oil fairly quickly. Stop suppressing cold fusion, and oil could go down to single digits