Evil Oil Companies
[Guest post by JD]
Hot Air has a post about a WSJ review of the largest taxpayers.
To identify the companies that pay the most taxes, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed corporate tax payments for the top 150 companies by revenue. … These are the companies paying the most in taxes:
1. ExxonMobil
• Income tax expense: $31.05 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $78.73 billion
• Revenue: $428.38 billion
•1-year share price change: 6.56%
• Industry: Oil and gas …2. Chevron
• Income tax expense: $20.00 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $46.33 billion
• Revenue: $222.58 billion
• 1-year share price change: 9.52%
• Industry: Oil and gas
Exxon paid approx 39% of of their profits in taxes, which had a primary negative impact on women, children, elderly, and minorities, with an extraordinarily obscene profit margin of 11%.
Chevron paid approx 43% of their ill-gotten evil profits in taxes, with a profit margin of a grotesque 11% profit margin.
They should be jailed for profiteering on the backs on the American people.
—JD
Oligarchs
Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/19/2013 @ 3:16 pm
JD
Exxon just barely broke even on US operations making their presence here – unnesscessary
Comment by EPWJ (016f5f) — 3/19/2013 @ 3:34 pm
I am just using the numbers the WSJ used. If you have different numbers, feel free to post them.
Comment by JD (b63a52) — 3/19/2013 @ 3:37 pm
Damn loopholes.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/19/2013 @ 3:45 pm
And subsidies.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/19/2013 @ 3:47 pm
The biggest “profits” on oil are the taxes paid to Government.
Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/19/2013 @ 3:59 pm
I think this includes all of Exxon’s interests. Are you talking about Exxon’s refining interests, EPWJ? Those aren’t big net moneymakers. Refiners’ costs will only go up this summer (and our gas prices will go up, too) when the federal renewable fuel standards take effect because refiners will have to buy more ethanol credits:
The worst part is that the Democrats and their media shills will blame the oil companies, not their own government, for this increase.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/19/2013 @ 4:14 pm
Also, not only do the ethanol rules cost us more to drive our cars and trucks (not to mention the cost to businesses that rely on trucking), but it also ruins our small engines such as those used in lawn equipment.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/19/2013 @ 4:16 pm
And, cost us more to put dinner on the table.
Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/19/2013 @ 4:19 pm
JD #1 – didn’t you mean “Oiligarchs !” ?
Comment by Alasdair (e7cb73) — 3/19/2013 @ 4:23 pm
This does not include all the fuel taxes paid, which, state and federal, is about $100 billion.
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/19/2013 @ 4:24 pm
DRJ
they lost money up and down stream the Qatar operations and Europe refining are carrying the company.
the two big refineries baytown and baton rouge are money pits
Comment by EPWJ (016f5f) — 3/19/2013 @ 4:34 pm
DRJ
here it is for you upstream 5 bil us 29 bil non us
down stream (which non us is about to expode) 2 bil us and 2 bil non us
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/news_pub_ir_finstmts2011.pdf
Comment by EPWJ (016f5f) — 3/19/2013 @ 4:40 pm
It ruins our big engines, too.
There seems to be no getting rid of boondoggles in this country.
Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 3/19/2013 @ 4:58 pm
EPWJ,
I don’t agree ExxonMobil is losing money upstream and downstream, and that claim isn’t borne out by the Financial Statements you linked. It’s true, however, that most of the revenue growth is outside the U.S. — that’s especially true since the Obama Administration has effectively ended American offshore E&P — but don’t you think domestic shale production is the reason Exxon’s U.S. revenues rose from 2010 to 2011? I bet U.S. revenues will rise even more in 2012.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/19/2013 @ 5:00 pm
Ethanol … the stupidity of putting food into our vehicles’ gas tanks ought to be obvious to all.
Sheesh, after all, no one might want to …oh, I don’t know … eat.
Its an idea worthy of only the stupidest (environmentalists) or most corrupt (minions of ADM).
Comment by SPQR (768505) — 3/19/2013 @ 5:01 pm
Of course, it’s also true that Exxon doesn’t have the domestic reserves it once had and is struggling to find new domestic fields. I think that’s because Exxon, Mobil, and most of the majors sold much of their reserves to independent oil operators over the past 20 years and looked instead at foreign investments. It was a good decision then but they are paying for it now.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/19/2013 @ 5:05 pm
How often does it need to be said.
NO CORPORATION PAYS TAXES!
They pass those on to their consumers/customers/clients in the form of increased prices for goods/services.
They NEVER pay taxes. NEVER. Repeat after me; NEVER.
The people pay ALL of the taxes the government seizes. ALL. They even pay tax 2-4 times on the same income if they make enough money.
they pay taxes on the income, taxes on any capital gains and then their estate is taxed when they die.
Comment by Jcw46 (0af03c) — 3/19/2013 @ 5:17 pm
Meanwhile GE has sequestered $108 Billion offshore and pays no taxes.
Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/19/2013 @ 5:26 pm
That’s not entirely true; corporations can’t pass the entire tax burden onto their customers.
Workers and shareholders bear part of the burden as well. Workers see it in the form of reduced wages and benefits. Shareholders see lower rates of return.
Actually you can make the case that market wide high corporate taxes mean investors in general (not just the companies shareholders) also see lower rates of return as high corporate taxes encourage them to stay away from corporate equities and invest in other asset classes.
Your larger point is true; only people bear the corporate tax burden. A corporate officer only cuts the check to the IRS. But it doesn’t all get passed on to the consumer.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/19/2013 @ 5:46 pm
DRJ
losing money is when you expend to times the capital for a small return, the 54 billion they invested and the return they got barely meets what they pay in dividends – so in the corp world there is really no return.
and in 2011 the internal revenue services rules on whats a cap ex and whats an expense is forcing profits when there are none – thats why reading financials is totally and completely meaningless in industries that are notonly over regulated, but are regulated for social reasons as well
Comment by EPWJ (016f5f) — 3/19/2013 @ 5:54 pm
Ethanol … the stupidity of putting food into our vehicles’ gas tanks ought to be obvious to all.
And of course it drives up the cost of corn in Mexico, since Mexican growers know they can get a lot more money selling it to Tio Sam for biofuel than selling it to the poor of their own country who might want to, you know, eat it.
Comment by JVW (4826a9) — 3/19/2013 @ 5:57 pm
DRJ
The US has 10 to 20 times the potential oil reserves than the rest of the entire world – there was ever ever any reason for any of the companies to go overseas other than hubris and the inability of congressional democrats in local state and Federal levels to realize what a vital industry oil really is
Comment by EPWJ (016f5f) — 3/19/2013 @ 5:58 pm
JVW #22 – isn’t that just another example of a Corn Law which should be repealed ?
Comment by Alasdair (e7cb73) — 3/19/2013 @ 6:21 pm
How much taxes did the “green energy” companies pay? Nevermind……
Comment by Kevin P. (1df29c) — 3/19/2013 @ 6:23 pm
I think the major oil companies went overseas because until recently, there weren’t cost-effective technologies to produce domestic reserves at the prevailing oil prices. In addition, because of the domestic environmental lobby, there wasn’t a welcoming climate that made domestic E&P worth the cost.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/19/2013 @ 6:37 pm
DRJ
Some were always over seas, it was the Arabs in the 70′s and the chaos in Peru where large multi billion dollar projects were underway that were stopped and when the price floored in the 80′s no one was wanting to put up with the incredible amount of gouginh and corruption that is massive but doesnt hold a candle to the investment climate in the states.
Comment by EPWJ (016f5f) — 3/19/2013 @ 6:58 pm
Not included in the normal litany of liberals about the favors given oil companies are the enormous property taxes these companies pay to counties and municipalities. One way to research producing oil wells is to query county tax bases. It is not uncommon to see that each well pays tens- and even hundreds of thousands in taxes. And this is also true for the processing plants that prepare the oil for shipment. These taxes may be expensed/deducted when computing federal taxes, but they are still big contributors to local governments lucky enough to have them. A similar thing holds for railroads … all those tunnels, overpasses, and lighted crossings are valuable properties that the railroad pays taxes on. And it would also be true for the pumping stations, support facilities, as well as the pipe itself should the Keystone pipeline ever be built. But it’s never enough is it. And thoughts of reducing these taxes are considered expenditures and favors for industry by “progressives”.
Comment by bobathome (c0c2b5) — 3/19/2013 @ 7:14 pm
Good point, bobathome.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/19/2013 @ 7:16 pm
DRJ, per the Society of Petroleum Engineers if the resource can’t be exploited within a reasonable amount of time, which they establish as generally less than five years, then by definition the resource wouldn’t be considered part of our domestic oil reserves. It has to be commercially viable under current economic conditions using current technologies to qualify.
I only bring this up because Obama constantly and dishonestly talks about how we have only 2% of the world’s oil reserves when “reserves” is an engineering and legal (oil companies can’t tell investors about a deposit that qualifies for reserve status unless it meets certain SEC requirements) term that describes only a fraction of the energy resource.
Oil-in-the-ground is generally used to describe the totality of the resource. Reserves are what we know is there, and can be extracted under current economic conditions using current technology. Other categories include contingent resources and prospective resources depending on among other factors if its anticipated that it can be extracted using technology currently in development or if it’ll have to wait for future technological development. Finally there’s undiscovered petroleum initially in place and unrecoverable.
They also break the major categories down further depending upon the level of confidence the estimate. To qualify as a “proved oil reserve” the oil has to be discovered, it’s commercial, accessible with current technology, and under the current regulatory environment. Other subcategories include probable reserves and possible reserves. Traditionally only proved oil reserves have been assigned reserve status.
So when Obama talks about our domestic oil reserves as comprising only 2% of the world’s supply he’s misleading people that we “can’t drill our way out” because proved oil reserves is really just a small part of the domestic oil supply that we already know is there. And the regulatory environment has a great deal to do with whether or not it is excluded from our “reserves,” not just the economy and technology.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/19/2013 @ 7:52 pm
If Obama feels it is blood money, he should order the I.R.S. to reject the tax revenues.
Comment by Elephant Stone (6f443b) — 3/19/2013 @ 8:08 pm
“So when Obama talks about our domestic oil reserves as comprising only 2% of the world’s supply he’s misleading people that we “can’t drill our way out” because proved oil reserves is really just a small part of the domestic oil supply that we already know is there.”
Steve57 – I have not heard Obama use that dumb bunny line in quite a while I hope because people finally pointed out to him it made him sound like a complete idiot.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/19/2013 @ 8:54 pm
daley, now he’s claiming credit for the increased oil production in the US as part of his “all of he above” strategy.
Of course, by the few valid arguments he was making when he was going through his “we can’t drill our way out” phase it’s not something he can take credit for. Given the lead times it takes from from when the government approves oil exploration until that oil finally hits the market.
And given the fact he and his administration have been actively thwarting production on federal lands.
I’m sure under the right circumstances he’ll flip back and use that “we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves” canard again. He’s not trying appear intelligent to us but give the faithful in his base who believe anything he says an easy to remember phrase to keep them in line. It isn’t like he has to worry about the media calling him out on the stupidity of the statement, or even reporting he said it all if the MFM decides it might make their messiah look bad.
Isn’t the self-censorship the MFM engages in to advance the narrative just grand?
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/19/2013 @ 9:11 pm
#18 and #20 …. Corporate taxes
The bigger point that isn’t discussed in the previous posts about corporate taxes is that the taxes play a large part in determining what is, or is not, a profitable investment. As Steve57 points out, there’s lot of oil, but when the government muddies the waters, some oil deposits will necessarily be found to be uneconomic. Anyone who’s dealt with royalties and depletion allowances knows how convoluted the whole thing can become. And with some of the insanity going on in California just today, retroactively deciding that prior understandings of tax laws were incorrect and now companies owe back taxes with interest on prior tax years, this whole thing becomes very unpredictable. Meaning even more investments will not be made.
If the “solution” to our problem is more “fine tuning” by geniuses who have spent their lives creating this mess, we are toast.
Comment by bobathome (c0c2b5) — 3/19/2013 @ 9:12 pm
there isn’t a single piggy piggy pension whore teacher’s union pension fund what doesn’t have both of these companys in it
Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/19/2013 @ 9:29 pm
companies I mean
damn it was a long day
Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/19/2013 @ 9:30 pm
I think engineers also refer to reserves when analyzing the oil and gas deposits an oil company or operator has under lease or where they own the minerals outright, i.e., the deposits they legally can exploit. I was using the term in that sense.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/19/2013 @ 9:39 pm
Or maybe it’s bankers and lawyers that use the term in that sense. Anyway, that’s what I meant.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/19/2013 @ 9:41 pm
DRJ, I don’t really have a beef with you. I was just pointing out that as you described it the industry and government geologists wouldn’t and and oil company executives legally couldn’t in communications with investors use the term “reserves” to refer to that particular deposit.
It’s actually a pretty complicated definition when you get down to it. The document I linked to which defines the various categories of oil deposits and methods used to determine which particular category a particular oil reservoir falls into is 49 pages long. So it doesn’t bother me that you may have been using the term “reserves” idiosyncratically.
Since we were already onto the subject of the Obama administration’s demonization of oil companies for among other things their “record profits” and “tax subsidies,” your use of the term just reminded me of how Obama dishonestly uses the term “reserves” as if it’s interchangeable with the nation’s oil resources. When he knows better; he knows perfectly well just through regulation the administration can remove an oil reservoir from the reserve class.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/19/2013 @ 10:53 pm
Comment by Elephant Stone (6f443b) — 3/19/2013 @ 8:08 pm
That’s as likely to happen as Dracula passing on a Type-AB cocktail.
Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 3/20/2013 @ 12:01 am
“So when Obama talks” … just remember that he is the Lillian Hellman of politicians:
Everything he says is a lie including “and” and “the”!
Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 3/20/2013 @ 12:03 am
“daley, now he’s claiming credit for the increased oil production in the US as part of his “all of he above” strategy.”
Steve57 – Which is a much easier bogus point for the opposition to ding him on because production on public lands actually declined last year. He will soon switch to another talking point I predict.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/20/2013 @ 12:43 am
Pursuing revenue increases by fees and taxation when regulation is strangling the babe is doomed to crush the taxpayer:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578362032639323640.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Note that expenditures are rolling on a >$1.2 Trillion debt addition pace thru February.
Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/20/2013 @ 6:50 am
Trouble with the sequence of cause and effect:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/03/19/Bill-Kristol-Obama-Has-Created-Rand-Paul
And Ogabe, who created him?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/19/feinstein_on_reid_dropping_assault_weapons_ban_a_major_betrayal_of_trust.html
And bringing your bill to the floor is good for Red Staters?
Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/20/2013 @ 7:03 am
The reported numbers appear to be income tax expense. This is not necessarily the amount of taxes actually owed, but is rather a function of accounting rules. Taxes owed is a function of the tax code. Looking at Exxon’s most recent 10-K I see that while tax expense is indeed $31.05 B, taxes paid in 2012 was 24.3 B (See note 5 Cash flow information). Still a healthy chunk of change. Nonetheless, focusing on expenses rather cash flow is potentially very misleading as the two values can often be very different. And they don’t have to become equal in the long run.
Comment by Erik (5ee643) — 3/20/2013 @ 2:51 pm
If also does not include state and local taxes. The idea that taxes paid is not an accurate reflection is silly.
Comment by JD (4bb5d1) — 3/20/2013 @ 3:21 pm
Steve57: I only bring this up because Obama constantly and dishonestly talks about how we have only 2% of the world’s oil reserves
You think Obama even knows what the actual definition of oil reserves is and what it means?
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/20/2013 @ 3:33 pm
He should because of his office otr should inform himself.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/20/2013 @ 3:33 pm
JD wrote: The idea that taxes paid is not an accurate reflection is silly.
I agree. My point is that tax EXPENSE is not the same as taxes owned. They are generated by two different sets of rules: GAAP vs the tax code. This difference is what gives rise to deferred tax assets and liabilities in the balance sheet. These can, but do not necessarily reverse out. If you meant that the idea that tax expense is not an accurate reflection is silly, well, no, you can’t mean that.
Comment by Erik (5ee643) — 3/20/2013 @ 3:44 pm
Daleyrocks oncepointed out that its over 100 billion because they collect gas and sales taxes, their employees pay income taxes and fica so Exxons net effect is nearly 1/7th of the entire military budget each year.
Add in all the oil companies, the evil Haliburton styke service companies – the evil industry foots the bill for the nations defense.
Comment by EPWJ (bdd0a6) — 3/20/2013 @ 3:45 pm
“The reported numbers appear to be income tax expense. This is not necessarily the amount of taxes actually owed, but is rather a function of accounting rules. Taxes owed is a function of the tax code.”
Erik – Completely correct. You can have temporary timing differences which cause differences between reported income tax expense and cash taxes paid as well as permanent differences between the two. It’s almost accrual versus cash basis accounting.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/20/2013 @ 3:46 pm
I believe his next talking point will be to focus on his NCAA brackets after some variant of Hillary!’s “what does it (the truth) matter at this point” rant.
The Obamabot’s will think that’s brilliant logic and cheer.
Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/20/2013 @ 4:11 pm
And part of the big increase is fracking, but fracking does not take place in New York State.
It’s big issue. Governor Cuomo is going very slow on this.
The thing is, it’s happening everywhere else, and not a problem.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/21/2013 @ 3:45 pm
What if Dick Cheney spent half a million a night of other people’s money for a room?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bidens-one-night-paris-hotel-tab-58500050_708799.html
Comment by AZ Bob (c11d35) — 3/23/2013 @ 9:34 am