Accountability Now Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 I guess basic math would explain that when you make that much dough you have to pay some taxes. And your basic math for the tax rate? 42% versus 26%? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 And your basic math for the tax rate? 42% versus 26%? Work it out with BC. He's the one who seems worried about oil company profits not being what they should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) I have lost interest in your stats.Translation: I am only interested in finding some convenient "villain" pay to the cost of my obsession. I am not interested in hearing arguments that undermine my need to believe the designated villains deserve to have their money confiscated to sate my ego. Edited July 20, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 Work it out with BC. He's the one who seems worried about oil company profits not being what they should be. BC was just commenting on WestCoastRunners statement such that: WestCoastRunner, on 18 Jul 2014 - 9:07 PM, said: ...Isn't it time for these big oil companies to pay back to society with their billions in profits and work towards reducing fossil burning fuels. Again....considering these oil companies are taxed at 40% or higher and General Electric is at 4.2%, I would say they are paying back to society. As I said, they pay more in taxes than any other company makes in profit other than Apple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 Translation: I am only interested in finding some convenient "villain" pay to the cost of my obsession. I am not interested in hearing arguments that undermine my need to believe the designated villains deserve to have their money confiscated to sate my ego. That translation fell off the rails pretty much. Can you do it in English? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 That translation fell off the rails pretty much. Can you do it in English?You have to look at her original post where she suggested that oil companies should pay for the cost of her obsession with non-fossil fuel energy sources. I am simply pointing out that people that expect others to pay for the costs of their obsessions are self absorbed hypocrites. Her unwillingness to listen to arguments on how oil companies already pay more than their fair share of taxes simply proves the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 BC was just commenting on WestCoastRunners statement such that: WestCoastRunner, on 18 Jul 2014 - 9:07 PM, said: ...Isn't it time for these big oil companies to pay back to society with their billions in profits and work towards reducing fossil burning fuels. Again....considering these oil companies are taxed at 40% or higher and General Electric is at 4.2%, I would say they are paying back to society. As I said, they pay more in taxes than any other company makes in profit other than Apple. And do you think with that kind of profit they will ever begin seriously to reduce burning fossil fuels? Keep in mind, there does have to be a LAST barrel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 You have to look at her original post where she suggested that oil companies should pay for the cost of her obsession with non-fossil fuel energy sources. I am simply pointing out that people that expect others to pay for the costs of their obsessions are self absorbed hypocrites. Her unwillingness to listen to arguments on how oil companies already pay more than their fair share of taxes simply proves the point. So you are saying that people concerned about our environment are "self absorbed hypocrites"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) So you are saying that people concerned about our environment are "self absorbed hypocrites"? No, just some of them. Edited July 20, 2014 by -1=e^ipi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 And do you think with that kind of profit they will ever begin seriously to reduce burning fossil fuels? Keep in mind, there does have to be a LAST barrel. They don't burn them...they just sell them. We're the one's burning them and as long as we do that...then they will continue to sell. I know you would. As for the LAST barrel....let's have that chat when they come close to not finding new oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) So you are saying that people concerned about our environment are "self absorbed hypocrites"?People concerned about the environment that are willing to use their own money to pay for their beliefs are not hypocrites. The label only applies to people that seek out others who they decide should be forced to pay for their beliefs because they are "evil" in some way. Edited July 20, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 They don't burn them...they just sell them. We're the one's burning them and as long as we do that...then they will continue to sell. I know you would. As for the LAST barrel....let's have that chat when they come close to not finding new oil. I don't have a problem with them making money. They provide lots of jobs. But my idea is they should use some of that boatloads of money to switch to something not quite so detrimental so they don't have to go out of busines when they get to tht last barrel, and we can no longer breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 People concerned about the environment that are willing to use their own money to pay for their beliefs are not hypocrites. The label only applies to people that seek out others who they decide should be forced to pay for their beliefs because they are "evil" in some way. A little grammar lesson. The environment is not "their" own, it's "our" own. As in that air you breath is the same as I breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) A little grammar lesson. The environment is not "their" own, it's "our" own. As in that air you breath is the same as I breath.Except she was not talking about getting fossil fuel companies to reduce CO2 emissions. She was suggesting that punitive taxes be imposed on them because they are "evil" and she things they make too much money. Edited July 20, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 I wouldn't take it personally. But I tell you this, if you get away from the NA continent for perhaps Asia, Africa, or even closer to home Haiti, the air quality from the burning of fossil fuels sure seems "evil". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) I wouldn't take it personally. But I tell you this, if you get away from the NA continent for perhaps Asia, Africa, or even closer to home Haiti, the air quality from the burning of fossil fuels sure seems "evil".The biggest harm to air quality in the third world comes from bio-fuels like wood and dung. Fossil fuels are a wealth enabler and the benefits far outstrip any harm. Edited July 20, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 The biggest harm to air quality in the third world comes from bio-fuels like wood and dung. Ever been in downtown PAP Haiti, or Manilla, or Bombay (Mumbay)? Black soot rolling out the exhaust pipes of a million ancient, untuned, diesel Toyota's etc. No doubt a few wood/dung fires up in the hills. But they pale by comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) No doubt a few wood/dung fires up in the hills. But they pale by comparison.I don't think so: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568866/ One-third of the world's population burn organic material such as wood, dung or charcoal (biomass fuel) for cooking, heating and lighting. This form of energy usage is associated with high levels of indoor air pollution and an increase in the incidence of respiratory infections, including pneumonia, tuberculosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, low birthweight, cataracts, cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality both in adults and children. Edited July 20, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 I don't think so: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568866/ Are you celebrating pollution then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) Are you celebrating pollution then?No - Just saying you can't call something evil simply because some countries have not figured out how to use emission controls on vehicles. It is certainly not the fault of fossil fuel suppliers. Edited July 20, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014  No - Just saying you can't call something evil simply because some countries have not figured out how to use emission controls on vehicles. It is certainly not the fault of fossil fuel suppliers. It has nothing to do with figuring anything out, the technology is already long since there. It has to do with being able to afford it. Now when you consider that a lot of those fossil fuel suppliers get those fossil fuels from the countries I just enumerated that end of day still can't afford it, there maybe something approaching evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) Now when you consider that a lot of those fossil fuel suppliers get those fossil fuels from the countries I just enumerated that end of day still can't afford it, there maybe something approaching evil.So you think people should just go back to getting sick from burning wood and dung? That is the alternative. IMO, the "evil" comes from the self righteous who would rather see people live in poverty than create some pollution. Edited July 20, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 So you think people should just go back to getting sick from burning wood and dung? That is the alternative. IMO, the "evil" comes from the self righteous who would rather see people live in poverty than create some pollution. Apparently from what you say they are already doing that, so how would they "go back" to it. Oil companies leave people to live in poverty in the process of crating pollution. Maybe time to change that. We have the technology if we want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 (edited) Apparently from what you say they are already doing that, so how would they "go back" to it.Different countries are in different stages of development. Large scale use of fossil fuels is the first step towards a modern lifestyle. As they get wealthier they will be able to pay for emission controls technology. If oil companies extract oil from a country the government is entitled to charge royalties once the oil company pays those royalties their obligation ends. It certainly not the fault of oil companies if the government chooses to use the money on things other than emissions controls. Edited July 20, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 20, 2014 Report Share Posted July 20, 2014 Different countries are in different stages of development. Large scale use of fossil fuels is the first step towards a modern lifestyle. As they get wealthier they will be able to pay for emission controls technology. If oil companies extract oil from a country the government is entitled to charge royalties once the oil company pays those royalties their obligation ends. It certainly not the fault of oil companies if the government chooses to use the money on things other than emissions controls. Well it certainly doesn't need to be the end of the obligation, although that it does provide an excuse, flimsy as it is. Many of the countries large oil companys go into don't have anywhere near the ability to generate an oil business. So they could fit a few other items into their royalty contracts that would help out those beyond the "royal" family of said country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.