Quote:
Originally Posted by Piwoslaw
But ExxonMobile didn't build the roads you drive on, or the school your kids go to, or the sports field you go to in the evening, or the hospital, or the muni water/sewage system, or the public bus system, . . .
|
True, but my point was that Exxon is not raping consumers, taxes are. Exxon's return sounds pretty meager when you consider even railroads (an industry thats been in or near bankruptcy for decades) earn something like -4-5% on their investment (a figure given by a RR VP back when I worked for them). But its an easy escape for politicians charging a 25% tax to point fingers at "obscene" profits from a private entity selling their product at market value in a free market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piwoslaw
I would be with you if you can explain why oil companies making a profit is bad,
Because the extra money will go to shareholders and CEOs, not to ecoinvestments. It's rich people getting even richer and most likely spending that extra money on things that cause more pollution (travelling, sports cars, etc.). IF every penny of that saved money went into increasing efficiency, then OK. But companies usually invest in efficiency when costs go up and income goes down. In this case it's the other way around.
|
It's a business, they spent billions of their own money to build their refineries and pipelines and oil rigs, shouldn't their profits go back to them? And when they travel or buy a sports car that gives flight attendants, baggage workers, assembly line-workers, mechanics, car salesmen etc, another job to do and another day's pay. Shareholders are 401k's, mutual funds, anyone that owns a couple shares. 401k's increasing in value is a good thing if you're retired and living off one.