• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats propose further tax hike on offshore oil

You know what. Life is not fair. If it costs me a cent or two more at the pump to keep these spills from devastating my beloved country. so be it. We are taxed for so many retarded things right now, I'd be happy to see at least a penny of my money go to something that actually might help my country.

I hate to disappoint Rev but any and all of that extra money collected will go to the general revenue stream of the U.S. gov and not to special oil disaster clean up fund.

It will be spent, like the rest has.
 
I hate to disappoint Rev but any and all of that extra money collected will go to the general revenue stream of the U.S. gov and not to special oil disaster clean up fund.

It will be spent, like the rest has.


But money will be spent on the clean up, right?
 
But money will be spent on the clean up, right?

BP has already pledged to cover the cost of the current clean up.

Why do we need a special tax, when the revenue from it will be spent immediately?
Sounds like another excuse to tax, not to mention that it is an especially regressive tax on low income people, who are already suffering because of the recession.
 
BP has already pledged to cover the cost of the current clean up.

Why do we need a special tax, when the revenue from it will be spent immediately?
Sounds like another excuse to tax, not to mention that it is an especially regressive tax on low income people, who are already suffering because of the recession.

I bet BP won't. Care to take me up on that bet? Loser tells the winner he's a forum God. What do you say?
 
BP has already pledged to cover the cost of the current clean up.

Why do we need a special tax, when the revenue from it will be spent immediately?
Sounds like another excuse to tax, not to mention that it is an especially regressive tax on low income people, who are already suffering because of the recession.

BP/Halliburton/TransOcean and Anadarko (which has 25% stake in the well) are looking at a $50-75B clean-up and damage claim. This could be a big ticket, capable of breaking the bank of one or more of these companies. BP annually pays out $11B in shareholder dividends and currently has about $7B in cash. They do not have the cash on hand to cover this. It is time for the DoJ to put a desist order on dividend payments and demand an immediate cash payment to escrow and/or a bond.
 
Last edited:
BP/Halliburton/TransOcean and Anadarko (which has 25% stake in the well) are looking at a $50-75B clean-up and damage claim. This could be a big ticket, capable of breaking the bank of one or more of these companies. BP annually pays out $11B in shareholder dividends and currently has about $7B in cash. They do not have the cash on hand to cover this. It is time for the DoJ to put a desist order on dividend payments and demand an immediate cash payment to escrow and/or a bond.

BP has no problem paying out for clean up and damages.
They have already said they will.

No crazy ass seizure of assets is necessary.
That is just ludicrous.

For the record, teachers, cops and firefighters (not to mention all the other people who have their retirement funds with BP) will lose a **** load of money because of such an event.
Let them handle it but keep an eye on them.
 
BP has already pledged to cover the cost of the current clean up.

Why do we need a special tax, when the revenue from it will be spent immediately?
Sounds like another excuse to tax, not to mention that it is an especially regressive tax on low income people, who are already suffering because of the recession.

There is absolutely no way that BP will pay the full cost of this mess. A lot of it will get shifted onto the taxpayers. BP might pay for the immediate costs of cleanup (although I wouldn't hold my breath even for that), but they are never going to pay for all the incidental environmental damage.
 
There is absolutely no way that BP will pay the full cost of this mess. A lot of it will get shifted onto the taxpayers. BP might pay for the immediate costs of cleanup (although I wouldn't hold my breath even for that), but they are never going to pay for all the incidental environmental damage.

Why is it so difficult to imagine them paying for the clean up costs?
Is there something I don't know about BP that allows them to avoid the cost of clean up?
 
Why is it so difficult to imagine them paying for the clean up costs?
Is there something I don't know about BP that allows them to avoid the cost of clean up?

Yes. Good corporate lawyers, the difficulty of proving monetary damages indirectly linked to the oil spill, and laws that cap the amount of liability oil companies can face for incidental damage. BP may or may not be on the hook for the full cost of the immediate cleanup...but they're never going to fully compensate all of the businesses and individuals who have indirectly suffered from this.
 
Last edited:
You know what. Life is not fair. If it costs me a cent or two more at the pump to keep these spills from devastating my beloved country. so be it. We are taxed for so many retarded things right now, I'd be happy to see at least a penny of my money go to something that actually might help my country.

No, no, no.
No New Taxes. Don't get suckered into the belief taxes will make one iota of difference. It won't.
We pay too damn much, and the money never ends up where it should.

What need be done to stop such potential devastation is to drill where it makes sense.
We need to step on the necks of enviromaniac leftists, and kick their enablers, the Democrats and RINO's , not in the ass, but lower.

We have easy to access oil, and should a problem like this occur, they could access it with divers, not robots. And of course, working on land is easier.

Interview: http://www.csnews.com/csn/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004093482

Why We Hate the Oil Companies: Straight Talk From an Energy Insider - Newsweek

.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Good corporate lawyers, the difficulty of proving monetary damages indirectly linked to the oil spill, and laws that cap the amount of liability oil companies can face for incidental damage. BP may or may not be on the hook for the full cost of the immediate cleanup...but they're never going to fully compensate all of the businesses and individuals who have indirectly suffered from this.

They are still on the hook for the clean up costs.
I don't see why they wouldn't have to pay it.

As for the liability cap for personal and business damages, wouldn't you call that to much regulation?
 
They are still on the hook for the clean up costs.
I don't see why they wouldn't have to pay it.

Their lawyers will hem and haw about how much the government spent on each line item of the cleanup expense, eventually settling for an amount that's less than the total cost of the cleanup.

Harry Guerrilla said:
As for the liability cap for personal and business damages, wouldn't you call that to much regulation?

Certainly.
 
Their lawyers will hem and haw about how much the government spent on each line item of the cleanup expense, eventually settling for an amount that's less than the total cost of the cleanup.

That's certainly something to look into, however, the clean up should be managed cost effectively.

Certainly.

At least we know that there is a stopping point.
 
You are dodging the question...... how are we the consumer "not blameless in this energy situation"?

Because the conservative mantra is "personal responsibility" and anti socialism. Why should the people pay for corporate welfare?
 
No, no, no.
No New Taxes. Don't get suckered into the belief taxes will make one iota of difference. It won't.
We pay too damn much, and the money never ends up where it should.

What need be done to stop such potential devastation is to drill where it makes sense.
We need to step on the necks of enviromaniac leftists, and kick their enablers, the Democrats and RINO's , not in the ass, but lower.

We have easy to access oil, and should a problem like this occur, they could access it with divers, not robots. And of course, working on land is easier.

Interview: Former Shell CEO Explains Why Oil Cos. Are Hated

Why We Hate the Oil Companies: Straight Talk From an Energy Insider - Newsweek

.




Read what I wrote, this would have to be ONLY for oil mitigation and cleanup, period. if it was to be used in the general fund, no dice.


That said, I think they should cut the MMS all together (why can't the EPA handle this), and lower our taxes in that aspect to cover the increase here.
 
BP has already pledged to cover the cost of the current clean up.

Why do we need a special tax, when the revenue from it will be spent immediately?
Sounds like another excuse to tax, not to mention that it is an especially regressive tax on low income people, who are already suffering because of the recession.

I find it curious that you are willing to trust a company on its word. My guess is that I can find posts where you doubt the word of our elected leaders (I don't know... maybe you are just a trusting guy), but I can assure you that BP officials are not of greater character nor anymore trustworthy than our elected leaders or your neighbor. Even if their intentions are genuine and not just good PR, they may (probably) lack the money. This could be a high 11 figure settlement (maybe 12 figure). That could be two, four, maybe five times their annual cash flow. It could be like any of us having to shell out five years salary. They do not have it. Fortunately there are at least 4 substantive companies that will be allocated blame and thus share the expense.

Early evidence suggests their statements of willingness to pay 100% are mostly PR. The advances they have made to local fisherman thus far have been paltry and insulting, and apparently come with much red tape. This behavior just isn't all that consistent with remorse, nor is their consistent understatement of the problem from the get-go. They have consistently postured. I must admit, however, I am furthering rumor here. This is not something I have yet to personally verify.

As to teachers and firefighters with pension money in BP stock, I am not sure of your point. BP is either going to pay the damage, which is going to drastically reduce enterprise value (and thus the value of all shareholders) or they are going to bankrupt the company, likely wiping out all equity. BP's market cap is off at least 50% already, reflecting current estimates of the hit to the company. The only reason the stock hasn't dropped to worthless is because there isn't real visibility on the magnitude of the damage and BP is just so big many believe it can weather the storm. People invested in BP are, and likely will be SOL.

BTW, were you equally concerned about shareholders of Chrysler / GM in early 2009? I assume you advocated on their behalf with similar passion rather than suggesting a bankruptcy, which would wipe them out.
 
Last edited:
I find it curious that you are willing to trust a company on its word. My guess is that I can find posts where you doubt the word of our elected leaders (I don't know... maybe you are just a trusting guy), but I can assure you that BP officials are not of greater character nor anymore trustworthy than our elected leaders or your neighbor. Even if their intentions are genuine and not just good PR, they may (probably) lack the money. This could be a high 11 figure settlement (maybe 12 figure). That could be two, four, maybe five times their annual cash flow. It could be like any of us having to shell out five years salary. They do not have it. Fortunately there are at least 4 substantive companies that will be allocated blame and thus share the expense.

Early evidence suggests their statements of willingness to pay 100% are mostly PR. The advances they have made to local fisherman thus far have been paltry and insulting, and apparently come with much red tape. This behavior just isn't all that consistent with remorse, nor is their consistent understatement of the problem from the get-go. They have consistently postured. I must admit, however, I am furthering rumor here. This is not something I have yet to personally verify.

There is no evidence that they won't pay and if they don't sue them in federal court.
It's pretty simple because they are legally obligated.

Elected leaders, on the other hand, have a history of being lying scum bags.

As to teachers and firefighters with pension money in BP stock, I am not sure of your point. BP is either going to pay the damage, which is going to drastically reduce enterprise value (and thus the value of all shareholders) or they are going to bankrupt the company, likely wiping out all equity. BP's market cap is off at least 50% already, reflecting current estimates of the hit to the company. The only reason the stock hasn't dropped to worthless is because there isn't real visibility on the magnitude of the damage and BP is just so big many believe it can weather the storm. People invested in BP are, and likely will be SOL.

BP is a multi billion dollar company, over the long term this won't affect their bottom line much.
I'm not worried in the least.

Share value /= real value.
Investors are spooked because of bad news, this happens all the time.


BTW, were you equally concerned about shareholders of Chrysler / GM in early 2009? I assume you advocated on their behalf with similar passion rather than suggesting a bankruptcy, which would wipe them out.

GM made it's own bed to lay in, the same as BP.
I don't want BP bailed out, just like I didn't want GM bailed out but to jump on the "I hate BP bandwagon" so early, when things haven't settled down, is just reactionary nonsense.
 
Yes, they ought to use at least a majority of those taxes to fund clean-ups or better yet, prevent spills. AND they should open up more offshore drilling (bringing in more tax revenue) because it will help the economy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Win, win, win. As for the environment, I'm sure the Dems would trust their oversight and regulation committees to use those tax funds responsibly. :)
 
As the Obama Administration has now halted all Gulf offshore production, it would seem that to say your going to Tax something that will not be produced is yet another example of Obama idiocy.
 
Their lawyers will hem and haw about how much the government spent on each line item of the cleanup expense, eventually settling for an amount that's less than the total cost of the cleanup.

I belive that BP is going to declare banruptcy, because of all the asskicking that Obama wants to do and we're going to get stuck with the bill, anyway.
 
BP/Halliburton/TransOcean and Anadarko (which has 25% stake in the well) are looking at a $50-75B clean-up and damage claim. This could be a big ticket, capable of breaking the bank of one or more of these companies. BP annually pays out $11B in shareholder dividends and currently has about $7B in cash. They do not have the cash on hand to cover this. It is time for the DoJ to put a desist order on dividend payments and demand an immediate cash payment to escrow and/or a bond.

I very much doubt that a desist order that was effective could be placed on a foreign company.
True the courts could slap some kind of lien on American assets of BP, but outside of US the US court system has no authority.
Also they have no authority to tell BP to desist from paying dividends unless those dividends are to US domiciled Investors.
If Obama is serious about having BP pay full costs for their error then it is obvious that Obama and his experts must permit BP to continue to function as an ongoing Company.
 
There is no evidence that they won't pay and if they don't sue them in federal court.
It's pretty simple because they are legally obligated.

Elected leaders, on the other hand, have a history of being lying scum bags.



BP is a multi billion dollar company, over the long term this won't affect their bottom line much.
I'm not worried in the least.

Share value /= real value.
Investors are spooked because of bad news, this happens all the time.




GM made it's own bed to lay in, the same as BP.
I don't want BP bailed out, just like I didn't want GM bailed out but to jump on the "I hate BP bandwagon" so early, when things haven't settled down, is just reactionary nonsense.

You are grossly underestimating their liability concerning this disaster, which the world has never seen a worse one. It is going to become even more worse before it gets better.

I have known a lot of wealthy people in my life and one thing I have observed is that the richer you are the greedier you become.
 
Read what I wrote, this would have to be ONLY for oil mitigation and cleanup, period. if it was to be used in the general fund, no dice.


That said, I think they should cut the MMS all together (why can't the EPA handle this), and lower our taxes in that aspect to cover the increase here.
Not even then.
No, no, no.
That tax won't be repealed later, they'll just find a way to shuffle funds elsewhere.
Cut something or a lot of things to pay for this.

Remember the 55mph speed limit?
Temporary measure to get us through the oil crisis?
Temporary took 25-years to get off the books.

Sorry... no new taxes under ANY circumstances.
I don't care if 5 of these rigs had puked oil.
Find the money by cutting something else.
There is enough crap to slash to fund scores of such clean-ups.

BTW, I agree about cutting the MMS, the Dept. of Education, Ag Dept, NEA, HUD... a whole slew of bureaucratic mess that makes things worse.

.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom