• 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!

Senate blocks bill repealing $2 billion in oil tax breaks

xpiher said:
There is a very large difference. The difference being that the personal exemption is meant to not tax for your upkeep. The tax subsides/breaks are only there to increase profit margins.
Click to expand...


What the....? Where did you get this gem of twisted thinking?

Evil maximum is a phrase repeated throughout The Wealth of Nations, something like 40 different times in various contexts by all lead to the same conclusion, Capitalism only works to benefit of everyone if people operate morally otherwise it only operates in the favor of the powerful.
Click to expand...

Was Adam Smith anti capitalist then?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Was Adam Smith anti capitalist then?
Click to expand...

No, he was anti evil maximum which is pursing profit above all else, even morality.
 
Nevergolfpar said:
Until you can provide a link directing me to the CRS's research AND methodology of their research--then yes, my wisdom and logic should be weighed with more authority. Provide me the link (I looked could not find the study--all I saw was something about Harry Reid) I would be more than willing to read it. Until I see such evidence to the contrary, I stand behind my position...in fact I would be willing to wager I am correct.
Click to expand...

Can't find a link to their research so I must decide whether to believe the Congressional Research Service with their "staff of approximately 900 employees includes lawyers, economists, reference librarians, and social, natural, and physical scientists," or, some conservative guy on a political forum. Thanks for helping me make my decision! :sun
 
Nevergolfpar said:
EXACTLY SOLLETICA YOU JUST NAILED IT ON THE HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your second sentence is profound. Now to lead you down the road to enlightenment, which of these costs from a business sense is income taxation? Is it not a production cost? If you agree that income taxes are indeed a production cost
Click to expand...

They aren't. Production costs are things like wages, rent, insurance, concrete pouring costs, etc.--anything that is an input to producing the product.

Taxes are not an input.
 
solletica said:
They aren't. Production costs are things like wages, rent, insurance, concrete pouring costs, etc.--anything that is an input to producing the product.

Taxes are not an input.
Click to expand...

Cost-of-production theory of value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In economics, the cost-of-production theory of value is the theory that the price of an object or condition is determined by the sum of the cost of the resources that went into making it. The cost can compose any of the factors of production (including labor, capital, or land) and taxation.
 
jamesrage said:
Cost-of-production theory of value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In economics, the cost-of-production theory of value is the theory that the price of an object or condition is determined by the sum of the cost of the resources that went into making it. The cost can compose any of the factors of production (including labor, capital, or land) and taxation.
Click to expand...

Obviously james, some radical right wing nut job altered that wikipage. Solletica has a well written paper by his college poli-sci prof that clearly states businesses should never consider taxation as a cost, clearly it is a privilege they should rejoice in paying and just accept. Any other way of thinking would be greedy...
 
MrVicchio said:
Obviously james, some radical right wing nut job altered that wikipage. Solletica has a well written paper by his college poli-sci prof that clearly states businesses should never consider taxation as a cost, clearly it is a privilege they should rejoice in paying and just accept. Any other way of thinking would be greedy...
Click to expand...

Why should taxes be wrapped into price unless the only thing you cared about was profits and nothing else.
 
MrVicchio said:
Obviously james, some radical right wing nut job altered that wikipage. Solletica has a well written paper by his college poli-sci prof that clearly states businesses should never consider taxation as a cost, clearly it is a privilege they should rejoice in paying and just accept. Any other way of thinking would be greedy...
Click to expand...

production cost

noun
combined costs of raw material and labor incurred in producing goods

Production cost | Define Production cost at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...

Just because taxes are included in that theory doesn't change the defiition of the term.

But even if taxes are included as a production cost, the profit maximization point--the point where the marginal cost curve intersects the marginal revenue curve--for an oligopoly/cartel is the same

The MC curve just pivots (turns) right without changing that intersection point. And this is exactly what you'd expect--if the company maximizes gross (before tax) profit, then the after-tax income is also maximized--it's just less than the gross profit.

Tax increases only increase prices for competitive industries, because of its effect on the whole market (industry supply curve).
 
Nevergolfpar said:
You Keynesian's never cease to amaze me. A lot of theory but no basis in fact and the relationship between tax law,margins and corporate profits. You must understand that when Keynes proffered his theory, taxation of individuals and corporations was still in its infancy--a non-player in the current economic model. So regardless of how the supply curve may or may not be affected still has no bearing on the price of gasoline that we both pay at the pump.

Your above post focus's on the price of crude (and demand) as the sole determining factors in corporate profits of oil companies. Furthermore, you state that ' those companies already set the price at a point that optimizes profits for them based on the global demand for oil, and their own drilling/refining costs.' However, you fail to realize that it is the collective world market which dictates the commodity price of oil, not the individual oil companies.
Click to expand...

The collective world market for crude is just a small number of cartels and supermajors--an oligopoly. OPEC is just one big cartel, and all independent oil cos. (including the ones in the US) clump up into a just a few cartels. Beyond that, all that's left are the supermajors--BP, Exxon-Mobil, etc.

A cartel functions like just one big company on the world market. If you increase the tax on it, in the worst case, the independents within the cartel may drop out and do something else, but the cartel remains. Because of that, the no. of cartels doesn't change due to the tax, so the supply curve for crude doesn't move, assuming nothing else (i. e. physical production costs) changed.

And if there is no movement of the supply curve, and no movement of the demand curve, then the price stays the same.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom