Ooops - The American Thinker [sic] sticks its foot in it again. You remember the American Thinker? One of its writers was last week's Wingnut of the Week here at Agitprop. This week, in a breathless article about how NPR (!!) has admitted that oil companies aren't raking in the dough, the Thinkster comes up with this about the component costs of a gallon of gas:
Then, Horsley raised a cost that few media are willing to acknowledge: “The balance of the price is taxes—about 55 cents.” Oil companies pay taxes? I thought none of Bush and Cheney’s friends pay taxes. Well, we'll get to that later. But, before we do, using Horsley’s numbers, $2.79 out of the $2.90 that folks are currently paying for a gallon of gasoline are oil companies’ costs.
OK, so the author, Noel Sheppard, might be saying ... what? Rich people pay taxes at the pump too? Um, nope:
Yet, apart from addressing any of ExxonMobil’s almost $74 billion in expenses in the first quarter, ABC also chose not to report the $7 billion in income taxes – I promised we get back to this – the oil giant paid to the federal government. In fact, as the Media Research Center’s Rich Noyes pointed out at NewsBusters.org that same day, ExxonMobil’s total tax bill in the first quarter – when factoring in income taxes, excise taxes, and “other taxes” – was $25 billion, or fully three times its profits.
So this means ... the 55 cents of excise taxes charged on each gallon of gas is paid by the oil companies? Wow - wait until all the consumers who actually pay those taxes to the states and the federal government find out! We'll all get our money back! Thanks American Thinker!
read more: american thinker impeach bush noel sheppard gas prices
Once again, my America-hating friend, you are guilty of short-sighted thinking. Sure, that tax bill does include contributions from others, but what tax bill doesn't? I mean, do you not pay YOUR taxes from income earned from your employer?
Stop hating America's over-taxed corporations...if you dare!
-Rex
Posted by: Rex Kramer, Danger Seeker | May 08, 2006 at 12:28 PM
I can't get past the following: "ExxonMobil’s total tax bill in the first quarter – when factoring in income taxes, excise taxes, and “other taxes” – was $25 billion, or fully three times its profits."
If this is the case, why hasn't Exxon filed for bankrupcy? Better still, how did the company afford to give Lee Raymond his $500 million dollar golden parachute?
Posted by: M A F | May 08, 2006 at 01:39 PM
Ha.
You don't go far enough, bf. There is so much pretzel logic and out-of-context shit here, I found it hard to get through without sustaining long-term damage to my neurons. It was like shoving a crystal wine glass (my brain) into the dishwasher with bucket of loose gravel (American Thunker's convoluted verbiage) and hitting Maximum Scrub. Yeow.
Fact-mangling aside, the dreadful grammar didn't help, to wit: "I thought none of Bush and Cheney’s friends pay taxes.", which should've read "...pays taxes". Antecedent/referent agreement, American Thunker. So important.
Posted by: litbrit | May 08, 2006 at 01:46 PM
I agree with litbrit! It made my haid hurt some.
I also question the tax thing, 3 x its profits would mean bye-bye Exxon, wouldn't it? Is Sheppard an idiot?
Posted by: HelenWheels | May 08, 2006 at 01:49 PM
So I couldn't resist asking him to clarify:
Dear Mr. Sheppard,
I read your article about cost-gouging and am very confused about this statement:
"In fact, as the Media Research Center’s Rich Noyes pointed out at NewsBusters.org that same day, ExxonMobil’s total tax bill in the first quarter – when factoring in income taxes, excise taxes, and “other taxes” – was $25 billion, or fully three times its profits. "
If Exxon paid three times more taxes than garnered profits, wouldn't they be bankrupt?
Please advise.
I will report any response, esp. so litbrit's neurons can zigzag some more...
Posted by: HelenWheels | May 08, 2006 at 01:57 PM
The real question then, is, Blogenfrude, how much Tylenol stock do you own?
Posted by: Blue Gal | May 08, 2006 at 02:06 PM
The real question then, is, Blogenfrude, how much Tylenol stock do you own?
Not Tylenol stock, just Tylenol ...
Posted by: blogenfreude | May 08, 2006 at 02:13 PM
The rich don't pay for gas, or gas taxes anyways, Bill Clinton gave them a tax break for their SUV's, so they can guzzle to their hearts content.
Posted by: Fred | May 08, 2006 at 04:30 PM
I also question the tax thing, 3 x its profits would mean bye-bye Exxon, wouldn't it? Is Sheppard an idiot?
No, HelenWheels. It would mean bye-bye if taxes were 3X income. Profit is all income less all expenses and it is obscene for all the oil companies.
Posted by: spiiderweb | May 08, 2006 at 05:58 PM
Thanks, Helen Wheels! Great letter. But no thanks for the headache--I get plenty of those with three sons flying around the place, something like the gravel in the dishwasher image.
Tylenol doesn't even touch this girl's migraines. The only thing that works is a fistful of Extra-strength Excedrin washed down with a strong cup of tea. We go through a bottle of 50 every month. If you were to cut me with a razor blade, the blood flow would be practically clear.
And my stomach lining must surely look like a collection of knitting mistakes.
Posted by: litbrit | May 08, 2006 at 07:16 PM
Numbers make me head hurt. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them because there was so much bookkeeping involved in counting the obscene profits?
Posted by: libby | May 08, 2006 at 08:18 PM
Somehow when oil prices go up, I smile. I am very much against the suburban lifestyle (of which oil is the big enabler)...
Sorry, but I no longert feel sorry for the commuter. They chose the lifestyle, that is what they get...
Posted by: denisdekat | May 09, 2006 at 01:23 PM
Poor litbrit! I hate migraines but I hardly ever get one. That must suck.
If taxes are 3x profit though wouldn't that dip into income? I know nothing, so please bear with. Can someone answer that? Remember, I AM half Polish... ha ha...
Posted by: HelenWheels | May 09, 2006 at 02:28 PM