A Stitch in Haste

You may have heard that ExxonMobil posted record profits for 2006 -- $39.5 billion.

But did you hear that they also paid $27.9 billion in income taxes in 2006? Not to mention $30.3 billion in sales-based taxes and $42.4 billion in other taxes.

That's over $100 billion in taxes in 2006.

Of course, it's never accurate to say that a corporation "pays taxes." Businesses only collect taxes -- people pay taxes. Every penny that ExxonMobil conveyed in taxes, to whatever jurisdiction, was a penny that otherwise would have gone to some combination of higher wages for employees, higher returns to investors (all 5.7 billion shares worth), or lower prices to customers.

Just as it's a lie to claim that "the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes," so too is it downright preposterous to lament that "greedy" oil companies (or "greedy" pharmaceutical companies or "greedy" tobacco companies or "greedy"...) don't pay "enough" taxes. They are only collecting taxes anyway -- and they indeed collect quite a lot.

As for ExxonMobil's "greedy" shareholders: As with all blue-chip corporations, most of ExxonMobil stock is held by institutional investors, most notably pension funds -- even government employee pension funds. Almost every middle-class American and every "public servant" has an oil stain on their personal balance sheet, either directly or indirectly (i.e., through pensions or mutual funds). To curve Exxon is to curse yourself.

More thoughts at Tax Policy Blog.

---

On the other hand:

When Exxon merged with Mobil in 1999, the merged company rescinded Mobil's anti-discrimination policy, which referred to sexual orientation, and chose not to extend Mobil's domestic partner benefits to new employees. (Former Mobil workers continue to get domestic partner benefits.)

Its actions have put ExxonMobil is out of step with the biggest public companies. All but two companies in the FORTUNE 100 ... prohibit discrimination against gays. So do at least 16 states and the District of Columbia.

Meanwhile, 78 of the Fortune 100 offer health and other benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees. Among them are oil companies BP America, Chevron and Shell.

So okay, curse Exxon just a little bit. But note how corporate America -- the "greedy capitalists" -- are, as a group at least, leading the charge in the quest for fair and equal treatment for gays.

All dollars are green -- even gay dollars. Too bad votes aren't like that -- it's much easier to toss aside a gay vote than a gay dollar.

"Greedy" corporations will acknowledge that long before voters or the "public servants" who pander to them.

(I sincerely hope this does not become a regular feature here.)

One of the first industries the looters went after in Atlas Shrugged was, of course, oil.

And who is better at looting than politicians?

U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski said it's time for America to stand up to the big oil companies and shout out, "We've had enough."

Kanjorski, D-Nanticoke, was in town Monday to announce his introduction of House Resolution 5800, the Consumer Reasonable Energy Price Protection Act of 2008. The bill, introduced on the House floor April 15, would allow the federal government to tax windfall oil and gas profits resulting from historically high oil and gas prices that average Americans struggle to afford, he said.

Kanjorski said industries yield windfall profits when earnings exceed what a Reasonable Profits Board determines is rational, as laid out in the legislation.

Rational profits? As determined by a Reasonable Profits Board? Would Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe be eligible to serve on it? (If not, then perhaps Ms. Maureen Felix of West Orange, New Jersey, is available.)

The futility of pointing out, "reasonable to whom, by what standard" is not lost on me. The impermeability of the blood-brain barrier between politicians and reasonableness is common knowledge.

Also not lost on me is the futility of pointing out, yet again, that "big" oil companies actually consist of numerous small shareholders, either directly as individuals and households (such as those that the "reasonable" Representative Kanjorski putatively serves), or indirectly — as employees (whose pension funds own oil company stock), small business owners (who retirement accounts include index funds that include such stock), students (whose college endowment funds own such stock) or anyone else who indirectly benefits from "obscene" oil company profits.

Equally futile would, I suppose, be asking where one goes to apply for a seat on the Reasonable Taxation Board:


(Click to enlarge.)

Via Tax Policy Blog.

(For the uninitiated, Directive 10-289 here.)