Dumpster 0 #1 August 7, 2008 Looking for what US consumers spent on gasoline during 1q 2008. Anyone know where I can find that statistic? I was just wondering how that sales figure compares to Exxons' 1st quater profit. I already checked the EIA website, lots of interesting info, but couldn't find what I was looking for. Easy Does It Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheBachelor 5 #2 August 11, 2008 I don't know about the country as a whole, but Exxon's profit margin in the first quarter was about 8.5%.There are battered women? I've been eating 'em plain all of these years... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dumpster 0 #3 August 11, 2008 Just shy of 12 billion - So I wonder what we spent on gas that same quarter, and how that figure compares to thier profit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #4 August 11, 2008 QuoteI don't know about the country as a whole, but Exxon's profit margin in the first quarter was about 8.5%. By itself, profit margin is a meaningless number.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #5 August 12, 2008 Quote Just shy of 12 billion - So I wonder what we spent on gas that same quarter, and how that figure compares to thier profit. They are a publicly traded company with audited financials. You can go right to their income statement and see what revenue gasoline sales had. It isn't top secret stuff. Get off you ass and look the information up. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #6 August 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteI don't know about the country as a whole, but Exxon's profit margin in the first quarter was about 8.5%. By itself, profit margin is a meaningless number. but margin has more meaning than straight dollar amounts which are the only thing ever discussed ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #7 August 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't know about the country as a whole, but Exxon's profit margin in the first quarter was about 8.5%. By itself, profit margin is a meaningless number. but margin has more meaning than straight dollar amounts which are the only thing ever discussed I disagree. Margin is not any less meaningful than straight dollar amounts, but it's not any more meaningful, either. People often try to use profit margin like it's comparable to the interest rate of a bank account, but they are not similar to one another, except in cases where the length of the production cycle is one year. That's not the case for oil.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dumpster 0 #8 August 12, 2008 Fist rough figure I can easily come up with, retail (pump) sales was about $20 billion in January '08, before taxes. Easy Does It Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 August 12, 2008 QuoteI disagree. Margin is not any less meaningful than straight dollar amounts, but it's not any more meaningful, either. It's significantly more useful for making appropriate comparisons. It's just not convenient to your stance here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #10 August 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteI disagree. Margin is not any less meaningful than straight dollar amounts, but it's not any more meaningful, either. It's significantly more useful for making appropriate comparisons. It's just not convenient to your stance here. Sure. If you wanted to compare Exxon to BP it's very useful. If you want to compare Exxon to Microsoft, however, it's useless without other important information. Please, tell me, what is my stance (other than the fact that profit margin is nearly useless without other information)?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #11 August 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI disagree. Margin is not any less meaningful than straight dollar amounts, but it's not any more meaningful, either. It's significantly more useful for making appropriate comparisons. It's just not convenient to your stance here. Sure. If you wanted to compare Exxon to BP it's very useful. If you want to compare Exxon to Microsoft, however, it's useless without other important information. Please, tell me, what is my stance (other than the fact that profit margin is nearly useless without other information)? What exactly is your point? There is little to no point in comparing microsoft to exxon, they deal in different products, in different markets, with different market conditions. When you start heating your house with copies of XP and it is traded on an exchange..."The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #12 August 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteI disagree. Margin is not any less meaningful than straight dollar amounts, but it's not any more meaningful, either. It's significantly more useful for making appropriate comparisons. It's just not convenient to your stance here. His point is fine to a generic concept that the context of the comparison is important. HOWEVER, I believe that those that use gross dollars are typically and dishonestly pushing an emotionally based agenda. Margin seems to be more objective. Still - I'd like to see all subsidies (such as research subs, etc) and all penalties (unusual taxes, etc) removed for big corporations and let them survive on their own - if they can. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #13 August 12, 2008 Quote There is little to no point in comparing microsoft to exxon, they deal in different products, in different markets, with different market conditions. I agree, but people do it here often, specifically how Microsoft has a higher profit margin. It's a meaningless comparison, however. Quote When you start heating your house with copies of XP and it is traded on an exchange... It's probably more useful in the fireplace than in the computer. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #14 August 12, 2008 QuoteHOWEVER, I believe that those that use gross dollars are typically and dishonestly pushing an emotionally based agenda. Margin seems to be more objective. I agree on the first part, but disagree on the last. Margin is used just as dishonestly, pushing emotionally based agendas. QuoteStill - I'd like to see all subsidies (such as research subs, etc) and all penalties (unusual taxes, etc) removed for big corporations and let them survive on their own - if they can. I would like to see all corporate taxes paid directly by shareholders on dividends and stock profits. I think the tax loopholes could be eliminated (or close to it) that way.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 August 12, 2008 Quote I would like to see all corporate taxes paid directly by shareholders on dividends and stock profits. I think the tax loopholes could be eliminated (or close to it) that way. Not the way to encourage long term holdings of equities or mutal funds based on equities. And since it would fuck with retirees with a fixed income portfolio, the idea is DOA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #16 August 12, 2008 Quote Quote I would like to see all corporate taxes paid directly by shareholders on dividends and stock profits. I think the tax loopholes could be eliminated (or close to it) that way. Not the way to encourage long term holdings of equities or mutal funds based on equities. I'm not sure what your logic is for that statement. I don't think it would have much effect in that respect. Quote And since it would fuck with retirees with a fixed income portfolio, the idea is DOA. Yeah, they might actually have to talk to their financial advisors. We can't have that. Their taxes would increase, but so would the taxable income, balancing things out. The only people who would suffer are those invested in corporations receiving corporate welfare in the form of subsidies and/or loopholes in the tax structure that allows them to avoid tax liabilities. For all other shareholders, the taxes would be the same, they'd simply be paid at a different time, by the owners instead of on behalf of the owners. It would also decrease incentive for companies to move overseas to avoid taxes.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 August 13, 2008 More/higher taxes on investments - EXACTLY what we need to do to encourage growth in that area... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 August 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote I would like to see all corporate taxes paid directly by shareholders on dividends and stock profits. I think the tax loopholes could be eliminated (or close to it) that way. Not the way to encourage long term holdings of equities or mutal funds based on equities. I'm not sure what your logic is for that statement. I don't think it would have much effect in that respect. Should I pretend to be surprised? The reason for lowering the tax rate for dividends was specifically to encourage investors to bias towards stable, cash paying corporations over profitless growth stocks. Of course, you want to kill growth stocks too, by taxing investor gains in lieu of actual corporate profits. Already the tax code makes investing in mutual funds outside a tax sheltered account a retarded idea. You seek to make it worse. All with the claim it would balance out. Right.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #19 August 13, 2008 Quote More/higher taxes on investments - EXACTLY what we need to do to encourage growth in that area... Who said anything about more taxes? Right now corporations pay taxes before the shareholders get their money. I'm proposing the shareholders should get the money before taxes, and then it should be taxed. It doesn't raise taxes, it helps stop corporate welfare by eliminating loopholes in the tax code.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #20 August 13, 2008 QuoteRight now corporations pay taxes before the shareholders get their money. I'm proposing the shareholders should get the money before taxes, and then it should be taxed. It doesn't raise taxes, it helps stop corporate welfare by eliminating loopholes in the tax code. I have long believed the same thing."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 August 13, 2008 Quote Quote More/higher taxes on investments - EXACTLY what we need to do to encourage growth in that area... Who said anything about more taxes? You did. "I would like to see all corporate taxes paid directly by shareholders on dividends and stock profits" Quote Right now corporations pay taxes before the shareholders get their money. I'm proposing the shareholders should get the money before taxes, and then it should be taxed. It doesn't raise taxes, it helps stop corporate welfare by eliminating loopholes in the tax code. That's not what you said above - which are you advocating?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #22 August 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I would like to see all corporate taxes paid directly by shareholders on dividends and stock profits. I think the tax loopholes could be eliminated (or close to it) that way. Not the way to encourage long term holdings of equities or mutal funds based on equities. I'm not sure what your logic is for that statement. I don't think it would have much effect in that respect. Should I pretend to be surprised? The reason for lowering the tax rate for dividends was specifically to encourage investors to bias towards stable, cash paying corporations over profitless growth stocks. Of course, you want to kill growth stocks too, by taxing investor gains in lieu of actual corporate profits. Already the tax code makes investing in mutual funds outside a tax sheltered account a retarded idea. You seek to make it worse. All with the claim it would balance out. Right.... What I propose would not make long term investments less attractive. I don't understand why you think taxes would increase. The change is not in how much tax is paid. The change is in when the tax is paid. The only way the taxes would increase is if corporations were receiving corporate welfare, and those are generally not corporations in which we should be encouraging investment.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #23 August 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteWho said anything about more taxes? You did. "I would like to see all corporate taxes paid directly by shareholders on dividends and stock profits" You left off the part about corporations not paying taxes before dividends are paid. QuoteQuoteRight now corporations pay taxes before the shareholders get their money. I'm proposing the shareholders should get the money before taxes, and then it should be taxed. It doesn't raise taxes, it helps stop corporate welfare by eliminating loopholes in the tax code. That's not what you said above - which are you advocating? That's what I've been advocating all along. I'm not trying to raise the taxes, I want the taxes to be payed once, by the individual owners, instead of once by the corporation, on behalf of the owners, and then again by the owners on their own behalf. Simplifying the system would make it easier to close loopholes. One side benefit is that it would give corporations that are not currently trying to evade taxes (legally or otherwise) a competitive advantage. Another benefit is that it would remove some incentive for American companies to shift operations or profits overseas to avoid taxes.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #24 August 13, 2008 There's no question that the investor is paying more than before. The hope is that the dividends are increased by an equal portion. Reality suggests the corps will just have increased cash flow (though the other active thread suggests many corps aren't paying any taxes, so it definitely represents a tax increase). And what do stock profits have to do with corporate taxes? Not a thing. The real effect of your proposal would be the favoring of retirement account assets at the expense of regular accounts. This effectively serves as a shifting of tax burden to the very rich, but would also encourage the middle class to have too much of their assets in non liquid retirement accounts, or in their house, which in the past 2 years has proven to be a very bad strategy for Americans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #25 August 13, 2008 QuoteThere's no question that the investor is paying more than before. The hope is that the dividends are increased by an equal portion. Reality suggests the corps will just have increased cash flow … Which will increase stock value. Quote(though the other active thread suggests many corps aren't paying any taxes, so it definitely represents a tax increase). Those that aren't making a profit still won't see any taxes. Those that are simply avoiding taxes will have to start paying their way, giving the former group a competitive advantage, or, more accurately, removing an artificial competitive disadvantage. QuoteAnd what do stock profits have to do with corporate taxes? Not a thing. Taxing the stock sales removes incentives for corporations to keep profits as cash flow rather than paying dividends. It really doesn't matter if the corporations' profits are realized in the form of dividends or increased stock value, it is still profit, and should be taxed as such. QuoteThe real effect of your proposal would be the favoring of retirement account assets at the expense of regular accounts. There are limits to the annual contributions of IRA's. Most of those who invest are already taking full advantage of such tax shelters. Encouraging more to do the same would not be a bad thing. QuoteThis effectively serves as a shifting of tax burden to the very rich, but would also encourage the middle class to have too much of their assets in non liquid retirement accounts, or in their house, which in the past 2 years has proven to be a very bad strategy for Americans. Too much is relative to age as much as income level. As far as real estate goes, two years has traditionally been a very short term investment in real estate. As bad as the collapse of the housing bubble crisis has been, most people are only indirectly affected. In the long term, it may even end up having very little effect on housing prices. Buying a house now would be a good investment for Americans that can afford mortgage payments.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
