Don't forget farm aid. When one of the monster farm bills was up for consideration, some referred to it as "Moscow on the Mississippi". We pay farmers not to grow anything in many cases. Too bad nobody ever figured out what percentage of people receive some form of government handouts (either directly or to their families or employer). Guess it doesn't matter since it'll be most everybody before long.
The Social Security Act signed on 8/14/35. Note the systemic failure that preceded the signing. The more corrupt capitalism is allowed to become, the stronger the snap back to socialism. Prudent regulation in capitalist markets is a must, not an option. Human nature will sabotage unrestrained free markets every time.
Clearly the market swung the election. Six weeks ago McCain was ahead. Just shows how deceived by the left media our middle-class truly is. Has it never occurred to them that the corporate and capital gains tax hikes advocated by Obama and the Democrats have accentuated their losses? McCain is a simply clueless debater. Obama:, "Now, Senator McCain, the centerpiece of his economic proposal is to provide $200 billion in additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies, for example, would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks." Or later, "Then Exxon Mobil, which made $12 billion, record profits, over the last several quarters, they can afford to pay a little more so that ordinary families who are hurting out there -- they're trying to figure out how they're going to afford food, how they're going to save for their kids' college education, they need a break." Facts: Exxon paid out 8 billion in dividends to shareholders. Those shareholders are American 401k's. The California public employees retirement funds largest holding? Exxon! Exxon pays more taxes than the bottom 50% of filers combined. Corporate tax increases are passed on to the consumer. Exxon globally paid 49% of revenue in taxes!! Hence XOM is trading at 9 times earnings. Here's another example of why Obama is unfit to deal with a new economic world. SCHIEFFER's question is this: the U.S. spends more per capita than any other country on education. Yet, by every international measurement, in math and science competence, from kindergarten through the 12th grade, we trail most of the countries of the world....etc.... Obama: "Now, typically, what's happened is that there's been a debate between more money or reform, and I think we need both. In some cases, we are going to have to invest. Early childhood education, which closes the achievement gap, so that every child is prepared for school, every dollar we invest in that, we end up getting huge benefits with improved reading scores, reduced dropout rates, reduced delinquency rates. I think it's going to be critically important for us to recruit a generation of new teachers, an army of new teachers, especially in math and science, give them higher pay, give them more professional development and support in exchange for higher standards and accountability." Now if I were to say to any rational business person, "we're outspending everyone else and our results suck" would any competent manager answer back, "then SPEND MORE" or would they say, "gee how are these other nations achieving with less? Can we emulate their model"? The Democrats are OWNED by government workers. And as I posted yesterday as of this year the average public wage is 50% higher hourly than private wages. Obama is a TOOL for big government and and ENEMY of private sector employed tax payers. He's completely out of touch with the emerging devaluation of government debt.
Wow - No one every pointed out to me that we spend more per capita. However, many times I have been stunned by the salaries earned by teachers and administrators, so it is not surprising.
Exxon provides access to what is generally considered an essential resource - purchased by poor, middle class, & wealthy alike. Dividends (which are funded by these purchases) flow disproportionately to the wealthy; less to the middle class; next to none to the poor. You're extolling a mechanism which invariably transfers wealth from the poor to the rich. Fine. That's your ideology. At least you're consistent. Commingling individual and corporate returns DOES make for a mighty impressive comparison. However, Exxon paid out less than 8% of its revenues in taxes last year. In 2001, the middle fifth of taxpaying households paid, on average, approximately 16.3% of their 'revenue' as federal taxes. This was, by the way, lower than any figure in the preceding 20 years. http://www.cbpp.org/4-10-02tax.htm Poor Exxon!! You and I both know that there is less than a 1:1 correspondence here. Your argument, while not totally incorrect, is an example of distortion by oversimplification. Incorrect. I think that you want to substitute 'gross profit' for 'revenue'. Additionally, Exxon's effective tax rate in the US was 34% - quite a bit lower than the global figure you've cited. I'm not sure why you'd quote a global figure in the midst of a discussion of American politics. Misdirection perhaps? http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily...?chan=top+news_top+news+index_news+++analysis A very dubious conclusion. "E" represents an after tax, rather than pre-tax figure. So, the market is valuing Exxon's earnings, after deduction of all taxes less richly than an average company. Is it because they are presently paying a shitload of taxes? Well, no. Cyclical companies are generally valued at a lower P/E than their growth brethren. Additionally, cyclicals tend to get hammered harder than many others pre-recession - which is where the market perceives us to be right now. Furthermore, Exxon is the public focal point of potential future tax policy changes which will likely have some negative effect upon earnings. This effect is not quantified as yet - as a rule investors are uncomfortable with these types of 'unknown risk' situations. Therefore, the P/E suffers - but not, as you've suggested, simply because Exxon pays a large amount of taxes. If you had said that Exxon is being used as a convenient, high profile prop by Obama, I'd certainly agree. Then again, Joe Plumber is also a prop. Such is the state of politics.
I would also be interested in knowing if that percentage is the percentage before or after the inevitable loop hole deductions.
If you're referring to the 34% figure, the answer is "after". "According to Securities & Exchange Commission filings, Exxon paid an effective tax rate of 34% to the U.S. government in 2007, or $5.12 billion. While cheaper than rates from some foreign governments, it's still a higher rate than many U.S. companies pay. A BusinessWeek collaboration with Capital IQ in December, 2007, found that the average percentage of earnings spent on taxes by companies that make up the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index was 26%, well under the 35% official U.S. corporate income-tax rate. Companies achieved lower taxes in a variety of ways, from taking advantage of lower tax rates abroad to benefiting from industry-specific breaks." http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily...?chan=top+news_top+news+index_news+++analysis