July 31, 2008

Media Near-Secret: Exxon’s Taxes Almost 3x As Much As Profits

Just heard Mark Levin mention this point on his show tonight.

The item he referred to is from Mark Perry at istockanalyst.com, who commented on CNNMoney.com’s coverage of Exxon Mobil’s profit report today.

According to CNN, Exxon Mobil once again reported the largest quarterly profit in U.S. history Thursday, posting net income of $11.68 billion on revenue of $138 billion in the second quarter.

That profit works out to $1,485.55 a second.

Buried in the story we also find that “In addition to making hefty profits, Exxon also had a hefty tax bill. Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called ‘other taxes.’”

….. In other words, Exxon Mobil paid $32.361 billion in taxes in the second quarter, which works out to $4,114 in taxes per second.

Go to his site to see the graph Perry put up.

Looking at it from another perspective, Exxon Mobil’s profit of about 8.4% of sales, while the taxes paid represented over 23% of sales. (August 1 AM Note: This was originally said to be 32%, but has been corrected. The transposition zombies have been appropriately tracked down and punished.)

It’s remarkable that CNN even reported the taxes paid, as they were the clear exception:

The word “tax” does not appear in the Guardian, Chronicle, or AP articles. Bloomberg only used the word in connection with the after-tax effect of the company’s Exxon Valdez settlement.

So who are the greedy ones — Exxon shareholders who want a return on their investment, or the myriad government entities who insist that their grubby fingers be in the pie?

Oh, and would it be impolite to point out that Uncle Sam alone is currently spending $2.9 trillion a year, or $91,958 per second?

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Share

9 Comments

  1. Yes and as a Congressman in the House pointed out, which of course the MSM will not publish, the idiot Dems with their drilling ban lost $2.5 trillion over 5 years in royalties to the US Treasury. So instead of collecting the royalities they pandered a feel good do nothing platitude to the environmentalists at our expense. Did we use one less drop over the last five years???? NOT! We ended up buying it from foreigners instead. Boy, these people are truly idiots. We import over 70% of our oil due to the drilling ban.

    Now that the foreign sources are beginning to have difficulty meeting demand, the price of oil rises screwing everyone. Gee thanks, Dems.

    Comment by dscott — August 1, 2008 @ 9:03 am

  2. #1, do you have a link for that. It’s a TOTAL game-changer if that number, which intuitively seems wayyyyy high, is correct.

    It wipes out the deficit, it even potentially solves some long-term structural problems if drilling is way expanded, but I need to find what you’re referring to, which I’ll look for in the PM.

    Comment by TBlumer — August 1, 2008 @ 9:43 am

  3. http://www.house.gov/johnpeterson/Action%20Center%20Charts.pdf Here’s the link on the $2.5 trillion. As I have said before, the incompetence of the Dems is truly astounding. You would think they would want as much revenue as possible to fund their socialist schemes, but being the greedy fools they are, they can’t help but pander to every group that claims victimhood. Now Al Gore and his buddies are set to clean up with alternative energy by jacking up the price of oil to make it cost effective through legislative manipulation of the market. Between the ethanol fraud, drilling ban and the rest of the scams this is a financial scandal of epic proportions.

    Comment by dscott — August 1, 2008 @ 10:09 am

  4. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/oil_companies_spend_more_on_ta.html Here is a nice detailing of how much the government get in taxes from big oil. The government makes so much money from these companies, that the term cash cow somehow seems an understatement.

    Comment by dscott — August 1, 2008 @ 10:32 am

  5. #3, I called Peterson’s office and was told new stuff was going up soon. I don’t see it yet, but I’ll look later. The person I spoke to emphasized that the reserves estimates are probably very low, as most resource reserve estimates have been throughout history.

    Comment by TBlumer — August 1, 2008 @ 12:02 pm

  6. #5, so what he is really saying is using underestimated reserve values is giving us a very conservative figure of $2.5 trillion, we actually could have saved the taxpayer even more money – well maybe, the Dems would have frittered that away as well. The Democrat Party, the Party of Fiscal Incompetence.

    BTW- did you hear Obama’s new economic plan? He wants a windfalls profit tax on the oil companies in order to fund another rebate to spur the economy. @$%!$%^#$% So the moron wants to permanently keep oil prices up by taking more money from the oil companies instead of letting them invest the money in drilling more wells. And to offset the permanently higher energy prices, he justifies taking the investment money and giving it away. What’s new? They’re already doing that when stealing SS Trust fund money and spending it on annual budget expenses.

    How did you like my piece on wind power? http://conservablogs.com/publiusforum/2008/08/01/wind-power-sales-hype/ shameless plug…

    Comment by dscott — August 1, 2008 @ 1:13 pm

  7. #6, that was a very good post. 10% at best? For all that capital investment, and maintenance.

    I dunno, at some point Obama has to come across as totally incoherent even to the mostly incoherent. They can put a brave face on this all they want, but a Hail Mary proposal like that reeks of an 11-letter word that starts with D.

    Comment by TBlumer — August 1, 2008 @ 2:26 pm

  8. #6 also, you had me on the five years, which is irrelevant to the presentation in terms of resource usage. It was only a royalty rate frame of reference.

    That $2.5 trillion in reserves at $134 a barrel plus whatever the nat gas price was is what can be gotten to over time — probably 10-20 years I would guess. That means we’re leaving what could have resulted in $50-$100 bil in royalties a year locked up. If the barrel price came down to something like $75 again, we’d only get more like the $50 bil, but the lower price would get the econ back on track, generate more econ growth and related taxes …. it’s absolutely infuriating.

    The guy at Peterson’s office emphasized that the reserve estimates are low (as they have always been), so that would either stretch out the time royalties would be collected, or increase what gets collected every year, or a combo of both.

    Comment by TBlumer — August 1, 2008 @ 2:31 pm

  9. [...] Media Near-Secret: Exxon’s Taxes Almost 3x As Much As Profits “In addition to making hefty profits, Exxon also had a hefty tax bill. Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called ‘other taxes.’” ….. In other words, Exxon Mobil paid $32.361 billion in taxes in the second quarter, which works out to $4,114 in taxes per second. [...]

    Pingback by Road Sassy » Energy 101 for Dummies Barack Obama — August 6, 2008 @ 3:41 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.