(Credit: Talk Radio News Service)
Diane Ravitch explains why she turned her back on charter schools.
Charter Schools: A Marketplace For Profits Or Ideas?
Showing posts with label profits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label profits. Show all posts
Friday, March 28, 2014
Charter Schools: A Marketplace For Profits Or Ideas?
Charter Schools: A Marketplace For Profits Or Ideas?
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
With Only $93 Billion in Profits, the Big Five Oil Companies Demand to Keep Tax Breaks
With Only $93 Billion in Profits, the Big Five Oil Companies Demand to Keep Tax Breaks
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2.10.14-Big-Oil-column.jpg
SOURCE: AP/Mel Evans
Lifting the crude oil export ban, as some Big Oil companies are lobbying to do, could raise gasoline prices at filling stations such as this BP in Lakewood, New Jersey.
This article contains a correction.
The 2013 profit totals are in for the big five oil companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Shell. Their financial reports indicate that they earned a combined total of $ 93 billion last year, or $ 177,000 per minute. (see Table 1) After years of oil production declines, the big five oil companies actually increased their total production* in 2013, predominately due to BP and ConocoPhillips almost doubling their total production. The companies’ higher oil production yet lower profits indicate that it is becoming more expensive to produce oil as the number of newer, easier, and cheaper fields shrink. This is why, despite their outsized earnings, the oil companies are not only fighting to keep their tax breaks but also lobbying to lift the crude oil export ban. But doing so could hurt working families, our economy, and our energy security. Instead, we need to invest in cleaner transportation alternatives.
As mindboggling as it sounds, Big Oil’s $ 93 billion in profits in 2013—impressive by any standard—were nonetheless a 27 percent reduction in profits compared to 2012, primarily because gasoline averaged 16 cents per gallon—or 4 percent—less. Despite the decreases, Exxon Mobil, Shell, and Chevron still had the first, seventh, and eighth, respectively, highest profits of any global public company on the 2013 Fortune 500 list. BP finished 30th, while ConocoPhillips ranked 50th, mostly because it spun off its refining business partway through 2012.
It would not be surprising if the big five oil companies use their 2013 decline in profits as another excuse to pressure Congress to retain their $ 2.4 billion-per-year tax breaks. The largest of these special provisions allows these companies to qualify for the “limitation on section 199 deduction attributable to oil, natural gas, or primary products,” which will cost taxpayers $ 14.4 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. This tax break was enacted in 2004 and was designed to encourage manufacturing to remain in the United States rather than move overseas. It ought not apply to oil and natural gas production since the oil and gas fields cannot be moved to another nation.
The Joint Committee on Taxation found that the second-largest deduction was for “modifications of foreign tax credit rules applicable to major integrated oil companies which are dual capacity taxpayers.” This provision is worth $ 7.5 billion over 10 years. Seth Hanlon, former Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress, best describes why this tax break is unwarranted:
Our tax system allows companies that do business abroad to reduce from their tax bill any income taxes paid to other governments. The rules are supposed to prevent oil companies from claiming credit for royalty payments to foreign governments. Royalties are not taxes; they are fees for the privilege of extracting natural resources.
… oil companies have been permitted to claim credits for certain payments to foreign governments, even in countries that generally impose low or no business tax (suggesting that these payments, or levies, are in fact a form of royalty). Dual capacity taxpayer rules, therefore, are a subsidy for foreign production by U.S. oil companies.
The decline in profits is also why the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies are lobbying to lift the crude oil export ban, which would enable them to sell their domestic oil at the world, or Brent, price that fetched nearly $ 10 per barrel more than the domestic, or West Texas Intermediate, price on February 7. Lifting the ban would force the United States to import more expensive foreign oil to replace the exported domestic oil, which could raise gasoline prices. Banking giant Barclays Plc predicts that lifting the current ban could add $ 10 billion annually to gasoline prices paid at the pump.
If there is any good news here for American families and businesses, it is that gasoline prices, which hit a record high in 2012, were lower in 2013. This cut at the pump reduced the average household’s annual gasoline expenditures.
The fact that profits decreased in 2013 despite production increasing calls into question the big five companies’ reliance on finding and developing more difficult, dangerous oil fields—such as those in the Arctic Ocean. It is fairly clear that such a business model is not economically sustainable. Instead, they—and we—could benefit from greater investment in cleaner, alternative transportation technologies.
Of course, when it comes to spending their money, the priorities of oil companies are fairly obvious. All of the companies, except for ConocoPhillips, spent a combined total of $ 32 billion, or nearly 40 percent of their total profits, to repurchase their own stock. (see Table 1) This increases the value of the remaining shares, providing a bounty to senior executives, boards of directors, and other large shareholders. The CEOs of these five companies had a combined compensation of $ 96 million in 2012, the last year for which data are available, or nearly $ 20 million per CEO. This is nearly 400 times greater than the $ 51,107 median income for a family of four during that same year. These five major oil corporations also spent $ 45 million on lobbying in 2013; every $ 1 spent on lobbying helped the companies protect $ 53 of their tax breaks—an outstanding rate of return.
In addition to receiving unjustified tax breaks, the big five oil companies also benefit from the lack of federal limits on carbon pollution generated by oil and gas production, transportation, and refining. The Environmental Protection Agency reported that “petroleum and natural gas systems” and refiners were the second- and third-largest sources of carbon and other climate pollution among the major industrial sectors that must report their emissions. Since there are no federal limits on this pollution, American families and businesses must bear the costs of more climate pollution, such as damages from extreme weather events, heightened smog, and tropical diseases. These—and other—oil companies can dump their carbon and other climate pollution in the sky for free. And at our expense.
Despite the decline in profits in 2013, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Shell are some of the richest, most profitable companies in the world. They produce a valuable commodity that is essential to our economy. However, their proposal to eliminate the crude oil export ban, their battle to keep some unnecessary federal tax breaks, and their uncontrolled climate pollution all could or do impose real costs on American families. It’s up to President Barack Obama and Congress to retain and adopt policies that benefit all Americans, not just Big Oil’s bottom line.
Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress. Miranda Peterson is a Special Assistant for the Energy Opportunity team at the Center.
*Correction, February 10, 2014: This article incorrectly stated the percentage increase in big five oil companies’ total production for 2013. The incorrect percentage has been removed.
Read more about With Only $93 Billion in Profits, the Big Five Oil Companies Demand to Keep Tax Breaks and other interesting subjects concerning U.S. News Report at TheDailyNewsReport.com
Monday, November 25, 2013
Federal government books $41.3 billion in profits on student loans
At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
- Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
- Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
- Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.
Federal government books $41.3 billion in profits on student loans
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Rising costs, Nigeria troubles blot Shell profits
- Tweet
- Share this
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
A Shell logo is seen at a petrol station in London January 31, 2013.
Credit: Reuters/Luke MacGregor
LONDON |
LONDON (Reuters) – Rising costs, a surge in oil thefts and disruption in Nigeria and other negative factors hit profits at Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) on Thursday, leading outgoing chief executive Peter Voser to call the second quarter result “disappointing”.
Shell said it took a $ 700 million hit for a combination of Nigeria and for the tax impact of a weakening Australian dollar, and warned that Nigeria itself faces a $ 12 billion annual bill for the disruption. Shell recently put more of its Niger Delta activities up for sale.
Adjusted second quarter net earnings on a current cost of supply basis came in at $ 4.6 billion, down from $ 5.7 billion a year ago and below analysts’ expectations of a result that would have been little changed on last year.
“Higher costs, exploration charges, adverse currency exchange rate effects and challenges in Nigeria have hit our bottom line,” said Voser, who is due to step down at the end of this year. “These results were undermined by a number of factors – but they were clearly disappointing for Shell.”
Shell (RDSa.L) vies with U.S.-based Chevron (CVX.N) for the world number two spot among investor-controlled oil companies behind Exxon Mobil (XOM.N). Exxon is due to report results later on Thursday.
(Reporting by Andrew Callus; Editing by Paul Sandle)
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (0)
Be the first to comment on reuters.com.
Add yours using the box above.
Rising costs, Nigeria troubles blot Shell profits
Friday, June 7, 2013
Opinion: Chrysler, profits over people"s lives
- Chrysler recalls Jeeps for software fix, but not models in which 51 people burned to death
- Ditlow: Company putting occupants of these models at risk of vehicle going up in flames
- Ditlow: Refusing to recall these 2.7 million Jeeps puts profits over safety
- He says Chrysler was bailed out by taxpayers for $ 10 billion; recall would cost $ 300 million
Editor’s note: Clarence Ditlow is executive director of the Center for Auto Safety. His group petitioned the government to recall 1993 to 2004 Cherokee and 2002 to 2007 Liberty model Jeeps.
(CNN) — Chrysler says it will recall 630,000 newer model Jeeps worldwide to fix a software glitch in its side airbag and seat belt mechanism and transmission fluid leak problems. No accidents or injuries happened because of these defects. But it refuses to recall 2.7 million older Jeep models with a fire hazard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says caused more than 50 people to burn to death.
Chrysler’s refusal to comply with the highway administration’s request to recall 2.7 million 1993 to 2004 Cherokee and 2002 to 2007 Liberty models puts profits over safety, putting people who ride in them everyday at risk of their car being hit from behind and going up in flames.
These modern day Pintos for soccer moms have been involved in 37 rear-impact fatal fire crashes. Fifty-one people burned to death in those crashes, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Compare that with the Ford Pinto: 26 people died in Pinto rear impact fires before it was recalled in 1978.
A recall would cost Chrysler no more $ 300 million to fix the problems and return the SUVs. Chrysler would not exist today but for a $ 10 billion bailout loan from the U.S. government. As a return for the bailout, Chrysler should spend a fraction of that to recall the Jeeps. The refusal to recall these rolling firebombs is an insult to American tax payers and Chrysler’s Jeep customers.
The Grand Cherokee is 21 times more likely to be involved in a fatal rear impact crash in which fire is the cause of death than its biggest competitor, the Ford Explorer. The Jeep crashes in which people died in fires were readily survivable crashes. A rear impact crash at 70 mph in a vehicle similar in size to these Jeeps is no more severe than that of a front barrier crash at 35 mph, performed in the traffic administration’s 5-Star Safety Ratings. Large seat backs spread the force of the crash better than small airbags, making 80 mph rear impacts survivable.
But a car crashing into the rear of these Jeeps can rupture their fuel tanks at speeds less than the 50 mph rear-impact standard. The Center for Auto Safety conducted a 40 mph rear impact crash test of a 1996 Grand Cherokee in which the Jeep’s tank ruptured and spilled all the fuel. The 50 mph standard has 35% more energy than the Center’s 40 mph test.
The Grand Cherokee and Liberty fuel tanks hang lower than the rear bumper, so they are particularly vulnerable to low-speed hits from vehicles that are lower to the ground. Many low-profile cars have sloping front ends that can directly hit the tank. Even 10 mph rear impacts crush the not-so-protective brush guard.
In 1978, Chrysler engineers cited the safety benefits of placing the fuel tank in front of the rear axle and noted that placing the fuel tank behind the rear axle in SUVs may require a shield because of bumper mismatch.
Chrysler moved the fuel tank in front of the rear axle in the 2005 Grand Cherokee and in the 2008 Liberty. There has not been a single fire death in a rear impact of the newer Jeeps with the more protected fuel tank location in all the years since.
The devastating effect of the fire defects in these Jeep models is that children riding in the back of Jeeps have been killed and injured. Chrysler sold these Jeeps as family vehicles. Parents put their kids in child seats in the back because that’s safer. Tragically, children have been trapped in the seats and suffered horrible burns and deaths because they could be pulled out in time.
Fiat CEO John Elkann — Chrysler is a subsidiary of Fiat — and Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne are good people with families who should respond to the tragic deaths of their customers and could order a recall today. They owe it to the American public.
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Clarence Ditlow.
CNN.com Recently Published/Updated
Opinion: Chrysler, profits over people"s lives
Friday, January 25, 2013
Maintaining Consumer Satisfaction In Your eBay Business
When you are planning to create an eBay business, it is imperative that you maintain consumer satisfaction. If you have a solid reputation as a trustworthy eBay vendor, then probably eBay purchasers will wish to do business with you. A great business connection with your clients helps build your reputation and in return drives your sales activity – giving you a better chance of achieving success for your eBay business.
Sellers should regularly provide top quality service that result in consumer satisfaction. Always remember that when you list an item on eBay, along with a buyer purchase that product, the buyer and seller enters into a binding contract that both parties are required to honor. As the retailer, it\’s your obligation to deliver your products in good condition and in a timely manner.
In order for you to successfully market your eBay products, it\’s essential that you are sure of the quality of your items. How can you sell an item and adequately write a description about it, when you haven\’t even seen or utilized that particular product before. You have to offer the most honest review of your item and you can only attain this by using the item your self. It\’s essential that you know the quality of your item and the advantages it can give your potential customers.
Another important thing to consider is your feedback rating, it\’s essential for each eBay retailer to obtain a good feedback rating. Most online buyers choose credible eBay sellers and they always look at the feedback ratings before buying a product. So, it is essential to maintain good customer service in your eBay business to gather good feedback ratings from your clients.
If you\’d want to sell successfully you need a reliable eBay consumer preference research tool, you can go here and know more about Salehoo Review and discover how this tool can help you in deciding the profits you are able to make from a product before you sell it on the market . Frequently , research tools are significant in creating a solid sale strategy; uncover product trends and critical info on your competitors on a specific niche market.
Elisa Ocampo is a distinguished
Web marketer and a successful on-line
company owner who loves to share her experience and knowledge
about dropshipping and its pros and cons and other home business opportunities in her personal blog.
Maintaining Consumer Satisfaction In Your eBay Business
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)