On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:04:37 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:41:52 -0400, "
Of course but try convincing a leftist loser like Lurndal of that.

Better that than trying to explain facts to an asshole nutbar like
you.

I just posted the facts, loser.

On 8/20/2012 9:41 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:36:09 -0400, Jack wrote:

On 8/19/2012 2:19 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

You explicitly said that California makes 66 cents/gal.

I explicitly said I heard it on TV. I could have heard wrong, but
according to you, they make 50 cents which is between 40 and 66 cents,
and, the point, it's over 6 times more than the oil companies themselves
make.

California takes $.491 per gallon (not the worst but right there) and the feds
take $.184 totaling $.675. So the state shares it with the feds.

http://www.commonsensejunction.com/n...-tax-rate.html

Thanks for that link. Lurndal was wrong then, and TV was right. Pretty
stinking bad when TV beats you at accuracy.

Scott probably got his info from O'Reilly on Fox... that'd be my guess,
since he (O'Reilly) thinks the 8% profit Hans' Oil company makes is
outrageous.

The best part is the oil companies get every stinking penny they pay in
taxes from their customers, so we pay every dime, and Hans' oil company
pays nothing.

Of course but try convincing a leftist loser like Lurndal of that.

He probably believes employers actually pay half the 15% SS "tax" to
Uncle Sam as well.

--
Jack
QUINNs FIRST LAW: Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its
stated intent.

Jack wrote in :

On 8/20/2012 9:41 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:36:09 -0400, Jack
wrote:

On 8/19/2012 2:19 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

You explicitly said that California makes 66 cents/gal.

I explicitly said I heard it on TV. I could have heard wrong, but
according to you, they make 50 cents which is between 40 and 66
cents, and, the point, it's over 6 times more than the oil companies
themselves make.

California takes $.491 per gallon (not the worst but right there) and
the feds take $.184 totaling $.675. So the state shares it with the
feds.

http://www.commonsensejunction.com/n...-tax-rate.html

Thanks for that link. Lurndal was wrong then, and TV was right.
Pretty stinking bad when TV beats you at accuracy.

Scott probably got his info from O'Reilly on Fox... that'd be my
guess, since he (O'Reilly) thinks the 8% profit Hans' Oil company
makes is outrageous.

The best part is the oil companies get every stinking penny they pay
in taxes from their customers, so we pay every dime, and Hans' oil
company pays nothing.

Of course but try convincing a leftist loser like Lurndal of that.

He probably believes employers actually pay half the 15% SS "tax" to
Uncle Sam as well.

Do I really have to get into this again?
Regulated monopolies at one time (with higher interest rates than are
currrent) were guaranteed a 6% return or something like that. That makes
8% profit indeed outrageous in comparison (we aren't talking about
dollars, but about millions or billions). Then we have the total
compensation packages of the executives (the shareholders let them get
those), and the dividends paid out (taxed somewhat). Yes, I do indeed
think that oil companies and their executives should be satisfied with a
little less.

Even to a wildly leftist person as myself, I believe that SS
contributions come out of a person's total compensation, or the prices
their customers pay. Remember that I worked for a medical school
associated with Cornell University, and I know some of fringe benefit
rules and the "indirect costs" that are part of every grant application.
Fringe was around 30% of wages/salaries and part of "direct" costs.
Overhead "indirect costs" were around 70%, added to the total of direct
costs (salaries, fringe, chemicals, equipment, travel - I'd have to dig
up an actual budget for details). Indirect costs pay for support staff,
including purchasing department, engineering, room and utilities.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid