Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

Is the oil price turning around finally?

Will 2018 see the oil price marching back into 60's and 70's and 80's and even triple digits? Will the happy times roll again in the land of the chevroids? Or is this a slow and quiet withering of a once almighty industry into the annals of the "been great once"?

by | Post ID:
3544 views | 66 replies (last )
Comment! It's anonymous! Reply to this post anonymously by submitting the form near the bottom of the page!

66 replies (most recent on top)

Yes, definitely not a rocket scientist, but definitely a chevron employee.

by | Post ID:

Crude oil prices are too dependent on geopolitical events. OPEC wants to continue production cuts again. Permian Basin production is up. U.S. oil exports are up. Natural gas production is up. Alternative fuel source usage is up. Price of crude oil stuck in the high 40's to high 50's for another year. Oil company profits depend on cost cutting efficiencies in exploration, production and refining. Lean times will stay for a while. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Add it all up and use your gut feeling.

by | Post ID:

There were some very insightful and thoughtful comments being posted here, such as by hcbk before you partisan numb-nuts got on here and started arguing about what you could steal from others more successful than you and what should happen to other people's money. It's only the pathetic unsuccessful losers who have no argument or motivation but that which involves the redirection of earnings or capital that belongs to someone else, for they have nothing substantial of their own and no legitimate purpose or contribution of their own that they created independently, outright.

by | Post ID:

you sounds likes somebody who needs to make sho dat you gets whats yous owed by da gubment and da man and rich folk dat dey steal from you. Dats good thing. I grees with dat. You go ahead ma brothuh!

by | Post ID:

hpbc, No, you're the only one on this site who is exceptionally dense, albeit non-intentional. However, your butt-lover Abuser-in-Chief Obarrassment was not in office at the time. We all know how you snoflakes like to kiss up to him, and bring him up all the time though, as if he was actually a president and not simply the place-holder pathetic community organizer for the liberals that they got their rocks off on by having a minority milking tax-dollars and jet-setting around doing nothing in the white house.

Incidentally, you are particularly dense when referring to your own post as hpbc, where you implied that the top tax bracket did not make America greater :"The top tax bracket used to be around 90%. You know, back when America was supposedly greater"

Do you make it a habit of repeatedly embarrassing and contradicting yourself like an idiot? Please continue, I'll get the popcorn, this is very entertaining !

by | Post ID:

- Don't know if you're being intentionally dense, but no, the poster was arguing that back in the 50s, a time that many on the right, including our Abuser-in-chief, think America was at its greatest, the highest marginal rate was 90%. This is evidence that lowering the tax rate for top earners will not make the country any greater.

by | Post ID:

, So you agree, as do most, that when the tax burden was unfairly set at 90% for the upper tier, that did not result in a "greater" economic situation nor a greater America. Thanks for your confirmation.

by | Post ID:

The top tax bracket used to be around 90%. You know, back when America was supposedly greater than it is now according to the Dotard in Charge.

by | Post ID:

hcbk, Those are some selfless and honorable insights but they are falling on deaf ears on this site as many would rather the tax burden be unfairly placed on others, as long as it's not them. That is obvious in the couple of comments prior to yours.

by | Post ID:

The fix has been been in for a very long time already. Almost seems the way things are, is the way it should be. But, no, that kind of thinking is wrong and needs to change. Greed knows no bounds and the glaring disproportionate wealth in this country has grown to be obvious. Forget about the current tax code, tax brackets and rhetoric about percentages. All that are deliberate distractions. We need a fair system of taxation that is balanced and fair for everyone. I’m not advocating redistribution of wealth or anything. This country still needs to encourage and reward business risk takers and capital enterprise. I also think the lowest wage earners should contribute at least a very small margin to taxes, something affordable, but proportionate. When all working Americans help build and sustain our great country through a fair taxation structure, we all make our proportional contribution and can say we all have some “skin in the game” when it comes to voting on issues in this country.

by | Post ID:

Tax the 1%ers “income” at 100% does to pay off the whole deficit (No, but most of it... a big dent)!. Tax their capital gains like income ... that would pay the deficit several times over. You can shuffle the nuts any way you wish, I can see the pea fell off the table a long time ago!

by | Post ID:

The tax code in the US is intentionally complex for the sole purpose of preserving the wealth of the very rich while confusing the rest of us. The rich and powerful will continue to push for more complexities in the tax code to hold on to and create more disproportionate wealth for themselves. They strongly advocate against a simplified tax code because if that happens, the smoke and mirrors all go away and they will end up truly paying their “fair share” for once.

by | Post ID:

ggvg, Yes, you are correct the Income tax inequality is particularly profound when dealing with the top 1%. The top 1% are now up to paying nearly HALF ( about 46%) of all federal income tax collected. Yet some pundits would try to lead you to believe that they only pay 10 or 15% tax rate so they pay barely nothing. And the data that you quoted is a bit off, 45% pay no federal income taxes and the bottom 50% shoulder less than 3% of the overall federal income tax burden.

So, you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT there is a grave Inequality in income tax payment between the earners in the US. However, since I am not the 1% or 10% for that matter, I would prefer to let them handle and extremely unfair and lop-sided lions share of the load. I also would like to keep the tax on my capital gains low, like it is now. I don't need to be taxed for every penny of interest at the highest rate, no thanks. Yet the US still cannot balance the budget as it is so revenue needs to be increased, spending cut or both. And it has already been established that taxing the evil, murderous, Satanist, eat-their-young, knuckle-dragging, trailer-trash, inbred "rich" at 100% will still not bring in enough revenue to make an appreciable difference. That is a simple truth that the false narrative vote-seekers want to keep their naive constituency ignorant of.

by | Post ID:

Everything is connected, grasshopper. Soon enough, the thread conversation will come full circle back to the price of crude oil. Read on.

by | Post ID:

What does any of this off-topic tax talk have to do with the price of crude oil?

by | Post ID:

Only 47% of moneys to the fed comes from income tax, and the 1%ers pay an oversized share of that...because of income inequality, they take home 51% of the income leaving less than 50% for the 99%. The income tax is slightly progressive (lower 25% do not pay in so the 1%ers pay 70% of the tax when receiving only 50% of the income. Keep in mind that the 1%ers income is generally much less than their total gains in a given year unlike most salaried employees. 34% of the moneys to the fed comes from payroll tax, and comparatively speaking as a ratio of their income, the 1%ers do not pay any of that. When all is said and done, the 1%ers pay a much lower tax rate than I do. If you want to compare tax rates (and your reference for fair is “flat”), then the 1% is not paying their fair share. If you think the well off should contribute a bit more than average...then...

by | Post ID:

You do a remarkable imitation of Squealer from animal farm. Following a post with a second extolling the brilliance of the previous adds a special Orwellian touch! Well done.

by | Post ID:

LMAO at gxwh! My sentiments exactly! Everyone on here acts all tough and slick and brags about stealing from others, being selfish, greedy and committing immoral acts like it's a virtue!!! Glad it's them, and not me! Great Comment! #Gold!.

by | Post ID:

and fdzv Oh you poor pathetic little BAYBAYs!!!! You have to pay some tiny percentage of the federal income tax collected and there is a group who are smarter, richer and more successful than you who only carry about 73% of the tax burden!!!! You poor BAYBAYs!!!! They should, by all means, pay it ALL, just to placate you and alleviate your pain and suffering for being such low-income, lower class losers!!

The 70+% of the income tax is, IN SPITE of any loopholes, or EFFECTIVE TAX - that's irrelevant, idiot, they pay leaps and bounds more than you, after loopholes, lower capital gains tax than normal income (~15%, SAME AS YOU, IDIOT, want to pay more? - we'll let you and them both) .

Me, me me again . Selfish Selfish, me, me me . Why worry that others pay, me me me (liberal) me me me all that counts is me me me (democrap), me me me me (selfish liberal parasite) me me me me me me me me me me. Make the rich pay more. me me me me (I'm not rich so I don't care) me me me me (successful people are evil) me me me. ( all that counts is me) me me me me - Selfish greedy liberal me.... selfish me. liberal me. They need to pay more, as long as it's not me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me

by | Post ID:

“getting back at the man”... that’s all fine, but the problem is at the end of the day “the man” is just in foggy fizzy abstract form... your neighbors.

by | Post ID:

, your post ended by hitting on the crux of the taxation matter. Congress is bought and paid-for by the 1%ers (and maybe most of the 5%ers). It’s a problem the vast majority of Americans will have to endure. Those who own the gold make the golden rules. The rest of us will eat sh!t to one degree or another. That is why I have come to think of #1 (me alone) and let everyone else save themselves. I am retired now and no longer in the rat race, but I earn a fair amount of tax-free income with a small all-cash business I operate. My disgust with the total unfairness of the tax system has led to this, yet I sleep fine at night. I have no guilty conscience for getting back at the “man”.

by | Post ID:

-eckg: Oh those poor pursecuted 1%ers, so bullied by the underclasses. At the end of the day the average 1%er pays about 22% of their “income” to taxes (that’s income defined for the most part by the amount of their investments they liquidated in a given year, not the amount their investments gained in value during a year). That is well short of the stated rate of 38% (and the 100% nonsense). The reason the rate is so low is most of their income is taxed as capital gains. They pay the same payroll as the rest of the top 20%ers, since payroll taxes stop after the first $120k. The new proposed republican “middle class tax plan” would lower corporate tax to 20% (nearly all 1%ers have their personal investments incorporated to limit income tax), and get rid of the inheritance tax (the only time, once in a generation, that the 1%er have to pay tax on their full investment gains), but removes very few of the loopholes used most by the 1%ers....a huge tax cut for them. For the middle class, for the most part they will pay more after the first few years (reminds me of the “deal” I get from AT&T on my cable) and their kids get the rest of the bill down the road. The key metric is not that the 1% pay the most total tax (not highest %), but rather they give the biggest campaign contributions. So I guess it is all fair, they bought and paid for the legislatures, the legislatures should focus in their needs. It would be very un-American for me to complain?

by | Post ID:

You protest like an idiot, like if YOU were in the top 10% of wage earners. Get real and wise up. The top 10% don’t pay enough in taxes. Most of them pay less of an effective tax rate than YOU do. Don’t be obtuse.

by | Post ID:

"Maybe raising it to where the rich actually pay 90% of all taxes would be fair." ROTFLMAO! Ha ha! Fair for YOU or fair for them? How 'bout let's just split it up even, tax one for them, one for you, two for them, one for you, three for them, one for you that's Fair and even!! Fair and square!! You can't make this stuff up, I'm tellin' ya!

by | Post ID:

I agree with the proven fact researched and sited below that the wealth tax makes the entire populace poorer, including those in the lower classes. And it's not hard to "agree with" because unlike some liberal Utopian ideas, it's a proven fact, it's not simply a theory.

People will always pine on and on about how to spend other's money, and it's no surprise they are doing it here, on a layoff's site.

by | Post ID:

, you mean that you agree with yourself, in your last post. So you are saying that you wish for someone else who uses the same amount of public services as you, likely less, to pay for 90% of them, as far as their federal income tax portion goes. Why not 100%? if you wish to be a parasite and have others foot the bill for you. Free is always the best price, I always say!! LOL!

by | Post ID:

I agree with what the other guy said. If 10% of Americans are paying 70% of all federal taxes, it doesn’t seem high enough. Maybe raising it to where the rich actually pay 90% of all taxes would be fair. Income inequality in this country has widened over many years because of our unfair tax laws. Too many loopholes and tax breaks that favor only the very wealthy.

by | Post ID:

A lot of research has been done on a wealth tax. That does not work out very well. It ends up making everyone poorer. I prefer leaving The United States the free-market capitalist economy that has made it so great and the great country that it is, thanks. If you do not like our free market system, feel free to move, folks.

"A wealth tax in the United States would reduce investment, wages, employment, incomes, and output. All income groups would be worse off under a wealth tax due to decreased economic activity; in the second scenario, the after-tax income loss for the top quintile would exceed 10 percent, but the losses for all lower quintiles would be in the 7 to 9 percent range.

Unless one is willing to fight income and wealth inequality by making everyone poorer, any distributional gains from the wealth tax would come at too great a cost."

by | Post ID:

, Those people still pay over 70% of the income tax burden In Spite of that effective tax rate and those "shelters" you speak of. You're another one who want's something free as long as someone else pays for it. That's fine, then instead of taxing you on your income, we will just switch to unfairly taxing you on your wealth, and for good measure we'll toss in pension current lump sum value. Just make sure you don't save too much, kiddies!!! Keep envying everyone one who is richer and more successful than you are. And think of how you can penalize them. See how far that gets you.. Maybe bringing someone else down closer to poverty will make you seem a little better. Seems to be the democratic party's philosophy for all these years, because that's what they have accomplished. Higher and higher levels of poverty.

by | Post ID:

- The top 1% wealthy people in the world own more than 50% of the world’s wealth. In the US, if the top 10% of wealthy people are paying 70% of all the taxes, then maybe it’s not enough. The wealthy can easil6 shelter or defer taxes on most of their earnings and holdings. That’s not fair since most of the common folk, the 70% of us, cannot do this. Our effective tax rate in most cases is higher in many cases than the “very rich”. The taxing laws in this country are in urgent need to be restructured to treat the majority of its citizens fairly. I just wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for kind of change to ever happen.

by | Post ID:

8hrn, The truth still stands that the top 10% of earners pay roughly 70% of all federal income tax collected and they also pay more Payroll tax, property tax and sales taxes as well as most other taxes because they have higher salaries, are more wealthy and buy more expensive things, vehicles, more fuel, etc. And use as much of the public utilities as anyone, including those paying none. They support the rest of the nation as far as federal revenue. I'm sure many greedy selfish useless do-nothings would like "someone else" to pay 100%, so that they can pay none. Wouldn't life be grand if the bums could just sit around and complain and collect free stuff because someone else happens to be better off than them, That sure would be nice, wouldn't it.... That's happening enough already, as you can see.

The top 10% paying 70% of the federal income tax as well as more payroll taxes than everyone else per person is a figure that is not helped by "loopholes" It's a figure that exists IN SPITE Of any "loopholes" which are in fact legal deductions for the most part.

And it makes no difference now much "wealth" a person holds. In the United States, it is not illegal nor immoral to be wealthy. A Most of the wealth is held by the top 1% as far as distributions go, not the top 10 or 20%. In any case, we are not taxed on wealth. In other more socialist, slave-like environments, I understand such wealth-tax type practices take place. Why don't these people who dislike capitalism and the free market so much not move to a country with no free market where success/wealth is prohibited?? The answer is not stealing from others because they are more successful and/or more wealthy than you. Also, it's not very healthy to sit around and grit your teeth, green with envy at those more wealthy and successful than you. I never find myself in that condition like some on this site. Material things mean very little to me, and definitely do not rule me or define my happiness.

by | Post ID:

Call it what you like -eopc. It’s not your money.

by | Post ID:

bbnk, Your two cents are called market timing, better known as Soothsaying, Fortune telling, Tarot card reading, and other means of falsely claiming to predict the future. It's nice to learn from other's mistakes, like yours, Just sayin'..........

by | Post ID:

Is the oil price really turning around, finally? It might be an illusion or in other words, don’t count on it. Look at the last 7 days of the S&P 500, of which 5 days were down and 2 days up. Sign of the times? Maybe.

by | Post ID:

Enjoy the booming economy while it lasts because it won’t last forever. I’m sidelining my investments on the first business day in January. I’ll tiptoe back in slowly as I see things progress. Just my 2 cents.

by | Post ID:

Back on topic... it looks like oil might brush against 60, so better put all those shorts back guys.

by | Post ID:

Although it may be true that 50% of Americans to not pay any federal income tax, 75% pay federal tax if you include payroll taxes. The payroll tax is very flat, up to the point you make over $125k, at which point it does not increase with income. The payroll tax generates a third of the revenue coming into the federal coffers, so it is not a minor thing. Indeed two thirds of Americans pay more in payroll tax than they do in income tax (payroll taxes are effectively 15%). Add to that state taxes, sales tax, and property tax and everyone pays something either directly or indirectly. Most of the folks who pay nothing in federal tax are retired on social security or disabled (I will not go into the problems defining "disabled"… but certainly this group includes many that really cannot do productive work). A small percent are on direct welfare. The income tax is nominally progressive (rich pay more), but by an amount that is widely overstated because of all the loop holes. Similarly, the corporate tax is nominally 35%, but few corporations pay that much (see / The folks that pay the highest effective tax rate tend to be upper level wage earners (like many oil industry workers), rather than the one percenters. If it were not for the inheritance tax many one percenters would never pay any tax on the bulk of their capital gains, because it is never liquidated to become defined as "income". If you really want a flatter tax system, increase the payroll tax to reflect total gains. It's not flat if you do not combine everything in the same pie!

by | Post ID:

, It’s not easy to fix the unfair tax problem we have in this country. As things are at present, an estimated 45% pay no federal taxes and depend on a system that “feeds” them. That doesn’t mean they are precluded from biting the proverbial hand that feeds them. That percentage of of population represents a huge voting block. To really move toward a change to the way taxes are levied in the US, people (us) need to tap into motivating and educating this block into pushing through the flat tax or similar initiative to make everyone have a shared responsibility in supporting the financial costs of running our country. A strict budget is essential as a first measure, but next is a fair way of having everyone contribute their fair share. The current political structure is controlled by the rich (aka, special interests) who will fight tooth and nail to preserve their wealth and power over the grand majority of us, the people. This I hope will change one day where thus country truly belongs to all of us.

by | Post ID:

Some very good points brought up here but it has already been established that a 100% tax on the rich (is that even possible?) will still not balance the budget. I am not one of the rich but do not envy, despise and have hatred toward a successful rich person or even someone rich by inheritance. I have way too many more important things of concern and have everything I need and am 100% happy as far as need of material things go. I know many others like that also but also that's more the exception.

I think that a flat tax would be great too, however, I doubt it will ever happen, and also what would that huge percentage (~45%?) who pay no income tax think about that as well as the ones who get money back without even paying in? I doubt they would be too pleased. You know there's a big problem though, when such a large group of voters can be influenced by their dependence on other people's tax dollars when they pay nothing in. It makes no difference which side you're on. that's a problem. It's one thing to buy political Advertisement with campaign funds.

But That's basically buying the votes directly. With your opponent's tax revenue.

Thanks for reading!

by | Post ID:

-7fhq: Flat tax sounds good, but would only be “fair” if total net gains each year were taxed. This is easy to define for wage earners (most gains are on your W2), but surprisingly difficult for the ultra-rich who can shuffle gains between many different pockets.

by | Post ID:

Post a reply

:

Related pages


sunow strayer eduatt uverse locationtd williamson swindonpenn square mall apple storetyco integrated security canada incacxiom tickersolidcore mcafeestriker pharmaceuticalhertz rental car oklahoma cityxo communications rumorsshire regenerative medicine incgraybar companymoundridge hospitalpanw stock newsjoann fabrics hudson ohcvs pharmacy irvingqualcomm employee reviewsnorfolk southern railroad jobsswn houstonruby tuesday somersetapple store in southlakeapple genius bar okcsanjay ladjobs in ge bangaloregcu non profitoceaneering intl incmortgage layoffsbank of america in jacksonville flxoma comcostco canada corporatechevron uk pensionbally technologies stockkershner office furnitureglassdoor inteltime warner cable columbia south carolinacablevision norwalk hoursharris corporation lynchburg vaquitting walgreensshell downtown houstonwells fargo closing hourswells fargo job cutsavaya networkingutc aerospace systems layoffsapple store quakerbridge mallwindriver alamedatriquint apopkageneral electric greenville schow much do lowes employees make per hourbloomin brands incmedtronic memphisbaker hughes the woodlandsscholastics jobsteradata acquisitionglenn shapirocolgate new jerseylockheed martin aurora coaltagas stockexxon mobil irvinglowes asm interview questionsdirectv customer service locationsgate.edmc.eduwindstream corporation little rock aralexandre conroyhal stock price historythermo fisher scientific layoffschevron employeebridgepoint education layoffslifepoint medicalibm canada headquartersschlumberger hubedison chouest layoffswww ironplanet commohawkpaper comstaples locations in floridamcknet.mckesson.comstock cdwsear careers