Fw: Change, BP Escrow impact on US Treasury?

Subject: Change, BP Escrow impact on US Treasury?

Here's an analysis developed by a friend and sent to the editors of several
papers...it probably will not get printed...wonder why?

It seems like a miracle that our beloved leader was able to convince BP to
establish a $20 billion slush fund (oops, escrow) to compensate those hurt
by the ongoing oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico. After all, he had no
constitutional power to force them to do so; so had to resort to
Chicago-style negotiating.

But, let us take a closer look at the effect on BP's finances:

1.      BP will establish a $20 billion fund, but will pay only $7 billion
into it during 2010.

2.      BP is a British corporation, but has a very large operating entity
in the US.

3.      By Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAP), BP must book the
entire $20 billion expense in the year accrued. Therefore, they will book a
$20 billion expense in 2010, reducing their US tax liability by $7 billion.

4.      Our dear leader also convinced this massive corporation to show
their concern for the "small people" by withholding dividends to their
shareholders for the last 3 quarters of 2010. This reduces their outward
cash flow by about $7.5 billion, including approximately 40% of that amount
to US citizens. Assuming that the Bush tax cuts will survive through 2010,
the US Treasury will lose another $450 million in taxes on that amount. We
won't even discuss the effect on the US economy.

Let us put the results into a table easily understood by the small people:

*       BP Cash Flow:

O       Escrow funding                   ($7 billion)

o       Dividend saving                   $7.5 billion

o       Tax savings                           $7 billion

o       Net favorable cash flow :  $7.5 billion

*       US Treasury Tax Receipts:

o       BP Corporate income tax           ($7.5 billion)

o       BP Shareholders                         ($0.45 billion)

o       Net unfavorable tax receipts   ($7.95 billion)

I guess we really should expect this. After all, our dear leader is the most
inexperienced man in any room he walks into.  Question:  Did the US
Taxpayers just fund the first 1/3 of the BP Escrow commitment?


The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This
email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization
named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized
representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any,
or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this
email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and
delete this email from your system. Please consider the environment before
printing this email.


Anonymous said...

Here's an analysis developed by a friend and sent to the editors of several papers...it probably will not get printed...wonder why?

I'd I can hazard a guess: because those editors aren't tin foil hat wearing idiots like your friend?

Anonymous said...

I'd like to hazard, that is...

Anonymous said...

Wingnuts: BP fucked up. They have to pay for that. Its a business expense. Anything left after expense is profit, which can then be distributed to stockholders. This is business 101.

Will this reduce tax revenues? Maybe, but the alternative is that they don't pay for for their screwup, meaning that either innocent people suffer with no compensation or they are paid back directly from the government, at a much higher expense to taxpayers.

gruaud said...

Who comes first?

Corporations or the American people?

The Supreme Court ruled in favor
of corporations. The politicians
are heavily lobbied by corporations.
The media is corporate controlled.
The GOP has even grovelled an apology to BP.

Notice a pattern?

Do you still think this is a representative republic?

ferschitz said...

To be redundant: I don't get what conservatives want. They keep ranting about shrinking the fed govt to almost nothing bc it is allegedly "inefficient" or "socialist" or not "cost-effective" or "dysfunctional" or...

Then conservatives want to privatize everything bc the private sector is so much "better" than the govt.

But when the private sector EFFs up royally, then we're all supposed to not notice, not ask the vaunted private corporation to DO anything constructive, esp something so "socialist" as recompensing citizens whose livelihoods were ruined by the gross incompetency - or criminal negligence - of our vaunted corporate overlord.

And so??? What??? Citizens should just STFU and suck it up and never, ever expect our corporate overlords to pay for anything ever under any circumstances?? Because? Because they're so *&^% wealthy that they've bought all the media which brainwashes conservatives into rolling over constantly for the corporations?

Sheesh. Oh, now I can't wait for some troll to come here and tell me that I'm a socialist-Nazi starting a class war.... when, in fact, I'm actually watching out for the better interests of all citizens by demanding justice both from our gov't, as well as from the corporations who run the show. Silly me.

katz said...

That confidentiality notice at the end is hilarious. It's the details that really make these things.

Anonymous said...

IF BP were an individual that caused this much devastation the RW would be calling for the death penalty.

Why aren't corporations held to the same standards as individuals? If Individuals should be moral and personally responsible, why not corporations?

Conversely if corporations exist to make money, why don't individuals exist to make money? Surely I have a right to make as much money as possible for my stockholders (children).

I think anyone would be willing to incorporate in order to get the same sweet deal corporations have: Make money any way you can, pay a little penalty when you get caught. Rinse, Repeat.

katz said...

I know; that's a huge frustration for me too. Corporations lobby hard to get the *rights* of human beings, but at every turn they shirk the *responsibilities* of human beings.

Tootseye said...

And to follow on from the last 2 posts about Corporations v. humans... rightwingers want the death penalty for certain types of human "wrong doing," but if Corporations do something egregious causing loss of life: hey, no problem! And us lefties are horrid for attempting to hold corporations accountable for their actions.

What's up with that??

Creative Commons License
MyRightWingDad.net is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.