A reasonable year:
|
Fourth |
Twelve |
|||||||
| 2007 | 2006 | 2007 | 2006 | |||||
| Earnings / Earnings Per Share | ||||||||
| Total revenues and other income | 116,642 | 90,028 | 404,552 | 377,635 | ||||
| Total costs and other deductions | 96,920 | 74,467 | 334,078 | 310,233 | ||||
| Income before income taxes | 19,722 | 15,561 | 70,474 | 67,402 | ||||
| Income taxes | 8,062 | 5,311 | 29,864 | 27,902 | ||||
| Net income (U.S. GAAP) | 11,660 | 10,250 | 40,610 | 39,500 | ||||
| Net income per common share (dollars) | 2.15 | 1.77 | 7.36 | 6.68 | ||||
|
Net income per common share – assuming dilution (dollars) |
2.13 | 1.76 | 7.28 | 6.62 | ||||
$40 billion to shareholders, $29 billion to the tax man.
Oh, and if this is to be believed, another $71 billion in further taxes (oil royalties et al).
The public coffers get two and a half times what the shareholders do. My, how we are all ripped off by the oil companies.
4 responses so far ↓
1 BlacquesJacquesShellacques // Feb 2, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Your last paragraph is wrong, wrong, wrong and entirely unfair and misleading.
The $40 billion is also going to get taxed and the minions of the state will get their filth hands on some sizable chunk of that too.
And where is Mark Braund with a comment or a post to castigate the vile and filthy shareholders for their greed?
2 David Kiltie // Feb 2, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Tim, a relevant post in view of Shell’s announcement of “obscene ” profits this week. No doubt Polly Toynbee will claim that Exxon is in fact subsidised by the Federal Government because it pays $29bn in tax rather than $60bn.
Another irony, many of the people complaining loudest about oil company profits have huge chunks of their own pension funds invested in those same companies.
It is disappointing that many so-called right wing newspapers spout the same economically illiterate line about “£1.5m per hour” you see in the Guardian and Independent.
3 EclectEcon // Feb 3, 2008 at 3:22 am
To everyone who objects to oil-company profits, I suggest that they had an option of sharing in those profits by buying some of the company common stock in the past. That they chose not to take a risk is no reason to compensate them now, even indirectly and inefficiently via the gubmnt.
4 BE // Feb 3, 2008 at 10:59 am
Would that be the public coffers of Kazakhstan or Indonesia for ‘helping’ them exploit their natural resources?
Leave a Comment