SI
SI
discoversearch

 Gold/Mining/Energy | Big Dog's Boom Boom Room


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Covenant who wrote (167113)4/12/2012 7:05:49 PM
From: calaban48
2 Recommendations   of 185528
 
I read about that pre-IOC PIE case a few years ago, confronted my broker with it, did a load more research (a few hundreds-deep online searches) and was satisfied. With respect, it is you who have concluded Phil Mulacek was "dishonest" -- a rather serious charge, albeit safe enough to make anonymously. But a judge finding evidence "incredible" simply means he doesn't buy it in a particular case.

Besides, seems to me that case was heard many moons ago. It's rather like referring to the infamous 2007 NYTimes article that portrayed IOC in a less-than-stellar light. (It keeps getting re-posted on IOC message boards, for some strange reason. <g>)

Fast forward to now, see the facts as they are and make your calls. Best of luck.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (167104)4/12/2012 7:17:45 PM
From: elmatador
   of 185528
 
Coal-fired power station
bbc.co.uk

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (167077)4/12/2012 9:12:15 PM
From: Keith J
1 Recommendation   of 185528
 
Bob,

Several comments.

First of all, you are assuming all income is earned (i.e., wage). With current preferences for long term cap gains, dividends, and "carried interest", it paints a distorted picture in many cases.

Secondly, probably most people up at that income level (28% threshold) are going to be itemizing deductions (mortgage interest, property tax, state/local income tax, charitable contributions) and (hopefully) most are contributing to 401ks (tax advantaged). So the effective tax rate, on average, for someone at that level is likely to be considerably less than the 25% quoted.

Third, if you take 2 single people at that level, and they marry, total tax will be higher (see where the 28% threshold kicks in for single vs. married - well under 2x). As well, they would likely be beyond threshold to contribute to Roth IRAs if married. So actually a penalty in that situation.

I can't comment on whether the show included or excluded state/local taxes.

What I will say is this. Regardless of whether you include or exclude SS taxes, free cash flow for an individual goes up tremendously even with the relatively high marginal rates - as you get upwards on the income scale - once you get day-to-day living expenses paid (like food, car, rent/mortgage, etc.). But someone making $300+K will have far more capacity to absorb moderate changes to taxes than someone at much lower levels.

KJ

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


From: tom pope4/12/2012 9:36:25 PM
   of 185528
 
Excerpt from WTRG Economics

Today we look at the big picture. Following the depth of the recession world demand returned to a growth path until last year when the rate of increase began to slow. Consumption only increased 780,000 barrels per day in 2011 compared to an average annual gain of 1.3 million b/d from 1995 to 2007. We anticipate growth this year between 900,000 and a million b/d assuming Europe's recession does not spread to the U.S. .
Consumption in developed countries never recovered from the recession averaging 45.6 million b/d in 2011. In 2011, it was down 540,000 b/d and will likely fall another 300,000 - 400,000 b/d this year unless the economy weakens.

The post recession gains in world oil use is concentrated in the non-OECD countries. After the dip in 2008 and early 2009 non-OECD use returned to what is almost a trend line. In the last eight years the average increase was 1.4 million b/d per year compared with an average annual decline in the OECD countries of 400,000 b/d.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Keith J who wrote (167116)4/12/2012 9:58:27 PM
From: Bearcatbob
   of 185528
 
Keith, I thought about the various deductions that would exceed the standard. My conclusion was that it would I could not in a few paragraphs cover all I permeations. I must admit - when I thought of a married couple - I did not think of both making that type of salary. My concept was a family making that money.

I think my bottom line conclusion was that there is some unique combination of parameters that make the tax percentage higher for the lower income earner. Those circumstances IMO should be adjusted. As it is it is too attractive of an issue.

Bob

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Keith J who wrote (167116)4/12/2012 10:24:26 PM
From: kollmhn
   of 185528
 
"As well, they would likely be beyond threshold to contribute to Roth IRAs if married."
Keith- there no longer is a threshold to contribute to a Roth/

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: Big Dog who wrote (167087)4/12/2012 10:28:12 PM
From: Sweet Ol
1 Recommendation   of 185528
 
Doggie, I guess you won't be coming up here to Oklahoma to haul off our hay this year!!

I just came back from a funeral in San Marcos, all the pastures in central Texas are really green and the wildflowers are in full bloom. I-35 has construction going on almost from the Red River to Austin. But, for the first time in my life there was no construction on the Central Expressway in Dallas.

Blessings,

JRH

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: kollmhn who wrote (167119)4/12/2012 11:03:11 PM
From: Keith J
1 Recommendation   of 185528
 
Incorrect, per another website r.e. Roth IRAs. That's earned income, not AGI.
Married Filing Jointly If you're married and filing a joint tax return, you can contribute a maximum of...

    $6,000 if you're over 50 and your combined earned income is $173,000 or less
  • $5,000 if you're under 50 and your combined earned income is $173,000 or less
  • $0 regardless of age if your combined earned income is more than $183,000
KJ

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Covenant who wrote (167113)4/13/2012 4:03:15 AM
From: Ken Robbins
1 Recommendation   of 185528
 
This seems like ancient history with little or no bearing on the present status of IOC.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Covenant who wrote (167113)4/13/2012 7:40:11 AM
From: CommanderCricket
2 Recommendations   of 185528
 
Covenant,

I really could care less about PIE and what happened with Phil Mulacek prior to IOC.

I'm not investing in the CEO but the 5.5 tcf of wet NG (net) plus the 120 mmbbl of condensate (net) in Elk/Antelope, plus the est. 4.5 tcf in Triceratops/Bwata field.

Offers are rumoured between $1.50 - $2.00 mcf . Compare these numbers to current valuation of $0.40 - $0.50 mcf.

Monetize the assets and the stock will go higher.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.