That’s right! British Petroleum has found a new way to make money. They have taken a perfectly legal tax deduction for their losses caused by the oil spill enabling them to evade $10,000,000,000 of taxes.
That’s ten billion dollars the federal government has to get somewhere else. Goodness Gracious, who might the burden of taxes fall on without BP paying its share? I wonder.
Loren Steffy writing for the Houston Chronicle is all over this. Steffy points out that considering these kinds of tax benefits, claiming that corporations pay too much taxes is disingenuous, since very often they pay none at all.
The feds could have figured this into their 20 billion dollar escrow fund but didn’t, so essentially BP is only on the hook for ten billion of it. The rest we pay for.
Mitchell Schnurman writing for the Fort Worth Star Telegram discusses Radio Shack continued push for more incentives to stay in the Fort Worth area. Schnurman is upset about the whole matter and after you read the article I bet you get upset too. It’s a good two pages and most of it is spent discusses the great deals Radio Shack is already getting. This guy is fighting the good fight. I wish there were more people like him. Give ’em hell, Mitchell!
Jay Hancock asks, “Why is anyone surprised that Moody’s downgraded Greek debt to junk status?” He’s right. The most casual reading of the newspaper would tell someone the country was in trouble. A tiny, little reading of the material disclosed Goldman Sachs’ involvement in the debt crisis. Haven’t you seen enough of Goldman Sachs to realize that all their clients are expected to be “sophisticated investors?” Doesn’t always work out, does it?
Edward Lotterman says what I have already known for a long time: the internet can be a reliable source of information. He recommends using official government reports and cross checking them with other government agencies. I consider it to be a matter of experience and judgment tempered by a willingness to keep on hunting until you are sure you have the answer, and if you can’t find a definitive answer, the willingness to explain where you found the data and that it may not be accurate. (I firmly believe that humility is seriously lacking in this culture.)
FThese are my current choices among newspaper columnists. There are going to be a lot of changes over time. It’s taking me a lot of reading to find authors who delve into ethics (which I believe includes reporting and explaining evil doing with a requisite level of outrage). Some that at first appear to be promising turn out to be less than level headed if read for a length of time. Each columnist, once discovered, is favorited to an intermediate category and only moved to my regular reading after a period of probation. I was writing one of my regular recommended authors when I pointed out that I seldom criticize and my writing tends to be very complimentary. So, I wanted him to know that I don’t like to hurt people’s feelings (there is little people are more sensitive about than their writing) and bad writing carries its own reward. If I find writing offensive, incompetent or crankish, it gets deleted from my favorites never to be seen again. I think that counts as criticism.
MY CHOICES Mitchell Schnurman of the Fort Worth Star Telegram. Loren Steffy of the Houston Chronicle (He has a Blog and a column.)
Jon Talton of the Seattle Times. His column is called, Sound Economy. Keith Chrostowski of the Kansas City Star. Jay Hancock of the Baltimore Sun. (He combines the occasional item related to ethics with consumer advocacy on consumer and sometimes very local issues, so he will only appear when I believe he is on point.) Edward Lotterman writes for Twin Cities Pioneer Press. David Moon writes for the Knoxville News.
Loren Steffy (Houston Chronicle) asks the rhetorical question: “Should BP be paying its shareholders a dividend?”
Ben Bernanke predict a sort of, kind of, maybe, might be, probable recovery. (I’m overjoyed.) Jon Talton feels the same way. Discussing Bernanke’s testimony before Congress, Talton writing for the Seattle Times laments the paralysis and stupidity of our political class. He points out the easily discernable budget busters and then points out there is no one willing to deal with them.
Jay Hancock of the Baltimore Sun argues that increasing taxes on manufacturing makes no sense in the light of the enormous losses of those jobs in the Baltimore area over the last years.
Edward Lotterman writing for Pioneer Press argues that even with a good number of bank closings, there are many choices left for those seeking banking services. I’m a little surprised he didn’t discuss the ramifications of his state of Minnesota losing six banks this year.
Tony Pugh in a new article he wrote for McClatchy cites a new report that calls for reorganization at the Food and Drug Administration, a new emphasis on enforcement and a focus on detecting food problems before they get into distribution.
Don Blankenship of Massey Energy goes on the offensive stopping just short of claiming that the federally mandated fan system for clearing methane gas caused the accident in the coal mine where 29 miners died. (The comments to this article are not friendly and as of this time, he has not a single supporter.) This is a pdf file of the letter Blankenship sent to four governors.
Mitchell Schnurman writing on McClatchy’s home page section commentary suggests that since this country is in budgetary trouble that we stop giving money to private corporations. (Sounds good to me.)
Jon Talton discusses the effect a massive increase in city fees for a skyway might have on a department store. It’s business ethics at its most basic level. Who should pay taxes? How much? How should the amount be calculated?
Karl Stephan writing on his blog, Engineering Ethics Blog, discusses the flap over facebook and privacy. The article is far more philosophical than you world expect from an engineering blog. He refers to the phrase, digital suicide, which is so mind grabbing and delicious I can barely wait until Monday to try it out on the poor college freshman in Business Law I.
Timothy Egan writing an opinion piece in the New York Times say that the “millennials” should save us. He might be right. As a 53 year old, I find my generation disappointing.
(I was going to link to an article by The Ethicist, Randy Cohen, but he chose to write about a woman who was 36 but wondered if maybe she should falsify her age on her online dating profile as 34, so you’re getting Timothy Egan.)
I just found a web site called Principled Profit, created by Shel Horowitz. His latest blog entry recommends the Department of Justice get ready for criminal investigation into the British Petroleum catastrophe. One of his subtitles is “award winning blogger.” I can’t claim that one. Maybe someday. (One of the guys who does good work in the Business Ethics field linked to me on his blog just a couple of days ago, so I am moving up in the world!)
Loren Steffy of the Houston Chronicle discovers that the federal government’s Minerals Management Service sometimes means no when they say yes.
Chris MacDonald writing on his site, The Business Ethics Blog, has a new post up before I got finished with the last one. (I still have to read the attached paper, An Adversarial Ethic for Business or When Sun-Tzu met the Stakeholder, which he tells me is amazing so you better click on the link.) MacDonald’s new post deals with the issue of alternative medicine and is a “meta blog,” a compendium of the current blog and all previous related blogs. (You watch, one day I will have a meta-blog of my own!)
That’s right! British Petroleum has found a new way to make money. They have taken a perfectly legal tax deduction for their losses caused by the oil spill enabling them to evade $10,000,000,000 of taxes. 
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.