Mexico Connect
Forums  > General > General Forum


Yacatecuhtli


May 16, 2012, 1:30 PM

Post #1 of 12 (3857 views)

Shortcut

Mexican oil revenues mostly benefit wealthy-study

Can't Post | Private Reply
"May 16 (Reuters) - Every Mexican would receive about $820 a year if the country's oil revenues were distributed equally across the population but a new study shows the country's wealthiest 10 percent indirectly pocket a far larger share.................

..........Because of the mismatch between the country's revenue base and its distribution of spending, the lowest 90 percent of households receive on average 12 percent less than their fair share of the nation's oil wealth, but the top 10 percent get about 109 percent more, Segal says...."

http://www.reuters.com/...dUSL1E8GF8K820120516


! Al pan, pan y al vino, vino !



joaquinx


May 16, 2012, 1:38 PM

Post #2 of 12 (3850 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Yacatecuhtli] Mexican oil revenues mostly benefit wealthy-study

Can't Post | Private Reply
And we wonder why the police are so underpaid. What kind of police would we have if we could double their salaries?
_______
My desire to be well-informed is currently at odds with my desire to remain sane.


YucaLandia


May 16, 2012, 2:03 PM

Post #3 of 12 (3842 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Yacatecuhtli] Mexican oil revenues mostly benefit wealthy-study

Can't Post | Private Reply
Interesting report.

Re the thread's title: I think mathematics and population statistics show that the oil revenues actually "mostly benefit" ordinary citizens (the non-wealthy 90%'ers):

~ $79 of "oil" $$$ reduce "90 percenters" taxes... for every $21 of "oil" $$$ reducing "10 percenters" taxes ~

Why? If Mexico has 125 million people, then the 10% wealthy people = 12.5 million people and the 90% equal 112.5 million.

An equitable distribution of the oil revenues would give 90% of the revenues to defray taxes of the "90 percenters", but the article says they receive "12% less than their fair share" - which means the "90 percenters" .have their taxes defrayed/reduced using 79% of the total oil revenues.

In most calculations, if one group get 79% of the pie - then they are getting a very large majority of the pie.

It it's true that the "10 percenters" pay less in federal taxes, then the author of the story claims that an extra 11% of oil revenues are used to lower the taxes for the rich. As such, isn't the real issue the taxes the federal government charges the top 10%? (Taxes are not a part of oil policies, PEMEX, nor oil revenues.)

Is it right for the wealthy to pay less in Federal taxes? lo no se. . .

A bigger question for an expat forum: Should expats (foreigners) be judging, criticizing, and publicly debating Mexican Government tax policies and Mexican National Patrimony (oil) ?

If you question this, reader might want to check out Article 9 of the Mexican Constitution:
Only Citizens of the Republic may take part in the political affairs of the country.

This means that visitors or permanent residents are not allowed to take any action that can be construed as being political.
steve
-
Read-on MacDuff
E-visit at http://yucalandia.com

(This post was edited by YucaLandia on May 16, 2012, 5:20 PM)


Sculptari

May 16, 2012, 2:27 PM

Post #4 of 12 (3832 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Yacatecuhtli] Mexican oil revenues mostly benefit wealthy-study

Can't Post |
Yup - the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. This has been going on a long time now, any alternative wealth 'sharing' systems have collapsed in disaster.

No matter what you pay the cops, they will never reach the level where they could debate the legal minutiae of Constitutional law versus valid political expression. On the other hand, if you are an extreme political agitator, a threat to national security AND a foreigner - then you had better expect visit from the boys in Mexico City.

This is the same as debating the legal minutiae of whether one can drive an expired tag vehicle. An honest cop is pulling you over because he suspects the car is stolen, or illegally being driven by a Mexican national. It's up to you to supply proof that this isn't so.
no longer active on Mexconnect


joaquinx


May 16, 2012, 3:57 PM

Post #5 of 12 (3813 views)

Shortcut

Re: Mexican oil revenues mostly benefit wealthy-study

Can't Post | Private Reply
Mexico's dependence on oil revenue is a major issue in the July 1 presidential vote and the opposition front runner Enrique Pena Nieto has proposed overhauling Pemex to make it more efficient and profitable, while promising to tackle fiscal reform if he is elected.

The statistics may be more interesting, but, to me, the idea of a PRI candidate offering to "overhaul Pemex" is much more interesting. Pemex has been the real power behind PRI. Pemex delegates vote with PRI and support PRI with tons (barrels?) of cash. Pemex employees are well paid and loaded with benefits. If Pena does anything to upset the Pemex balance, the country will be shocked.
_______
My desire to be well-informed is currently at odds with my desire to remain sane.


richmx2


May 16, 2012, 7:34 PM

Post #6 of 12 (3777 views)

Shortcut

Re: [joaquinx] Mexican oil revenues mostly benefit wealthy-study

Can't Post | Private Reply
It's that "efficient and profitable" part that makes me think any changes would benefit Juan Porcent more than Jose Fulano.

Two things that always irritate me. First is the assumption that PEMEX should be an "oil company"... it's a state agency regulating a natural resource. PEMEX doesn't HAVE to sell oil to anyone, let alone the U.S. oil companies, if it is not in the national interest to do so. Secondly, unlike an oil company, PEMEX doesn't even have to earn a profit (it isn't a corporation that is answerable to stockholders, after all), and it's revenues can be spent on other things (and are) like health centers and social services.

How it is structured now might be open to negotiation (and how its revenue is applied to national needs is probably in need of a review), but what EPN has been talking about is turning PEMEX into a stock holding company that even with the Mexican state having a majority share, is a radical change in how resources are managed here, and how the state receives its revenues.

As a stock-holding company, of course Juan Porcent, who can buy shares, is gonna look out for numero Juan.


http://mexfiles.net
http://editorialmazatlan.com


JuanCha

May 17, 2012, 8:41 AM

Post #7 of 12 (3702 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Yacatecuhtli] Mexican oil revenues mostly benefit wealthy-study

Can't Post | Private Reply
And does the USA really think those numbers and demographics are substantially much different NOB??

Exxon, BP, Arco et al are not contributing to the per capita benefit of their own countries, not to mention the exploitation and negative impacts in foreign countries where they operate. Hamid Karzai the USA Puppet in Afghanistn was the also the USA Puppet for Union Oil there prior to promotion to Afghan Czar.

Mexico wisely ejected Doheny and USA oil interests about a century ago. Just look at Iraq and other countries where USA Oil Policy has destoyed the socieiies of other nations.

Mexico suffers from corruption and internal exploitation by its own plutocracy - so does the USA where 1% of the USA population control between 20%-40% of USA wealth (depending on whether residence equity is included or not).
JuanCha de: Santa Fe NM, San Cristobal de Las Casas Chiapas, San Diego CA


Sculptari

May 17, 2012, 9:12 AM

Post #8 of 12 (3687 views)

Shortcut

Re: [JuanCha] Mexican oil revenues mostly benefit wealthy-study

Can't Post |
You have to realize that the U.S.A. flat out 'owns' the global oil industry. U.S. companies manufacture all the safety gear, all the latest technology, all the know how, all the critical maintenance parts and all of this is very, very expensive. U.S. politicians sometimes exploit this and use it as a bargaining chip. It is a lot more powerful than just an embargo and why in the Middle East they hire private security firms like Haliburton to protect those assets.
no longer active on Mexconnect


joaquinx


May 17, 2012, 10:05 AM

Post #9 of 12 (3672 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Sculptari] Mexican oil revenues mostly benefit wealthy-study

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To
You have to realize that the U.S.A. flat out 'owns' the global oil industry. U.S. companies manufacture all the safety gear, all the latest technology, all the know how, all the critical maintenance parts and all of this is very, very expensive. U.S. politicians sometimes exploit this and use it as a bargaining chip. It is a lot more powerful than just an embargo and why in the Middle East they hire private security firms like Haliburton to protect those assets.


Haliburton is not one of those private security firms, but one of those companies that manufacture all the safety gear, all the latest technology, all the know how, all the critical maintenance parts and all of this is very, very expensive.
_______
My desire to be well-informed is currently at odds with my desire to remain sane.


richmx2


May 17, 2012, 12:48 PM

Post #10 of 12 (3639 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Sculptari] Mexican oil revenues mostly benefit wealthy-study

Can't Post | Private Reply
No, the U.S. is the largest CONSUMER. PEMEX, just as an oil company, is larger than Exxon-Mobil. The largest oil companies are all state owned enterprises.


http://mexfiles.net
http://editorialmazatlan.com


cbviajero

May 17, 2012, 5:55 PM

Post #11 of 12 (3605 views)

Shortcut

Re: [joaquinx] Mexican oil revenues mostly benefit wealthy-study

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To

Haliburton is not one of those private security firms, but one of those companies that manufacture all the safety gear, all the latest technology, all the know how, all the critical maintenance parts and all of this is very, very expensive.

Especially when they had a virtual lock on governmet contracts during the Cheney administration.


YucaLandia


May 18, 2012, 6:31 AM

Post #12 of 12 (3561 views)

Shortcut

Re: [cbviajero] Mexican oil revenues mostly benefit wealthy-study

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To

In Reply To

Haliburton is not one of those private security firms, but one of those companies that manufacture all the safety gear, all the latest technology, all the know how, all the critical maintenance parts and all of this is very, very expensive.

Especially when they had a virtual lock on governmet contracts during the Cheney administration.


We are getting far off track from the original topic, but here we go. Let's use the Halliburton claim as a route to explore reality vs. emotive approaches on Pemex, taxes, political abuses, and the rich-getting-richer.

Does leading with the heart get us closer to understanding and solving the actual problems?

e.g. How does Halliburton's $7 billion contract from that era compare to the $15 billion awarded to Fluor and DynCorp for similar work - out of the $2.5 trillion spent on Iraq and Afghanistan Bush-Cheney forays.

I guess this issue sort of fits this thread, because we can get so energetic about the rich getting richer, that we lose track of the actual monies spent.

Are Mexico's/Pemex's (relative) $79 of tax reductions for the 90% ordinary people actually less than the $21 of tax reductions for the the wealthy 10%'ers, or have emotions skewed perceptions?

Is $7 billion over several years "a virtual lock", when compared to $15 billion in similar awards to competing firms, out of a total $2,500 billion spent by Bush-Cheney on Iraq and Afghanistan forays?

The last 5 decades trends of US politicians (and Mexican politicians?) getting further into bed with the rich & powerful are repulsive and harmful to both societies, but that is no reason to skew/mis-report the actual $$ reports.

e.g. In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker.
This ratio grew to 35 times more in 1978.
It further increased to 71 times more in 1989 under Reagan et al.
Under Clinton the ratio surged in the late 1990s, hitting 300 times more by the end of the recovery in 2000.

Under Bush, the early 2000's stock market tumble reduced CEO compensation to a more modest 143 times that of an average worker in 2002.
Average CEO compensation then grew to $10,982,000 a year, 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861) .
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/

Ironically, the ratio of excessive compensation to wealthy CEOs surged under Clinton - rising to 300X. **

I suspect none of us on Mexconnect cheer when politicians accept millions from others, and then skew the regulations and laws to further reward their contributors.

Did anyone else note that the US Govt bailed out Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, then turned around last fall: In late 2011 Jaime Dimon lobbied Congress to eliminate some regulatory controls on their favored Credit Default Swaps? Congress and the SEC quietly loosened regulations (again), and gave Dimon and Goldman Sachs what they wanted, and just 6 months later have a new $2 billion loss by a single JP Morgan Chase employee based on the changes, and the responsible exec was making a paltry $15,943,231 a year in compensation - due to Congress and the SEC caving-in to Wall Street banker requests.

(I mention no similar issues for Mexico, because I am not yet a citizen.)

Ironically, we have seen none of these wild losses on the Mexican Bolsa...

Emotional approaches sure can feel good, but views anchored in data are generally closer to reality,
steve


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_pay
-
Read-on MacDuff
E-visit at http://yucalandia.com

(This post was edited by YucaLandia on May 18, 2012, 7:04 AM)
 
 
Search for (advanced search) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.4