Another Liberal myth: Oil compainies get subsidies/tax breaks

[JRK]

All big companies get 'tax breaks' to seed commerce...jobs.

which is not true capitalism. true capitalism would tax all companies at the same rate. giving a competitive advantage to one company over another is more like socialism.

The thread was statrrted because I got tired of ALL politicians whi use the term "break" and "subsidy" when it came to the oil companies

A tax rate, is simply that, a tax rate. No matter what the law allows at the end of the day those corporations have a rate of burden they must hand over to the US treasury thru the IRS
None of these companies get a subsidy, none (see GM for example)
The term "break" is ok I guess, but when I do my taxes and use a dependant to lower my "burden" or "rate" at no time during that 10,000 expense do I feel like I am getting a break

One thing this thread has shown me, It scares me the number of people who do not understand a higher tax burden on Exxon will be a clean pass thru to us

 

[dblack]

Who is defending the oil companies?
This Thread is about politicians using vebage that is not accurate for political gain, simply put there lying
Tax incentves is a fair term
Raising the tax burden the oil companies pay will only harm the consumer. Why is it the liberal cannot grasp that the consumer pays for it all?
I cannot grasp that no matter how hard I try

But how do you respond to those of us who want to get rid of all tax incentives? Do you recognize them for the arm-twisting tool that they are? They're functionally no different than mandates with threats of fines. Same difference.

 

[JRK]

Who is defending the oil companies?
This Thread is about politicians using vebage that is not accurate for political gain, simply put there lying
Tax incentves is a fair term
Raising the tax burden the oil companies pay will only harm the consumer. Why is it the liberal cannot grasp that the consumer pays for it all?
I cannot grasp that no matter how hard I try

But how do you respond to those of us who want to get rid of all tax incentives? Do you recognize them for the arm-twisting tool that they are? They're functionally no different than mandates with threats of fines. Same difference.

Obama knew there was no way the burden on taxes the oil companies pay was going up. It is halarious to me that the libs screamed that the vote on BHO half done bill was a ploitical ploy and with these vote we hadon raising the burden oil companies pay as the "King"" is trying to protect the little man

He knew there was no way that BS was going to pass

If it was up to me, we would be paying on a tax system like texas and florida has
call it what you want, but a simple sales tax

But then BHO could not use the term "subsidy" when talking about oil companies

 

[bripat9643]

Then you should be able to quote it.

How many times would I have to re-state the obvious before you would acknowledge its existence?

Give me a ballpark figure.

Your premise is kooky.. thats like saying that if I get a 10% tax cut I am being subsidized.... it's my money to start with... they're just taking less.

We offer tax incentives for exploration for good reasons.. not the least of which is this economy runs on petroleum, not unicorn farts and pixy dust. Also, the success rate is about 1 in 5 in terms of actual oil producing wells.

At the end of the day, state and federal government rake in tens of billions in oil related taxes on refined products and whatnot.

What "tax incentives" for exploration? The cost of looking for oil is a legitimate business expense. It has always been deductible.

 

[bripat9643]

This is willful blindness. Pages 16 through 24 describe exactly in the tax code where oil companies have tax breaks and what they are.

Read it. You are making a fool of yourself. They are right there in black and white.

Christ. Talk about leading a horse to water!

"Tax breaks" my ass. Those are legitimate business expenses. You would call allowing a truck driver to deduct the cost of Diesel fuel a "tax break." That is, you would if trucking was the industry that Democrats were choosing to demonize at the moment.

 

[bripat9643]

Another misrepresentation of the facts.

The Congressional Research Service states the fledgling oil industry in the United States first received government assistance in 1916. That was when intangible drilling costs were able to be fully deducted from a company's expenses for tax purposes. In 1926, a write-off for cost depletion was introduced. That provision allowed oil companies to deduct costs based upon overall gross receipts and not just the actual value of the oil.


Both of those subsidies still exist.

History of U.S. Oil Subsidies Go Back Nearly a Century - Yahoo! News

What company is not allowed to deduct base on gross receipts? That appears to be nothing more than sound accounting. All that's going on here is an organized campaign to make normal business practices sound like something sinister.

 

[JRK]

This is willful blindness. Pages 16 through 24 describe exactly in the tax code where oil companies have tax breaks and what they are.

Read it. You are making a fool of yourself. They are right there in black and white.

Christ. Talk about leading a horse to water!

"Tax breaks" my ass. Those are legitimate business expenses. You would call allowing a truck driver to deduct the cost of Diesel fuel a "tax break." That is, you would if trucking was the industry that Democrats were choosing to demonize at the moment.

Not sure who g 5000 is but he has no idea how all of this really works. The intent of the thread was to try and educate people just like him

Taxes are a burden and at no time are they a break. Legitimate business expenses being called a break is flat out dis-honest and the evry thinf that motivated me to right this thread

Political figures as well as the media using those phrase have brain washed so many, I think g5000 has got a double dose

The issue the libs are having with the oil companies are the write offs they are getting for exploration
Oil execs have stated they do not need them, g5000 supplied that for us. As I recall the document called them a subsidy, what a joke
Amy-way Exxon does not care if gas is 4.00 a gallon or 6.
cut out those items they use for reducing there tax burden, they will raise the cost of there product to cover it
8% profit is all there looking for, record profits come from record revenues

 

[8537]

The government gives them tax breaks and subsidizes their production.

You are a blatant liar. Or stupid. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Deducting legitimate business expenses is not a "tax break," and it certainly isn't a "subsidy."

Face it: you're a sleazy lying dumbass.

Exxon gets direct subsidies. Fucking sleazy dumbass.

 

[8537]

Exxon does not really care, its the consumer who pays whether its in
pay
stocks
price at the pump

Oh, so if the federal government gave Exxon, say, 300B - Exxon wouldn't care because it would all (100%!) be lost in benefit to the customer instead of the firm?

 

[dblack]

Exxon does not really care, its the consumer who pays whether its in
pay
stocks
price at the pump

Oh, so if the federal government gave Exxon, say, 300B - Exxon wouldn't care because it would all (100%!) be lost in benefit to the customer instead of the firm?

Exactly! It's the same concept that forcing everyone to buy insurance will lower premiums - because the corporations will dutifully transfer their savings to customers. Duh!

In my view, tax policy should be based on raising revenue, not on manipulating the market. And, most importantly, it should - as much as possible - be the same for everyone. Creating ad-hoc rules for specific industries to encourage (or discourage) this or that activity isn't the business of government.

The issue of whether the tax policies in question (re: the oil "carve-outs") represent targeted tax incentives - or are just deductions for legitimate business expenses, is the debate we should be having. But making that judgement based on how it will affect gas prices, or worrying about who will be impacted by any potential changes to the policy, isn't a legitimate concern. It's quite ill-legitimate and isn't the way government should operate.

 

[bripat9643]

The government gives them tax breaks and subsidizes their production.

You are a blatant liar. Or stupid. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Deducting legitimate business expenses is not a "tax break," and it certainly isn't a "subsidy."

Face it: you're a sleazy lying dumbass.

Exxon gets direct subsidies. Fucking sleazy dumbass.

Name one, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

Exxon does not really care, its the consumer who pays whether its in
pay
stocks
price at the pump

Oh, so if the federal government gave Exxon, say, 300B - Exxon wouldn't care because it would all (100%!) be lost in benefit to the customer instead of the firm?

Your idiotic conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

 

[tobiusnc]

Your thread title says that it's a myth that the oil companies get TAX BREAKS.

Do you need someone to define a TAX BREAK for you?

Please define it for us. I'm sure the results will be hilarious.

I have NY on ignore, you know why
let me define a tax break for NY
there is no such a thing

Taking less wealth from one than the federal govt took the year before is not a break.
What the lib cannot grasp is the wealth is yours and mine to start with. That wealth being taken away is part of the deal, but by no means does it mean any-one is getting a break

Work for it
invest for it
give our time for it

And then when its all said and done, you give a protion of that effort, GIVE to the federal govt, which had done nothing to help you get it

And somehow thats a break?

This whole discussion has had a lot of useless banter, but I think a statement that we GIVE the federal government part of the wealth we have gathered that they did nothing to help you get, I think it's a completely ludicrous statement. What about infrastructure? Interstates, electricity, communications, seaports, railroads, EDUCATION. Are you trying to tell me these things did not contribute to your ability to generate income and wealth. So would someone like to say exactly what amount you should pay in taxes to the federal government? Zero? What about state, city, etc. There seems to be this mantra from the right that all taxes are bad. If there is going to be a federal government, which I think most everyone would agreee that it has value for stability, then there has to be taxes to support it. So how much??

As a side note, I hate the way the discussion about these difficult and nuanced issues gets reduced to headlines and soundbites, to the point of absurdity. It happens from both sides, and it makes me sick the way this stuff is simplified to the point that nothing can really get done to solve the problem. Will you people try to see both sides of an issue for once, and approach EVERYTHING you hear with a bit of scepticism. Try to act like intelligent adults please.

 

[JRK]

Please define it for us. I'm sure the results will be hilarious.

I have NY on ignore, you know why
let me define a tax break for NY
there is no such a thing

Taking less wealth from one than the federal govt took the year before is not a break.
What the lib cannot grasp is the wealth is yours and mine to start with. That wealth being taken away is part of the deal, but by no means does it mean any-one is getting a break

Work for it
invest for it
give our time for it

And then when its all said and done, you give a protion of that effort, GIVE to the federal govt, which had done nothing to help you get it

And somehow thats a break?

This whole discussion has had a lot of useless banter, but I think a statement that we GIVE the federal government part of the wealth we have gathered that they did nothing to help you get, I think it's a completely ludicrous statement. What about infrastructure? Interstates, electricity, communications, seaports, railroads, EDUCATION. Are you trying to tell me these things did not contribute to your ability to generate income and wealth. So would someone like to say exactly what amount you should pay in taxes to the federal government? Zero? What about state, city, etc. There seems to be this mantra from the right that all taxes are bad. If there is going to be a federal government, which I think most everyone would agreee that it has value for stability, then there has to be taxes to support it. So how much??

As a side note, I hate the way the discussion about these difficult and nuanced issues gets reduced to headlines and soundbites, to the point of absurdity. It happens from both sides, and it makes me sick the way this stuff is simplified to the point that nothing can really get done to solve the problem. Will you people try to see both sides of an issue for once, and approach EVERYTHING you hear with a bit of scepticism. Try to act like intelligent adults please.

Where did the wealth come form to build these "things" such as Interstates?
Did the tax payer come first or the tax collector?

I am not trying to solve any problems, I am trying to get people to understand them, without that there is no chance of resolving anything

Our president is on a full time 7-24 attack on big business is in reality an attack on the consumer
It is that simple
Acting like adults? exactly what is it about this accurate information that is not being an adult?

Seriously

One other tid-bit, Paying taxes is part of the deal, being honest about who should be also as well as the terms "break" and "subsidies"

 

[Valox]

Big oil does get tax breaks. Seriously, why are people even denying this?

 

[JRK]

Big oil does get tax breaks. Seriously, why are people even denying this?

Because they do not
It is a term that is on any investigation a lie

Obama, or for that matter ANY politician should be speaking of tax rates,
not proclaim them as a break
Paying taxes is an obligation, not a break
to hi rate
to low of a rate
thats the correct term, and Obama uses these falseclaims to sound like he cares

I do not consider the ability to claim my-self as an dependant as a break
It dictates my tax rate
I am an expense
Business is the same, after all of the "dependants" there allowed to "claim" they end up with a rate

When Obama states the term "Break" or worse " Subsidy" he is lying
If he wants to change the rate Oil companies pay, then why does he claim that he wants to take those expenses/risk they take as a break?
IT IS AN OBLIGATION

 

[Valox]

Big oil does get tax breaks. Seriously, why are people even denying this?

Because they do not
It is a term that is on any investigation a lie

Obama, or for that matter ANY politician should be speaking of tax rates,
not proclaim them as a break
Paying taxes is an obligation, not a break
to hi rate
to low of a rate
thats the correct term, and Obama uses these falseclaims to sound like he cares

I do not consider the ability to claim my-self as an dependant as a break
It dictates my tax rate
I am an expense
Business is the same, after all of the "dependants" there allowed to "claim" they end up with a rate

When Obama states the term "Break" or worse " Subsidy" he is lying
If he wants to change the rate Oil companies pay, then why does he claim that he wants to take those expenses/risk they take as a break?
IT IS AN OBLIGATION

So Congress never enacted a tax credit to big oil? Seriously, what you are sniffing?

They don't receive a subsidy, but they do receive a tax subsidy.

 

[JRK]

Big oil does get tax breaks. Seriously, why are people even denying this?

Because they do not
It is a term that is on any investigation a lie

Obama, or for that matter ANY politician should be speaking of tax rates,
not proclaim them as a break
Paying taxes is an obligation, not a break
to hi rate
to low of a rate
thats the correct term, and Obama uses these falseclaims to sound like he cares

I do not consider the ability to claim my-self as an dependant as a break
It dictates my tax rate
I am an expense
Business is the same, after all of the "dependants" there allowed to "claim" they end up with a rate

When Obama states the term "Break" or worse " Subsidy" he is lying
If he wants to change the rate Oil companies pay, then why does he claim that he wants to take those expenses/risk they take as a break?
IT IS AN OBLIGATION

So Congress never enacted a tax credit to big oil? Seriously, what you are sniffing?

They don't receive a subsidy, but they do receive a tax subsidy.

By definition a subsidy (see GM as an exapmle)
noun, plural -dies. 1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization , or the like. 2. a sum paid ...

So because a POLITICIAN writes a law that utilizes the term "break" for corporations and "dependant" for those who vote, you agree with them?
Your only giving the thread an example for its writing

Me as a denendant is the same as an expense
GM got a and still is getting a sibsidy as they owe us billions
You will not find one oil company that has been given wealth from the tax payer (other than the purchase of there product/service)
They earn
They use there wealth
they risk there wealth
they pay taxes on the profit form that wealth

Mt friend being lied to, or being mis lead is all there is to this
Paying taxes is an obligation, it is a loss of welath
Try and explain to me ho losing welath and the term break are the same

 

[bobcollum]

People pay taxes, not corporations. raise taxes on Exxon, there going to raise the cost of there product

Exactly...further proof that corporations aren't people.

 

[Valox]

You will not find one oil company that has been given wealth from the tax payer (other than the purchase of there product/service)

I agree. What is your point?

Perhaps if you were literate, you have noticed that I never claimed this.