Cost of tax breaks

[Mr. H.]

The tax code for the 98% is very straightforward and relatively simple.

No it's not.

You got a point there.
The "short form" 1040EZ instructions.... all 46 pages of it.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040ez.pdf

 

[Sactowndog]

Writing off and/or expensing costs aren't subsidies, dimwit.

That "road to nowhere" to the drilling rig constitutes the access agreed upon in the terms of the lease. If it's a dry hole, the road is reclaimed and all damages remediated.
If the well is completed, compensation is dictated by the terms of the lease.

If you ever ran a business you would know that accelerated depreciation is a tax benefit.

Make up your fucking mind. First you use the term subsidy, now it's "tax benefit".

I have run a business, and quite successfully, for 36 years. Drilling holes in the ground so you can drive your goddamn Volvo to the whole foods market.

You're out of your league. Fuck off.

Why don't you go to the other board if your going to use such language. I used subsidy in the broadest sense and posted a link referring to the tax benefits of accelerated depreciation. If you can't read the link not my fault.

If those benefits weren't so valuable why does the oil industry fight like hell to maintain them.

 

[Sactowndog]

That is a lie.

Oil companies deduct expenses, so does GE, neither of them get a subsidy for that. GE actually collects money from the government in the form of green energy subsidies that Exxon does not get. This actually resulted in GE getting billions from the government instead of actually paying taxes.

Tax Benefits of Oil and Gas Drilling: Energy Capital Group

It is not a lie. Yes they deduct expenses but those are completely written off up front as opposed to be depreciated over the life of the well.

Again, oil companies deduct expenses, so does GE. That is not a subsidy, a subsidy is a check you get from the government.

I understand you are using the term subsidy narrowly and I used it broadly and imprecisely. You are correct it is not a direct payment in the terms of a subsidy but it is still a tax benefit in terms of accelerated depreciation which is a valuable benefit. What term would you prefer I use for the broad category of benefits including accelerated depreciation and direct subsidies?

 

[Sactowndog]

Tax Benefits of Oil and Gas Drilling: Energy Capital Group

It is not a lie. Yes they deduct expenses but those are completely written off up front as opposed to be depreciated over the life of the well.

Again, oil companies deduct expenses, so does GE. That is not a subsidy, a subsidy is a check you get from the government.

He seems to argue by changing definitions and standards mid stream. So I show that cuts in cap gains provide more revenue to Treasury and suddenly I have failed to prove that they provide ever increasing revenue to treasury regardless of the overall economy. He maintains that oil companies get subsidies and then redefines "subsidy" as "allowed to keep more of their own revenue."
It isn't worth arguing with people like that.

Well we agree about one thing which is it isn't worth talking to each other.

I have acknowledged that when you drop or raise rates you get a short term behavior affect. The raise is rates resulted in more revenue for the government coming in 2013. That does not mean that raising rates causes economic damage or that lowering rates causes economic benefit "in the US".

You have yet to explain why your own chart shows falling tax rates and trending upwards revenue in 1975-1985 while the last 10 years of your chart shows falling rates and negatively trending revenue.

 

[Mr. H.]

If you ever ran a business you would know that accelerated depreciation is a tax benefit.

Make up your fucking mind. First you use the term subsidy, now it's "tax benefit".

I have run a business, and quite successfully, for 36 years. Drilling holes in the ground so you can drive your goddamn Volvo to the whole foods market.

You're out of your league. Fuck off.

Why don't you go to the other board if your going to use such language. I used subsidy in the broadest sense and posted a link referring to the tax benefits of accelerated depreciation. If you can't read the link not my fault.

If those benefits weren't so valuable why does the oil industry fight like hell to maintain them.

My language is within this Board's rules. Read them.

I did read your link. It's positive and supportive towards this industry:

Oil and Natural gas from domestic reserves helps to make our country more energy self-sufficient by reducing our dependence on foreign imports. In light of this, Congress has provided tax incentives to stimulate domestic natural gas and oil production financed by private sources. Drilling projects offer many tax advantages and these benefits greatly enhance the economics. These incentives are not "Loop Holes" -- they were placed in the Tax Code by Congress to make participation in oil and gas ventures one of the best tax advantaged investments.

You on the other hand, for whatever reason, have taken it upon yourself to target these tax provisions as they apply to oil and gas and construe them to be some type of "give-away" that should be "taken away".

If these tax provisions are so valuable to these industries, and consequently this country, why should they be removed?

Again, you're out in left field and unclear of the concept.

Bitch.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, oil companies deduct expenses, so does GE. That is not a subsidy, a subsidy is a check you get from the government.

He seems to argue by changing definitions and standards mid stream. So I show that cuts in cap gains provide more revenue to Treasury and suddenly I have failed to prove that they provide ever increasing revenue to treasury regardless of the overall economy. He maintains that oil companies get subsidies and then redefines "subsidy" as "allowed to keep more of their own revenue."
It isn't worth arguing with people like that.

Well we agree about one thing which is it isn't worth talking to each other.

I have acknowledged that when you drop or raise rates you get a short term behavior affect. The raise is rates resulted in more revenue for the government coming in 2013. That does not mean that raising rates causes economic damage or that lowering rates causes economic benefit "in the US".

You have yet to explain why your own chart shows falling tax rates and trending upwards revenue in 1975-1985 while the last 10 years of your chart shows falling rates and negatively trending revenue.

Another one who can't read a chart. The chart shows that when the max cap gains rate fell under Reagan revenue increased. That lasted until the 1990 recession, when revenue across the board fell. Similarly with the Bush tax cuts. Revenue rose in the period after the cut took effect, declining in the recession of 2008 as revenue across the board fell.
This isn't hard, really.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you ever ran a business you would know that accelerated depreciation is a tax benefit.

Make up your fucking mind. First you use the term subsidy, now it's "tax benefit".

I have run a business, and quite successfully, for 36 years. Drilling holes in the ground so you can drive your goddamn Volvo to the whole foods market.

You're out of your league. Fuck off.

Why don't you go to the other board if your going to use such language. I used subsidy in the broadest sense and posted a link referring to the tax benefits of accelerated depreciation. If you can't read the link not my fault.

If those benefits weren't so valuable why does the oil industry fight like hell to maintain them.

You made up a definition for subsidy, then get upset when people refused to go along with it. In its broadest sense, a subsidy is money given by the government to help someone. There is no way to have a subsidy unless the government actually transfers funds to a person and/or group. No link you have posted even begins to offer a definition of subsidy that includes your preposterous notion that tax cuts are subsidies.

That makes the problem on your end, not with the people who disagree with you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tax Benefits of Oil and Gas Drilling: Energy Capital Group

It is not a lie. Yes they deduct expenses but those are completely written off up front as opposed to be depreciated over the life of the well.

Again, oil companies deduct expenses, so does GE. That is not a subsidy, a subsidy is a check you get from the government.

I understand you are using the term subsidy narrowly and I used it broadly and imprecisely. You are correct it is not a direct payment in the terms of a subsidy but it is still a tax benefit in terms of accelerated depreciation which is a valuable benefit. What term would you prefer I use for the broad category of benefits including accelerated depreciation and direct subsidies?

It is not a subsidy. I have no idea why anyone should be upset about tax benefits, whatever it is you think it means, and I don't care. Ultimately, tax cuts do not cost the government anything. Anyone that tries to say otherwise is lying, and should be publicly ridiculed.

 

[Sactowndog]

Make up your fucking mind. First you use the term subsidy, now it's "tax benefit".

I have run a business, and quite successfully, for 36 years. Drilling holes in the ground so you can drive your goddamn Volvo to the whole foods market.

You're out of your league. Fuck off.

Why don't you go to the other board if your going to use such language. I used subsidy in the broadest sense and posted a link referring to the tax benefits of accelerated depreciation. If you can't read the link not my fault.

If those benefits weren't so valuable why does the oil industry fight like hell to maintain them.

asshole

My language is within this Board's rules. Read them.

I did read your link. It's positive and supportive towards this industry:

Oil and Natural gas from domestic reserves helps to make our country more energy self-sufficient by reducing our dependence on foreign imports. In light of this, Congress has provided tax incentives to stimulate domestic natural gas and oil production financed by private sources. Drilling projects offer many tax advantages and these benefits greatly enhance the economics. These incentives are not "Loop Holes" -- they were placed in the Tax Code by Congress to make participation in oil and gas ventures one of the best tax advantaged investments.

You on the other hand, for whatever reason, have taken it upon yourself to target these tax provisions as they apply to oil and gas and construe them to be some type of "give-away" that should be "taken away".

If these tax provisions are so valuable to these industries, and consequently this country, why should they be removed?

Again, you're out in left field and unclear of the concept.

Bitch.

I don't think I called them "Loop Holes". I did call them subsidies and would agree in the strict sense they are not subsidies in terms of a direct cash payment. They are valuable financial incentives however just like many of the green industry get's financial incentives in whatever form.

BTW I didn't "target them" specifically. I only mentioned to the conservative who complained about subsidies to the Green industry that I would be happy to remove them if they removed "incentives" for all industries including the one's Republicans favored.

 

[Sactowndog]

He seems to argue by changing definitions and standards mid stream. So I show that cuts in cap gains provide more revenue to Treasury and suddenly I have failed to prove that they provide ever increasing revenue to treasury regardless of the overall economy. He maintains that oil companies get subsidies and then redefines "subsidy" as "allowed to keep more of their own revenue."
It isn't worth arguing with people like that.

Well we agree about one thing which is it isn't worth talking to each other.

I have acknowledged that when you drop or raise rates you get a short term behavior affect. The raise is rates resulted in more revenue for the government coming in 2013. That does not mean that raising rates causes economic damage or that lowering rates causes economic benefit "in the US".

You have yet to explain why your own chart shows falling tax rates and trending upwards revenue in 1975-1985 while the last 10 years of your chart shows falling rates and negatively trending revenue.

Another one who can't read a chart. The chart shows that when the max cap gains rate fell under Reagan revenue increased. That lasted until the 1990 recession, when revenue across the board fell. Similarly with the Bush tax cuts. Revenue rose in the period after the cut took effect, declining in the recession of 2008 as revenue across the board fell.
This isn't hard, really.

The chart shows a tax cut in 1975 which provided a short term benefit but also a long term benefit as the revenue was greater even in recession years than at the time of the rate cut. At this time, it was true that a cut in the capital gains rate spurred increased activity which resulted in ultimately more revenue

This is not the case in 2000 as the tax cut provided a short term positive boost but the over all trend line is negative as the tax rate falls the revenue falls. Apparently you can't calculate an overall trend line.

Feel free to provide your explanation of the difference in trend lines.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well we agree about one thing which is it isn't worth talking to each other.

I have acknowledged that when you drop or raise rates you get a short term behavior affect. The raise is rates resulted in more revenue for the government coming in 2013. That does not mean that raising rates causes economic damage or that lowering rates causes economic benefit "in the US".

You have yet to explain why your own chart shows falling tax rates and trending upwards revenue in 1975-1985 while the last 10 years of your chart shows falling rates and negatively trending revenue.

Another one who can't read a chart. The chart shows that when the max cap gains rate fell under Reagan revenue increased. That lasted until the 1990 recession, when revenue across the board fell. Similarly with the Bush tax cuts. Revenue rose in the period after the cut took effect, declining in the recession of 2008 as revenue across the board fell.
This isn't hard, really.

The chart shows a tax cut in 1975 which provided a short term benefit but also a long term benefit as the revenue was greater even in recession years than at the time of the rate cut. At this time, it was true that a cut in the capital gains rate spurred increased activity which resulted in ultimately more revenue

This is not the case in 2000 as the tax cut provided a short term positive boost but the over all trend line is negative as the tax rate falls the revenue falls. Apparently you can't calculate an overall trend line.

Feel free to provide your explanation of the difference in trend lines.

Don't bother responding as I know you won't agree no matter what the data shows.

From 2002 to 2007 the chart shows revenue from cap gains rising precipitously. Just what was claimed and what had been predicted.
Seriously. I wonder if you are looking at the same chart.