Tax paid subsidies for big oil compaines - OR ?

[Luddly Neddite]

Never mind that its President Obama's idea and therefore Repubs area against it ...

What do you think?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Which subsidies?

Please be specific.

 

[Truthmatters]

how about all of them?

 

[dblack]

Never mind that its President Obama's idea and therefore Repubs area against it ...

What do you think?

So, he's just moving subsidies around then?

Corporatism, uber alles.

 

[Mr. H.]

Could you please spell out these alleged subsidies, judge them on their merits, and make an argument for elimination?

If you can't do that, then you are pissing up a rope and prove yourself even more ignorant than I've imagined.

 

[dblack]

how about all of them?

That's what needs to happen, rather than this phony crap.

 

[DriftingSand]

And watch gas prices skyrocket!!! (For the greenies who ride the bus that equates to higher bus fares as well).

 

[Mr. H.]

how about all of them?

That's what needs to happen, rather than this phony crap.

I'd like each of you to specifically name the "subsidies" referred to in the graphic and tell me why they should be eliminated.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

how about all of them?

Man, that was some serious specificity!

 

[Truthmatters]

very specific

 

[Mr. H.]

very specific

What are you doing in this thread, other than wasting bandwidth?

 

[Truthmatters]

oh and if the oil prices rise then that will make alternatives cheaper huh.

 

[Truthmatters]

No more having to frack up the countryside god gave you huh?


hell you guys wont have to keep denying science

we know you get tired of looking like complete bat shit crazy fools who hate known facts so you can lick the ass of lush limpballs.

 

[DriftingSand]

I like the idea of investing in America's rich oil reserves WHILE looking for alternative energies. A baby needs to be weened from its mama's breast before chewing on meat. We can't just STOP using oil and START using untested, experimental alternatives.

By investing in America's various oil fields found in Louisiana, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota, California, Alaska, and Texas (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/03/the-most-oil-rich-states/2613497/), we could greatly reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil; put thousands upon thousands of Americas to work in good-paying jobs; and export tons of oil. We could pay off our national debt in a relatively short time.

From the profits made on our oil we could have the money and resources to explore other forms of clean energy. It's a win/win for America!

 

[Mr. H.]

No more having to frack up the countryside god gave you huh?


hell you guys wont have to keep denying science

we know you get tired of looking like complete bat shit crazy fools who hate known facts so you can lick the ass of lush limpballs.

Are you speaking to someone or just babbling your usual nonsense?

If you took the trouble to investigate "known facts" you'd then realize what an absolute fool you make of yourself.

 

[dblack]

how about all of them?

That's what needs to happen, rather than this phony crap.

I'd like each of you to specifically name the "subsidies" referred to in the graphic and tell me why they should be eliminated.

I'm not interested in chasing you around the mulberry bush on this shit. If you see a difference between targeted tax deductions (tax incentives) and subsidies, you're free to make that distinction. If your point is that they're the same kinds of deductions offered to many other special interests (farmers, etc...), then I'm right there with you - they're all equally wrong. But, whether you choose to call it a 'subsidy' or not, it's using unequal taxation as a means of expanding state power, and I'm adamantly opposed to it.

The proposal cited in the OP is utter bullshit, because all it does is punish the oil companies and reward alternative fuel researchers. It doesn't eliminate the subsidies, it just targets them differently. Our goal should be to revoke the governments power to reward its cronies in this way, whatever you want to call it.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

No more having to frack up the countryside god gave you huh?


hell you guys wont have to keep denying science

we know you get tired of looking like complete bat shit crazy fools who hate known facts so you can lick the ass of lush limpballs.

Isn't it a little early to be hitting the Long Island iced tea?

 

[Mr. H.]

That's what needs to happen, rather than this phony crap.

I'd like each of you to specifically name the "subsidies" referred to in the graphic and tell me why they should be eliminated.

I'm not interested in chasing you around the mulberry bush on this shit. If you see a difference between targeted tax deductions (tax incentives) and subsidies, you're free to make that distinction. If your point is that they're the same kinds of deductions offered to many other special interests (farmers, etc...), then I'm right there with you - they're all equally wrong. But, whether you choose to call it a 'subsidy' or not, it's using unequal taxation as a means of expanding state power, and I'm adamantly opposed to it.

The proposal cited in the OP is utter bullshit, because all it does is punish the oil companies and reward alternative fuel researchers. It doesn't eliminate the subsidies, it just targets them differently. Our goal should be to revoke the governments power to reward its cronies in this way, whatever you want to call it.

Thanks for clarifying. Normal expensing of capital outlays is not wrong as you suggest.
When capital is expended for the purpose of creating more capital through business operations, those expenditures should not be included in taxable income. To do so would kill growth.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There are rw's who will kill this planet if we let them.

There are some rw's who actually believe there are "good" oil subsidies.

And, apparently there are are some who believe there is no difference between subsidizing our past and investing in our future.

 

[peach174]

Never mind that its President Obama's idea and therefore Repubs area against it ...

What do you think?

You can't redirect 4 billion in oil & gas subsidies when you have never collected it in the first place. It's a tax break, like all of us get.
The Democrats voted against it also.

Quote from the article;
Everyone wants to end subsidies to oil companies, from President Obama to John Boehner and Paul Ryan. My question was "What subsidies?" Remarkably enough, CNN Money provided the answer.


It turns out that they are all tax "breaks." I even hesitate to call them "breaks" because some of them amount to little more than Congress defining accounting terms such as "capital equipment." And the total amount of earnings not collected in taxes (which liberals define as a "subsidy") is about $4 billion per year. Here is how that breaks down.

Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For "Big Oil" - Forbes