Pres Obama just called on congress to end oil subsidies

[Soggy in NOLA]

A green energy company makes $10 in revenue, has to pay the government $4 in taxes.

.

Which one would that be?

I doubt that because it probably cost $40 to make that $10.. hence all the bankruptcies.

 

[wjmacguffin]

As far as I know, tax breaks for industries or companies are used to 1) support small, growing business so they can create jobs and survive in the market, and 2) support businesses aligned with government policy (as in ethanol). I don't either applying to the oil industry. (If I missed a point of tax breaks--not lowering tax rates but offering breaks to one business or industry over another--then please let me know.)

While I understand the argument that removing breaks can lead to higher prices at the pump, I'm not sure I agree with that. From what I've read, the oil industry is making record-breaking profits these days. They might pass along the "cost" to the consumer, but not removing the breaks because of this feels like price-gouging or economic kidnapping. Do what we want or we'll raise gas prices!

 

[Si modo]

He is trying to bring down gas prices while the pubs work to keep prices high.

Just one more reason for the rw's to want to get wealthy Mittens in the white house so our taxes can subsidies going to Big Business.

Idiot gullible dupes.

What are these "oil subsidies" you and O talk about?

I know businesses have certain tax breaks for investments that create jobs, but what are these "oil subsidies"?

Please clarify.

 

[Dot Com]

I agree w/ the cons. Big Oil needs tax-payer funded subsidies. They're barely getting by

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What's a "fuel subsidy"?

Crusader Frank, this is how I define a “fuel subsidy”.

A green energy company makes $10 in revenue, has to pay the government $4 in taxes.

An Oil Company makes $10 in revenue, has to pay the government $2 in taxes.

Oil company saves $2. Government loses $2.

Call this a tax break, call it a subsidy, what it means at the end of the day is that the oil company is given a financial advantage over its potential competitors, and this advantage at the financial loss of the government.

If ALL forms of energy were taxed at the same rate, I'd be fine. I'm not upset at the government is getting less revenue. I'm upset about the unfair advantage, and you and everyone else on this forum should be too.

You're giving me a headache and not coming anywhere near making a lick of sense.

Are you saying that Green energy companies are taxed at a higher rate than ExxonMobil?

 

[Katzndogz]

A green energy company makes $10 in revenue, has to pay the government $4 in taxes.

.

Which one would that be?

The way it works is that the green energy company makes 0 in revenue, gets 100 billion in direct grants and pays no taxes.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

As far as I know, tax breaks for industries or companies are used to 1) support small, growing business so they can create jobs and survive in the market, and 2) support businesses aligned with government policy (as in ethanol). I don't either applying to the oil industry. (If I missed a point of tax breaks--not lowering tax rates but offering breaks to one business or industry over another--then please let me know.)

While I understand the argument that removing breaks can lead to higher prices at the pump, I'm not sure I agree with that. From what I've read, the oil industry is making record-breaking profits these days. They might pass along the "cost" to the consumer, but not removing the breaks because of this feels like price-gouging or economic kidnapping. Do what we want or we'll raise gas prices!

It's a volume deal... their margins are quite slim and any increase in costs (taxes) will be built into the price of gasoline.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

He is trying to bring down gas prices while the pubs work to keep prices high.

Just one more reason for the rw's to want to get wealthy Mittens in the white house so our taxes can subsidies going to Big Business.

Idiot gullible dupes.

What is funny is that obama has given 10X the subsidies/breaks to other energy companies, such as solyndra, than the govt gives to oil companies.

I say he should get rid of ALL ENERGY COMPANY subsidies and tax breaks along with subsidies for all sorts of other private businesses.

 

[SniperFire]

As far as I know, tax breaks for industries or companies are used to 1) support small, growing business so they can create jobs and survive in the market, and 2) support businesses aligned with government policy (as in ethanol). I don't either applying to the oil industry. (If I missed a point of tax breaks--not lowering tax rates but offering breaks to one business or industry over another--then please let me know.)

While I understand the argument that removing breaks can lead to higher prices at the pump, I'm not sure I agree with that. From what I've read, the oil industry is making record-breaking profits these days. They might pass along the "cost" to the consumer, but not removing the breaks because of this feels like price-gouging or economic kidnapping. Do what we want or we'll raise gas prices!

Our oil and natural gas industries are very much aligned with government policy (your point #2). We built the modern world by making oil and gas plentiful and affordable to the consumer and industry alike.

As as was mentioned above, this is one subsidy which actually PRODUCES more economic activity and wealth in for America, which means unlike Pelosi's food stamps - actually drives economic activity and more than pays for itself.

That said, I believe any and all such tax incentives should always be on the table and subject to review and termination depending on the value the public receives from them.

 

[SniperFire]

A green energy company makes $10 in revenue, has to pay the government $4 in taxes.

.

Which one would that be?

The way it works is that the green energy company makes 0 in revenue, gets 100 billion in direct grants and pays no taxes.

I gotta get me one of those libtard calculators.

 

[wjmacguffin]

What's a "fuel subsidy"?

Crusader Frank, this is how I define a “fuel subsidy”.

A green energy company makes $10 in revenue, has to pay the government $4 in taxes.

An Oil Company makes $10 in revenue, has to pay the government $2 in taxes.

Oil company saves $2. Government loses $2.

Call this a tax break, call it a subsidy, what it means at the end of the day is that the oil company is given a financial advantage over its potential competitors, and this advantage at the financial loss of the government.

If ALL forms of energy were taxed at the same rate, I'd be fine. I'm not upset at the government is getting less revenue. I'm upset about the unfair advantage, and you and everyone else on this forum should be too.

You're giving me a headache and not coming anywhere near making a lick of sense.

Are you saying that Green energy companies are taxed at a higher rate than ExxonMobil?

Can anyone find the tax rates for oil companies verses other energy companies? My Googling is swamped with news but no rates.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What's a "fuel subsidy"?

Crusader Frank, this is how I define a “fuel subsidy”.

A green energy company makes $10 in revenue, has to pay the government $4 in taxes.

An Oil Company makes $10 in revenue, has to pay the government $2 in taxes.

Oil company saves $2. Government loses $2.

Call this a tax break, call it a subsidy, what it means at the end of the day is that the oil company is given a financial advantage over its potential competitors, and this advantage at the financial loss of the government.

If ALL forms of energy were taxed at the same rate, I'd be fine. I'm not upset at the government is getting less revenue. I'm upset about the unfair advantage, and you and everyone else on this forum should be too.

Green energy companies have received 100's of billions in these breaks/subsidies
Oil companies are about 1/10 the subsidies/breaks of the green energy companies.

Just wanted to toss that out there since your example wasn't very accurate

 

[wjmacguffin]

As far as I know, tax breaks for industries or companies are used to 1) support small, growing business so they can create jobs and survive in the market, and 2) support businesses aligned with government policy (as in ethanol). I don't either applying to the oil industry. (If I missed a point of tax breaks--not lowering tax rates but offering breaks to one business or industry over another--then please let me know.)

While I understand the argument that removing breaks can lead to higher prices at the pump, I'm not sure I agree with that. From what I've read, the oil industry is making record-breaking profits these days. They might pass along the "cost" to the consumer, but not removing the breaks because of this feels like price-gouging or economic kidnapping. Do what we want or we'll raise gas prices!

Our oil and natural gas industries are very much aligned with government policy (your point #2). We built the modern world by making oil and gas plentiful and affordable to the consumer and industry alike.

As as was mentioned above, this is one subsidy which actually PRODUCES more economic activity and wealth in for America, which means unlike Pelosi's food stamps - actually drives economic activity and more than pays for itself.

That said, I believe any and all such tax incentives should always be on the table and subject to review and termination depending on the value the public receives from them.

SniperFire, thanks for the reasonable, well-argued post. In a sea of one-liners and crude language, this is nice to see.

So your argument is the subsidies more than pay for themselves because they allow the oil industry to re-invest in the market, creating jobs and bringing money into the market? Given the oil industry's record profits, can't they do that without subsidies?

 

[Valerie]

“You can either stand up for the oil companies, or you can stand up for the American people,” Mr. Obama said. “You can keep subsidizing a fossil fuel that’s been getting taxpayer dollars for a century, or you can place your bets on a clean-energy future.”






>>

What’s at Stake

Producing more domestic energy would create good jobs and bolster local economies in a wide variety of energy-producing regions that effectively “export” their product to the rest of the country. While countless jobs are engaged in the actual energy-production process, they are a small fraction of the full workforce that benefits. For instance, before the first barrel of oil is pumped out of the ground, entire industries are hard at work creating the equipment and providing the services used in drilling, production, and the long chain of supporting industries that brings energy from inside the earth to the consumer.

The ripple effects into the non-energy sectors of the economy are commensurately important. If instead of sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas we can send them to our own energy-rich centers, the nation as a whole will experience the economic benefits that we currently see other countries enjoying at our expense.


Obama’s Failure

Unfortunately, the first three years of the Obama administration have witnessed energy and environmental policies that have stifled the domestic energy sector. In thrall to the environmentalist lobby and its dogmas, the President and the regulatory bodies under his control have taken measures to limit energy exploration and restrict development in ways that sap economic performance, curtail growth, and kill jobs.

The Obama administration’s energy policy has been simply incoherent. For instance, it has blocked off-shore drilling in U.S. waters while applauding increased drilling off the coast of Brazil. Similarly, it has blocked construction of a pipeline that would bring Canadian oil to the United States, knowing full well that the result would be Canadian oil flowing to China instead. And it has pursued numerous regulations that would drive up energy prices while destroying millions of jobs.

As the Obama administration wages war against oil and coal, it has been spending billions of dollars on alternative energy forms and touting its creation of “green” jobs. But it seems to be operating more on faith than on fact-based economic calculation. The “green” technologies are typically far too expensive to compete in the marketplace, and studies have shown that for every “green” job created there are actually more jobs destroyed. Unsurprisingly, this costly government investment has failed to create an economic boom.


Mitt’s Plan
Energy

 

[KevinWestern]

What's a "fuel subsidy"?

Crusader Frank, this is how I define a “fuel subsidy”.

A green energy company makes $10 in revenue, has to pay the government $4 in taxes.

An Oil Company makes $10 in revenue, has to pay the government $2 in taxes.

Oil company saves $2. Government loses $2.

Call this a tax break, call it a subsidy, what it means at the end of the day is that the oil company is given a financial advantage over its potential competitors, and this advantage at the financial loss of the government.

If ALL forms of energy were taxed at the same rate, I'd be fine. I'm not upset at the government is getting less revenue. I'm upset about the unfair advantage, and you and everyone else on this forum should be too.

You're giving me a headache and not coming anywhere near making a lick of sense.

Are you saying that Green energy companies are taxed at a higher rate than ExxonMobil?

Here's a decent article:
Corporate Tax Reform and the Energy Sector - Forbes

I'm not a green energy expert, all I'm claiming is that the oil industry receives preferential treatment when it comes to the tax code. I want that to be eliminated, and the playing field leveled. That's all.

 

[SniperFire]

As far as I know, tax breaks for industries or companies are used to 1) support small, growing business so they can create jobs and survive in the market, and 2) support businesses aligned with government policy (as in ethanol). I don't either applying to the oil industry. (If I missed a point of tax breaks--not lowering tax rates but offering breaks to one business or industry over another--then please let me know.)

While I understand the argument that removing breaks can lead to higher prices at the pump, I'm not sure I agree with that. From what I've read, the oil industry is making record-breaking profits these days. They might pass along the "cost" to the consumer, but not removing the breaks because of this feels like price-gouging or economic kidnapping. Do what we want or we'll raise gas prices!

Our oil and natural gas industries are very much aligned with government policy (your point #2). We built the modern world by making oil and gas plentiful and affordable to the consumer and industry alike.

As as was mentioned above, this is one subsidy which actually PRODUCES more economic activity and wealth in for America, which means unlike Pelosi's food stamps - actually drives economic activity and more than pays for itself.

That said, I believe any and all such tax incentives should always be on the table and subject to review and termination depending on the value the public receives from them.

SniperFire, thanks for the reasonable, well-argued post. In a sea of one-liners and crude language, this is nice to see.

So your argument is the subsidies more than pay for themselves because they allow the oil industry to re-invest in the market, creating jobs and bringing money into the market? Given the oil industry's record profits, can't they do that without subsidies?

They 'could' do it, but you are missing the point of the tax break. The tax breaks are earmarked for exploration and development investment. The choice the greedy oil company is given is to pay out their profits to their stockholders and your 401K, or take advantage of the free ride on the money to drill more holes and make even more money.

The incentive is to encourage them to drill holes they normally would not be drilling. Of course, since Obama is trying to stop them from drilling holes, he wants to eliminate the tax breaks.

 

[SniperFire]

I'm not a green energy expert, all I'm claiming is that the oil industry receives preferential treatment when it comes to the tax code. I want that to be eliminated, and the playing field leveled. That's all.

You have not supported such a claim.

 

[Decepticon]

I think we can all agree that Obama and congress should stop meddling in the free market and end oil company subsidies.

I mean they're only costing us a Solyndra and a half a year, right...oh wait...solyndra only cost half a billion dollars. It appears we're giving the oil companies 140 TIMES THAT EACH YEAR!

yet, no CON has accused Obama of "picking winners" by GIVING 70 BILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS A YEAR subsidizing an already PROFITABLE industry.

 

[Katzndogz]

Seems like obama has a problem with people having to buy gas and pay for it in the first place.

If oil companies weren't so greedy, they'd give the gas away free.

 

[uscitizen]

It does seem to be the American way to give tax breaks and such to those who need them the least.

Would you rather see oil profits be given to the fat cats in the form of dividends, or re-invested in finding us more energy?

Or perhaps you don't understand the dynamics of this at all?

If they do not find and produce more energy sources they will fail as a business.
They have to protect their asses and do not need any tax breaks, etc to do that.
So yes perhaps I understand better than you do.