RE: Little fact about global warming for you

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Little fact about global warming for you

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Little fact about global warming for you

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 10 [11]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/25/2013 8:08:05 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So like I said the deduction is based on wages paid, the more wages paid the higher the deduction.
Sub d is some rules for certain entities and a bunch of special add ons for non manufacturers, farms and fossil fuel producers. Getting rid of (d)9 and a few words elsewhere in the section would remove the fossil fuel extractors from a law passed to encourage factories.

The legislation is for domestic production, not factories or manufacturing.

The deduction is based on qualified activities and limited by wages. It's not based on wages. If it was based on wages, the 6%/9% would be applied to the wages. It isn't. It's applied to the qualified activities. If you have $1M in wages, and have $5M in qualified activities, your deduction would be $450K, or 45% of your wages. If you had $6M in qualified activities, your deduction would be $500k, not $540k (9% of $6M) because of the wages paid cap.

If you have $1M in wages and $5M in qualified activities, you will have a $450K deduction. If you have $2M in wages, and $5M in qualified activities, you'll have a $450K deduction.

Thus, it's based on qualified activities and only limited by the wages paid.

And if you have $250k in wages and $5M in qualified activities your deduction will be reduced. It is based on wages just not exclusively based on wages.

And the law was definitely intended to encourage manufacturing.
http://www.wtas.com/newsletter/2010/september/section199.php
The other stuff got tacked on by lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry and some other groups.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 201

RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/25/2013 8:12:59 AM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So like I said the deduction is based on wages paid, the more wages paid the higher the deduction.
Sub d is some rules for certain entities and a bunch of special add ons for non manufacturers, farms and fossil fuel producers. Getting rid of (d)9 and a few words elsewhere in the section would remove the fossil fuel extractors from a law passed to encourage factories

The legislation is for domestic production, not factories or manufacturing.
The deduction is based on qualified activities and limited by wages. It's not based on wages. If it was based on wages, the 6%/9% would be applied to the wages. It isn't. It's applied to the qualified activities. If you have $1M in wages, and have $5M in qualified activities, your deduction would be $450K, or 45% of your wages. If you had $6M in qualified activities, your deduction would be $500k, not $540k (9% of $6M) because of the wages paid cap.
If you have $1M in wages and $5M in qualified activities, you will have a $450K deduction. If you have $2M in wages, and $5M in qualified activities, you'll have a $450K deduction.
Thus, it's based on qualified activities and only limited by the wages paid.

And if you have $250k in wages and $5M in qualified activities your deduction will be reduced. It is based on wages just not exclusively based on wages.

Wages only cap the maximum amount of the deduction, but you still have to have enough qualified activities. The deduction % is applied to the activities. That's the basis. That's it. Quit attempting to save face. Just let it drop, or admit you weren't correct.

quote:

And the law was definitely intended to encourage manufacturing.
http://www.wtas.com/newsletter/2010/september/section199.php
The other stuff got tacked on by lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry and some other groups.

What "other stuff?" What other stuff got tacked on by fossil fuel lobbyists? 199(d)?!? Lobbyists FOR the fossil fuel industry got the deduction amount reduced for the fossil fuel industry?!? Worst. Lobbyists. Ever.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 202

RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/25/2013 8:23:38 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

No. They aren't eligible at all except they get added in.

They tacked "extracted" onto (c)4(a) and then they further codified that the oil industry gets the tax deduction at all in (d)9. The law I referenced says get rid of all that. Let the tax deduction for manufacturers be for actual manufacturers.

As to the nonsense about the tax deduction not being based on wages, if the factory pays no w2 wages how much is the deduction? Can you produce any mathematical formula that calculates the deduction without including the employee wages? No. Then the deduction is based on wages paid.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 203

RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/25/2013 8:34:54 AM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
No. They aren't eligible at all except they get added in.
They tacked "extracted" onto (c)4(a) and then they further codified that the oil industry gets the tax deduction at all in (d)9. The law I referenced says get rid of all that. Let the tax deduction for manufacturers be for actual manufacturers.
As to the nonsense about the tax deduction not being based on wages, if the factory pays no w2 wages how much is the deduction? Can you produce any mathematical formula that calculates the deduction without including the employee wages? No. Then the deduction is based on wages paid.

No, the legislation is for "Domestic Production." The title of the law, afterall is, "Income attributable to domestic production activities."

See? domestic production.

From your own link:

quote:

America’s industrial backbone needed support and Sec. 199 was intended to provide it. Sec. 199 accomplishes this objective by effectively reducing the income tax assessed on the profits of targeted industries, principally manufacturing, construction and natural resource extraction (oil and gas, mining, forestry, etc.). For good measure, software developers, filmmakers and music publishers were also tagged to benefit from the new incentive. “Production” was to be rewarded while service, retail and distribution businesses generally were not.

Apparently, software, filmmakers and music publishers were "added in" specifically.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 204

RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/25/2013 10:31:45 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
No. They aren't eligible at all except they get added in.
They tacked "extracted" onto (c)4(a) and then they further codified that the oil industry gets the tax deduction at all in (d)9. The law I referenced says get rid of all that. Let the tax deduction for manufacturers be for actual manufacturers.
As to the nonsense about the tax deduction not being based on wages, if the factory pays no w2 wages how much is the deduction? Can you produce any mathematical formula that calculates the deduction without including the employee wages? No. Then the deduction is based on wages paid.

No, the legislation is for "Domestic Production." The title of the law, afterall is, "Income attributable to domestic production activities."

See? domestic production.

From your own link:
quote:

America’s industrial backbone needed support and Sec. 199 was intended to provide it. Sec. 199 accomplishes this objective by effectively reducing the income tax assessed on the profits of targeted industries, principally manufacturing, construction and natural resource extraction (oil and gas, mining, forestry, etc.). For good measure, software developers, filmmakers and music publishers were also tagged to benefit from the new incentive. “Production” was to be rewarded while service, retail and distribution businesses generally were not.

Apparently, software, filmmakers and music publishers were "added in" specifically.

Everything except manufacturing got added in.

And no matter what the deduction gives the fossil fuel industry in excess of $1 billion a year as a subsidy. Which is what the discussion was about. Repealing it would do no harm except to the bottom line of companies that are destroying the planet.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 205

RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/25/2013 11:14:32 AM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

Ken you are being intellectually dishonest.

You tried to show this bill as being a subsidy for big oil.

A). It isn't a subsidy, its tax relief.
B). It targets all manufacturers.
C). The portion you cited d(9) increases the liabilities of big oil, not decreases them.

More to the point you failed to show any reason why Big Oil is any different than Big Steel.
Both take a raw material and convert it into useful products. Why is *steel* better than *oil*?

Finally, your bit about "companies destroying the planet".

D). Do you have any idea that large oil companies are among the highest regulated companies in the world? If you want to see devestation - look at the campesinos strip mining for gold in the amazon.

E). You think solar power is any better than oil? Do you have *any* idea of the manufacturing processes that go into making PV cells? Any idea of the toxicity of selenium mining, processing, or extraction? I suggest spend a little time reviewing that before you are so quick to blame oil companies for "destroying the world".

F). One wonders what big companies you refer to, and if you are soooo dismissive of their products - why don't you quit using them.

Quit your consumption of electricity, since it is generated with fossil fuels.
Don't use your car - since it uses gasoline.
Don't use the internet, since it is one of the largest consumers of electricity in the US.
Don't use plastics as they are based on petroleum.
Don't use medicines as they were based on animal testing.

In short, since presumably you do *none* of that - I find it rather hypocritical. You people on the left want people to go back to energy standards (and living standards) equivalent to the 1870s - and we simply cannot support our population, let alone our standard of living under those conditions.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 8/25/2013 11:19:17 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 206

RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/25/2013 1:53:20 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

Almost all subsidies can be classified as tax deductions. USC 26 199 was instituted because the GTO found that US export incentives, the former USC 26 114, were export subsidies. So these are subsidies that encourage US manufacturing rather than directly targeting exporters to get around the GTO.

No. I presented a section of a law that referenced USC 26 199(d)9. The fact remains uncontested it is a billion dollar a year subsidy to the oil industry.

Big oil should get it for the refining crude into products but the section cited is for them drilling and pumping which is not manufacturing. And The old energy industry is uniquely different from other US industries in that it has fought every effort to control their rampant economic devastation. And you claim that a few small strip mines in the Amazon somehow is worse than the oil industry
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/02/nigerian-oil/oneill-text
http://ocean.si.edu/gulf-oil-spill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudhoe_Bay_oil_spill
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/world/asia/28timor.html?_r=0

If you really think the oil companies are well regulated you need to do some reading about the Niger Delta and the Gulf spill (the part where their response plan including discussion on how they would save the walruses was particularly enlightening).

Selenium is a by product of metal refining, copper mostly, and is only used in CIGS PV cells which are not very common. Crystalline silicon is far more common and even there the quantity of silicon per watt is declining. Sounds like you got your info from some denialist pro old energy source.

My car is a plug in hybrid so I use very little gas, I last filled the tank in April IIRC. I pay extra to get my electricity from renewable sources. I do my best to not buy anything made of plastic or packaged in plastic, not always possible but I make the effort and recycle as much of that stuff as is possible.

As to animal testing of medicine what do you think that has to do with anything under discussion?

So your presumptions are wrong and as usual you are full of shit.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Profile

Post #: 207

RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/25/2013 3:14:49 PM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Almost all subsidies can be classified as tax deductions. USC 26 199 was instituted because the GTO found that US export incentives, the former USC 26 114, were export subsidies. So these are subsidies that encourage US manufacturing rather than directly targeting exporters to get around the GTO.
No. I presented a section of a law that referenced USC 26 199(d)9. The fact remains uncontested it is a billion dollar a year subsidy to the oil industry.

A subsidy and tax relief are not the same. The value is not contested, but whether it's a subsidy or not, most certainly is contested.

quote:

Big oil should get it for the refining crude into products but the section cited is for them drilling and pumping which is not manufacturing. And The old energy industry is uniquely different from other US industries in that it has fought every effort to control their rampant economic devastation.
My car is a plug in hybrid so I use very little gas, I last filled the tank in April IIRC. I pay extra to get my electricity from renewable sources. I do my best to not buy anything made of plastic or packaged in plastic, not always possible but I make the effort and recycle as much of that stuff as is possible.

Not exactly strictly part of this thread, but... What kind of vehicle do you have? What are your observations/thoughts of the vehicle?

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 208

RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/25/2013 3:34:36 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

Ken,

Its funny that you think $7,000 subsidies for electric cars are good things, and yet in the same breath attack a tiny tax deduction for big oil.

I will say again, for about the 5th time that the idea of oil "subsidies" is ludicrous. The only thing that is relevent is tax burden.

If I tax you at 20% - thats a tax burden. If I tax you at 35% - thats a different tax burden. If I cut your tax burden to 15% - its still NOT a subsidy.

Its a subsidy when the government actually FUNDS products or companies. For example, Iran subsidizes gasoline. The price of gasoline is below production costs, and the government gives money to the state refineries to sell gas below cost.

And no, the cutting edge in photovoltaics are OLEDS and amorphous silicon, not crystalline. Try to keep up.

I never said oil companies were *well regulated*. I said they were among the most regulated industries in the US. Our government is pathetic and pretty much incapable of doing anything competently.

So anecdotal evidence of oil spills is pointless. Nonetheless, the safety records of large US corporations, by and large is superior to small to mid size companies, or standards in most of the world.

Regarding *your* lifestyle choice to drive an electric vehicle, buy renewable energy, and recycle. Bully for you. Complete waste of time, but you're welcome to waste your time and money. Just please stop being tyrannical about it and try to inflict your lifestyle choices on the rest of us.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 8/25/2013 3:39:32 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 209

RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/25/2013 4:58:06 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Ken,

Its funny that you think $7,000 subsidies for electric cars are good things, and yet in the same breath attack a tiny tax deduction for big oil.

I will say again, for about the 5th time that the idea of oil "subsidies" is ludicrous. The only thing that is relevent is tax burden.

If I tax you at 20% - thats a tax burden. If I tax you at 35% - thats a different tax burden. If I cut your tax burden to 15% - its still NOT a subsidy.

Bullshit. The oil lobby paid to get that deduction and that makes it a subsidy. The fact that it is in a replacement subsidy for a subsidy that got the US in trouble with the GTO does kind of make you argument irrelevant.

quote:

And no, the cutting edge in photovoltaics are OLEDS and amorphous silicon, not crystalline. Try to keep up.

Who said cutting edge? Again dawg stop responding to the crazy shit you wish I wrote.

quote:

I never said oil companies were *well regulated*. I said they were among the most regulated industries in the US. Our government is pathetic and pretty much incapable of doing anything competently.

They're no heavily regulated either. You want to see a heavily regulated oil industry look at Britain. There is a reason BP has moved most of their operatiosn out of the country.

quote:

Regarding *your* lifestyle choice to drive an electric vehicle, buy renewable energy, and recycle. Bully for you. Complete waste of time, but you're welcome to waste your time and money. Just please stop being tyrannical about it and try to inflict your lifestyle choices on the rest of us.

Once again liad, you made claims about me that were untrue and I corrected your dumbass assumptions. Try to stop being so full of shit and so wrong on everything.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Profile

Post #: 210

RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/25/2013 5:28:40 PM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Bullshit. The oil lobby paid to get that deduction and that makes it a subsidy. The fact that it is in a replacement subsidy for a subsidy that got the US in trouble with the GTO does kind of make you argument irrelevant.

No, it's still tax relief, not a subsidy.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 211

RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/25/2013 8:00:12 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Ken,

Its funny that you think $7,000 subsidies for electric cars are good things, and yet in the same breath attack a tiny tax deduction for big oil.

I will say again, for about the 5th time that the idea of oil "subsidies" is ludicrous. The only thing that is relevent is tax burden.

If I tax you at 20% - thats a tax burden. If I tax you at 35% - thats a different tax burden. If I cut your tax burden to 15% - its still NOT a subsidy.

Bullshit. The oil lobby paid to get that deduction and that makes it a subsidy. The fact that it is in a replacement subsidy for a subsidy that got the US in trouble with the GTO does kind of make you argument irrelevant.

quote:

And no, the cutting edge in photovoltaics are OLEDS and amorphous silicon, not crystalline. Try to keep up.

Who said cutting edge? Again dawg stop responding to the crazy shit you wish I wrote.

quote:

I never said oil companies were *well regulated*. I said they were among the most regulated industries in the US. Our government is pathetic and pretty much incapable of doing anything competently.

They're no heavily regulated either. You want to see a heavily regulated oil industry look at Britain. There is a reason BP has moved most of their operatiosn out of the country.

quote:

Regarding *your* lifestyle choice to drive an electric vehicle, buy renewable energy, and recycle. Bully for you. Complete waste of time, but you're welcome to waste your time and money. Just please stop being tyrannical about it and try to inflict your lifestyle choices on the rest of us.

Once again liad, you made claims about me that were untrue and I corrected your dumbass assumptions. Try to stop being so full of shit and so wrong on everything.

Snicker. Do you really have so little grasp of legislative process?

So here's a few facts:

1). The oil industry *is* part of the manufacturing sector. Here is the US government saying so:

http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag31-33.htm

So, congress passed a bill to boost manufacturers.
Gee, that includes the oil industry.

2). Congress then penalized the oil industry by includng section d(9).

3). Your allegations that the oil industry "bribed" people to be included is unsubstantiated (as usual).

But even if it were true, that changes the fact that it is not a subsidy not one whit. People and corporations lobby for legislation all the time. Success or failure is irrelevent to what a subsidy is.

Funny how often with you one must resort to dictionary definitions to prove you don't know a damn thing:

subsidy: a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.

(dictionary.com).

4. I notice, once again, that you have no defense for the subsidies (which are more than 4 times the size of the oil subsidies) for the high mileage automobiles. Any comment? I thought not.

5. I notice, once again, your notable lack of explanation why steel manufacturers deserve a subsidy, but oil mfgs do not. Bueler?

6. A discussion of BP (and how it was forced to move out of country) is (as I said you would do) irrelevent to a discussion of whether US Oil companies are highly regulated. As they have to comply with more than a million pages of regulations - I think that qualifies as "highly regulated".

The rest of the blather isn't worth digging up to kill. Its pure blather and reconizable as such by any who read.

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 212

RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/25/2013 8:17:04 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

Could you write nothing in a lot less blather from now on? Quoting all that bullshit to refute it, again, would be unpleasant for anyone still reading the thread. Suffice it to say you are wrong on all points that are actually in response to me and the rest is non sequitur and you still failed to acknowledge you made untrue accusations against me.

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Profile

Post #: 213