quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

have I ever feigned or dismissed that oil companies get tax breaks/credits/exemptions. They don't get subsidies. They get tax relief. There is a difference. Might be beyond your grasp, but that isn't so for everyone.

quote:


ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Obviously oil is not cost effective witness the giant subsidies to keep it propped up.

quote:

What are the subsidy levels? What is Big Oil getting vs. Renewables (in $'s and %'s, please)?

What is this?

That is a question I wanted you to answer.

Big Oil's subsidies were <$10B/yr., right?

Big Oil's quarterly profits are usually well over $10B, right?

How is that keeping Big Oil propped up?

Oh. That's right. It isn't.

But, you wouldn't have accepted that had I simply put it out there, would you have? No, of course not. But, had you actually put numbers down instead of empty rhetoric, you'd have easily seen your error.


_____________________________

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 thompsonx)

quote:


The difference is that you can go out and get more inventory quite easily. Not so much with oil deposits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

They don't get subsidies. They get tax relief. There is a difference.

A company (which is now a person) that makes billions gets a tax break no other person does. They make money and pay no taxes on it.

quote:

A person gets welfare. They make no money and receive taxes on it.
I need some help with that welfare/subsidy/whatever thingie.
I need some goddamn relief. We need some even handed bitching here.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

From a moving point of view, a stationary person will seem to be moving,

You sure about that?

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
They pay taxes on income.
Much ACTUAL income is set aside as an oil depletion allownace (an expense against income).
Sort of implies corporate welfare, a subsidy and craven corporate capitulism, don't it?

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

quote:


They bring in money. Even welfare is income, no?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
They pay taxes on income.
Much ACTUAL income is set aside as an oil depletion allownace (an expense against income).
Sort of implies corporate welfare, a subsidy and craven corporate capitulism, don't it?

A subsidy is money the Feds have that is given out. A tax deduction/exemption/credit is money that isn't being taken from the earner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

have I ever feigned or dismissed that oil companies get tax breaks/credits/exemptions. They don't get subsidies. They get tax relief. There is a difference. Might be beyond your grasp, but that isn't so for everyone.

quote:


ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Obviously oil is not cost effective witness the giant subsidies to keep it propped up.

quote:

What are the subsidy levels? What is Big Oil getting vs. Renewables (in $'s and %'s, please)?

What is this?

That is a question I wanted you to answer.

Big Oil's subsidies were <$10B/yr., right?

Big Oil's quarterly profits are usually well over $10B, right?

How is that keeping Big Oil propped up?

Oh. That's right. It isn't.

But, you wouldn't have accepted that had I simply put it out there, would you have? No, of course not. But, had you actually put numbers down instead of empty rhetoric, you'd have easily seen your error.

This is the point of my discussion...if,as you say, the oil companies are profitable why then are they getting these subsidies. If you choose to quible words ...a subsidy by any other name would still have the effect of transfering wealth from the taxpayer to the oil co. To claim that it has any other purpose than to increase the already,as you claim,large profits of the oil co is less than believable.
If the oil co make so much money, as you claim, why does it need the taxpayers tit in it's mouth?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
They pay taxes on income.
Much ACTUAL income is set aside as an oil depletion allownace (an expense against income).
Sort of implies corporate welfare, a subsidy and craven corporate capitulism, don't it?

A subsidy is money the Feds have that is given out. A tax deduction/exemption/credit is money that isn't being taken from the earner.

quote:

Now, you't purposely being obtuse. The government isn't giving them money. Not taking as much in taxes isn't the same as giving them money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The difference is that you can go out and get more inventory quite easily. Not so much with oil deposits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
Or is this why it is not a subsidy, because the price is not low or competitive that we pay for gas? They get a freebie for fucking us. Remember drill baby drill and how that was gonna drive gas prices down? Nutsucker magical thinking, again and always, we put in to these companies (or if you rather leave lay on the table), that which is in our power and right to take (evidenced by the fact that we are doing just that in other industries as I have demonstrated), but they spend it on bonuses, not on that which they should be spending it on.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
This is the point of my discussion...if,as you say, the oil companies are profitable why then are they getting these subsidies. If you choose to quible words ...a subsidy by any other name would still have the effect of transfering wealth from the taxpayer to the oil co. To claim that it has any other purpose than to increase the already,as you claim,large profits of the oil co is less than believable.
If the oil co make so much money, as you claim, why does it need the taxpayers tit in it's mouth?

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
They pay taxes on income.
Much ACTUAL income is set aside as an oil depletion allownace (an expense against income).
Sort of implies corporate welfare, a subsidy and craven corporate capitulism, don't it?

A subsidy is money the Feds have that is given out. A tax deduction/exemption/credit is money that isn't being taken from the earner.

Let me see; if the taxpayer is deprived of money it is a subsidy. Taxpayers are not deprived of money by money not being taken in.
On what planet?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
We give special tax breaks to the 5 biggest oil companies of more than $2 billion a year.
http://www.dpc.senate.gov/docs/lb-112-2-63.pdf
It's pretty clear they don't need these. Surely we can all agree we should not give them a tax break for paying foreign nation's royalties.
Multiple studies show that the total subsidy for fossil fuel production in the US is $10 billion a year.
http://www.oecd.org/site/tadffss/USA.pdf
http://www.eli.org/Program_Areas/innovation_governance_energy.cfm
http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2012/05/SandersSummaryFinal.pdf
Look over the lists. Should we really be giving the oil companies a tax break to be pumping oil from marginal and inefficient wells? How about the fact that we let them deduct 15% from their pre tax receipts for depletion of their investments? How about the fast depreciation of Alaska pipelines (7 years instead of 15)? How about the one where coal min operators get a tax deduction meant to incentivize US manufacturing?

quote:

Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves. Every industry of any kind is allowed a depreciation deduction on its assets under the U.S. Tax Code, but, far from being a “subsidy” for “big oil”, this tax treatment was in fact repealed for all integrated oil companies, i.e., ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc., in 1975, and is today available only to independent producers and royalty owners. So repeal of this extremely long-standing, completely common tax treatment would have no effect on “big oil” at all, and would in fact hit small producers and royalty owners harder than anyone else.

Another great example of the specious mischaracterization of these tax treatments is the Manufacturer’s Tax Deduction, more commonly referred to as Section 199. The Section 199 provision was enacted by congress in 2004 as a means of encouraging manufacturers to relocate overseas jobs to the U.S., and is in no way specific to or limited to the oil and gas industry. In fact, the oil & gas industry’s ability to take advantage of this provision has already been singled out for limitation – in 2008, Congress reduced the industry’s deduction under this provision to 2/3rds of what other manufacturing industries are allowed to deduct.

The tax code contains a couple of credits related to the oil and gas industry – the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit, and the Marginal Well Tax Credit. Far from being “subsidies” to “big oil”, these tax credits are used almost exclusively by small to mid-size independent producers who tend to become the operators of marginal oil and gas fields as they age and are divested by the larger companies. The EOR credit was implemented in 1990, and the Marginal Well Credit was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

Finally, let’s talk about Intangible Drilling Costs (IDCs), another feature of the federal tax code that will enjoy its’ 100th birthday in 2013. Basically, IDCs are the costs incurred by the oil and gas industry in the drilling of its wells. Since drilling wells is the only means of finding oil and natural gas, IDCs essentially amount to what any other industry would be able to deduct as a part of its cost of goods sold, a concept of accounting and tax law as old as the tax code itself.

Independent producers and royalty owners are allowed an election to either a) expense these costs in the year they are incurred, or b) amortize them over a 5-year period. Again, most media reports commonly characterize this as a “subsidy” for “big oil”, as does the Obama Administration. The truth is that “big oil” – the ExxonMobils, Chevrons, Shells and BPs of the world – benefit much less from this tax treatment, it having been severely limited to them by congress in 1986, and again in 1992. And the truth also is that IDCs are not a “subsidy” to anyone engaged in the oil and gas business.

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