quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well. Phydeaux is also wrong so be careful, his 'facts' are usually factless. there are larger subsidies and deals by far for oil than just the heating cost subsidies.

https://www.treasury.gov/open/Documents/USA%20FFSR%20progress%20report%20to%20G20%202014%20Final.pdf

anyone with a basic kindergarten count the logs in the bundle backround in arithmetic can see thats it is far more than cutting a $20 dollar check to welfare patients for the heat bill.


None of this of course counts the fact that oil drilling on the public lands is given away for a song, or the huge externalities borne by the American citizenry.

Uh-huh. . In the much longer post, I documented every single one of these programs. The fact that your number is somewhat bigger than mine stems from it is a later year, and it is making forward going projections, rather than actual numbers. And finally, of course, because it was prepared by the obama administration in order to make points.



Your own citation identifies the single bigest program - by far - to be the assistance for poor people. So,

quote:


there are larger subsidies and deals by far for oil than just the heating cost subsidies.

is factually wrong.

You quibble over three or four billion while ignoring hundreds of billions in subsidies to renewables.
I haven't run the numbers recently - but the entire subsidy to the oil industry is less than the cost of the mandate to the DOD to use renewable fuel. Again, from memory I think the government is paying >$500 gallon for renewable fuel oil.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well. Phydeaux is also wrong so be careful, his 'facts' are usually factless. there are larger subsidies and deals by far for oil than just the heating cost subsidies.

https://www.treasury.gov/open/Documents/USA%20FFSR%20progress%20report%20to%20G20%202014%20Final.pdf

anyone with a basic kindergarten count the logs in the bundle backround in arithmetic can see thats it is far more than cutting a $20 dollar check to welfare patients for the heat bill.


None of this of course counts the fact that oil drilling on the public lands is given away for a song, or the huge externalities borne by the American citizenry.

Uh-huh. . In the much longer post, I documented every single one of these programs. The fact that your number is somewhat bigger than mine stems from it is a later year, and it is making forward going projections, rather than actual numbers. And finally, of course, because it was prepared by the obama administration in order to make points.



Your own citation identifies the single bigest program - by far - to be the assistance for poor people. So,

quote:


there are larger subsidies and deals by far for oil than just the heating cost subsidies.

is factually wrong.

You quibble over three or four billion while ignoring hundreds of billions in subsidies to renewables.
I haven't run the numbers recently - but the entire subsidy to the oil industry is less than the cost of the mandate to the DOD to use renewable fuel. Again, from memory I think the government is paying >$500 gallon for renewable fuel oil.

4737 corporate welfare. dont matter how you slice and dice it. The biggest.
And that doesnt count externalities, borne by the citizenry.

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-fossil-fuel-subsidies-increase-dramatically-despite-climate-change-pledge-2180918

http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/08/03/oil-gas-over-13-times-more-in-historical-subsidies-than-clean-energy/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/26/328612/new-report-energy-subsidies/
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

ad nauseam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

And of course I have gone through the oil depletion allowance.
As I said earlier, in my rather long post, I went through every subsidy mnottertail listed. . Which includes the oil depletion alliance.

The single biggest oil subsidy. . By far. Is the poverty assistance to buy oil.

You seem to have an enormous aversion to the oil depletion alliance, I'm really not sure why. After the oil is sold is no longer available to sell. The value of the mineral rights for the land have thus decreased.

The exact same process is done on hundreds of other materials and I don't understand why recognition of fundamental reality causes you such difficulty

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Since I didn't see anything specific to the discussion we are having...I didn't read the rest of the links. They don't seem to reference the stated assumption you made...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Since I didn't see anything specific to the discussion we are having...I didn't read the rest of the links. They don't seem to reference the stated assumption you made...

that exact thing has been my experience with the guy multiple times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/04/06/in-bps-final-20-billion-gulf-settlement-u-s-taxpayers-subsidize-15-3-billion/#2cdee46b68fc

I guess huntie is aware, at least peripherally, of reality.

Where is the column for externalities in the breakdown of corporate welfare? (e pluribus unum in terms of externalities borne by the citizenry) Heating bills pale in comparison, but even those are corporate welfare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

And of course I have gone through the oil depletion allowance.

Cite please

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/04/06/in-bps-final-20-billion-gulf-settlement-u-s-taxpayers-subsidize-15-3-billion/#2cdee46b68fc

I guess huntie is aware, at least peripherally, of reality.

Where is the column for externalities in the breakdown of corporate welfare? (e pluribus unum in terms of externalities borne by the citizenry) Heating bills pale in comparison, but even those are corporate welfare.

quote:


money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

And of course I have gone through the oil depletion allowance.

Cite please

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/04/06/in-bps-final-20-billion-gulf-settlement-u-s-taxpayers-subsidize-15-3-billion/#2cdee46b68fc

I guess huntie is aware, at least peripherally, of reality.

Where is the column for externalities in the breakdown of corporate welfare? (e pluribus unum in terms of externalities borne by the citizenry) Heating bills pale in comparison, but even those are corporate welfare.

Interesting article. It doesn't surprise me. You'd think Obama would publicly rail against it. Since he's not, it would seem that he, like Hillary, is really only a product of corporate interest.

The rest of your post is beyond me. I haven't the faintest idea what you mean.

Oh, and again, I have no problem with corporations getting out of taxation. All corporate taxation is, is a pass through tax on to consumers. It's a little hidden tax to the middle class politicians, especially politicians like the Bern, can claim are tough on evil capitalists. When in fact it's just a burden on labor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/04/06/in-bps-final-20-billion-gulf-settlement-u-s-taxpayers-subsidize-15-3-billion/#2cdee46b68fc

I guess huntie is aware, at least peripherally, of reality.

Where is the column for externalities in the breakdown of corporate welfare? (e pluribus unum in terms of externalities borne by the citizenry) Heating bills pale in comparison, but even those are corporate welfare.

Well its an interesting article, but as an example of tax subsidies to the oil industry - its as usual not relevant, and a complete fail.

Every business gets to write-off penalties and fines, except in a very few narrow cases, such as punitive damages etc. In the US, our primary tax stream is based on profit. Profit, for our liberal friends, is the difference between income and expenses.

So when a company is hit with a $500 dollar fine for a restroom sign that is 1" too low, that is an expense. It decreases profits, which means the taxes paid by that company decrease marginally.

What it is not however, is a subsidy. Here's the definition of a subsidy:

quote:


money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function

So if you are saying you want to abolish the fundamental driver of business and industry in western societies for 400 years - well you can. But I don't think you'll get a lot of takers.

Summing up, while an interesting article, the fact that businesses can deduct expenses is not a subsidy - its a feature of our tax policy which says - we will tax corporations at this amount, after allowing these classes of business expenses.

As I said the last time your brought this up mnotter - the us oil industry paid 2 trillion dollars over 10 years in taxes. Regardless of how you try to rail against one element or another of our tax policy, when a company on net pays enormous taxes - thats not a subsidy.

So - not a subsidy, not an oil company subsidy, not listed by congress, or GAAP as a subsidy - so its not really relevant to the conversation of oil subsidies.