CO2 Cap and Trade freakout thread

[martybegan]

What about the $1 a gallon oil subsidy? Either stop subsidizing oil or give alternatives the same subsidy.

What "$1 a gallon subsidy" is that? I've never heard of it.

You have, but remain in denial. peer reviewed study from Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Princeton, who proves it cost the USA $7.3 trillion over 30 years to defend oil.

So the only thing that was defended was oil? Not other commerce, not other american interests?

Same tired crap from the same crappy people.

 

[Zander]

 

[KissMy]

What "$1 a gallon subsidy" is that? I've never heard of it.

You have, but remain in denial. peer reviewed study from Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Princeton, who proves it cost the USA $7.3 trillion over 30 years to defend oil.

So the only thing that was defended was oil? Not other commerce, not other american interests?

Same tired crap from the same crappy people.

The only USA interests there is oil, gas, oil companies & petrodollar recycling. If we had all the worlds oil, we would not be defending that shit hole.

We also subsidize roads for oil/gas powered vehicles, oil powered auto manufacturers, oil hazards, pollution cleanup, etc.

If car drivers had to pay all the cost to drive down the road instead of tax payers having to cover those hidden cost, they would shop for a cheaper mode of transportation. With the current high gas prices total miles driven in the USA have been declining for 10 years. We are subsidizing an oil system that is delivering less & less & is in fact holding the economy back. So without a level playing field, their is little chance for alternatives to take hold & grow transportation & the economy.

 

[TooTall]

welcome to capitalism w/o subsidies.

You bring up subsidies when I know you support government payouts for solar and wind.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

What about the $1 a gallon oil subsidy? Either stop subsidizing oil or give alternatives the same subsidy.

Oil is subsidized because it is not renewable. When it is all gone their ain't no more. If you can you say that about alternatives, subsidize them.

 

[martybegan]

You have, but remain in denial. peer reviewed study from Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Princeton, who proves it cost the USA $7.3 trillion over 30 years to defend oil.

So the only thing that was defended was oil? Not other commerce, not other american interests?

Same tired crap from the same crappy people.

The only USA interests there is oil, gas, oil companies & petrodollar recycling. If we had all the worlds oil, we would not be defending that shit hole.

We also subsidize roads for oil/gas powered vehicles, oil powered auto manufacturers, oil hazards, pollution cleanup, etc.

If car drivers had to pay all the cost to drive down the road instead of tax payers having to cover those hidden cost, they would shop for a cheaper mode of transportation. With the current high gas prices total miles driven in the USA have been declining for 10 years. We are subsidizing an oil system that is delivering less & less & is in fact holding the economy back. So without a level playing field, their is little chance for alternatives to take hold & grow transportation & the economy.

Car drivers pay plenty of it, in gas taxes, and vehicle fees. They pay it in the taxes and fees paid in their vehicle maintenance.

by your definition, everything subsidizes everything else, which is absurd, but when dealing with progressives hatred of anything involving an oil company, absurdity is par for the course.

 

[KissMy]

So the only thing that was defended was oil? Not other commerce, not other american interests?

Same tired crap from the same crappy people.

The only USA interests there is oil, gas, oil companies & petrodollar recycling. If we had all the worlds oil, we would not be defending that shit hole.

We also subsidize roads for oil/gas powered vehicles, oil powered auto manufacturers, oil hazards, pollution cleanup, etc.

If car drivers had to pay all the cost to drive down the road instead of tax payers having to cover those hidden cost, they would shop for a cheaper mode of transportation. With the current high gas prices total miles driven in the USA have been declining for 10 years. We are subsidizing an oil system that is delivering less & less & is in fact holding the economy back. So without a level playing field, their is little chance for alternatives to take hold & grow transportation & the economy.

Car drivers pay plenty of it, in gas taxes, and vehicle fees. They pay it in the taxes and fees paid in their vehicle maintenance.

by your definition, everything subsidizes everything else, which is absurd, but when dealing with progressives hatred of anything involving an oil company, absurdity is par for the course.

That's so stupid it's hilarious. Missouri just passed the largest sales tax increase in their history to maintain it's roads due to the shortfalls of gas tax, vehicle sales tax, license fees, etc. On top of that the Federal government is taking $41 billion from the general fund to cover the gas tax shortfall for maintaining highways.

 

[FireFly]

You bring up subsidies when I know you support government payouts for solar and wind.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

What about the $1 a gallon oil subsidy? Either stop subsidizing oil or give alternatives the same subsidy.

Oil is subsidized because it is not renewable. When it is all gone their ain't no more. If you can you say that about alternatives, subsidize them.

Or maybe we could stop taxing me to subsidize oil & let the free market decide, otherwise equalize the playing field by also subsidizing alternative transportation & energy.

 

[Crick]

The only USA interests there is oil, gas, oil companies & petrodollar recycling. If we had all the worlds oil, we would not be defending that shit hole.

We also subsidize roads for oil/gas powered vehicles, oil powered auto manufacturers, oil hazards, pollution cleanup, etc.

If car drivers had to pay all the cost to drive down the road instead of tax payers having to cover those hidden cost, they would shop for a cheaper mode of transportation. With the current high gas prices total miles driven in the USA have been declining for 10 years. We are subsidizing an oil system that is delivering less & less & is in fact holding the economy back. So without a level playing field, their is little chance for alternatives to take hold & grow transportation & the economy.

Car drivers pay plenty of it, in gas taxes, and vehicle fees. They pay it in the taxes and fees paid in their vehicle maintenance.

by your definition, everything subsidizes everything else, which is absurd, but when dealing with progressives hatred of anything involving an oil company, absurdity is par for the course.

That's so stupid it's hilarious. Missouri just passed the largest sales tax increase in their history to maintain it's roads due to the shortfalls of gas tax, vehicle sales tax, license fees, etc. On top of that the Federal government is taking $41 billion from the general fund to cover the gas tax shortfall for maintaining highways.

It is the case with EVERY state, that the cost of maintaining and expanding the road system is borne both with local and federal funds. Missouri's problem is probably multi-fold: some level of mismanagement of their highway funds, tasks put off for false economies resulting in higher per annum costs and the effect of climate change on the lifespan of roads, bridges, previous repairs and the like. But that's off the top of my head.

 

[KissMy]

Car drivers pay plenty of it, in gas taxes, and vehicle fees. They pay it in the taxes and fees paid in their vehicle maintenance.

by your definition, everything subsidizes everything else, which is absurd, but when dealing with progressives hatred of anything involving an oil company, absurdity is par for the course.

That's so stupid it's hilarious. Missouri just passed the largest sales tax increase in their history to maintain it's roads due to the shortfalls of gas tax, vehicle sales tax, license fees, etc. On top of that the Federal government is taking $41 billion from the general fund to cover the gas tax shortfall for maintaining highways.

It is the case with EVERY state, that the cost of maintaining and expanding the road system is borne both with local and federal funds. Missouri's problem is probably multi-fold: some level of mismanagement of their highway funds, tasks put off for false economies resulting in higher per annum costs and the effect of climate change on the lifespan of roads, bridges, previous repairs and the like. But that's off the top of my head.

If it's mismanagement then why must tax payers pay? The bottom line is higher gas prices lowered the total miles driven + increased fuel efficiency in MPG = a lot less gas purchased & a lot less gas tax collected. Now the Oil Companies want another subsidy so people will start using more gas again instead of continuing to wean themselves off.

 

[Crick]

The tax payers pay the bill because they own and control the government. The only money the government has is what it gets from taxpayers. They are the ones who need, use and benefit from the roads. Who else would pay for this? Have you ever paid a private business to use our public roadways?

You do make a good point that increased mileage has cut down on consumption and thus gasoline tax revenues. But that does not change the fact that US drivers and truckers have, historically, paid a significant amount of money towards the maintenance of our roadways. That conditions change and adjustments have to be made does not refute that point.

 

[bripat9643]

What about the $1 a gallon oil subsidy? Either stop subsidizing oil or give alternatives the same subsidy.

Oil is subsidized because it is not renewable. When it is all gone their ain't no more. If you can you say that about alternatives, subsidize them.

Or maybe we could stop taxing me to subsidize oil & let the free market decide, otherwise equalize the playing field by also subsidizing alternative transportation & energy.

What "oil subsidies" are you referring to, paying the heating bill for old people?

 

[Crick]

They call them "tax breaks" in this part of the world. Makes the conservative feel all loosy goosy inside.

 

[Mr. H.]

The only money the government has is what it gets from taxpayers.

 

[percysunshine]

Oil is subsidized because it is not renewable. When it is all gone their ain't no more. If you can you say that about alternatives, subsidize them.

Or maybe we could stop taxing me to subsidize oil & let the free market decide, otherwise equalize the playing field by also subsidizing alternative transportation & energy.

What "oil subsidies" are you referring to, paying the heating bill for old people?

The oil business is fairly straight up. Go to any country on the planet, and the only question is 'What is the government take?' Indonesia...about 85%...the US ...about 45%.

Mileage may vary depending on driving conditions.

 

[bripat9643]

They call them "tax breaks" in this part of the world. Makes the conservative feel all loosy goosy inside.

What "tax breaks" do oil companies get that every other corporation doesn't get?

 

[Crick]

They call them "tax breaks" in this part of the world. Makes the conservative feel all loosy goosy inside.

What "tax breaks" do oil companies get that every other corporation doesn't get?

Percentage depletion ($11.2 billion over 10 years)
Companies are generally allowed to deduct the costs of an investment over the term of that investment’s useful life. But oil companies get to use a special method for calculating their deductions called “percentage depletion.” Instead of deducting the costs of an oil or gas well as its value declines, oil companies are allowed to deduct a flat percentage of the income they derive from it. Because the deductions are based on revenues, not costs, the subsidy actually increases at times when prices are high, which of course is when oil companies enjoy their greatest profits.[2]
The oil and gas industry maintains that this is not a special tax break because other companies receive similar deductions. But the percentage depletion method permitted for oil and gas is fundamentally different and more favorable. In some cases, it can eliminate all federal taxes for these companies. Moreover, percentage depletion is a poorly designed subsidy because it “doesn’t specifically target hard-to-find or difficult-to-extract oil,” as CAP’s Richard Caperton and Sima Gandhi have written.

Domestic manufacturing deduction for oil production ($18.2 billion over 10 years)[3]
Oil producers successfully lobbied for inclusion in a 2004 bill that gave the beleaguered manufacturing sector a special tax break designed to discourage outsourcing of jobs. For a number of reasons—including the capital-intensive nature of oil production, the relative mobility of investments, and of course the level of profitability—there are vast differences between the oil industry and traditional U.S. manufacturing. As Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, has explained: “Congress was trying to solve a manufacturing issue in this country” by enacting the deduction and included oil producers “almost inadvertently.”[4]
Whatever rationale there was for allowing oil producers to claim the manufacturing deduction has evaporated in the intervening time, as oil prices have nearly tripled. Eliminating oil producers from a benefit never intended for them “will have no effect on consumer prices for gasoline and natural gas in the immediate future,” and is unlikely to have any effect over the long run, according to a recent report by Congress’s Joint Economic Committee.

Expensing of intangible drilling costs ($12.5 billion over 10 years)
Another special tax rule dating back to 1916 permits independent oil companies (and major integrated oil companies to a lesser but still significant extent) to “expense” certain costs associated with drilling oil wells. This means they can take immediate deductions for these costs rather than spreading the deductions out over the useful life of the wells, which is the normal tax code rule for other types of investments. Taking deductions immediately means the companies lower their tax bill in the first year, in effect getting an interest-free loan from the government.

“Dual capacity taxpayer” rules for claiming foreign tax credits ($10.8 billion over 10 years)
Our tax system allows companies that do business abroad to reduce from their tax bill any income taxes paid to other governments. The rules are supposed to prevent oil companies from claiming credit for royalty payments to foreign governments. Royalties are not taxes; they are fees for the privilege of extracting natural resources.
Notwithstanding these rules, so-called “dual capacity taxpayers,” which are overwhelmingly oil companies, have been permitted to claim credits for certain payments to foreign governments, even in countries that generally impose low or no business tax (suggesting that these payments, or levies, are in fact a form of royalty).
[5] Dual capacity taxpayer rules, therefore, are a subsidy for foreign production by U.S. oil companies. President Obama and others have proposed limiting the tax credit for these companies to what it would be if they did not have the special “dual capacity taxpayer” status.

Amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures ($1.4 billion over 10 years)
Another way many oil producers get to postpone their tax liability is by writing off the costs of searching for oil over an accelerated time period of two years. The president has proposed that all oil companies write off these costs over seven years, a relatively minor tax change that would have a negligible impact on investment decisions. According to the Congressional Research Service: “If the industry were experiencing a time of stagnant oil prices that were near the cost of production, relatively small changes in tax expenses might affect investment and production activities. However, in a time of high and volatile oil prices, small changes in tax expense are overshadowed by price variations.”[6]

“Last-in, first-out” accounting for oil companies (as much as $22.5 billion over 10 years)[7]
A tax accounting method known as “last in, first out,” or LIFO, provides a significant tax benefit for oil companies, especially when prices are rising. LIFO allows oil companies to calculate profits based on the cost of the oil they most recently added to their inventory. Since the most recently acquired inventory costs the most when prices are rising, this method can minimize a company’s taxable income. LIFO is available to businesses in other industries but large oil companies are perhaps the biggest beneficiaries.[8]
Taken together, these oil and gas tax subsidies represent a colossal waste of taxpayer resources since they pay companies, in the form of tax breaks, to do what they do anyway—especially at a time of price-fueled record profits.

That totals as much as $76.6 billion over ten years.