Electric vehicle subsidies under threat. MAGA

[Darkwind]

Yet another example of Trump's contempt for sound responsible governance and public policy.

if you can't make a profitable product w/o government intervention, not my fault. stop using my tax dollars to pay for it. when it can take root and grow and become a true benefit, then it will take off and be all that it will likely one day be.

Oil companies can't seem to do that.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

Wait... So a subsidy is taking money from the tax income of the people to give to a company.

But when you tell the company they don't have to pay taxes, instead relying on the people to pay your share to provide for the government that's not a subsidy.


That's like saying "I didn't buy those drugs from that drug dealer, he owed me 50 bucks so I cancelled that instead of giving him 50 bucks then him giving it back for what he already owed me" Yeah you are still going to jail for buying drugs.


Luckily for us we have a definition of subsidy in the business world. . Economic benefit (such as a tax allowance or duty rebate) or financial aid (such as a cash grant or soft loan) provided by a government to (1) support a desirable activity (such as exports), (2) keep prices of staples low, (3) maintain the income of the producers of critical or strategic products, (4) maintain employment levels, or (5) induce investment to reduce unemployment. The basic characteristic of all subsidies is to reduce the market price of an item below its cost of production. Also called subvention.



So yes that is a subsidy. If you are saying that you want a new definition of subsidy... Sure. Lets say a subsidy is a small brown animal that hibernates in tree logs through summer. Got a new definition now. And no, I haven't seen one company get a subsidy based on my new homemade english definition of the word.

Perhaps you should learn what taxes are before you go with that?

Every company pays taxes, and to say their share is a subjective opinion without a valid means of testing. If the company is not there, then no taxes are paid at all. Taxes for the purpose of spending alleges that the expenditures are reasonable and valid to begin with, but that is another topic.

So, let's start with that statement, "When you tell the company they don't have to pay taxes". Who is telling them they don't have to pay taxes? Last time I checked, the government forces entities and people to pay taxes, they don't leave it up to them.

So, who told them they didn't have to pay taxes, when clearly they ARE paying taxes.

 

[iceberg]

Yet another example of Trump's contempt for sound responsible governance and public policy.

if you can't make a profitable product w/o government intervention, not my fault. stop using my tax dollars to pay for it. when it can take root and grow and become a true benefit, then it will take off and be all that it will likely one day be.

Oil companies can't seem to do that.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

oh. seabitch. he says things for effect, not conversation.

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

i'd actually be impressed if he *did* think.

 

[Darkwind]

if you can't make a profitable product w/o government intervention, not my fault. stop using my tax dollars to pay for it. when it can take root and grow and become a true benefit, then it will take off and be all that it will likely one day be.

Oil companies can't seem to do that.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

oh. seabitch. he says things for effect, not conversation.

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

The electric car "subsidy" Donnie Dumb Ass wants to end is a TAX CREDIT, not a direct payment from the government.

On Monday, Kudlow said the president was referring to an Obama-era stimulus package that created a $7,500 consumer tax credit for the purchase of electric cars. He said the president’s considerations about revoking subsidies may not be directed specifically at GM, noting, “legally, you really can’t.” It is unclear whether the president has the authority to take this type of action because the stimulus package was created by legislation.​

Trump administration looks to pull the plug on electric-car tax credits

Then it is not a subsidy and the end of the program is a nothing burger.

 

[Pilot1]

It is mostly upper class people that can afford the large PREMIUM EV's cost over their gas counterparts even with the subsidies. Essentially, Obama was rewarding the suburban, Limousine Liberals by giving them a break on their Teslas, and Volts.

So the taxpayer is subsidizing the WEALTHY. That needs to stop, We have so much Domestic fossil fuel reserves that it should be considered like a renewable.

 

[Seawytch]

if you can't make a profitable product w/o government intervention, not my fault. stop using my tax dollars to pay for it. when it can take root and grow and become a true benefit, then it will take off and be all that it will likely one day be.

Oil companies can't seem to do that.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

oh. seabitch. he says things for effect, not conversation.

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

i'd actually be impressed if he *did* think.

Gosh, look at that. More value adding content I see. You keep doing what you accused "seabitch" of doing, post for effect, not conversation.

Trump wants to end a TAX CREDIT for electric vehicles but keep in place tax credits for fossil fuels. That seem right or even responsible?

 

[Seawytch]

It is mostly upper class people that can afford the large PREMIUM EV's cost over their gas counterparts even with the subsidies. Essentially, Obama was rewarding the suburban, Limousine Liberals by giving them a break on their Teslas, and Volts.

So the taxpayer is subsidizing the WEALTHY. That needs to stop, We have so much Domestic fossil fuel reserves that it should be considered like a renewable.

Funny, I'm not wealthy and neither are my co workers but a third of them have electric or hybrid vehicles. I got a tax credit years ago when I drove a hybrid. It was nice.

 

[indiajo]

My company is working as supplier for machinery in battery production nd recycling.
Pure EV's will end in a catastrophy. It destroys the western car industry, because we cannot compete with the Chinese in this field.
Thats the reason they do it. To finish European and US car manufacturers.
The whole battery technology is meanwhile in the hands of the Chinese and Koreans.
While the E-motor will be for sure the furure engine concept, the battery will definetely not. This planet does not have the ressources to sustain this folly.
After the collapse, the Asians will dominate the car world, and we return to reasonable technologies.
Kind of LPG fired gas turbines with generator to drive the wheel motors.
End of story.

If Trump ends the subsidies for the E-craziness, he's my hero.

 

[Darkwind]

Oil companies can't seem to do that.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

oh. seabitch. he says things for effect, not conversation.

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

i'd actually be impressed if he *did* think.

Gosh, look at that. More value adding content I see. You keep doing what you accused "seabitch" of doing, post for effect, not conversation.

Trump wants to end a TAX CREDIT for electric vehicles but keep in place tax credits for fossil fuels. That seem right or even responsible?

That isn't what is stated in the artcle.

Kudlow confirmed it: Trump will end subsidies for electric cars.

Since we have rightly concluded that he NOT ending a subsidy for electric cars, then he is doing the right thing. Even is it WAS a subsidy, he would be doing the right thing.

The electic car and stand or fall on its own merit.

 

[SandSquid]

Yet another example of Trump's contempt for sound responsible governance and public policy.

if you can't make a profitable product w/o government intervention, not my fault. stop using my tax dollars to pay for it. when it can take root and grow and become a true benefit, then it will take off and be all that it will likely one day be.

Oil companies can't seem to do that.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

oh. seabitch. he says things for effect, not conversation.

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

Yet another example of Trump's contempt for sound responsible governance and public policy.

if you can't make a profitable product w/o government intervention, not my fault. stop using my tax dollars to pay for it. when it can take root and grow and become a true benefit, then it will take off and be all that it will likely one day be.

Oil companies can't seem to do that.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

Wait... So a subsidy is taking money from the tax income of the people to give to a company.

But when you tell the company they don't have to pay taxes, instead relying on the people to pay your share to provide for the government that's not a subsidy.


That's like saying "I didn't buy those drugs from that drug dealer, he owed me 50 bucks so I cancelled that instead of giving him 50 bucks then him giving it back for what he already owed me" Yeah you are still going to jail for buying drugs.


Luckily for us we have a definition of subsidy in the business world. . Economic benefit (such as a tax allowance or duty rebate) or financial aid (such as a cash grant or soft loan) provided by a government to (1) support a desirable activity (such as exports), (2) keep prices of staples low, (3) maintain the income of the producers of critical or strategic products, (4) maintain employment levels, or (5) induce investment to reduce unemployment. The basic characteristic of all subsidies is to reduce the market price of an item below its cost of production. Also called subvention.



So yes that is a subsidy. If you are saying that you want a new definition of subsidy... Sure. Lets say a subsidy is a small brown animal that hibernates in tree logs through summer. Got a new definition now. And no, I haven't seen one company get a subsidy based on my new homemade english definition of the word.

Perhaps you should learn what taxes are before you go with that?

Every company pays taxes, and to say their share is a subjective opinion without a valid means of testing. If the company is not there, then no taxes are paid at all. Taxes for the purpose of spending alleges that the expenditures are reasonable and valid to begin with, but that is another topic.

So, let's start with that statement, "When you tell the company they don't have to pay taxes". Who is telling them they don't have to pay taxes? Last time I checked, the government forces entities and people to pay taxes, they don't leave it up to them.

So, who told them they didn't have to pay taxes, when clearly they ARE paying taxes.

So your belief is that the Fossil energy research & development program that provides 3.5 billion dollars of taxpayer money to fossil fuel companies for their programs.


Yes if a company exists it has to pay taxes. And if your company is in fossil fuels you get subsidies to not pay billions in taxes you would owe if you were not in that industry.

Take for example the tax on shipping companies to use US waterways for transport and fund keeping those waterways open and usable. Companies pay by ton shipped. Except the Gov't spends 229 million a year on the Inland Waters Transport for Petroleum Subsidy to make up for the income not paid for shipping petroleum that way.

Or the 107 million America spends on the costs of allowing drilling on BLM lands. Paid for by you and I with the Inadequate Administrative Fees for Onshore Drilling Management

Or the Last-In, First Our Accounting for Fossil Fuel Companies that allows oil companies to undervalue their equipment that takes 1.5 billion of taxes away. THEY AREN"T PAYING THOSE TAXES.

You are right. Their share is subjective. Because they get subsidized for 20 billion dollars a year of taxes they don't have to pay simply because they are in the fossil fuel industry.

 

[SandSquid]

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

oh. seabitch. he says things for effect, not conversation.

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

i'd actually be impressed if he *did* think.

Gosh, look at that. More value adding content I see. You keep doing what you accused "seabitch" of doing, post for effect, not conversation.

Trump wants to end a TAX CREDIT for electric vehicles but keep in place tax credits for fossil fuels. That seem right or even responsible?

That isn't what is stated in the artcle.

Kudlow confirmed it: Trump will end subsidies for electric cars.

Since we have rightly concluded that he NOT ending a subsidy for electric cars, then he is doing the right thing. Even is it WAS a subsidy, he would be doing the right thing.

The electic car and stand or fall on its own merit.

So there's a drop in the pan of the energy subsidies. Why not cut them all rather than expand government socialism where the government decides which ones stay and which ones go?

Why give the big 3 over 100 billion of subsidies over the last 20 years and continue those but only cut the electric car one? Why give billions in subsidies so those who drive fueled cars can pay less for their ownership but stop the smaller ones for those using electrical power?

 

[Pilot1]

Uhhh...I know that you have the IQ of a head of cabbage...but President Trump is the government you moron.

President Trump is the anti-government.

then why in Hell is he ballooning deficits?

You do know that the US government doesn't OWN the oil that's produced...right? Duh?

Then why do people keep giving the government credit for producing it?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

All government has done is get out of the way and let the private sector do what it does best. Barack Obama was blatantly anti fossil fuel and did everything he could to impede that sector. The gains that were made in oil and natural gas production during the Obama years were made on lands that the Federal government had no control of. So please spare me any attempts to claim that HE should get credit for what's happening now because to be quite blunt...that's a load of horse manure!

It is mostly upper class people that can afford the large PREMIUM EV's cost over their gas counterparts even with the subsidies. Essentially, Obama was rewarding the suburban, Limousine Liberals by giving them a break on their Teslas, and Volts.

So the taxpayer is subsidizing the WEALTHY. That needs to stop, We have so much Domestic fossil fuel reserves that it should be considered like a renewable.

Funny, I'm not wealthy and neither are my co workers but a third of them have electric or hybrid vehicles. I got a tax credit years ago when I drove a hybrid. It was nice.

I didn't say you had to be wealthy, but you are at least middle to upper middle income earners. Why should you get subsidized? Shouldn't people more deserving of help get assistance?

 

[Seawytch]

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

oh. seabitch. he says things for effect, not conversation.

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

i'd actually be impressed if he *did* think.

Gosh, look at that. More value adding content I see. You keep doing what you accused "seabitch" of doing, post for effect, not conversation.

Trump wants to end a TAX CREDIT for electric vehicles but keep in place tax credits for fossil fuels. That seem right or even responsible?

That isn't what is stated in the artcle.

Kudlow confirmed it: Trump will end subsidies for electric cars.

Since we have rightly concluded that he NOT ending a subsidy for electric cars, then he is doing the right thing. Even is it WAS a subsidy, he would be doing the right thing.

The electic car and stand or fall on its own merit.

They called the tax credit a subsidy. It's a TAX credit just like the "subsidies" we give fossil fuel companies. Your hypocrisy is noted.

 

[iceberg]

Oil companies can't seem to do that.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

oh. seabitch. he says things for effect, not conversation.

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

i'd actually be impressed if he *did* think.

Gosh, look at that. More value adding content I see. You keep doing what you accused "seabitch" of doing, post for effect, not conversation.

Trump wants to end a TAX CREDIT for electric vehicles but keep in place tax credits for fossil fuels. That seem right or even responsible?

yes.

 

[Seawytch]

President Trump is the anti-government.

then why in Hell is he ballooning deficits?

You do know that the US government doesn't OWN the oil that's produced...right? Duh?

Then why do people keep giving the government credit for producing it?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

All government has done is get out of the way and let the private sector do what it does best. Barack Obama was blatantly anti fossil fuel and did everything he could to impede that sector. The gains that were made in oil and natural gas production during the Obama years were made on lands that the Federal government had no control of. So please spare me any attempts to claim that HE should get credit for what's happening now because to be quite blunt...that's a load of horse manure!

It is mostly upper class people that can afford the large PREMIUM EV's cost over their gas counterparts even with the subsidies. Essentially, Obama was rewarding the suburban, Limousine Liberals by giving them a break on their Teslas, and Volts.

So the taxpayer is subsidizing the WEALTHY. That needs to stop, We have so much Domestic fossil fuel reserves that it should be considered like a renewable.

Funny, I'm not wealthy and neither are my co workers but a third of them have electric or hybrid vehicles. I got a tax credit years ago when I drove a hybrid. It was nice.

I didn't say you had to be wealthy, but you are at least middle to upper middle income earners. Why should you get subsidized? Shouldn't people more deserving of help get assistance?

Nope. Not even close. County government employees.

 

[Darkwind]

if you can't make a profitable product w/o government intervention, not my fault. stop using my tax dollars to pay for it. when it can take root and grow and become a true benefit, then it will take off and be all that it will likely one day be.

Oil companies can't seem to do that.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

oh. seabitch. he says things for effect, not conversation.

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

if you can't make a profitable product w/o government intervention, not my fault. stop using my tax dollars to pay for it. when it can take root and grow and become a true benefit, then it will take off and be all that it will likely one day be.

Oil companies can't seem to do that.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

Wait... So a subsidy is taking money from the tax income of the people to give to a company.

But when you tell the company they don't have to pay taxes, instead relying on the people to pay your share to provide for the government that's not a subsidy.


That's like saying "I didn't buy those drugs from that drug dealer, he owed me 50 bucks so I cancelled that instead of giving him 50 bucks then him giving it back for what he already owed me" Yeah you are still going to jail for buying drugs.


Luckily for us we have a definition of subsidy in the business world. . Economic benefit (such as a tax allowance or duty rebate) or financial aid (such as a cash grant or soft loan) provided by a government to (1) support a desirable activity (such as exports), (2) keep prices of staples low, (3) maintain the income of the producers of critical or strategic products, (4) maintain employment levels, or (5) induce investment to reduce unemployment. The basic characteristic of all subsidies is to reduce the market price of an item below its cost of production. Also called subvention.



So yes that is a subsidy. If you are saying that you want a new definition of subsidy... Sure. Lets say a subsidy is a small brown animal that hibernates in tree logs through summer. Got a new definition now. And no, I haven't seen one company get a subsidy based on my new homemade english definition of the word.

Perhaps you should learn what taxes are before you go with that?

Every company pays taxes, and to say their share is a subjective opinion without a valid means of testing. If the company is not there, then no taxes are paid at all. Taxes for the purpose of spending alleges that the expenditures are reasonable and valid to begin with, but that is another topic.

So, let's start with that statement, "When you tell the company they don't have to pay taxes". Who is telling them they don't have to pay taxes? Last time I checked, the government forces entities and people to pay taxes, they don't leave it up to them.

So, who told them they didn't have to pay taxes, when clearly they ARE paying taxes.

So your belief is that the Fossil energy research & development program that provides 3.5 billion dollars of taxpayer money to fossil fuel companies for their programs.


Yes if a company exists it has to pay taxes. And if your company is in fossil fuels you get subsidies to not pay billions in taxes you would owe if you were not in that industry.

Take for example the tax on shipping companies to use US waterways for transport and fund keeping those waterways open and usable. Companies pay by ton shipped. Except the Gov't spends 229 million a year on the Inland Waters Transport for Petroleum Subsidy to make up for the income not paid for shipping petroleum that way.

Or the 107 million America spends on the costs of allowing drilling on BLM lands. Paid for by you and I with the Inadequate Administrative Fees for Onshore Drilling Management

Or the Last-In, First Our Accounting for Fossil Fuel Companies that allows oil companies to undervalue their equipment that takes 1.5 billion of taxes away. THEY AREN"T PAYING THOSE TAXES.

You are right. Their share is subjective. Because they get subsidized for 20 billion dollars a year of taxes they don't have to pay simply because they are in the fossil fuel industry.

So, everything you've listed so far makes it a subsidy because you think that is not paying as much as you want them too. That is not a subsidy.

The government is trying to have it both ways. Sea lanes they keep open to their own benefit are sea lanes they would have had to keep open for security.

Undervalue their equipment? You mean a depreciation of assets as they lose value through use? That is something that EVERY company gets to do. It is a legitimate tax deduction, not a subsidy. How many times do you think that the government should be allowe to tax the same asset?

Seems you just have a problem with companies that make a great deal of money.

 

[Darkwind]

oh. seabitch. he says things for effect, not conversation.

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

i'd actually be impressed if he *did* think.

Gosh, look at that. More value adding content I see. You keep doing what you accused "seabitch" of doing, post for effect, not conversation.

Trump wants to end a TAX CREDIT for electric vehicles but keep in place tax credits for fossil fuels. That seem right or even responsible?

That isn't what is stated in the artcle.

Kudlow confirmed it: Trump will end subsidies for electric cars.

Since we have rightly concluded that he NOT ending a subsidy for electric cars, then he is doing the right thing. Even is it WAS a subsidy, he would be doing the right thing.

The electic car and stand or fall on its own merit.

They called the tax credit a subsidy. It's a TAX credit just like the "subsidies" we give fossil fuel companies. Your hypocrisy is noted.

There is no subsidy, we've already established that.

If the electric vehicle is as good as you and others say, then people will line up to buy them without the tax credit.

Would you buy one without the tax credit?

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

i'd actually be impressed if he *did* think.

Gosh, look at that. More value adding content I see. You keep doing what you accused "seabitch" of doing, post for effect, not conversation.

Trump wants to end a TAX CREDIT for electric vehicles but keep in place tax credits for fossil fuels. That seem right or even responsible?

That isn't what is stated in the artcle.

Kudlow confirmed it: Trump will end subsidies for electric cars.

Since we have rightly concluded that he NOT ending a subsidy for electric cars, then he is doing the right thing. Even is it WAS a subsidy, he would be doing the right thing.

The electic car and stand or fall on its own merit.

They called the tax credit a subsidy. It's a TAX credit just like the "subsidies" we give fossil fuel companies. Your hypocrisy is noted.

There is no subsidy, we've already established that.

If the electric vehicle is as good as you and others say, then people will line up to buy them without the tax credit.

Would you buy one without the tax credit?

Would you buy fossil fuels without the tax credits they get?

 

[Seawytch]

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

oh. seabitch. he says things for effect, not conversation.

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

i'd actually be impressed if he *did* think.

Gosh, look at that. More value adding content I see. You keep doing what you accused "seabitch" of doing, post for effect, not conversation.

Trump wants to end a TAX CREDIT for electric vehicles but keep in place tax credits for fossil fuels. That seem right or even responsible?

yes.

Then you are a bigger idiot than my original estimation, assberg...and that's saying something.

 

[SandSquid]

Oil companies can't seem to do that.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

oh. seabitch. he says things for effect, not conversation.

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

Oil companies can't seem to do that.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

Wait... So a subsidy is taking money from the tax income of the people to give to a company.

But when you tell the company they don't have to pay taxes, instead relying on the people to pay your share to provide for the government that's not a subsidy.


That's like saying "I didn't buy those drugs from that drug dealer, he owed me 50 bucks so I cancelled that instead of giving him 50 bucks then him giving it back for what he already owed me" Yeah you are still going to jail for buying drugs.


Luckily for us we have a definition of subsidy in the business world. . Economic benefit (such as a tax allowance or duty rebate) or financial aid (such as a cash grant or soft loan) provided by a government to (1) support a desirable activity (such as exports), (2) keep prices of staples low, (3) maintain the income of the producers of critical or strategic products, (4) maintain employment levels, or (5) induce investment to reduce unemployment. The basic characteristic of all subsidies is to reduce the market price of an item below its cost of production. Also called subvention.



So yes that is a subsidy. If you are saying that you want a new definition of subsidy... Sure. Lets say a subsidy is a small brown animal that hibernates in tree logs through summer. Got a new definition now. And no, I haven't seen one company get a subsidy based on my new homemade english definition of the word.

Perhaps you should learn what taxes are before you go with that?

Every company pays taxes, and to say their share is a subjective opinion without a valid means of testing. If the company is not there, then no taxes are paid at all. Taxes for the purpose of spending alleges that the expenditures are reasonable and valid to begin with, but that is another topic.

So, let's start with that statement, "When you tell the company they don't have to pay taxes". Who is telling them they don't have to pay taxes? Last time I checked, the government forces entities and people to pay taxes, they don't leave it up to them.

So, who told them they didn't have to pay taxes, when clearly they ARE paying taxes.

So your belief is that the Fossil energy research & development program that provides 3.5 billion dollars of taxpayer money to fossil fuel companies for their programs.


Yes if a company exists it has to pay taxes. And if your company is in fossil fuels you get subsidies to not pay billions in taxes you would owe if you were not in that industry.

Take for example the tax on shipping companies to use US waterways for transport and fund keeping those waterways open and usable. Companies pay by ton shipped. Except the Gov't spends 229 million a year on the Inland Waters Transport for Petroleum Subsidy to make up for the income not paid for shipping petroleum that way.

Or the 107 million America spends on the costs of allowing drilling on BLM lands. Paid for by you and I with the Inadequate Administrative Fees for Onshore Drilling Management

Or the Last-In, First Our Accounting for Fossil Fuel Companies that allows oil companies to undervalue their equipment that takes 1.5 billion of taxes away. THEY AREN"T PAYING THOSE TAXES.

You are right. Their share is subjective. Because they get subsidized for 20 billion dollars a year of taxes they don't have to pay simply because they are in the fossil fuel industry.

So, everything you've listed so far makes it a subsidy because you think that is not paying as much as you want them too. That is not a subsidy.

The government is trying to have it both ways. Sea lanes they keep open to their own benefit are sea lanes they would have had to keep open for security.

Undervalue their equipment? You mean a depreciation of assets as they lose value through use? That is something that EVERY company gets to do. It is a legitimate tax deduction, not a subsidy. How many times do you think that the government should be allowe to tax the same asset?

Seems you just have a problem with companies that make a great deal of money.

Yes tax breaks that say "the law requires these taxes, but this subsidy will allow you specifically to not pay them" are a subsidy.

What "I want them to pay" in taxes is irrelevant. That's the gov't tax plan. Then they can come along and if they decide to hand out subsidies to certain groups which increase the tax burden on others, they make that choice. Fossil Fuels gets 20 billion or so of those a year.




You wanting to change that definition is your choice. But in the English language a tax break is a business subsidy.

I get you want to redefine the definition in business of what a subsidy is. That's fine. But until you rewrite the english language, tax breaks are a subsidy.

And yes, most companies pay per ton to keep those sea lanes open that they use. And the fossil fuels industry is subsidized so they don't have to pay that amount to use them. That's a subsidy.

You are literally trying to say the "Inland Waters Transport for Petroleum Subsidy" ins't a subsidy.


No depreciation is valuing equipment. There are laws on the books on what you can and can't depreciate. Breaking those laws has punishments of jail time and fines. Unless you are protected by that fossil fuels subsidy that gives them special permission to write off 1.5 billion by UNDER-valuing their equipment. You or I try that in a different industry we go to prison for tax evasion.

 

[ColonelAngus]

To Dimms, anything less than 100% tax rate is a government subsidy.

Fucking Brilliant.

I say anything over 0% is the tax payer subsiding the government.