More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think the authors of that article know the topic a fuck of a lot better than you do.

Do you think writing off a typical business expense is a subsidy?

 

[Crick]

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia

According to the CBO, energy related tax preferences for fossil fuel production by US oil companies totaled $4.6 billion in 2016

I went to the source of that article.

The largest one they list, $1.8 billion, is "Expensing of exploration and development costs for oil and natural gas"

Page 8...….

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52521-energytestimony.pdf

Do you think writing off a typical business expense is a subsidy?

Then you might have noted that the Wikipedia article did not term them "subsidies" but as "energy-related tax preferences" and I would not regard that as a typical business expense deduction. That coverage was written in to the tax code specifically to benefit oil companies.

Here is the entire list of oil company tax preferences

PREFERENCE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BILLIONS
Expensing of exploration and development costs for oil and natural gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
Option to expense depletion costs on the basis of gross income rather than actual costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9
Exceptions for publicly traded partnerships with qualifying income derived from certain energy-related activitiesc . . . . . . . 0.9
Amortization of costs of air pollution control facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.5
Credit for investment in clean coal facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2
15-year depreciation for natural gas distribution lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0.2
Amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures associated with oil and gas exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0.1

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia

According to the CBO, energy related tax preferences for fossil fuel production by US oil companies totaled $4.6 billion in 2016

I went to the source of that article.

The largest one they list, $1.8 billion, is "Expensing of exploration and development costs for oil and natural gas"

Page 8...….

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52521-energytestimony.pdf

Do you think writing off a typical business expense is a subsidy?

Then you might have noted that the Wikipedia article did not term them "subsidies" but as "energy-related tax preferences" and I would not regard that as a typical business expense deduction. That coverage was written in to the tax code specifically to benefit oil companies.

Here is the entire list of oil company tax preferences

PREFERENCE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BILLIONS
Expensing of exploration and development costs for oil and natural gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
Option to expense depletion costs on the basis of gross income rather than actual costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9
Exceptions for publicly traded partnerships with qualifying income derived from certain energy-related activitiesc . . . . . . . 0.9
Amortization of costs of air pollution control facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.5
Credit for investment in clean coal facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2
15-year depreciation for natural gas distribution lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0.2
Amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures associated with oil and gas exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0.1

Expensing of exploration and development costs for oil and natural gas

This isn't a typical business expense deduction?

Amortization of costs of air pollution control facilities

This isn't a typical business expense deduction?
​

15-year depreciation for natural gas distribution lines​

This isn't a typical business expense deduction?
​

Amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures associated with oil and gas exploration​

​

This isn't a typical business expense deduction?​

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey gents.....its kinda laughable!

I guess Crick woke up one morning recently and saw this thread hovering around the top of the page as usual and the head just exploded!!

But I get it....here we have an ENVIRONMENT Forum dominated by a thread of climate skeptics! You know it causes rage in these phonies!

 

[skookerasbil]

Todd, JC, Billy, Tommy, SSDD..............ask me how hard Im laughing?

https://www.france24.com/en/20190316-looting-clashes-mark-most-violent-day-yellow-vest-protests-months

Praying AOC gains traction!!!

 

[Crick]

What I see there is "turnout dwindles". I would have thought that your normal predilections would have painted that one across your forehead.

 

[skookerasbil]

What I see there is "turnout dwindles". I would have thought that your normal predilections would have painted that one across your forehead.

Yes they have dwindled because the government caved on the goofball green initiative.

Mainstream DUMS in America will find a way to marginalize AOC! The optics of burning American cities suck if you are the party pushing for prohibitive green taxes....yuk....yuk!

By next summer's DUM Convention, the term GREEN NEW DEAL will be a relic of a former era.....no mention at the convention. No party likes losing 47 states!

 

[Crick]

Astounding how well the RNC and Trump have done with their position. What with the midterms giving the House away and Trump about as popular as a case of poison ivy. America is truly with you dudes.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey public service announcement for the climate hysterical............

https://news.yahoo.com/remote-cape-worlds-cleanest-air-offers-smog-respite-043050297.html

Hey just doin' my part!!

 

[jc456]

California is drought-free for the first time in nearly a decade

TRUMP!!!

I would have said mother nature, but that's just me.

 

[jc456]

Astounding how well the RNC and Trump have done with their position. What with the midterms giving the House away and Trump about as popular as a case of poison ivy. America is truly with you dudes.

didn't take the senate right? so you won absolutely nothing. right? name what your victory. the wall is still getting built. so again, what is it?

 

[jc456]

Hey JC....so got to detail the Coyote yesterday with the intention of hitting the big local car meet at the ocean this morning and to do some walking as I come back from my near death experience. Not going....ball biting cold with wind this morning....fucking ghey.

well at least the Coyote was decked out!!! I bet it was as sharp as a blade. Glade to see the recovery is going well!!!!! you are the skooks you know?

 

[jc456]

You are very good at making one particular individual look stupid. Perhaps that's not surprising as it is someone whom you likely know better than absolutely anyone.

Actually, I routinely humiliate every AGW guy who happens to wander in here. Most are the duped zombie type that never stray from the comfort of the conformity matrix. The rest are bs peddlers that know they are selling snake oil with profound levels of fakery.

Either way....my role in here is to illustrate how utterly hopeless their cause is for the curious trying to obtain a barometer on the reality of the debate. Daily lay-up practice for me with plenty of laughs!

Like I said, you are very good at making one particular person look as dumb as a rock. Very good indeed.

and he's got you replying to almost every post. who is truly the kooks? hmmmm maybe that mirror over there will tell you!

 

[skookerasbil]

You are very good at making one particular individual look stupid. Perhaps that's not surprising as it is someone whom you likely know better than absolutely anyone.

Actually, I routinely humiliate every AGW guy who happens to wander in here. Most are the duped zombie type that never stray from the comfort of the conformity matrix. The rest are bs peddlers that know they are selling snake oil with profound levels of fakery.

Either way....my role in here is to illustrate how utterly hopeless their cause is for the curious trying to obtain a barometer on the reality of the debate. Daily lay-up practice for me with plenty of laughs!

Like I said, you are very good at making one particular person look as dumb as a rock. Very good indeed.

and he's got you replying to almost every post. who is truly the kooks? hmmmm maybe that mirror over there will tell you!

Hey JC....I applaud Cricks efforts. He's adding to the epicness of this thread!

Thanks for the words of support.....I'm doin' good. Weird sometimes when I think by all rights, I shouldn't be around anymore. Kinda weird me thinking of it.

 

[Crick]

I'd say it was one of your more sensible cogitations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia

According to the CBO, energy related tax preferences for fossil fuel production by US oil companies totaled $4.6 billion in 2016

I went to the source of that article.

The largest one they list, $1.8 billion, is "Expensing of exploration and development costs for oil and natural gas"

Page 8...….

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52521-energytestimony.pdf

Do you think writing off a typical business expense is a subsidy?

Then you might have noted that the Wikipedia article did not term them "subsidies" but as "energy-related tax preferences" and I would not regard that as a typical business expense deduction. That coverage was written in to the tax code specifically to benefit oil companies.

Here is the entire list of oil company tax preferences

PREFERENCE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BILLIONS
Expensing of exploration and development costs for oil and natural gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8
Option to expense depletion costs on the basis of gross income rather than actual costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9
Exceptions for publicly traded partnerships with qualifying income derived from certain energy-related activitiesc . . . . . . . 0.9
Amortization of costs of air pollution control facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.5
Credit for investment in clean coal facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2
15-year depreciation for natural gas distribution lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0.2
Amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures associated with oil and gas exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0.1

In case you missed it yesterday...………………...

Expensing of exploration and development costs for oil and natural gas

This isn't a typical business expense deduction?

Amortization of costs of air pollution control facilities

This isn't a typical business expense deduction?

15-year depreciation for natural gas distribution lines


This isn't a typical business expense deduction?

Amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures associated with oil and gas exploration

This isn't a typical business expense deduction?

 

[Crick]

If they'd been "typical" I don't think Congress would have felt obliged to put them directly into the tax code, specified for and limited to the use of oil companies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If they'd been "typical" I don't think Congress would have felt obliged to put them directly into the tax code, specified for and limited to the use of oil companies.

Expensing, amortization and depreciation are typical expense deductions.
None are subsidies.

 

[jc456]

If they'd been "typical" I don't think Congress would have felt obliged to put them directly into the tax code, specified for and limited to the use of oil companies.

Expensing, amortization and depreciation are typical expense deductions.
None are subsidies.

only a left clown can call someone keeping their own money subsidies.

 

[Crick]

If your neighbor was suddenly granted exceptions from all income tax while your requirement to pay remained, would you not say to yourself "He has received an advantage over me"?