Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
AKA getting the taxpayer to foot the bill.Of course, that is precisely what it is. That is what it is and what it is designed to be. It's a decrease in tax meant to encourage a particular behavior.Deducting drilling costs is not a subsidy.
That's right, dumbass, and making cars is Ford's business. Do you believe Ford should be allowed to deduct that cost of sheet steel?Every business is allowed to deduct the cost of doing business, moron. Income is defined as revenue - expenses. Do you actually believe drilling costs are not an expense? Do you believe Ford Motor Company should not be allowed to deduct the cost of sheet metal?Sure I am, but you are delusional about what constitutes a "tax subsidy." Deducting drilling costs is not a subsidy.No, we shouldn't be "supporting" any kind of energy. We should let the market decide which kind of energy we use.
So, you are against tax subsidies for oil and gas companies?
of course it is. why should they get to deduct the cost of a basic part of their business.
Does WalMart get to deduct the cost of shipping the goods to their stores?
Moronic shit like that is why no intelligent person believes anything a leftist says.
drilling is their business.
To some extent, sure. Taxpayers have subsidized many projects and development of tech in the past, and will do so in the future. And to another extent, these measures will be successful precisely because they are more economically viable, saving the average person money. By the same logic, we subsidize natural gas exploration. Are you going to complain about that, now? Or do you have some sort of ideology to present that holds natural gas as preferable to less impactful sources of energy?AKA getting the taxpayer to foot the bill.
We already have a the most effective energy source that produces ZERO emissions in nuclear energy. Nobody talks about the toxic waste that is used in batteries and solar panels, once they reach the end of their life cycle you got to get rid of it somehow. Renewable is a misnomer for solar energy using batteries. Yes nuclear energy produces waste, an incredibly small ammount compared to what solar panels alone would produce to create the same amount of energy, not including the batteries solar energy would require. It’s also a myth that we don’t have good options to dispose of nuclear waste. We do what we’re doing now. It produces so little nuclear waste, we have enough space to quadruple our nuclear energy capacity and still not make a dent for a couple centuries without building any more storage facilities. Nuclear is so much cleaner and efficient than everything it’s amazing how little it is consideredAnd are beginning to beat natural gas.
Renewables ‘have won the race’ against coal and are starting to beat natural gas
Yes, it's allowed to deduct any and all legitimate expenses. Buying a $10 million home for the CEO isn't a legitimate expense. It's income to the CEO. Drilling costs, on the other hand, are a legitimate expense. Only brain morons believe otherwise.But not any and all costs. So your entire rant, predicated on this false implication, is kind of worthless.Every business is allowed to deduct the cost of doing business,
We don't subsidize natural gas exploration, dumbass.To some extent, sure. And to another extent, these measures will be successful precisely because they are more economically viable, saving the average person money. By the same logic, we subsidize natural gas exploration. Are you going to complain about that, now? Or do you have some sort of ideology to present that holds natural gas as preferable to less impactful sources of energy?AKA getting the taxpayer to foot the bill.
That's right, dumbass, and making cars is Ford's business. Do you believe Ford should be allowed to deduct that cost of sheet steel?Every business is allowed to deduct the cost of doing business, moron. Income is defined as revenue - expenses. Do you actually believe drilling costs are not an expense? Do you believe Ford Motor Company should not be allowed to deduct the cost of sheet metal?Sure I am, but you are delusional about what constitutes a "tax subsidy." Deducting drilling costs is not a subsidy.So, you are against tax subsidies for oil and gas companies?
of course it is. why should they get to deduct the cost of a basic part of their business.
Does WalMart get to deduct the cost of shipping the goods to their stores?
Moronic shit like that is why no intelligent person believes anything a leftist says.
drilling is their business.
Businesses are allowed to deduct their expenses, and drilling is an expense. How fucking stupid do you have to be not to understand that?
A fair point. But it is worth noting that those byproducts not only do not remain a threat to humans for 100s of 1000s of years (as nuke plant waste does), they also don't require as much infrastructure and effort to sequester. Nuke waste requires 'round the clock cooling and shielding. For 100s of 1000s of years. So there are hurdles to clear.Nobody talks about the toxic waste that is used in batteries and solar panels, once they reach the end of their life cycle you got to get rid of it somehow.
It’s also a myth that we don’t have good options to dispose of nuclear waste.
That's another issue, but every company should be able to write of 100% the minute they are incurred. This game the IRS plays of only allowing an expense to be shown over time is ridiculous.That's right, dumbass, and making cars is Ford's business. Do you believe Ford should be allowed to deduct that cost of sheet steel?Every business is allowed to deduct the cost of doing business, moron. Income is defined as revenue - expenses. Do you actually believe drilling costs are not an expense? Do you believe Ford Motor Company should not be allowed to deduct the cost of sheet metal?Sure I am, but you are delusional about what constitutes a "tax subsidy." Deducting drilling costs is not a subsidy.
of course it is. why should they get to deduct the cost of a basic part of their business.
Does WalMart get to deduct the cost of shipping the goods to their stores?
Moronic shit like that is why no intelligent person believes anything a leftist says.
drilling is their business.
Businesses are allowed to deduct their expenses, and drilling is an expense. How fucking stupid do you have to be not to understand that?
Oil companies get special treatment, the Intangible drilling costs expenses are treated differently than other operating expenses. Instead of deducting the expenses over the same time period as profits like most companies have to do, they can write off 70% of them up front. This saves them billions in tax dollars while we are adding trillions to the debt.
It’s also a myth that we don’t have good options to dispose of nuclear waste.
When lawmakers tear up regulations and write laws which prevent landowners from suing gas companies for poisoning the aquifers, that is a form of subsidy. Dumbass ( to use your kind of language)We don't subsidize natural gas exploration, dumbass.To some extent, sure. And to another extent, these measures will be successful precisely because they are more economically viable, saving the average person money. By the same logic, we subsidize natural gas exploration. Are you going to complain about that, now? Or do you have some sort of ideology to present that holds natural gas as preferable to less impactful sources of energy?AKA getting the taxpayer to foot the bill.
No gas company has ever been shown to have poisoned an aquifer. What law prevents landowners from suing?When lawmakers tear up regulations and write laws which prevent landowners from suing gas companies for poisoning the aquifers, that is a form of subsidy. Dumbass ( to use your kind of language)We don't subsidize natural gas exploration, dumbass.To some extent, sure. And to another extent, these measures will be successful precisely because they are more economically viable, saving the average person money. By the same logic, we subsidize natural gas exploration. Are you going to complain about that, now? Or do you have some sort of ideology to present that holds natural gas as preferable to less impactful sources of energy?AKA getting the taxpayer to foot the bill.
It's not in the news because they're paying out settlements and passing out NDA's to sign.No gas company has ever been shown to have poisoned an aquifer. What law prevents landowners from suing?
We don't subsidize natural gas exploration,
https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag....n-netherlands-still-contaminating-groundwaterNo gas company has ever been shown to have poisoned an aquifer. What law prevents landowners from suing?When lawmakers tear up regulations and write laws which prevent landowners from suing gas companies for poisoning the aquifers, that is a form of subsidy. Dumbass ( to use your kind of language)We don't subsidize natural gas exploration, dumbass.To some extent, sure. And to another extent, these measures will be successful precisely because they are more economically viable, saving the average person money. By the same logic, we subsidize natural gas exploration. Are you going to complain about that, now? Or do you have some sort of ideology to present that holds natural gas as preferable to less impactful sources of energy?AKA getting the taxpayer to foot the bill.
