Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, sure, if you believe that all the money belongs to the government by right and anything they are magnanimously allowed to keep is a subsidy.
So are you saying a tax credit isn't the act of taxing someone or thing less than what should be tax or what others are being taxed? If the government gives money to a company through a subsidy or has them pay less in taxes is just a different name for the same thing.
Don't be silly.Tax credits are subsidies by a different name. In the end, we the taxpayers are are subsidizing the oil companies while they rake in astronomical profits.
No, tax credits and subsidies are very different. One is allowing a corporation or individual to keep what they earned on their own. One is directly giving taxpayer money (i.e. what others earned) to a corporation or individual. They are morally, theoretically, and practically very different. So yes, it is important to use proper terminology here.
Moreover, we taxpayers are not somehow uniquely supporting or subsidizing oil companies through any other means than buying their oil at the pump. As I illustrated very clearly in my earlier post, the oil companies don't get anything special from us that isn't given to any company, oil or otherwise. If you believe we should be treating oil companies harsher and more unfairly by requiring them to pay taxes and fines that nobody else has to pay, that's a different argument.
But to say "we should end the subsidies" or "oil companies obviously have politicians in their pockets" is ridiculous and only shows the speakers ignorance of the law and terminology.
No, tax credits and subsidies are very different. One is allowing a corporation or individual to keep what they earned on their own. One is directly giving taxpayer money (i.e. what others earned) to a corporation or individual. They are morally, theoretically, and practically very different. So yes, it is important to use proper terminology here.
Moreover, we taxpayers are not somehow uniquely supporting or subsidizing oil companies through any other means than buying their oil at the pump. As I illustrated very clearly in my earlier post, the oil companies don't get anything special from us that isn't given to any company, oil or otherwise. If you believe we should be treating oil companies harsher and more unfairly by requiring them to pay taxes and fines that nobody else has to pay, that's a different argument.
But to say "we should end the subsidies" or "oil companies obviously have politicians in their pockets" is ridiculous and only shows the speakers ignorance of the law and terminology.
Wow, the Republicans have quite the lap dog in you, sounds like you believe the oil companies are completely good and honest people that don't work the political system by funding politicians.
Well I guess all anyone can say at this point is good for you in what you believe in, I will continue to disagree with your logic.
Wow, the Republicans have quite the lap dog in you, sounds like you believe the oil companies are completely good and honest people that don't work the political system by funding politicians.
In 2010 the oil industry ranked 14th in political donations by industry. You know who ranked higher?
Lawyers, health, retired, finance, real estate, insurance, pharmaceutical, unions, entertainment, and electric utilities all donated more to politicians than the oil industry. Where's the outcry about how these industries have politicians in their pockets?
I'm not a Republican lap-dog. I'm not even a Republican. But I do follow facts, and they disagree with you right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Well I guess all anyone can say at this point is good for you in what you believe in, I will continue to disagree with your logic.
I've just stated easily researchable facts. I don't need to do much thinking and logic to get to what's obvious.
Even so, I haven't really stated my beliefs here. I've just posted facts that anyone from any side could post. I simply posted what the so-called subsidies were, technically, and now the rankings of various industries in political donations. You seem to assume, from reading data I've posted, that I'm a Republican. If you're so insecure in your beliefs that simple statistics and data are met with personal attacks and assumptions maybe you should re-examine your beliefs.
In 2010 the oil industry ranked 14th in political donations by industry. You know who ranked higher?
Lawyers, health, retired, finance, real estate, insurance, pharmaceutical, unions, entertainment, and electric utilities all donated more to politicians than the oil industry. Where's the outcry about how these industries have politicians in their pockets?
I'm not a Republican lap-dog. I'm not even a Republican. But I do follow facts, and they disagree with you right now.
I've just stated easily researchable facts. The conclusions are already there. I don't need to do much thinking and logic to get to what's obvious.
Even so, I haven't really stated my beliefs here. I've just posted facts that anyone from any side could post. I simply posted what the so-called subsidies were, technically, and now the rankings of various industries in political donations. You seem to assume, from reading data I've posted, that I'm a Republican. If you're so insecure in your beliefs that simple statistics and data are met with personal attacks and assumptions maybe you should re-examine your beliefs.
You also assume I take you for your word, no one should believe any form of statistical facts in a forum site unless the one using those facts have the ability to back up those numbers. Feel free to share the links that have provided you with your information.
Did you know that 73% of all facts are made up in forum sites, it's true you know.
Also a number of those things that are above the oil industry in donations are also being targeted....you do remember a thing called OWS? That was about the financial system. Then of course there is the phamacutical industry which should be illegal from putting on tv advertising tell you to go ask your doctor for those drugs.
I never said I was just against the oil industry and their ability to abuse our tax system to "save themselves money."
You also assume I take you for your word, no one should believe any form of statistical facts in a forum site unless the one using those facts have the ability to back up those numbers. Feel free to share the links that have provided you with your information.
Ah, you have challenged me, good sir! Here you go, enjoy:
http://www.tscpa.org/Content/Files/pdf/About%20TSCPA/TaskForces/OGAnalysisLegProposals0311.pdf (broken link) (see pages 6-8 especially)
Also a number of those things that are above the oil industry in donations are also being targeted....you do remember a thing called OWS? That was about the financial system. Then of course there is the phamacutical industry which should be illegal from putting on tv advertising tell you to go ask your doctor for those drugs.
Finance has been vilified as well, very true. Health/pharmaceutical has not been vilified, merely the target of reform. I think it's obvious to any American that oil & gas, finance, and insurance are probably the three most hated industries. I believe that, at least in the case of oil & gas, it's undeserved.
Last edited by Jester2138; 03-27-2012 at 02:49 PM..
Finance has been vilified as well, very true. Health/pharmaceutical has not been vilified, merely the target of reform. I think it's obvious to any American that oil & gas, finance, and insurance are probably the three most hated industries. I believe that, at least in the case of oil & gas, it's undeserved.
Thank you for the links, obviously there is a ton of information on both of them so it might take me a bit to sift through much of it, but after checking the sources of where that information comes from, I am more willing to look into both.
The more interesting thing with the top industries is when you look at the top donors for each party and you can hear the political talk coming from both sides that match who is donating the most to each party, so it would be very easy to argue that who donates to which party does indeed have a major influence over the political parties.
Based off the oil industry, they clearly give majority of their money to the Republican party and in turn the Republicans do try and reduce any amount that we tax the oil industry as well as trying to make it easier for companies to drill, which during our 6 years of having a Republican controlled government we were left with reduced amounts of taxes in part due to the amount of favoritism that the Republicans gave to the oil industry.
Obviously this in not an oil industry is the only evil in this country kind of talk, but as citizens it is our duty to make sure our politicians have our best interests at hand and not their industry donors.
As for the pdf file you posted, that might as well have a title that reads, "this is why you are being held hostage by the oil industry." Overall, the background of the group writing the article seems to be independent, though I would question a number of their sources that were used within the writing, especially using articles from the Washington Post rather than going to the source of where the Post got their information to further fact check their own statements.
But talking solely on the taxes part of it, the first section it mentions is on the tax breaks that oil companies receive, and the use of the word "could." The article talks about the high risk factor in the cost of looking for wells to drill from, which the need for tax breaks are justified because if they didn't have them it "could" be harder for people to wish to invest, but that isn't a valid argument when arguing for private sector over public. So for the private sector to be successful, they need the public to help reduce the risks for their investors?? I don't buy it, that section might as well say, "if you give it to use for free and cover all the costs upfront, we will have more investors." And beyond the use of the word "could" there is no proof in this article that shows that investors wouldn't invest in that industry.
As for percentage depletion, I haven't found anything that has made a significant argument for why we should be giving around 15% tax deduction to independent oil companies (though I did come across something that said this doesn't include larger oil companies) but I have yet to find the importance to it other than a company wanting to make more money.
Not sure I buy their argument for the manufacturer's deduction as well which was created in 2004 (an all Republican controlled government, surprise, surprise.) I will agree with the article that our corporate tax rate is too high, but thanks to "tax breaks" (or subsidies, depending on your personal definitions) most, if not all companies pay a rate much, much lower than that, which if we simply reduced the tax rate and eliminated all the "tax breaks" it should in turn make everyone happy, playing on the same field. Which this argument is something the article avoids, which I do agree if the tax rate overall for all companies were enforced at 35% then gas prices would go up, but then again we see speculators have more control over the cost of gas than anything else as it has constantly been rising and has seen a number of fluctuations, so I would wonder if this would have an actual noticed effect on gas prices.
As for passive loss exception for working interest, that simply sounds like a nice way of saying if this well makes a profit I will pay my taxes on it, but if it doesn't, not my problem...which I don't buy that argument either. If an investor is willing to take on a risk for an investment, they should not need to rely on the government to make their investments more profitable.
The simple fact that you quote the Post (which is at the opposite end of the spectrum from a fair and unbiased source--Rupert Murdoch is blatantly biased against unions, and his rag reflects this) shows that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
MTA fare hikes, when and if they happen, go straight into the pockets of the out-of-towners who constitute the MTA Board. I can tell you as a transit worker that my union does not benefit from fare hikes in the least. No, not at all.
Always remember: whenever you see the word "union" appearing in the Post, whatever they have to say is just a reflection of Murdoch's bias. You can never go wrong when you do this.
A Manhattan cop said he was hit with a summons three months ago after he ran a red light to stop a vehicle with a potential drunken driver.
His union blasted the policy.
“We were trained in the Police Academy that the greatest single deterrent to crime is police omnipresence, which translates into catching the bad guys by surprise,” said Pat Lynch, head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association.
“If that means circling a block with suspicious activity or passing a light for the sake of catching a perp off guard, then so be it.”
Police spokesman Paul Browne claimed there was no crackdown, saying marked cars have always been exempt from red-light tickets.
"Initially, the operators of unmarked police cars had to document they were responding to a job," he said in a statement.
"However, for about a year unmarked police cars have been exempt too."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
