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.
Is the government writing checks to the oil companies or are these subsidies tax deductions?
These are federal government tax deductions for some of our most profitable industries, an estimated near $5b in lost tax revenue that could go towards infrastructure, our deficit, healthcare, or education.
I did say they were tax deductions in that post, and considered as subsidies.
Well it's amusing how much you seem to dislike renewable and their limitations but don't share the same sentiment about a rather old technological breakthrough (internal combustion engine).
In some cases it comes in the form of debt. Such as Q.E. Without that oil doesn't bounce back up to near $100 from $30.
Are you talking about the 2009 bounceback? The latest two bouncebacks took oil from $41 to around $60 and from $26 (really $30) to around $50. I don't count one or two day wonders in figuring high and low prices.
Embrace of Renewables Has a Hidden Cost . In yesterday's New York Times, a somewhat left-leaning paper, there was a devastating analysis of the naivete and inefficiency of so-called "renewable" energy sources. For reasons laid out in the article they require massive subsidies. The short version of the problem is that solar power is quite available in the middle of a sunny day, other times not so much. Wind power is similarly intermittent. As the linked article states:
Advocating renewables feels good, but has high cost and very questionable benefits.
Other articles have explored wind power's highly blemished environmental record. In an article entitled Wind Forum Explores Concerns. It seems many Vermonters have had not only their scenery, but right to live in reasonable quiet, utterly wrecked.A neighbor of one such project, quoted in the article stated:
Vehicle Emissions Standards Produce More Fraud than Benefit for Environment
In another article strongly hinting at the limits of environmentalism, Volkswagen Scandal Reaches All the Way to the Top, Lawsuits Say The linked article is one of many deailing VW's extensive fraud designed to fool environmental tests of diesel engines. For a reputable company with a lengthy history to go to these lengths it strikes me that the limits are utopian and not practical.
Solar power has some, but very few, places of real benefit, mostly in Hawaii where energy costs much more and sunshine is abundant, and in micro-situations, such as a swimming pool heater, where heat is collected to heat a pool, and the "need" is not immediate, and round-the-clock (as is the need for elec., which you need when you need it, and in some cases, refrigerators, for example, all the time).
We have many hundreds of years of fossil fuels at our disposal, which is plenty of time to work out alternatives that can be available when actually needed. Right now, inefficiencies, and costs/benefit rations are much on the side of fossil fuels, and will be for some time.
These are federal government tax deductions for some of our most profitable industries, an estimated near $5b in lost tax revenue that could go towards infrastructure, our deficit, healthcare, or education.
I did say they were tax deductions in that post, and considered as subsidies.
That's kind of like saying my wife cost us money by not going out and purchasing some shoes for half off instead of just forgoing the purchase of shoes.
BTW, are you saying we should get rid of all tax deductions to eliminate the loss of revenue?
Also, wouldn't it be much more efficient just to tax gasoline at the pump? Why should we tax at all of these different levels when, in the end, the consumers pay those taxes? Why have hidden taxes?
That's kind of like saying my wife cost us money by not going out and purchasing some shoes for half off instead of just forgoing the purchase of shoes.
I cringe every time the wife states she saved me some money.
That's kind of like saying my wife cost us money by not going out and purchasing some shoes for half off instead of just forgoing the purchase of shoes.
BTW, are you saying we should get rid of all tax deductions to eliminate the loss of revenue?
Also, wouldn't it be much more efficient just to tax gasoline at the pump? Why should we tax at all of these different levels when, in the end, the consumers pay those taxes? Why have hidden taxes?
That analogy is completely off.
It's more like:
"My wife does so much shopping that every once in a while I will give her a discount on some of her biggest expenditures, to make sure that she encourages to go shopping."
Except really in this scenario, the wife is the fossil fuel industries and shopping is really lobbying.
"My wife does so much shopping that every once in a while I will give her a discount on some of her biggest expenditures, to make sure that she encourages to go shopping."
Except really in this scenario, the wife is the fossil fuel industries and shopping is really lobbying.
It's not surprising you left out the role of government.
Additionally, I'm still wanting to know if you favor hidden taxes on gas or if you prefer the taxes are visible by just a visible collection at the pump.
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.