Explain Oil Subsidies

Nobody pays for the deficit? Shoot if it's that easy let's just cut all taxes to zero percent and get the treasury to print up a couple trillion to pass handouts to everybody. We'll all be wealthier.

 

There is no need to be snarky. Feel free to show that we give payments to oil companies. As I pointed out above, that previous link demonstrated that our so-called subsidies are not really subsidies, but tax breaks. There is a difference.

I have googled this and didn't find anything, besides "subsidizing" oil through the DoE via R&D.

 

Two peer reviewed articles I doubt you'll read. Frankly I think you've taken an indefensible position and are going to equivocate and argue semantics rather than admit you're wrong.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5290761
http://www.getcited.org/pub/100398758

Tax cuts for a specific industry is very much an example of a subsidy, an indirect subsidy, but one none the less.

 

Seriously WTF is your problem? Why are you so hostile? I have not taken any position, but was curious if we actually give payments to the oil industry, which in my opinion, would be absurd.

Those are not articles, those are books dating back to 1987 and 1993. Plus, I didn't see where you could access the books from the links you provided, but I found Koplow's 1993 book and guess what? Those are tax subsidies he is referring too. Those are tax breaks, not transfer of money from one individual to another.
http://www.earthtrack.net/files/legacy_library/FedSubAppB2.pdf

Tax cuts for a specific industry is certainly favoritism, but it is not a subsidy. Now, if you want to have a civil conversation (assuming that you are capable) about tax subsidies, which is different than a subsidy, then have one.

I have yet to see evidence that we subsidize oil by taking money from one group of people and giving it to another as we do with agricultural subsidies. I have only found indirect subsidies to oil through R&D and through defense to reduce the likelihood of supply disruptions.

 

There really is no reason for energy subsidies. If government wants to get involved in energy, they should create their own enterprises to compete with private sector companies. However, the only real subsidy for big oil is intangible drilling costs. That amounts to around $780 million per year.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/about_those_oil_subsidies.html

 

Isn't that Socialism? Why do the fat cats take the subsidies exactly? (just greedy I guess).

 

So what you're saying is that a person who uses very little oil, should pay for the oil of significant consumers?

That my friend is the US Right definition of socialism.

Are you a socialist?

 

Oh pull the other. Their net affect is the same.

 

The company owes the government tax revenue and the government makes a special case and reduces the %.

If the company was made to pay the full tax bill, then the government gave them some money back, the net gain for the company would be the same and the net loss for the tax payers would be the same.

Simply put, you support corporate socialism, so long as the word "subsidy" is replaced by "tax break". The general population are sharing the cost of their individual oil consumption - SOCIALISM!

 

All of the sudden you don't like socialism? Under the new Obama dictatorship we will have total socialism and with more government fingers poking at the energy sector the "price will necessary SKY ROCKET!!"

Another liberal turning away from socialism out of hate for the oil companies. Hate seems to drive liberals to turn on their own ideology??

Man, you are really starting to bad mouth socialism as if you hate the whole left wing ideology. Next thing we know you'll be complaining about handing out free cell phones to the do-nothing of the country.

There are some government programs that reduce the tax burden on one private sector industry or the other and oil companies get some relief for things like EXXON just announced last year. The chemical research department sent millions of dollars to develop a polymer that is essential to the development of better lithium ion batteries. They are trying to keep the lithium batteries from exploding - see the recall of all Chevy Volts - when they get a little too hot. In the oil field we use down hole tools that communicate with the surface to tell us which direction we are drilling and at what angle we are drilling. Those tools use giant lithium ion batteries and they are so dangerous that they can't fly of passenger planes. I have seen two of them that had exploded and it makes a big mess. The battery pack was down hole so all we had to do was replace the battery pack and the housing that it went into.

I talked to Pat Brant, PhD with EXXON about the new polymer and he told me that EXXON was supporting two startup companies but wouldn't be producing the batteries themselves. I think that one of them just floated, belly up, and the other one has a bad belly ache. The accountants with EXXON would have freaked out about doing such research without some sort of tax concessions.

That's right, the hated EXXON is working to develop batteries for cars that don't use gasoline. They do however use all sorts of polymers that can only be manufactured from oil. Things like lubricants, plastics, rust proofing and even carbon fiber. The most loved technology, by the far up the tree environmentalists, is the fuel cell. The hydrogen comes from natural gas discovered and produced in great quintiles by EXXON.

With so many of the liberal horde in here starting to hate subsidies I expect that we will see attacks of the failed alternative energy companies who took federal money, paid themselves generous salaries as they realized that the company was doomed.

Did any of you notice that GM just posted its highest profit ever? I wonder what GM's profit margin would look like if it had to pay dividends on the corporate bonds that Obama wiped his ass with? No matter, the unions were saved and the Volts are rolling with $7,000 dollars of our tax dollars spent to get them built and sold to liberal fools. As much as I disagree with the liberal horde I hope that none of them and their kids are killed by these battery bombs.

 

Iron River - I'm not a socialist. Which is why I dislike state / corporate socialism.

The rest of your drivel I didn't bother reading.

If you want to debate like an adult, drop all the supposid insults about people on the left.

 

You've frustrated me by taking a nonsensical position and defending it with semantics. Sorry if I've offended you but frankly I have zero interest in trying to convince someone the grass is green and the sky is blue.

 

I would appreciate it if you read what I wrote and didn't put words into my mouth. No where in this thread have I argued for or against these policies. In addition, you have no idea what socialism is.

Reducing someone's tax burden is not a subsidy. In this case, it is certainly favoritism, but the government does not take money from one person and give it to another, like they do with agriculture.

Regardless, some people will think tax breaks are subsidies and if you disagree with them, then you will get labeled as a corporate socialist.....too funny.

 

Don't blame me for your hostility and misunderstandings. Learn the difference between a subsidy and a tax credit.

 

No, what I'm saying is that if you're going to remove the existing exemptions that fossil fuel energy companies enjoy then you should be willing to remove the same ones for every company. I was attempting to point out that most of the "oil subsidies" are actually "business subsidies" and not targetted to the oil industry only. Also I'm saying that if you do remove those exemptions then you should be prepared to see a rise in your fuel and energy costs because they're certainly not going to eat it.

In addition, I'd be willing to bet that the government wouldn't lower personal income taxes to offset the increase in revenue they'd get from removing those exemptions.

 

There isn't one, it's an indirect subsidy, a form of subsidization. Like I said though, not going to waste any more breath convincing you the earth is round.

 

So you don't read why your argument may be faulty? That's helpful. Just look at your side and ignore the reasons for a subsidy.

As far as insults go; if you take being call a liberal as an insult you might want to rethink your ideology.

As for socialism; it is the soul of liberalism. I don't take you for a conservative who thinks that corporations and the population in general should stand or fall with no help from the government so when I see you calling for punitive measures against the oil producers I have to assume that your dislike for socialism is nothing more than Soros talking points that make no sense coming from the left.

No offence meant to the misguide liberals.

 

It sounds like we need to stop subsidizing energy in general.

 

Tax incentives are quite normal for startup industries and business, which are seen by the government as good for the country. These subsidies are not normally given on an ongoing basis to monstrously wealthy companies, one of which is the largest earning on the planet.

American tax payers - you are being ripped off!

If you don't understand this and are defending this situation, you must be simple minded.

 

Exxon-Mobil and their ilk need my help. I'm a proud donor - every fukn week.

 

Your website was a little vague, but I can only think of one particular tax break (not a subsidy) that oil companies get, the oil depletion allowance. Although there may be others.

But my feeling is that we shouldn't be providing extra tax breaks beyond the normal business ones we already have in the tax code, we should be reducing the overall rates instead.

 

Nice try, but it you that doesn't understand and if you do you would hurt yourself and you fellow citizens by demanding we cut subsidies.

Let's look at it in a way that even you can understand. The price on gasoline is $3.50 per gallon and let's assume taking $.10 per gallon of the subsidy away from the oil companies. That drives the price up to $3.60 per gallon and puts $.10 in the hands of Obama's spend and barrow team. It costs about $.04 for the government to handle the $.10 that we took from the oil companies and the $.06 left goes to buy free cell phones for people that need a cell phone for what?? They don't work and they can't afford a pizza so why do they need a cell phone given to them?

The bottom line is that we have more government employees, the oil companies still may the same profit that they make now and we pay more for gasoline at a time the economy is already in a bind. And take a guess who is hurt the most by $2.00 more every time they buy gas so that they get to work. The very low income people that needs low fuel prices. Even if the whole $.10 went to the stock holds of EXXON (mostly retirement funds) it would be better than putting the money through the most wasteful bureaucracy we have ever had.

Isn't it better for the consumer to have the money instead of the government spending it on hiring more people, giving away cell phones, high speed internet and computers?

 

Bottom line,
We don't need to subsidize them and we should have stopped decades ago but they have bought and paid for many Congressmen with that money so it hasn't happened yet.

 

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Many tax incentives are given to every business whether they be monstrously wealthy or not. If you want them removed then I could probably get behind that in many cases, but don't imply that most of them are somehow "oil subsidies" or that removing them is going to somehow save the tax payer money. They aren't, and it won't.

 

This reminds me of why I cancelled my subscription to Time magazine in the late 1970's. They called the home mortgage interest deduction a "form of welfare for the rich" to make a point about welfare. Stretching the deffinition of welfare to include a lower tax rate is intellecutaly dishonest.

Other than home mortgage interst, interest paid cannot be a tax dedcution. Tax deductions for selected segments of the economy (such as homebuilding) certainlyare subsidies. However, the the oil industry (with a few small exceptions which should be eliminated) gets basicaly the same deductions as any other business, so I would not call this a subsidy.