So much for Republican support for an unfettered free market

[bronzeage]

off-topic much?

She doesn't actually read thread titles.

 

[mercury14]

She doesn't actually read thread titles.

Or their posts.

 

[trysail]

Name the "subsidy" they get that's not given to any other corporation.

☝​

★★★★★

 

[mercury14]

☝​

★★★★★

Subsidy or tax break. I realize the subtle difference while acknowledging that the value is equal either way. The bottom line is that Republicans are pushing Medicare/Medicaid cuts, saying that we ALL need to pay our fair share to balance the budget. They they turn around and say that mega oil corporations that bank $400 billion in profits each year not only do not have to pay their fair share, they get to pay LESS by getting a tax exemption.

A senior citizen living on a fixed income? Those fuckers need to feel the burn. Exxon which reliably banks $10+ billion in profit per month, a figure which increases every year? No let's give those poor guys a break, leaving us with even more need to impact that senior citizen.

Even if it means tampering with the free market and adding billions to the deficit in a time when we're scrambling to cut the it, we need to give big oil some breaks.... wtf?

 

[bronzeage]

Subsidy or tax break. I realize the subtle difference while acknowledging that the value is equal either way. The bottom line is that Republicans are pushing Medicare/Medicaid cuts, saying that we ALL need to pay our fair share to balance the budget. They they turn around and say that mega oil corporations that bank $400 billion in profits each year not only do not have to pay their fair share, they get to pay LESS by getting a tax exemption.

A senior citizen living on a fixed income? Those fuckers need to feel the burn. Exxon which reliably banks $10+ billion in profit per month, a figure which increases every year? No let's give those poor guys a break, leaving us with even more need to impact that senior citizen.

Even if it means tampering with the free market and costing us billions in a time when we're scrambling to cut the deficit, we need to give big oil some breaks.... wtf?

The main argument against removing the tax subsidies is it will raise gasoline prices. No one has shown how this will happen, except to say aggregate corporate actions affect supply.

Subsidy is a strange word. Most of the time it is used to label money given to a producer to compensate for low market prices. Farmers get subsidies to insure profitable operations in the face of foreign imports.

It makes it sound like our oil companies are being subsidized so they can compete with foreign oil companies. I guess we will never know.

 

[mercury14]

The main argument against removing the tax subsidies is it will raise gasoline prices. No one has shown how this will happen, except to say aggregate corporate actions affect supply.

Subsidy is a strange word. Most of the time it is used to label money given to a producer to compensate for low market prices. Farmers get subsidies to insure profitable operations in the face of foreign imports.

It makes it sound like our oil companies are being subsidized so they can compete with foreign oil companies. I guess we will never know.

Relative to their massive profits, the subsidies for each oil company aren't so tremendous. $2 billion per year divided among the big five? Exxon alone is profiting $10 - $15 billion per quarter so that $400 million in extra profits isn't a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

1Q 2011, Exxon profited 10.7 billion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ith-gas-prices/2011/04/28/AF1gWG7E_story.html). And their profits soar when gas prices rise, which appears to be fairly likely in the short term. So again, huge profits, huger profits on the horizon.... Let's go billions further into debt to tamper with the free market and make their profits EVEN HUGER....

 

[kbate]

Relative to their massive profits, the subsidies for each oil company aren't so tremendous. $2 billion per year divided among the big five? Exxon alone is profiting $10 - $15 billion per quarter so that $400 million in extra profits isn't a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

1Q 2011, Exxon profited 10.7 billion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ith-gas-prices/2011/04/28/AF1gWG7E_story.html). And their profits soar when gas prices rise, which appears to be fairly likely in the short term. So again, huge profits, huger profits on the horizon.... Let's go billions further into debt to tamper with the free market and make their profits EVEN HUGER....

As you suddenly care so deeply about the Free Market - one can only assume you also want the subsidies for Solar power, Wind power and ethanol generation to be dropped also. All receive more than oil and produce less for it - in terms of energy, jobs, and tax revenue. These industries also qualify for every tax credit the oil industry receives as well as their own special subsidies - all favoured and funded by the very same Democrats who want the Return of Free market Capitalism (according to you).

 

[mercury14]

As you suddenly care so deeply about the Free Market - one can only assume you also want the subsidies for Solar power, Wind power and ethanol generation to be dropped also. All receive more than oil and produce less for it - in terms of energy, jobs, and tax revenue. These industries also qualify for every tax credit the oil industry receives as well as their own special subsidies - all favoured and funded by the very same Democrats who want the Return of Free market Capitalism (according to you).

According to the nonpartisan Environmental Law Institute, between 2002-2008, renewable power received 29 billion while fossil fuel received 72 billion. Additionally, most of the breaks fossil fuel receives goes to the Foreign Tax Credit which incentivizes continued, or even increased dependence on middle eastern oil sources.

And please, stop your lying spin by putting this back on me or Democrats. I've never advocated for an entirely free market. I'm calling right wingers on their lying hypocritical bullshit. Either defend their hypocrisy or get off the wagon.

http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID=11358

 

[mercury14]

According to the nonpartisan Environmental Law Institute, between 2002-2008, renewable power received 29 billion while fossil fuel received 72 billion. Additionally, most of the breaks fossil fuel receives goes to the Foreign Tax Credit which incentivizes continued, or even increased dependence on middle eastern oil sources.

And please, stop your lying spin by putting this back on me or Democrats. I've never advocated for an entirely free market. I'm calling right wingers on their lying hypocritical bullshit. Either defend their hypocrisy or get off the wagon.

http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID=11358

Also, subsidizing an emerging high-tech industry is not the same as subsidizing Exxon with record-breaking profits and their forecast for breaking their own record, again becoming the most-profitable company in the history of the world. I'm sorry that you can't see that.

 

[trysail]

According to the nonpartisan Environmental Law Institute, between 2002-2008, renewable power received 29 billion while fossil fuel received 72 billion. Additionally, most of the breaks fossil fuel receives goes to the Foreign Tax Credit which incentivizes continued, or even increased dependence on middle eastern oil sources...

That's bogus. The Foreign Tax Credit does not incentivize anything.

When I receive a dividend from a foreign-domiciled corporation, a certain amount of tax is automatically withheld ( normally the rate is 15% where the U.S. has executed a reciprocal tax agreement with the other country ) and paid to the foreign country in question ( be it French, German, British, Russian, Brazilian or Chinese )

Since I'm not receiving my full dividend ( because of the withholding tax ), the U.S. Tax Code permits me to recoup the amount as a credit against my U.S. taxes. The U.S., of course, turns around and taxes me on the full amount of the dividend.

 

[mercury14]

That's bogus. The Foreign Tax Credit does not incentivize anything.

When I receive a dividend from a foreign-domiciled corporation, a certain amount of tax is automatically withheld ( normally the rate is 15% where the U.S. has executed a reciprocal tax agreement with the other country ) and paid to the foreign country in question ( be it French, German, British, Russian, Brazilian or Chinese )

Since I'm not receiving my full dividend ( because of the withholding tax ), the U.S. Tax Code permits me to recoup the amount as a credit against my U.S. taxes. The U.S., of course, turns around and taxes me on the full amount of the dividend.

No it's not like that at all and here's why. Exxon is an American company that gets its oil from Saudi Arabia. They don't pay Saudi corporate income taxes, they only fetch their product from private property in that country. Then they pay a per-barrel royalty to King Saud. It's a cost of doing business - but it's not income tax because Exxon does not have a shop in Saudi Arabia and reports no income to them.

But according to how the US Foreign Income Tax Credit is written, there's a loophole that allows this cost of doing business to "count as" conventional foreign income tax already paid. Even though there is no foreign income they get a huge tax credit for this. The end result is that they pay no income taxes to either Saudi Arabia or little to none to the US while banking record profits that continue to skyrocket. It's a sweetheart deal that most definitely incentivizes increased dependence on foreign oil.

And of course this arrangement means that Saudi Arabia gets a ton of revenue while Uncle Sam gets nothing from its largest corporation. Or like in 2009-2010, had to actually PAY Exxon $156 million in tax credits.

 

[trysail]

No it's not like that at all and here's why. Exxon is an American company that gets its oil from Saudi Arabia. They don't pay Saudi corporate income taxes, they only fetch their product from private property in that country. Then they pay a per-barrel royalty to King Saud. It's a cost of doing business - but it's not income tax because Exxon does not have a shop in Saudi Arabia and reports no income to them.

But according to how the US Foreign Income Tax Credit is written, there's a loophole that allows this cost of doing business to "count as" conventional foreign income tax already paid. Even though there is no foreign income they get a huge tax credit for this. The end result is that they pay no income taxes to either Saudi Arabia or little to none to the US. It's a sweetheart deal that most definitely incentivizes increased dependence on foreign oil.

It's not possible to get more confused than this twaddle. Your attempt to impress anybody posssessing a minimal knowledge of the operation of the U.S. Tax Code is an epic failure. Needless to say, you haven't got a clue. Go do your homework ( or track down a different source of information ).

 

[mercury14]

It's not possible to get more confused than this twaddle. Your attempt to impress anybody posssessing a minimal knowledge of the operation of the U.S. Tax Code is an epic failure. Needless to say, you haven't got a clue. Go do your homework ( or track down a different source of information ).

Washington Post - http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/howmuchtaxdoesexxonpay

I could dig up other sources as well. It isn't a secret that Exxon uses The Foreign Income Tax Credit to eliminate it's US taxes despite not paying foreign income taxes.

(not substantially anyway)

 

[trysail]

Washington Post - http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/howmuchtaxdoesexxonpay

I could dig up other sources as well. It isn't a secret that Exxon uses The Foreign Income Tax Credit to eliminate it's US taxes despite not paying foreign income taxes.

(not substantially anyway)

You're flat dead wrong. Don't try to bluff your way through this. It's what I used to do for a living. The Post reporters don't know diddly; they're English majors.


Now I have to go eat dinner. Do some homework.

 

[mercury14]

You're flat dead wrong. Don't try to bluff your way through this. It's what I used to do for a living. The Post reporters don't know diddly; they're English majors.


Now I have to go eat dinner. Do some homework.

Oh good, you're a tax guy. Perhaps enlighten us instead of being such a cocksucker? It's quite the dick move to challenge someone to dive into the arcane reams of corporate tax law. Basically it's what we expect from you - and what we get every time you post.

 

[kbate]

According to the nonpartisan Environmental Law Institute, between 2002-2008, renewable power received 29 billion while fossil fuel received 72 billion. Additionally, most of the breaks fossil fuel receives goes to the Foreign Tax Credit which incentivizes continued, or even increased dependence on middle eastern oil sources.

And please, stop your lying spin by putting this back on me or Democrats. I've never advocated for an entirely free market. I'm calling right wingers on their lying hypocritical bullshit. Either defend their hypocrisy or get off the wagon.

http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID=11358

you fucking idiot.

I'm talking about the stimulus bill passed in 2009 which contained billions of subsidies for 'renewable energy.

do your research you fucking moron before you go and call people liars.

 

[kbate]

Also, subsidizing an emerging high-tech industry is not the same as subsidizing Exxon with record-breaking profits and their forecast for breaking their own record, again becoming the most-profitable company in the history of the world. I'm sorry that you can't see that.

Again Moron - subsidies are subsidies. It chooses who wins in the "free market".

I'm sorry you can't figure it out.

 

[mercury14]

you fucking idiot.

I'm talking about the stimulus bill passed in 2009 which contained billions of subsidies for 'renewable energy.

do your research you fucking moron before you go and call people liars.

And you didn't say you were referring to the 2009 stimulus because....?

 

[kbate]

And you didn't say you were referring to the 2009 stimulus because....?

because stupid, I should not have to - a subsidy is a subsidy.

 

[mercury14]

because stupid, I should not have to - a subsidy is a subsidy.

Well if you want to articulate your thoughts, yes you have to actually type what the fuck you're thinking.

 

[mercury14]

do your research you fucking moron before you go and call people liars.

Not saying you're wrong, but can you point out these piles of green subsidies in the stimulus that far outnumber those of oil companies? I see some... $41.4 bn in the Energy category, half a billion of which went to bio-fuel projects, $6 bn to "energy tech loans" which could mean anything, and a couple other items which *could* mean green energy.

I see $3.4 billion in fossil energy research in there though. I'm not seeing what you're talking about, please show me.


http://www.propublica.org/special/the-stimulus-plan-a-detailed-list-of-spending#stim_energy



(oh and by the way, green power companies do not get to access every credit oil companies do since for instance they aren't fetching their sunlight/wind/tides from other nations).

 

[trysail]

...Oh good, you're a tax guy...

Wrong......., again.

 

[mercury14]

Wrong......., again.

You don't deny the cocksucker part though I see...

 

[unregistered]

 

[kbate]

Not saying you're wrong, but can you point out these piles of green subsidies in the stimulus that far outnumber those of oil companies? I see some... $41.4 bn in the Energy category, half a billion of which went to bio-fuel projects, $6 bn to "energy tech loans" which could mean anything, and a couple other items which *could* mean green energy.

I see $3.4 billion in fossil energy research in there though. I'm not seeing what you're talking about, please show me.

http://www.propublica.org/special/the-stimulus-plan-a-detailed-list-of-spending#stim_energy

(oh and by the way, green power companies do not get to access every credit oil companies do since for instance they aren't fetching their sunlight/wind/tides from other nations).

So, in a fast google, you found 40 billion in assorted subsidies - most of which went to various ethanols. the 6 billion was wind/solar.

And still you want to cry about 2 billion as indicative of hypocrisy?

If we are going to subsidise fuels, or jobs in america - then we need consistent rule of law so all companies get the same opportunity - not just the ones the left feels are "good".

And that is the entire point I'm making. I won't waste time in a google link war with a pedantic fool.