So much for Republican support for an unfettered free market

[Byron In Exile]

I won't waste time in a google link war with a pedantic fool.

"Pedantic" implies that he knows what he's talking about.

 

[kbate]

"Pedantic" implies that he knows what he's talking about.

He does. He simply chooses to ignore anything that does not fit into and support his theory that Republicans and ONLY Republicans are hypocrites on energy subsidies.

He ignores the scenario that the Senate's waste of several days, millions of dollars and countless tonnes of paper in writing, discussing and voting on a bill - which was nothing more than a political ploy to capitalise on the high fuel prices is a hypocrisy just as great as anything by the "supposedly anti-big government" Republicans, who in truth are just as much for big government as the democrats - but wish to apply it in slightly different directions.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

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

Trysail is a knowitall who knows nothing. One of the most exemplary examples one could ever hope to find, in fact.

 

[JenAltArmy]

off-topic much?

but it hold true, government and government workers are killing america. they are just as greedy as the boys at Enron

 

[mercury14]

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.

No, dipshit, that's not a fast Google, it's a respected source on stimulus spending that I have bookmarked.

And no, "most" of the 40 billion in subsidies did not go to "various Ethanols". If you read the link or bothered to even educate yourself in some way, you'll see that the biofeul subsidy was only 1.25% of the total energy subsidy. And that was a one-time deal.

You won't go into a link war because you showed your ass by spewing baseless crap and got it kicked. When you learned you have NOTHING, you threw up your hands and said you're too holy to be bothered with facts. Classic...

 

[mercury14]

He does. He simply chooses to ignore anything that does not fit into and support his theory that Republicans and ONLY Republicans are hypocrites on energy subsidies.

No, I'm ignoring your fake, off-topic defense of "well someone else was hypocritical on something too".

 

[trysail]

http://taxes.about.com/od/deductionscredits/a/domesticproduct.htm


Domestic Production Activities Deduction
Section 199 Deduction
By William Perez, About.com Guide.

Feb 8 2011
Starting with tax year 2005, certain companies can take a 3% deduction for US-based business activities.
"Every small business is the manufacturing industry should be looking at this as a tax deduction. While Section 199 comes with a very complex set of rules, chances are small businesses will qualify for the deduction much easier than the rules depict," according to Paul Schlather, a senior tax partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers' Private Company Services practice.

Here's the basics:

Businesses with "qualified production activities" can take a tax deduction of 3% from net income. This is a tax break pure and simple. The more complicated the business, the more complicated the math for calculating the Domestic Production Activities Deduction. In a nutshell, businesses engaged in manufacturing and other qualified production activities will need to implement cost accounting mechanisms to make sure their tax deduction is accurately calculated.

Domestic Production Activities Deduction

A business engaged in a qualfying production activity is eligible to take a tax deduction of 3% in tax years 2005 and 2006. The deduction increases to 6% in year 2007, and 9% in year 2010.

Qualified Production Activities

A business engaged in the following lines of business may qualify for the Domestic Production Activities Deduction. These are the "qualified production activities" eligible for claiming the deduction under Internal Revenue Code Section 199:

•Manufacturing based in the United States,
•Selling, leasing, or licensing items that have been manufactured in the United States,
•Selling, leasing, or licensing motion pictures that have been produced in the United States,
•Construction services in the United States, including building and renovation of residential and commercial properties,
•Engineering and architectural services relating to a US-based construction project,
•Software development in the United States, including the development of video games.

General Rule and Safe Harbor

The Domestic Production Activities Deduction is limited to income arising from qualified production activies in whole or significant part based in the United States. Under a "safe harbor" rule (IRS Proposed Regulations 1.199.3.f.3), businesses can take the deduction if at least 20 percent of the total costs are the result of direct labor and overhead costs from US-based operations.

If any part of manufacturing or production activities is outside the United States, then businesses must use either the safe harbor rule (at least 20% of total costs are from US-based production activities) or allocate costs using the facts and circumstances of their business.

Not Qualified Production Activities

The following lines of business are specifically excluded from claiming the Domestic Production Activities Deduction:

•Construction services that are cosmetic in nature, such as painting.
•Leasing or licensing items to a related party.
•Selling food or beverages prepared at a retail establishment.

Figuring the Tax Deduction

Calculating the Domestic Production Activities Deduction can be either ridiculously simple or enormously complex, depending on the nature of the business. The key to figuring the Domestic Production Activities Deduction is to examine "qualified production activities income" (QPAI) and the limitations. I'm going to throw out several technical terms, and then explain how to figure the deduction step-by-step.

Domestic Production Activities Deduction Calculation
Qualified production activities income (QPAI)
minus Qualified production activities expenses
equals Qualified production activities net income
times The QPA deduction amount of 3%
equals The Tentative QPA Deduction​

Qualified Production Activity Income (QPAI)
Qualified production activity income (QPAI) is all income arising from qualified production activities. For a business with only one line of business, this will be the same as gross income. For businesses with multiple lines of business, income will need to be allocated.

Qualified Production Activity Expenses
Qualified production activity expenses are all expenses directly related to the qualified production activities. For a business with only one line of business, this will be the same as total expenses. For businesses with multiple lines of business, income will need to be allocated.

Limitations

The dollar amount of the Domestic Production Activities Deduction is limited. The deduction cannot exceed adjusted gross income (for sole proprietors, partnerships, S-corporations, or limited liability corporations) or taxable income (for C-corporations). Also, the deduction cannot exceed 50% of W-2 wages.

Domestic Production Activities Deduction cannot exceed:
Adjusted Gross Income, or
50% of W-2 Wages paid out​

Simplified Method

"The rules are simplified for a small business in a single line of business," according to Paul Schlather. Make sure your business qualifies under the qualified production activities rules, and then take 3% of net income. Compare the 3% figure to adjusted gross income and W-2 wages paid out. A business will not qualify for the Domestic Production Activities Deduction if it has zero net income or zero W-2 wages.

Where to Claim the Deduction

Businesses will need to fill out IRS Form 8903 (PDF). You can also download Instructions for Form 8903.

Tax Law

Internal Revenue Code Section 199 ( http://taxes.about.com/library/bl_IRC_Section_199.htm ), and IRS Proposed Regulations 1.199. This deduction was part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.04520: ).

From the IRS

"For 2005 and 2006, the deduction equals 3% of the lesser of: (a) qualified production activities income; or (b) taxable income for the taxable year. However, the deduction for a taxable year is limited to 50 percent of the W-2 wages paid by the taxpayer during the calendar year that ends in such taxable year. The deduction is phased-in; for 2007 through 2009 the percentage increases to 6% and for 2010 and after the percentage will be 9%.
Qualified production activities include manufacturing, producing, growing, and extracting tangible personal property, computer software, and sound recordings, and the construction and substantial renovation of real property including infrastructure. The production of certain films is also a qualifying activity as are certain engineering or architectural services."​

_____________________________

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aZrn9yRtwaNQ


Both Parties Get It Wrong on Big Oil Tax Breaks
by Caroline Baum

May 20 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Democrats want to eliminate a tax break for the five biggest multinational oil companies. Republicans oppose the idea on the grounds that rescinding a tax break qualifies as a tax increase.

Both parties are missing the boat. By confining their disagreement to select deductions for a few oil producers, lawmakers are squandering an opportunity to examine all forms of tax breaks and make a real dent in the deficit.

The tax deduction in question was enacted in 2004 and applies to all domestic manufacturers, not just oil and gas companies. It was designed to increase competitiveness in the face of the U.S.’s 35 percent corporate tax rate, among the highest in the developed world.

Democrats settled on the five biggest oil producers as their first target. These companies just happened to earn a combined $36 billion in the first quarter.

The Senate Finance Committee summoned the chief executive officers of Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell and BP Plc to Washington last week to discuss shared sacrifice. At a time when consumers are struggling to fill the tank with $4-a-gallon gas, senators wanted to know if Big Oil could relinquish a benefit that would save the government $21 billion over 10 years.

Of course, that saving, if it ends up being saved, is a drop in the bucket when the U.S. budget deficit will top $1 trillion in 2011 for the third consecutive year.

Real Money
Eliminating the special exemptions that have been written into the tax code over the years would be one of the simplest and most fruitful ways to raise federal revenue. Tax policy experts put the annual cost of these so-called tax expenditures at roughly $1 trillion. That’s real money.

Unless you believe this loss of revenue leads to smaller government, one person’s tax break is another person’s tax increase. How did the anti-tax GOP justify these tax expenditures in the first place?

The argument against tax breaks for oil companies is clear- cut.

“They make the economy less, not more, efficient and do nothing to reduce prices at the pump,” said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington.

Any preferred tax treatment attracts private investment in search of higher artificial profits.

If lawmakers are serious about deficit reduction, they should look at all tax breaks for all industries and all companies, not just those for five profitable oil and gas producers.

Tax Neutrality
Tax neutrality should be the goal: a tax system that encourages the private investment on its own merit, not for tax reasons. Tax neutrality would broaden the tax base and allow the government to lower income tax rates on individuals and corporations.

ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva was right when he said the Senate proposal to rescind tax breaks on only five select companies was “un-American.” (It was equally un-American to enact them.) Exxon Mobil chief Rex Tillerson called it “discriminatory” and “punitive.”

“Everything for everybody everywhere ought to be on the table,” Tillerson told the Senate Finance Committee last week.

To her credit, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine said all subsidies and tax incentives, many of which are on “cruise control,” should be re-examined.

The last time Congress took a stab at reducing corporate welfare was in 1986.

Hypocrisy Personified
Snowe’s colleagues were more interested in scoring points and playing “gotcha.” Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, used language like “gouged” at the pump to strengthen his argument for targeting Big Oil.

Every time Congress wants to raise the tax rate paid by his Wall Street donors, er, constituents, Schumer argues that any change has to be all-inclusive.

Members of the Senate Finance Committee tried to get the oil executives to admit they don’t need incentives, at least in the sense most of us think of need. Most successful companies don’t need them. The ones that do probably shouldn’t be in business.

The argument for government-subsidized investment goes something like this. Government needs to intervene at times to stabilize the economy; to correct for market failures such as externalities, where economic transactions have an adverse effect on third parties; and to encourage desirable behavior, such as home ownership.

In addition, certain investments may have a hurdle rate before they turn a profit. Without government assistance, no company could survive long enough to see the investment bear fruit.

Ethanol Boondoggle
If you buy that logic, it means some bureaucrat or committee determines the allocation of capital, often with unintended consequences.

Ethanol subsidies, for example, were supposed to give us cleaner air and energy independence. Instead they became a boondoggle for farmers and ethanol producers, raised the price of corn-based products and increased gasoline consumption, according to a study by the Government Accountability Office.

Or consider the fallout from decades of promoting affordable housing with subsidies and mortgage-interest deductions, which are the third-largest category of tax expenditure, according to Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation. A lot of folks bought homes they couldn’t afford that are now in foreclosure. Housing finance agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are wards of the state. Home prices are still falling five years past the peak. The residential real estate market is a shambles.

Earth to Congress
One group at the Senate Finance Committee hearing seemed to get the message. Shell’s Odum explained it to the senators.

If the goal is to reduce the deficit, the solution is more oil and gas production, more revenue for the federal government, more jobs for the U.S. economy, Odum said.

It’s not clear any of the questioners were listening.

 

[JenAltArmy]

funny how so many here think you are a stupid jackass, get that stupid?

now, run along and do what you do best, you sad little gamer

No, dipshit, that's not a fast Google, it's a respected source on stimulus spending that I have bookmarked.

And no, "most" of the 40 billion in subsidies did not go to "various Ethanols". If you read the link or bothered to even educate yourself in some way, you'll see that the biofeul subsidy was only 1.25% of the total energy subsidy. And that was a one-time deal.

You won't go into a link war because you showed your ass by spewing baseless crap and got it kicked. When you learned you have NOTHING, you threw up your hands and said you're too holy to be bothered with facts. Classic...

 

[trysail]

Too good a quote to pass up:

Left wing totalitarianism:

Russia
China
Cuba
East Germany
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Albania
Bulgaria
Romania,
Yugoslavia
Vietnam

What have they all got in common?

They’ve all moved to the capitalist model and in every one of these countries they are beginning to get the standard of living we’ve taken for granted for the last 40 years and they’re very happy to do so.

-GerryM
http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/16/capitalism-vs-the-climate/#comment-139076​

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Our Usual Suspects confuse freemarket with license to steal and rob.