Explain to me where an oil subsidy exists so that I too might also understand and enjoy the joke. I know of no subsidies for oil.Skipjack wrote:Ahh and oil subsidies are not?!!!Green subsidies: A breeding ground for corruption
ROFL!
Sunset in America
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
Skipjack wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
Do you have anything? Anything at all?
Please spare me the lie that not taxing someone harder is the equivalent of giving them free money. This concept is based on the notion that all money and property belongs to the government.
IT. DOES. NOT.
The fact that the government makes 3-5 times as much money off of oil than does the oil companies is also a piece of information that never seems to sink in for those who claim "Oil companies are subsidized."
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
ScottL wrote:Oil does receive several tax breaks with regard to their exploration and extraction. What confuses me is why we allow tax deductions on rent. As a side note, Oil tax breaks have not lead to a huge wave of jobs over the past 12 years, I can provide necessary graphs if requested.
A tax break (and how is it a tax break when the government makes 3-5 times as much money off of oil than does the oil companies? A TAX BREAK? Are you KIDDING me? ) is not the same thing as giving someone money. The money does not BELONG to the government. It belongs to the owners of the product which is being sold.
Suppose a farmer sells dirt. Are you gonna try and tell me that by not taxing him harder they are giving him money? He isn't taking anything away from the government, he is selling something that belongs to him. This whole "subsidy" illusion evaporates when you realize one thing.
IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY! IT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE GOVERNMENT!
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
ScottL wrote:Hey reclaim 70% of their rent charge from the government. If this is the case, I'd like 70% of my total rent charge yearly returned to me as well.
Again, I don't understand what you are trying to say. What do you mean when you use the term "rent charge" ? The bottom line as I understand it is the Government makes far more money off of oil they don't own, than do the people who actually own the oil.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
If you don't know the reference, then you haven't done your due diligence within this thread. Since you missed it and clearly did not read the article linked, I have quoted the necessary information below. This will be the last time I do YOUR due diligence for you.
If you're going to arguing, please at least read all articles involved no matter how much you feel it's distorted dribble. If you can't be bothered to do that much, I see no reason why anyone should bother to acknowledge your arguments in the future.The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.
At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.
While I agree with you that reducing taxes isn't giving away free money (i.e., a subsidy), why are you being intentionally obtuse about the term "rent". I'm quite sure you would be more than happy to get 70% of your yearly rent back as a tax deduction/break, just as the rest of us would.Diogenes wrote:Again, I don't understand what you are trying to say. What do you mean when you use the term "rent charge" ? The bottom line as I understand it is the Government makes far more money off of oil they don't own, than do the people who actually own the oil.ScottL wrote:Hey reclaim 70% of their rent charge from the government. If this is the case, I'd like 70% of my total rent charge yearly returned to me as well.
Really? Did you read the article? BP was RENTING the oil platform, which they turned around and used a tax break to the tune of $225,00 daily equaling 70% of the rent cost returned to to them. This is....ridiculous....and I want my rent!krenshala wrote:While I agree with you that reducing taxes isn't giving away free money (i.e., a subsidy), why are you being intentionally obtuse about the term "rent". I'm quite sure you would be more than happy to get 70% of your yearly rent back as a tax deduction/break, just as the rest of us would.Diogenes wrote:Again, I don't understand what you are trying to say. What do you mean when you use the term "rent charge" ? The bottom line as I understand it is the Government makes far more money off of oil they don't own, than do the people who actually own the oil.ScottL wrote:Hey reclaim 70% of their rent charge from the government. If this is the case, I'd like 70% of my total rent charge yearly returned to me as well.
To clarify the tax break is tied to renting the platform, hence my "obtuse" reaction to the ridiculousness of the whole thing.
ScottL wrote:If you don't know the reference, then you haven't done your due diligence within this thread. Since you missed it and clearly did not read the article linked, I have quoted the necessary information below. This will be the last time I do YOUR due diligence for you.
The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.
At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.
I didn't see the term "rent charge" in their anywhere. You used a poor choice of words which made the issue confusing. You are referring to BP deducting the cost of the rent for their rig from their taxes. I am confused as to why this is supposed to be a problem. Is not "rent" an operating cost?
As for Transocean moving their headquarters to more tax friendly environments, it is their duty to their shareholders to do such things. I personally feel it is the duty of all Americans to use any legal means to avoid giving the monster any more money. The beast needs to starve. It is fat and bloated and stupid, and it needs to become lean and fit.
ScottL wrote:
If you're going to arguing, please at least read all articles involved no matter how much you feel it's distorted dribble. If you can't be bothered to do that much, I see no reason why anyone should bother to acknowledge your arguments in the future.
I saw the part you referred to, but because of your choice of words I thought you meant something else. (I thought perhaps you were suggesting they were charging the Federal Government for rent, as would be pertinent to the accusation of subsidy) Beyond that, I regard the "New York Times" as the moral equivalent of "Pravda" during the Soviet Union's heyday. (and run by the same sort of people, Communists all. )
Looking for non-propaganda in the "New York Times" would be like looking for science in the Necronomicon .
In any case, nothing any of you has brought up dismisses the fact that the government is making FAR MORE MONEY off of Oil than are the companies which actually produce it. Till the government is making less than is the oil companies, it is silly and ridiculous to assert the government is subsidizing the oil companies. To the contrary, the Oil companies continue to subsidize incompetent government.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
"Rent" is a tax deductible item for a business. It must be paid for out of gross revenue, so it can hardly be considered profit.ScottL wrote:Really? Did you read the article? BP was RENTING the oil platform, which they turned around and used a tax break to the tune of $225,00 daily equaling 70% of the rent cost returned to to them. This is....ridiculous....and I want my rent!krenshala wrote:While I agree with you that reducing taxes isn't giving away free money (i.e., a subsidy), why are you being intentionally obtuse about the term "rent". I'm quite sure you would be more than happy to get 70% of your yearly rent back as a tax deduction/break, just as the rest of us would.Diogenes wrote: Again, I don't understand what you are trying to say. What do you mean when you use the term "rent charge" ? The bottom line as I understand it is the Government makes far more money off of oil they don't own, than do the people who actually own the oil.
To clarify the tax break is tied to renting the platform, hence my "obtuse" reaction to the ridiculousness of the whole thing.
Again, while the government is collecting 5 times the money for oil (which they do NOTHING to produce) than are the Oil Companies, I find it completely silly to claim the government is subsidizing the oil companies. It is the Oil companies which is subsidizing the government.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
— Lord Melbourne —
If its tax deductible for a business, so should it be for a residence. It must be paid out of gross income and so can hardly be considered profit.
I'll look through the numbers again, but oil saw record profits the past 12 years while seeing record tax decreases and tax breaks. What changed from 12 years ago to now that required them to become so much more profitable while not adding significant jobs? This is not to say they can't be profitable, but what's the reasoning on giving them tax breaks other than to spur job growth? They aren't a failing business by any means. Many Americans were under the impression that by giving them tax breaks, they'd increase the number of jobs available, which really hasn't happened.
I'll look through the numbers again, but oil saw record profits the past 12 years while seeing record tax decreases and tax breaks. What changed from 12 years ago to now that required them to become so much more profitable while not adding significant jobs? This is not to say they can't be profitable, but what's the reasoning on giving them tax breaks other than to spur job growth? They aren't a failing business by any means. Many Americans were under the impression that by giving them tax breaks, they'd increase the number of jobs available, which really hasn't happened.
Um ... why are you arguing with me? I was responding to the other guy in what I quoted ...ScottL wrote:Really? Did you read the article? BP was RENTING the oil platform, which they turned around and used a tax break to the tune of $225,00 daily equaling 70% of the rent cost returned to to them. This is....ridiculous....and I want my rent!krenshala wrote:While I agree with you that reducing taxes isn't giving away free money (i.e., a subsidy), why are you being intentionally obtuse about the term "rent". I'm quite sure you would be more than happy to get 70% of your yearly rent back as a tax deduction/break, just as the rest of us would.Diogenes wrote: Again, I don't understand what you are trying to say. What do you mean when you use the term "rent charge" ? The bottom line as I understand it is the Government makes far more money off of oil they don't own, than do the people who actually own the oil.
To clarify the tax break is tied to renting the platform, hence my "obtuse" reaction to the ridiculousness of the whole thing.
[edit] and now that I've read the the rest of the posts, i see that confusion has been resolved as well.