Taxes and the GOP walkout of debt ceiling negotiations.

[TDPerk]

I think its already been shown that oil companies don't get subsidies in excess of what other industries receive. Calling things like depreciation of assets and losses subsidies are pretty twee of you, don't you think?

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

I think its already been shown that oil companies don't get subsidies in excess of what other industries receive.

Oh? Where?

Calling things like depreciation of assets and losses subsidies are pretty twee of you, don't you think?

Other companies get to depreciate things they have built to create value. The oil companies get to depreceiate that, plus the stuff they are selling. It is like saying a farmer can depreciate his crop since it isn't there any more after he sells it, or that a car company can depreciate the cars they sell since they aren't there anymore. Hey, lets allow the fishers to depreciate the fish-stock they have depleted by over fishing. Absurd.

[ScottL]

I wonder how GE's lax of tax and the fact that we paid them instead factors into all this.

[TDPerk]

Oh? Where?

Weren't you paying attention?

Other companies get to depreciate things they have built to create value. The oil companies get to depreceiate that, plus the stuff they are selling.

Where'd you get that ridiculous idea? Any business can take the depreciation of any major capital expenditure they buy off their income. For oil companies, that would be the value of the oil in the ground as they pay for the rights to extract vs what they can resell those rights for after they extract it-which is usually 0. Eventually, that's 100% depreciation.

It is like saying a farmer can depreciate his crop since it isn't there any more after he sells it, or that a car company can depreciate the cars they sell since they aren't there anymore.

That's a horrible analogy even for what you are claiming. The farmer creates the crop. The oil company does not create the oil, they buy the rights to get it out of the ground. That's a huge capital expenditure. The farmer gets to deprreciate his tractor, plow, and harvester/combine, and the expendables/pesticide/fertilizer all also come off his income before he is taxed on it. Also, here at least, courtesy of the idiot FDR, farmers get paid to grow how much of what the government wants grown, including getting paid to let ground lie fallow. Little bit of black robe stupidity called Wickard v. Filburn.

Go fish.

[TDPerk]

I wonder how GE's lax of tax and the fact that we paid them instead factors into all this.

Immelt is Obama's boy (or is that the other way around?) ask them.

[ScottL]

I wonder how GE's lax of tax and the fact that we paid them instead factors into all this.

Immelt is Obama's boy (or is that the other way around?) ask them.

Could be, but from my understanding Obama appointed him to the Jobs committee not to the tax committee. It seems more likely that GE is exploiting existing tax loopholes versus getting "this guys is with me" from Obama.

[TDPerk]

All I know for a fact is that the supposedly evil corporation which need to pay more taxes don't seem to include GE in Obama's eyes, and he and Immelt are joined at the hip.

I think it's a safe bet Immelt even has a corporate jet.

In fact, I'm about to google that phrase.

[TDPerk]

Yeah, they have several.

[KitemanSA]

Oh? Where?

Weren't you paying attention?

Guess not. Where please?

Other companies get to depreciate things they have built to create value. The oil companies get to depreceiate that, plus the stuff they are selling.

Where'd you get that ridiculous idea? Any business can take the depreciation of any major capital expenditure they buy off their income. For oil companies, that would be the value of the oil in the ground as they pay for the rights to extract vs what they can resell those rights for after they extract it-which is usually 0. Eventually, that's 100% depreciation.

That is my point. Oil in the ground is in no way a capital "EXPENDITURE" It may apply to the cost of the "rights" but not the value of the oil in the ground. And if the value of the oil in the ground weren't WAY bigger than the cost of the "rights", they wouldn't buy the rights.

It is like saying a farmer can depreciate his crop since it isn't there any more after he sells it, or that a car company can depreciate the cars they sell since they aren't there anymore.

That's a horrible analogy even for what you are claiming. The farmer creates the crop. The oil company does not create the oil, they buy the rights to get it out of the ground. That's a huge capital expenditure.

But nowhere near the value of the oil they get to depreciate.

The farmer gets to deprreciate his tractor, plow, and harvester/combine, and the expendables/pesticide/fertilizer all also come off his income before he is taxed on it. Also, here at least, courtesy of the idiot FDR, farmers get paid to grow how much of what the government wants grown, including getting paid to let ground lie fallow. Little bit of black robe stupidity called Wickard v. Filburn.

Yup, and like oil company subsidies, I'm against farm subsidies too.

Go fish.

Done fishing!

[Diogenes]

I think its already been shown that oil companies don't get subsidies in excess of what other industries receive.

Oh? Where?

Calling things like depreciation of assets and losses subsidies are pretty twee of you, don't you think?

Other companies get to depreciate things they have built to create value. The oil companies get to depreceiate that, plus the stuff they are selling. It is like saying a farmer can depreciate his crop since it isn't there any more after he sells it, or that a car company can depreciate the cars they sell since they aren't there anymore. Hey, lets allow the fishers to depreciate the fish-stock they have depleted by over fishing. Absurd.

What do you mean they get to depreciate what they are selling? How do you figure this?

[Diogenes]

I wonder how GE's lax of tax and the fact that we paid them instead factors into all this.

GE was a big Obama supporter. Unlike most of the other rich Obama supporters, Obama has been good for GE's business .

[Diogenes]

I wonder how GE's lax of tax and the fact that we paid them instead factors into all this.

Immelt is Obama's boy (or is that the other way around?) ask them.

Could be, but from my understanding Obama appointed him to the Jobs committee not to the tax committee. It seems more likely that GE is exploiting existing tax loopholes versus getting "this guys is with me" from Obama.

Anybody underhanded enough to support Obama is likely capable of breaking or bending any rule of law to promote their own interests. The Shutting down of Automobile dealerships all across the country has been pretty well demonstrated to be a Fascist like attempt to wipe out opposition businessmen in the industry and supplant them with loyal minions.

[Diogenes]

That is my point. Oil in the ground is in no way a capital "EXPENDITURE" It may apply to the cost of the "rights" but not the value of the oil in the ground. And if the value of the oil in the ground weren't WAY bigger than the cost of the "rights", they wouldn't buy the rights.

When they are buying the rights to oil in the ground they may not know the value of it. It may produce for awhile and then stop. They do their best to predict how much is there and how much can be tapped, but they don't always get it right. Beyond that, the price of Oil fluctuates, and if you buy the rights when oil is high, the value of those rights may drop below what you paid when the price is low.

Right now, all trends are up, but it wasn't always that way.

Anyway, as you pump oil out of the ground, the value of the well site becomes less and less because it is axiomatic that it will eventually peter out to no production at all. The value of that Well will eventually become Zero if not less than zero. Dead wells have to be cleaned up and sealed off with concrete. The land surrounding them has to be restored back to a natural state to the satisfaction of the State Inspectors.

[KitemanSA]

Other companies get to depreciate things they have built to create value. The oil companies get to depreceiate that, plus the stuff they are selling. It is like saying a farmer can depreciate his crop since it isn't there any more after he sells it, or that a car company can depreciate the cars they sell since they aren't there anymore. Hey, lets allow the fishers to depreciate the fish-stock they have depleted by over fishing. Absurd.

What do you mean they get to depreciate what they are selling? How do you figure this?

Last time I was conversant with this issue, oil companies were allowed to estimate the reserves in a well or complex and were allowed to depreciate the value of the reserves as they pumped it. Not the "cost of the rights prorated, but the estimated value of the reserves. Depreciateing the cost of the "rights" as a capital expenditure" may be reasonable. Depreciating the value of the reserves is a subsidy.

[KitemanSA]

That is my point. Oil in the ground is in no way a capital "EXPENDITURE" It may apply to the cost of the "rights" but not the value of the oil in the ground. And if the value of the oil in the ground weren't WAY bigger than the cost of the "rights", they wouldn't buy the rights.

But it is the cost of the "rights" that is a capital expense. If there is no reserve, the expense is immediately depreciable. If there is a HUGE reserve, the cost OF THE RIGHTS should be depreciable like any other capital expense. The value of the reserve has NO "expense". Allowing capital depreciation on it is a subsidy.