Instead, somebody should maybe convince Jen Rubin to run for President. Sure, she’s mostly an ill-informed, posturing idiot — and only recently a “conservative” (funny how these newbies land all the posh gigs, ain’t it?) — but at least she travels in the best circles.
Anyway, here. For those of you concerned less with “optics” and more with facts:
Transcript here. Cut and paste it and send it out to your facebook buddies. Really. Go nuts!
When it comes to energy policy, no one can touch her. $5/gal+ gasoline is a hanging curve ball she can knock out of the park.
Okay, I’m confused on the whole “oil subsidy” vs “tax break” thing. Which one is it? “Tax break” implies there’s a reduced rate of taxation for companies in the o’l bidness. “Subsidy” implies there’s a check cut from the gubmint to the oil companies. People are throwing those around interchangeably, but they aren’t.
That Obama knows not what he speaks of is not a surprise. Tax break, subsidy, whatever. End it all and get the hell out of their way. (Though your point is well taken, DL. No one in DC seems to understand the difference between revenue and expenditure.)
Actually, it isn’t even that. Oil exploration firms are allowed to “expense” certain items (deduct their cost from current taxable income). Others are depreciated over the useful life of the asset, which means that the company may have to pay more tax now and less later than in the first scenario. None of this is a deduction that oil companies get to take that other companies don’t get to take. The only issue is the timing of when the deduction is taken. Given that money today is worth more than the same money some years in the future, an accelerated depreciation, if not direct expensing, of assets does translate into a somewhat favorable treatment.
*Snort* You know who makes obscene profits from oil?
Try this. The major multi-national oil giants make about 2 cents a gallon of gas profit. The state of California collects about 65 cents per gallon of gas.
The facts of this issue are confusing. And couldn’t be finagled onto a clever bumpersticker like STOP SUBSIDIES FOR BIG OIL.
See, that’s pithy.
My understanding is that the supposed ‘subsidies for oil companies’ are actually tax breaks that all corporations -oil and gas or not – can take. It just doesn’t play well to have the rubes realize we are rescinding tax breaks that everyone gets on a subset of companies that happen to produce oil. By implying that they have a tax subsidy that other companies don’t have (which is incorrect) they more easily feed the ‘narrative’ of big oil as the bogeyman.
Imagine this applying to big pharma in the not so distant future… they take advantage of the same law.
And another point… the rescission of the ‘subsidies for oil companies’ would generate $4 billion. The increase in oil prices has cost all of us approximately $350 billion out of our pockets this year alone in the increased cost at the pump and the profit margin for the oil companies has not appreciably changed. Smoke and mirrors.
It’s not the twang. Its the abortions. And the Christianity stuff.
You know, the stuff that she really doesn’t make a big deal about that somehow the thought of gives some terminal “Gulp! Heart-Ache!”.
(Kind of strange, though, that someone so concerned with optics was blind to the reaction he was causing in his audience.)
Is there somewhere with a good outline of the various taxes, profits, etc … For a gallon of gas?
Yeah, but demagoguery PLUS making usable energy more expensive==win-win!
Now go trade in your gas guzzler, asshole.
The rest of the world won’t let you drive around in your SUV, keeping your thermostat at 70 degrees.
Now go trade in your gas guzzler, asshole.
The resulting dissonance being that those out of work can’t afford to replace their shoes much less have decent credit to afford to replace their car. But they got their fingers on the Pulse of America. Chevy!
this one looks good JD.
How’s the foot?
Since my husband’s car was totaled, we did recently buy a new car. Get’s great gas milage – up to 55 mpg.
Doesn’t help for his work trucks, though. So, sorry, but the price of everything that is transported by a truck is going up.
Today’s meme, of course, is that oil has peaked because demand will go down. Because no one can afford to fill up their cars at this price.
Why does this not fill be with warm fuzzies. And why does it scare the shit out of me that this is being reported as positive news?
those reporters must be aware of that nudging business. That this is all going according to plan, right?
Here’s my major complaint about the seeming fungibility of “tax break” and “subsidy” (and one that’s in keeping with the purpose of this site): They are two different things. The progressives are the ones screaming “End subsidies for Big Oil!”, and Sarah et al. on the other side are accepting their lie and their framing by using the term “subsidy” when it is, in fact, not a subsidy.
Our side should be stopping whatever proggtard they’re “debating” when that term ‘subsidy’ is thrown out and saying something like, “Stop. Subsidies are payments of tax dollars to a person or company. Medicaid is a subsidy. Social Security is a subsidy. What the administration is considering ending are tax deductions like the mortgage interest you deduct from your 1040, NOT subsidies.”
Fuck, who cares? Weepy Boehner will fold and consider it collegial not to demand his reach-around.
The reason that people want fuel taxes raised is that the current taxes are excise (fixed amount per gallon), which means the percentage of the cost of a gallon of gas they get as tax goes down as price goes up.
If the rest of the country gathered excise as CA does, that’s $86 billion a year. I remember when that used to be a lot of money.
Here’s my major complaint about the seeming fungibility of “tax break” and “subsidy” (and one that’s in keeping with the purpose of this site): They are two different things. The progressives are the ones screaming “End subsidies for Big Oil!”, and Sarah et al. on the other side are accepting their lie and their framing by using the term “subsidy” when it is, in fact, not a subsidy.
A tax break is a subsidy.
I don’t know nuttin bout nuttin about this particular instance of oil tax crap.
But a tax break is a form of subsidy. If you take $5 from everyone but only $1 from 1 person, it is the exact same as taking $5 dollars from everyone and then giving that person $4.
It’s right pocket/left pocket crap.
Car in – thanks. It is okay. Meeting with oath surgeon on Friday to determine if surgical.
All the government does is take the subsidy they’re giving you, and apply it to the money they planned to collect from you because you owe them and telling you to forget about it.
Thus applied, it somehow is suppose to cease being a subsidy.
Let’s say I owe you $500.00. For Christmas, you tell me I don’t owe you anything.
Did I get a loan forgiveness for Christmas? God no! I got $500 cash for Christmas (which you applied to the loan I owed you). TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
One is a duck, and the other is a duck. We’re talking apples and apples here, totally different thing, no comparison.
like the mortgage interest you deduct from your 1040, NOT subsidies.”
That is called the US government subsidizing mortgages.
Ortho not oath.
Respectfully, Entropy, to my mind it’s entirely different.
In a tax break, the government is taking less of what I’ve earned. In a subsidy, you’re giving me money that’s not mine that other people have earned.
Yes, it may net out the same but I think it’s an important distinction. Tax break = I keep more of what’s rightfully mine. Subsidy = I’m taking what other people have earned and isn’t rightfully mine.
Do I have something wrong here? Am I being oversimplistic? Has Ayn Rand infected my hippocampus?
Respectfully Entropy, it seems to me that’s only true if you think all money is government’s money.
My understanding is that the supposed ‘subsidies for oil companies’ are actually tax breaks that all corporations -oil and gas or not – can take. It just doesn’t play well to have the rubes realize we are rescinding tax breaks that everyone gets on a subset of companies that happen to produce oil.
If EVERYONE gets it (I have no idea) then it is not a subsidy.
It’s not even a tax break really – it’s just your money, which you do not owe to the government.
In that case, this isn’t “ending subsidies” it’s creating new taxes.
I’m glad we’re all so nice to each other. I guess Usama getting shot in the face really has brought us all together!
Osama bin Sharkshit.
I just wanted to blurt that out in some random thread.
Sorry, Ernst. Next time I’ll throw out a random obscenity.
You goat-humping toad-fucker, you.
JD,
This isn’t what I was looking for but it should help a bit.
OT, but this is one of the funniest things I’ve seen for a while.
Watch the film. Keep all beverages away from your mouth while watching.
Don’t get me started.
Respectfully Entropy, it seems to me that’s only true if you think all money is government’s money.
You’re reading me wrong. NOT taking 100% of your income doesn’t mean they gave you a 70% subsidy. But ‘special’ tax breaks are subsidies.
It isn’t about the money belonging to the government, it’s about it being collected evenly. In that sense you’re not getting a “break” from the tax – you don’t owe it! If you’re actually getting a ‘break’, you’re getting a subsidy.
Because……
In a tax break, the government is taking less of what I’ve earned. In a subsidy, you’re giving me money that’s not mine that other people have earned.
Right pocket left pocket dude.
Key point: Money is fungible.
If I take $5 from you and then give you $4 back, or if I just take $1 from you – it’s the exact same damn thing.
Yes, it may net out the same but I think it’s an important distinction. Tax break = I keep more of what’s rightfully mine. Subsidy = I’m taking what other people have earned and isn’t rightfully mine.
You’re litterally saying this is an important distinction:
I take $1 from you.
I take $5 from you and give you $4 back.
Did the US gov bail out GM????
Woh there, buddy – important distinction time. How much has GM payed in taxes over the last 3 decades? OK see, they’re just giving GM’s money back to it, or something. It was a retroactive tax break.
The distinction is semantic.
It matters not one bit whether the government takes 30% of everyone’s income, and then gives that money back to the people who spend it the right way they like, or if they just tax those same people less in the first place, still because they spend it the right way that’s well liked.
“Rightfully” my ass. It’s the Gov deciding who should have what money.
You know that the Chevy Volt is subsidiz…eerr,,, sorry… “tax breaked”. Totally different right?
All the government is saying is, if you buy the shit they want you to buy, they’ll let you keep more of your money. As opposed to saying if you buy the shit they want you to buy, they’ll take the same amount of money, but give some of it back.
I have said before and will say it again: I haven’t the foggiest clue about the particulars of this instance with the oil tax crap. I have no idea if this IS a subsidy or not, or a tax break, or a giant talking pork taco.
But if it is a subsidy – OR: if it is a meaningful ‘break’ of what anyone else in thier situation would have to pay – what the hell business of it of the US government to determine which oil companies should succeed and by how much? Why should the “small, domestic, independant” companies be artificially propped up? Either by giving them subsidies, or by giving them breaks that other companies won’t get.
An example of subsidies in action: Buy ultra-effecient lighting for your building, the government will pay for half of it.
An example of tax breaks in action: Buy ultra-effecient lighting for your building, the government will deduct half the cost from the amount you would otherwise owe them.
AFS:
Notice how Exxon Mobil is barely in the top twenty oil companies in the world, in terms of reserves. It’s the fifth largest in terms of production.
Which just says Exxon Mobil is not going to be able to continue producing like that indefinitely, I think.
I go to work, I come home, I pay taxes.
So do you.
You have a mortgage, and I don’t. Why should you pay less taxes than me?
Because you spent all your money on a house and now, after payments, you’re not actually keeping as much of what you earn as income?
Well maybe I bought a shitload of porn DVD’s on my credit card, and now, after payments, I’m not actually keeping as much of what I earn as income either!
But I’d still have to pay just as much taxes.
Because unlike mortgages, the US government isn’t subsidizing porn DVD’s. Which makes real estate agents and homeowners quite happy, and whores and perverts rather sad.
And if you’re copacetic with that (so long as you’re hip to the program, everyone a homeowner and no one throwing out their wrist while watching vile filth), it’s all the same. You won’t be hip to the program for long. Because when I give subsidies/tax breaks to my buddies company, but not his competition, some manufacturers will be quite happy, and others rather sad.
And the government controls the economy, and will use it to rig the market environment in such a way to force you to behave as it pleases.
It also means XOM is incredibly effective at extracting its reserves (whether they only drill where they know they can extract or they get creative getting oil out of the ground). Which should be a goal for all of the oil companies.
I’d also wager that the leases cancelled by the feds cut significantly into reserves for all of the American companies.
But ‘special’ tax breaks are subsidies.
My point is that it is NOT special… all corporations (shorthanded as everybody) that engage in significant research and development and have long lead times between the investment and recouping that investment get it. It’s not a special tax break. The ‘special’ signifier is an attempt to boogeyman their industry to further the meme that Big Oil is bad.
In this instance they are attempting to cut out the tax deduction that big pharma or big IT also gets for R&D. It stinks.
Steph, I can only say what I’ve said: I haven’t a friggin clue on the specifics of this case. I’m just talking in general terms.
It is whatever it is. I don’t know what “this” is. I just know what a subsidy is, and what a tax break is.
So Ayn Rand has infected my brain. It doesn’t matter whether I’m surrendering less of what I earned or whether I’m receiving a check printed after a bureau full of taxpayer-funded monkeys got through approving the forms. Money is fungible, my bottom line is no different so shut up and deal, everybody’s shit stinks. OK.
Using the terms “tax break” and “subsidy” interchangeably is not a problem, I don’t need to fret. OK. Thanks for the education. All I was looking for.
I get the impression I come off pretty caustic or aggressive… it’s just the way I come off.
Darth, if you get your tax rate lowered by 5% just like everyone else in your bracket and your situation, you’re surrendering less of what you earned, and you’re not recieving a subsidy.
If you get a special ‘tax break’ because you bought the right car that Sam likes, or employed the right people, or worked in the right industry… Well you’re still also surrendering less of what you earned, but you’re doing it on account that you’ve recieved a subsidy.
Regardless whether it came in the form of a tax break.
Because really – why give 1 industry a tax break and not another? Or 1 size company, and not another?
I really really really really really really really fail to see how Ayn Rand would ever endorse that.
If I do, it isn’t because I’m deducting my mortage interest. I don’t earn enough to make it worth itemizing. If you have that much income, maybe you should tie some of it up in a mortgage instead of giving it the gubmint.
Ah, but Ernst, that just evades the point.
Because really – why give 1 industry a tax break and not another? Or 1 size company, and not another?
And that’s the nub of the issue. They are demonizing and advocating for punishing one industry to the exclusion of the others. Big Oil Is Bad. Get enough folks to fall for that meme and the rescission becomes easy to push through (and coincidentally push the republicans are for big oil meme).
And just how much R&D are those industries gonna engage in? It is a long march to the cessation of all drilling/fracking/whateverthehellelse they use to force us off oil and gas.
You did see where the EPA is about to outlaw fracking. Ruling came out last week subject to 60 day review. So much for the Dakotas 4% unemployment rate.
“You’re reading me wrong. NOT taking 100% of your income doesn’t mean they gave you a 70% subsidy. But ‘special’ tax breaks are subsidies.”
We’ve debated this here before. I come down on the mortgage deduction is not a subsidy side. Not taxing income used for mortgage interest is “special” only in the sense levying a property tax is “special”. If there was a tax on the income used for mortgage interest, would it be a subsidy for renters to not pay property tax?
And yes Entropy, you are a bad tempered, nasty SOB. ;-)
Another decent source for price components of gasoline is this site at the Dept of Energy.
the wonders of social engineering via tax code: take it from him not me.
Not taxing income used for mortgage interest is “special” only in the sense levying a property tax is “special”.
Property taxes are levied by your locality, income tax by the feds. They are two seperate entities.
Not taxing income used for mortgage interest is special in the sense that they do tax income used for entertainment expenses, or whatever. It’s literally special.
there was a tax on the income used for mortgage interest, would it be a subsidy for renters to not pay property tax?
No, because the owner pays the property tax. Whether or not he passes that cost on to the renter (which he does). And also, because it’s not even the same entity doing the taxing. And they aren’t getting a special exemption, they are exempt – it’d be like claiming someone who had no income at all got a $30,000 tax break since they didn’t pay taxes.
You do not use roads less than I do.
You are not protected by our military less than I am.
Why should the federal government tax you less because you borrowed money to buy a house?
You are telling me that I should share a greater portion of the overall tax burden because I don’t have a mortgage.
If so, so be it. But let’s not pretend we aren’t subsidizing mortgages. It is what it is. If you want to tell me you’re just “rightfully keeping your money”, you must explain to me why oweing $200,000.00 to a bank for a voluntary purchase ‘rightfully’ entitles you to a larger share of the money you make than others.
And I should like to hear that justified.
Eh, I think we’re probably arguing semantics. To me a subsidy is getting something you didn’t earn, like a farmer getting paid for not growing a crop. Different from having something you earn not taken, as a favor is different from an obligation.
The outcome may look the same, but it ignores circumstances.
Maybe I need to finish…
The outcome may look the same, but it ignores circumstances to say they are the same thing.
The money’s not fungible across entities, Entropy. It makes a difference who actually owns it in the first place.
I might buy my groceries out of a checking account that contains both my salary and a cash advance from my credit card; who knows which *actual* dollars I spent. I still have to pay back the credit card company, though. Unless I’m a deadbeat, of course.
“[S]ocial engineering via tax code”
Our entire tax code is infested with various “nudges” to do the “right” thing with your money. Subsidies, tax breaks, exemptions, all of it is Uncle nudging you and me.
That the nudging works better the higher the marginal rate is why Democrats and others who wish to order everyone else around love to raise the rates. It sure isn’t to get more revenue as that has been shown time and again to come from lower rates and a growing economy.
I’d say that tax breaks are different than subsidies but that both of them are in the same class of thing.
That class being: shulks.
Google it. Okay, fine, I’ll save you the work. Here. (Special appearance by Ric Locke in that thread.)
flat taxes are fair to every peep
You can find no shulk in a flat tax. No, sir, you can’t.
Geoff gets to the nub of the matter right there. The problem with all of these assorted policies is that they inherently distort the market. Not by accident or as an unintended consequence but directly and intentionally.
Should you be looking at the tax code when you make purchasing decisions? Why? Should you be looking at the tax code when you make employment or hiring decisions? Why? There is nothing to be gained and everything to be lost. Further, beyond that, is that the proper role of government?
Now, the problem is that our shulks are written into the tax code just like theirs are. Darleen and I were discussing this at some point. The problem we inevitably reach is that the statists will attempt to remove our shulks without decreasing our net taxes by the same degree.
It’s a real problem.
Just think of the market distortion that came about due to the tax free status of healthcare insurance provided as part of your pay from an employer. That one “little” shulk (thank you bh for that word) has by itself led to both Medicare and now Obamacare as “solutions” to problems whose cause is that tax code item which has become inviolable and so all the kludge fixes are added on top and simply make things worse and worse. In politician speak that’s a win-win.
Yes, good example.
Politicians love shulks. They especially love shulks old enough that people forget that they were created by another now dead politician at some point in the past.
There is little free market to be seen anywhere. It’s all new shulks created in response to free market reactions to older shulks in reaction to free market reactions to yet older shulks… until those damn turtles.
Lawyers love it. Regulators love it. Politicians love it.
Until, at some point, we get $5k back while paying a $10k market distortion/paperwork fee/tax attorney cost and think we’re getting a break.
Is there any way to be a vulture in the above scenario, bh?
Heh. Like you need any pointers, JD. Your full name is probably J. Vulture D.
Somewhat seriously, it’s hard to play this sort of thing as a position. But, there are entire professions based on it. Retirement planner, tax attorney, corporate law, specialized fund management. They all make pretty good livings. And there are approximately 200 billion of them in the US alone.
Imagine if they were all producing things we wanted rather than hated.
Paid my home-team shulkers the equivalent of a huge plasma TV last year. And got absolutely nothing for it but legal compliance. You know what would have been nice? A huge plasma TV.
I had a professor in a business class who called every tax reform law, “The Lawyers and Accountants Relief Act of 19XX”. Have to keep tweaking the shulks as people figure out how to maneuver them themselves after a few years.
who knew flat taxers were rEVOLutionaries?