This ain't a Full House

[ilovedomains]

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_56...x_subsidy.html

tax sub·si·dy (plural tax sub·si·dies)
noun
Definition:
Subsidy reflected in tax system:
A government subsidy to a particular company, industry, or activity in the form of reduced taxation

[Gerry]

Careful, you are asking for too much...

[Raider]

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_56...x_subsidy.html

tax sub·si·dy (plural tax sub·si·dies)
noun
Definition:
Subsidy reflected in tax system:
A government subsidy to a particular company, industry, or activity in the form of reduced taxation

Now clarify for us what tax subsidies the US Government is giving the oil companies (aside from ethanol)... H2FC dodged this question twice and I trust you'll do the same. Watch.

While your thinking about that, try educating yourself beyond a "piss ant" dictionary definition;


Oil Company “Subsidies” Clarified
May 3, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

We’re still seeing a flood of calls from both sides of the aisle to cut subsidies as part of an overall strategy to reduce spending in Washington. While there is plenty available to cut, there has been a steady and disingenuous conflation being promoted by the White House which seeks to describe certain tax benefits received by companies in all manner of industries as “subsidies for big oil.” Just last week Tim Pawlenty was taking to the stump in an attempt to call out these warped descriptions.

MANCHESTER, N.H. – Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty called a White House proposal to reduced tax breaks for oil companies “ludicrous” after a gathering of tea party activists.

“I think we should have a discussion about all subsidies,” Mr. Pawlenty told Washington Wire at a forum for 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls. “But the Obama proposal is ludicrous. I mean the worst thing we could do is raise the cost burden on costs on energy and oil… What he’s proposing is a tax increase on energy at a time when the gas is $4 a gallon. It’s preposterous.”

For those seeking to sort out the definitions of the terms being used, the American Petroleum Institute has published a new paper doing just that.

Contrary to what some in politics and the media have said, the oil and natural gas industry currently enjoys no unique tax credits or deductions. Since its inception, the US tax code has allowed corporate tax payers the ability to recover costs and to be taxed only on net income. These cost recovery mechanisms, also known in policy circles as “tax expenditures”, should in no way be confused with “subsidies”, i.e., direct government spending.

Here are a few of the items which are being incorrectly identified as “subsidies” inside the beltway:

Intangible Drilling Costs – Companies which engage purely in energy exploration and discovery can recover their costs related to exploration at tax time at a rate of 100%. This lessens the burden on energy providers for the number of “dry holes” which may be found in the process. Integrated companies (i.e. “big oil”) can recover these exploration costs at 70%. Not a subsidy.

Domestic Manufacturer’s Deduction (Section 199) – A deduction (not a credit) equal to 9% of income earned from manufacturing, producing, growing or extracting in the United States, is available to every single taxpayer who qualifies in the U.S. The oil and gas industry, and only the oil and gas industry, is limited to a 6% deduction.

Percentage Depletion – The percentage depletion deduction is a cost recovery method that allows taxpayers to recover their lease investment in a mineral interest through a percentage of gross income from a well. This depletion method is not available to companies that produce oil as well as refine and market it (i.e. “Big Oil”.) This is available to all extractive industries (gold, iron, clay, etc) in the US and is in no way unique to the oil and gas industry.

There are more, so download the paper and read them for yourself. Then, when you hear your congressman talking about all of the “subsidies” for big oil, you can set them straight based on the facts.

To be clear, the federal government does engage in the handing out of a lot of actual subsidies, including those for ethanol and a variety of wasteful programs which are essentially failures on their own merit without feeding off the teat of Uncle Sam. And we should certainly be looking at those areas as way to address cost cutting. But trying to depict tax credits used by the energy industry – in the same fashion as every other industry – as some sort of special love festival for Big Oil is dishonest.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/0...ies-clarified/

"Dishonest" is H2FC's middle name

[H2FC]

The elected officials in Washington who support the oil companies gouging of the American people do it for the payoff money.....Raider does it for free because she's against anything Obama and his supporters are for.

To go against the great majority of middle and lower class Americans in support of the rich oil companies is totally wrong and unamerican. As always Raider is on the wrong side of another important issue. The tax subsidies for the oil companies WILL BE rescinded just like the fight against MMGW will prevail, in spite of people like Raider, crooked politicians, and the greedy rich oil companies. But when that happens, as it will, lets not forget which side Raider was on.

[Raider]

The elected officials in Washington who support the oil companies gouging of the American people do it for the payoff money.....Raider does it for free because she's against anything Obama and his supporters are for.

To go against the great majority of middle and lower class Americans in support of the rich oil companies is totally wrong and unamerican. As always Raider is on the wrong side of another important issue. The tax subsidies for the oil companies WILL BE rescinded just like the fight against MMGW will prevail, in spite of people like Raider, crooked politicians, and the greedy rich oil companies. But when that happens, as it will, lets not forget which side Raider was on.

Stuck on Stupid as always.

The funniest thing about your posts is that you actually think nobody sees through your rhetoric and propaganda.

If were going to debate about what side were both on, it's clear that your on the side of Bigger Government and Higher Prices at the Pump, and I'm on the side of private sector businesses, lower taxes and smaller Government... You have a Socialist ideology, I have a conservative/libertarian ideology.

Since your so outraged about tax breaks, subsidies and the greedy rich, why have you been silent about General Electric who paid ZERO income tax? Could it be because they stand the most to gain from "cap and trade?" or rather "cap and tax"?


GE: 7,000 tax returns, $0 U.S. tax bill

By Annalyn Censky, staff reporterApril 16, 2010: 11:52 AM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Electric filed more than 7,000 income tax returns in hundreds of global jurisdictions last year, but when push came to shove, the company owed the U.S. government a whopping bill of $0.

How'd it pull off that trick? By losing lots of money.

GE had plenty of earnings last year -- just not in the United States. For tax purposes, the company's U.S. operations lost $408 million, while its international businesses netted a $10.8 billion profit.

That left GE (GE, Fortune 500) with no U.S. profit left for Uncle Sam to tax. Corporations typically face a 35% federal income tax on their earnings. Thanks to its deductions and adjustments, GE reported an actual U.S. federal income tax rate of negative 10.5%. It got to add a "tax benefit" of $1.1 billion back into its reported earnings.

"This is the first time in at least decades that GE has reported negative U.S. pretax income and it reflects the worst economy since the Great Depression," Anne Eisele, GE's director of financial communications, said via e-mail.

But what about the $10.8 billion profit overseas? GE is "indefinitely" deferring income tax payments on those profits, Eisele said.

It may seem like accounting magic, but it's completely legit.

GE isn't the only "Top 5" company on this year's Fortune 500 list that owed no income taxes. Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), which suffered major losses in 2009, included a tax benefit of $1.9 billion in its annual profit.

"That's one way of escaping taxes," said Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. "Companies get to deduct their losses, so if there's no earnings, then they pay no income tax."

But GE isn't exactly escaping all tax-related pain: The company paid almost $23 billion in taxes to governments around the world from 2000 to 2009, Eisele said.

Plus, paying the accountants to crank out 7,000 tax returns can't be cheap.

And then there's all the lawyers needed to defend those returns. GE filed tax paperwork in more than 250 jurisdictions around the world last year. "We are under examination or engaged in tax litigation in many of these jurisdictions," the company dryly notes in its annual report.

GE may not owe the IRS, but it still has to file -- and its filings are epic.

In 2006, as the IRS ramped up its corporate e-filing program, the tax agency actually issued a celebratory press release when it processed GE's tax return. On paper, the return -- the nation's largest -- would have totaled a massive 24,000 pages. But instead, the IRS was able to upload the 237 MB document in under an hour.

Reading it, though, is apparently taking a bit longer. The IRS is currently auditing GE's tax returns for 2003-2007. To top of page

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news...0_tax_returns/



In H2FC's mind, GE should get a free pass on paying Taxes because their "Good" for the environment and Big Oil should be punished by paying the highest taxes because their "Bad" for the environment.

[H2FC]

Big Oil should be punished by paying the highest taxes because their "Bad" for the environment.

You finally said something that makes sense. I'm in total agreement we should put big taxes on the things that do us harm and give the big subsidies to things that are good for us. If we added up all the true cost of burning fossil fuels for energy it would prove that alternate green energies are a real bargain.

If we could just get rid of the big payoffs from the greedy bastards that control our energy policies we would have a green economy in no time at all and we would all be much better for it. To support and maintain an industry with payoffs to those who cast their vote for them is totally wrong and unacceptable. This will change over time in spite of stupid people who support it.

[Raider]

You finally said something that makes sense. I'm in total agreement we should put big taxes on the things that do us harm and give the big subsidies to things that are good for us. If we added up all the true cost of burning fossil fuels for energy it would prove that alternate green energies are a real bargain.

If we could just get rid of the big payoffs from the greedy bastards that control our energy policies we would have a green economy in no time at all and we would all be much better for it. To support and maintain an industry with payoffs to those who cast their vote for them is totally wrong and unacceptable. This will change over time in spite of stupid people who support it.

Allowing vehicles to operate so the world can function is harming us?

It's one thing to stand up for the environment, but it's a completely different thing when you advocate higher gas prices that effect hardworking families who are struggling to survive in one of the worst economies in recent history, that my friend is not only cruel and selfish, it's asinine.

I do appreciate your honesty though, when you say that "Greed" only applies to industries you dislike... Thank you for making that clear.