Pentagon: renewable energy means (military) power

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul, you're hopeless. You're premise is that companies do not owe their share to public coffers. That would then suggest that companies do not benefit in any way, shape or form from the public services funded from those public coffers. The latter suggestion is obviously ridiculous and the your premise falls. The rest of your argument being built on that premise, falls all the same.

Dude, they pay their fair share. As said (and you acknowledged) they pay more in a month than you will in a lifetime. Hell, they pay more in a month than your extended family will pay in a lifetime.

[Zero Sum 305]

Of course they are subsidized. You can say they aren't but that certainly doesn't make it so. And what point do you try to prove with the silly argument that a giant oil company pays more in taxes in a month than I will in a lifetime? They make more money in a day than I will in a lifetime. As such, it would seem quite obvious that they'd pay more in taxes in a month than I will in a lifetime. What's your point?

Allowing a company - or an individual - to keep more of their money isn't a subsidy. I can agree with that statement. But when you build special accommodations into the tax code that provide either additional deduction opportunities or tax credits (both exist) to an oil company but not to other companies, then that is a subsidy. A business is a business is a business. There's a tax rate that a business pays on what it earns. Makes the playing field level if it applies to all companies the same. But when you give preferential treatment to certain businesses, then they are being subsidized via the tax code.

DUH

If he wants to argue for lower regulations for polluters and tax-leeches, he should also argue for similar earnings to be able to use the tax revenue logic he uses. This might come from his support of corporations as legal individuals as defined by the Supreme Court.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

This is why there will be moon wars over helium 3. Russia China vs US- game back on we are screwed.

[Vi-Jay 218]

The first Chinese Lunar Exploration Program un-manned lunar orbiter Chang'e 1 was successfully launched on October 24, 2007, making China the fifth nation to successfully orbit the Moon.

Too far behind to seriously compete, for now.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dude, they pay their fair share. As said (and you acknowledged) they pay more in a month than you will in a lifetime. Hell, they pay more in a month than your extended family will pay in a lifetime.

And as I said: They make more money in a day than I will in a lifetime. As such, it would seem quite obvious that they'd pay more in taxes in a month than I will in a lifetime. What's your point?

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

They are. These subsidies date back to the days when oil didn't fetch enough money on the market to cover the cost of extracting it. They were, at the time, in the public interest as they prevented oil companies from shutting down production in the US. That's no longer the case, however. Oil fetches enough money on the market and more than comfortably covers the expense of extracting it. These subsidies are estimated to be about $4 billion a year. Clearly, the largest oil companies each make more than that in profits each month and do no longer depend on these subsidies to keep extracting oil. They're outdated. But they are subsidies all the same.

what money is being paid by the government to the oil companies, in order to satisfy your claim to #1?

(tax breaks are not a subsidy, btw).

[Zero Sum 305]

tax break = less tax revenue = compared to the taxation rate of others.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

what money is being paid by the government to the oil companies, in order to satisfy your claim to #1?

(tax breaks are not a subsidy, btw).

How so? Look, tax credits - which oil companies receive - are no doubt subsidies as tax credits don't require a tax liability to qualify for them. If that is true (and it would be hard to argue that it isn't), then it's not much of a stretch to argue that reducing a tax liability via tax breaks is a subsidy. The only difference between a tax break and a tax credit is that the former requires a tax liability while the latter does not.

This is one of the reasons we're in this fiscal mess. Republicans just don't understand that each ledger has two sides.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

How so? Look, tax credits - which oil companies receive - are no doubt subsidies as tax credits don't require a tax liability to qualify for them. If that is true (and it would be hard to argue that it isn't), then it's not much of a stretch to argue that reducing a tax liability via tax breaks is a subsidy. The only difference between a tax break and a tax credit is that the former requires a tax liability while the latter does not.

This is one of the reasons we're in this fiscal mess. Republicans just don't understand that each ledger has two sides.

are tax credits real money changing hands?

next thing i know you'll tell me a child tax credit is the government paying me to keep more of my own money.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

How so? Look, tax credits - which oil companies receive - are no doubt subsidies as tax credits don't require a tax liability to qualify for them. If that is true (and it would be hard to argue that it isn't), then it's not much of a stretch to argue that reducing a tax liability via tax breaks is a subsidy. The only difference between a tax break and a tax credit is that the former requires a tax liability while the latter does not.

This is one of the reasons we're in this fiscal mess. Republicans just don't understand that each ledger has two sides.

If we're throwing stones, Democrats never met a dollar they didn't know how to spend. (of course that seems to be both parties in the last decade).

Honestly though, if a company is still paying billions in overall taxes each year, that company is hardly the 'problem' when it comes to our 'fiscal mess.'

You really should stop and think about that one again.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

are tax credits real money changing hands?

next thing i know you'll tell me a child tax credit is the government paying me to keep more of my own money.

Absolutely. And I say that because you get the child tax credit even if your tax liability is zero - i.e. you get that $1,000.00 even if you have paid $0.00 in income taxes for the tax year. The government will pay you whether you have a tax liability or not. Hence, it's a tax credit rather than a deduction.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Honestly though, if a company is still paying billions in overall taxes each year, that company is hardly the 'problem' when it comes to our 'fiscal mess.'

Consider:

In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.

Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003.

The statistics are startling:

• Eighty-two of the 275 [Fortune 500] companies, almost a third of the total, paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001 to 2003. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $35.6 billion in income taxes as the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they received outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury, totaling $12.6 billion. These companies' "negative tax rates" meant that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.
  
• Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax rates over the entire 2001-2003 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $44.9 billion over the three years, included, among others: Pepco Holdings (-59.6 percent tax rate), Prudential Financial (-46.2 percent), ITT Industries (-22.3 percent), Boeing (-18.8 percent), Unisys (-16.0 percent), Fluor (-9.2 percent) and CSX (-7.5 percent), the company previously headed by current Secretary of the Treasury John Snow.
  
• In 2003 alone, 46 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes. These 46 companies told their shareholders they earned U.S. pretax profits in 2003 of $42.6 billion, yet they received tax rebates totaling $5.4 billion. Almost as many companies, 42, paid no tax in 2002, reporting $43.5 billion in pretax profits, yet receiving $4.9 billion in tax rebates. From 2001 to 2003, the number of no-tax companies jumped from 33 to 46, an increase of 40 percent.
  
• In 2001, the Treasury paid corporations $40 billion in tax refunds, a third more than the 1998-2000 average.
  
• Then in 2002 and 2003, after the law was changed to expand tax subsidies and make it easier for corporations to carry back excess tax breaks to earlier years, corporate tax refunds skyrocketed to an average of $63 billion a year - more than double the 1998-2000 average.
  

So yeah, cry me that corporate river. Just don't expect me to get all sentimental.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

You do realize there's a big difference in a companies keeping their money versus taking it from other people right.... It's not on the backs of taxpayers if someone is keeping their own money. Exxon Mobil's overall US Tax burden (we're not talking income taxes) far exceeds $4 billion for them alone.... Part of the reason why these companies are given that tax break is because of how much foreign oil they are out there getting for the US and the tax burden they have overseas. It's astronomical. The "big evil" oil companies pay out A LOT of money to stay in business around the world.

We are drilling? Yeah, we're drilling where we are still allowed to. Permit after permit to drill in other areas is denied time and time again and the Environmental Whackjobs have blocked new refineries for over 30 years.

So you tell me what's smart and what's not.

Oil is not the 'past' It is the present and the future as well. To think it's not is ignorant as hell.

That goes the same for solar, bio-fuels, hydrogen fuel cells, etc.

You need a fine balance.

Our "dependence" on foreign oil though is thanks to the environmental lobby (aka criminal front groups) who would rather us be that way than play smart.

And how much does it cost "Joe Tax Payer" to fund two bs wars for these oil company's ?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And how much does it cost "Joe Tax Payer" to fund two bs wars for these oil company's ?

There's a cost to doing business, you know. Remember, the oil companies struggle with oil going for a lousy $115.00 a barrel. Gotta help them out a bit. Would hate to see those CEOs and shareholders having to get in line at the food bank. Wouldn't you?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

There's a cost to doing business, you know. Remember, the oil companies struggle with oil going for a lousy $115.00 a barrel. Gotta help them out a bit. Would hate to see those CEOs and shareholders having to get in line at the food bank. Wouldn't you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110428/ts_nm/us_oil_profits

Exxon and Shell profits surge on higher oil prices

"Profits for the world's biggest oil producers have surged as oil prices moved above $100 per barrel in the first quarter on unrest in the Middle East and Africa and growing global demand for energy.

Those profits come as U.S. oil companies face growing criticism for tax breaks they receive for pumping oil, even as the retail gasoline prices continue to spiral higher, reaching an average of $3.886 per gallon, up 35 percent a year ago, according to travel group AAA.

Exxon, the world's most valuable publicly listed company, posted a 69 percent increase in earnings to $10.65 billion, its biggest profit since the third-quarter of 2008, when oil prices last traded above $100 per barrel.

Alone among its Western peers, Exxon recorded an increase in production in the quarter, notching a 10 percent rise from a year-earlier to 4.82 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd), helped by its takeover of U.S. natural gas company XTO last year......"

Edited April 28, 2011 by Why_Me