Still pissed off a green energy subsidies?

[Dave]

4 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

Correct , but its an old article,They never cancelled them . They are also building new plants all around the world. 17 under construction as we speak.

Oops

[snopro31]

5 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

You are wrong.  They are not saying it will end in 12 years. Your idiot friends say they are saying that. 

  Look up what they are saying or shut up.

Her lips said that it would end. 

If it doesn't end in 12 years are you going to off yourself?  No you're not. 

the world isnt going to end and the ocean isnt going to rise and flood coastal cities.  its fucking science.

[revkevsdi]

8 hours ago, snopro31 said:

Her lips said that it would end. 

If it doesn't end in 12 years are you going to off yourself?  No you're not. 

the world isnt going to end and the ocean isnt going to rise and flood coastal cities.  its fucking science.

Sorry dumb dumb. You are lying again or were lied to. That’s the problem with following extreme right sites.  They tell you she said something stupid so you will ignore the rest of her message. 

It’s kind of like when mainecat posts something that the right can’t argue with so they call him a pants shitter or some other childish insult. 

[revkevsdi]

11 hours ago, Ez ryder said:

and again I say you were crying from the get go about how big oil was not getting there share on there green side because you did not know you were crying for the likes of BP and mobil and exon .

and again if I had to pick between giving tax cuts to big oil or giving a subsidy to any one i will always side with the tax break on earned income .

what will not giving a tax cut to my energy company do to my energy bill? 

what will giving a subsidy to a theoretical product do to my tax bill ? 

Read your first paragraph again. You either can’t read for content or can’t write. Do I have to misspell words for you to comprehend?

Let’s try it with numbers again, try to follow along  

oil and gas 4,860,000,000.00

nuclear        3,500,000,000.00

total              8,360,000,000.00

green               370,000,000.00

Dumb fuckers like you complain about the green support but it is only 4% of the total given to energy companies.  It is also a newer and improving technology. 

You never complain about 96% of the subsidies when you complain about taxes.  

 

• Average annual support for the oil and gas industry has been $4.86 billion (1918-2009), compared to $3.50 billion for nuclear (1947-1999) and $0.37 billion (1994-2009) for renewable energy.

[Ez ryder]

22 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Read your first paragraph again. You either can’t read for content or can’t write. Do I have to misspell words for you to comprehend?

Let’s try it with numbers again, try to follow along  

oil and gas 4,860,000,000.00

nuclear        3,500,000,000.00

total              8,360,000,000.00

green               370,000,000.00

Dumb fuckers like you complain about the green support but it is only 4% of the total given to energy companies.  It is also a newer and improving technology. 

You never complain about 96% of the subsidies when you complain about taxes.  

 

• Average annual support for the oil and gas industry has been $4.86 billion (1918-2009), compared to $3.50 billion for nuclear (1947-1999) and $0.37 billion (1994-2009) for renewable energy.

and again I say most of that money is,going to the same fucking place .

and I love the odd spread in years in your apples to oranges comparison 

[Cop Watch]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/#616831386e1c

In any presidential election year it is inevitable that candidates on both sides of the political spectrum will begin hailing or bashing tax breaks, subsidies, and regulations throughout the US business landscape. No business is more susceptible to these discussions than the Oil & Gas industry. Depending on the date and audience a candidate is speaking to, an observer will hear that the oil & gas industry is subsidized between $10 billion to $52 billion.

Before we break down the numbers behind the claims, let’s first define subsidy. According to Dictionary.com subsidy can be defined four ways:

1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2. a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3. a grant or contribution of money.
4. money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

 

 

The definition does not claim that a subsidy is defined as not paying a certain amount in taxes.

Now let’s break down the so-called subsidies. You will see these numbers inflated or deflated depending upon the source. In order to arrive at the $52 billion amount we have to analyze estimates at the higher end of the spectrum. The top six “subsidies” included in the $10-$18.5 billion estimates are as follows:

Master Limited Partnerships ($3.9 billion “subsidy”) – Ending the MLP “subsidy” would result in MLP’s being considered corporations that must be taxed before their distributions are passed along to shareholders. Therefore, any MLP income would be taxed at the corporate level and then again at the dividend level. Distributions to shareholders would be impacted substantially. Preventing double taxation is not a subsidy. MLPs also exist for Real Estate and other industries. Furthermore, the “subsidy” affects people across the spectrum from Pensioners, 401ks holders, to widows and orphans - hardly a “subsidy” for the oil and gas industry.

 

Intangible Drilling Costs ($3.5 billion “subsidy” – low estimate is $780 million) - Intangible Drilling Costs are essentially the cost of drilling a new well that have no salvageable value. Currently, most exploration companies are allowed to deduct 100% of the costs in the year they are incurred with the majors able to deduct 70% of the costs immediately with the remaining 30% amortized over 5 years. In what world would money spent that may or may not be recovered be capitalized as an asset?

Royalty Payment Reductions on Federal Lands ($2.2 billion “subsidy”) While paying no royalties on some offshore plots and reduced royalties in some regions might be considered a break by many. The incomes derived from operations are taxed at the same levels as any other income - hardly a “subsidy”.

Depletion Allowance ($1 billion subsidy – low estimate is $900 million) The depletion allowance allows companies to treat reserves in the ground as a capitalized asset that may be written down by 15% per year. The government only allows the “subsidy” for independent producers. Integrated oil companies such as Exxon, BP etc. are not allowed the exemption. Companies across the US are allowed a depreciation deduction for taxation purposes. The oil & gas industry should not be an exception.

Domestic Manufacturing Deduction ($1.7 billion per year – low estimate is $574 million) – Congress passed the tax break in 2004 to encourage manufacturing companies to maintain their operations in the US. The tax break has been extended to oil & gas companies and allows them to deduct 9% of their income from operations. Critics charge that companies would not leave for a lower tax rate. Ever looked at how much cheaper it would be to operate a refinery in another country? Furthermore, the tax break extends to companies across multiple business segments – not just the oil & gas sector.

Foreign Tax Credit ($900 million) The tax break allows US companies to deduct taxes paid in foreign countries from profits when the money is returned to the US. Of all the tax breaks, calling the Foreign Tax Credit a subsidy for the oil & gas industry has to be the most egregious. The US Federal Government allows any corporation doing business outside of the US the same exception.

Several “subsidies” totaling an additional $3 billion combine to complete the $18.5 billion estimate.

In addition to the $18.5 billion in “subsidies” states also grant an additional $3 billion in tax breaks to the oil & gas sector that can be considered subsides. Politicians and political pundits tend to lump state and federal subsidies together. Shockingly, nobody holds them accountable for their misstatements. In addition to the “subsidies” given to oil & gas company operations, politicians attempt to lump in an additional $16 billion in consumption incentives to the oil & gas industry. Consumption incentives range from direct subsidies to low income households for heating oil to tax breaks for farmers, and the US military. It seems that these should be classified as breaks for farmers and the military rather than to oil & gas industry. To somehow get to the $52 billion total, activists then lump in the military costs to defend shipping lanes and pipelines in the Middle East.

Now let’s analyze what the oil & gas sector pays in taxes. In 2012 the top two corporations paying federal taxes in the US were ExxonMobil and Chevron CVX -0.85% paying a combined total of $45.2 billion. On average, the industry pays a 45% tax rate when all state, federal, and foreign taxes are totaled up. By comparison the Healthcare Industry pays a total rate of 35% and the Pharmaceuticals pay an estimated rate of 21%. Based upon these numbers it’s hard to believe which business sector is criticized the most for “subsidies”.

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Cop Watch

[irv]

10 hours ago, steve from amherst said:

Correct , but its an old article,They never cancelled them . They are also building new plants all around the world. 17 under construction as we speak.

1600 plants are planned or under construction throughout the world with 700 being built in China alone. 

These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiledby Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.

Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html

[revkevsdi]

11 hours ago, steve from amherst said:

Correct , but its an old article,They never cancelled them . They are also building new plants all around the world. 17 under construction as we speak.

 

36 minutes ago, irv said:

1600 plants are planned or under construction throughout the world with 700 being built in China alone. 

These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiledby Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.

Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html

So the rest of the world is following Trumps lead. Which will lead to more climate change and one of the largest economies no longer has the moral authority to challenge them because the President doesn't believe in science. 

[steve from amherst]

Just now, revkevsdi said:

 

So the rest of the world is following Trumps lead. Which will lead to more climate change and one of the largest economies no longer has the moral authority to challenge them because the President doesn't believe in science. 

Correct

[revkevsdi]

8 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

Correct

I would say that's a bad thing.  

[revkevsdi]

58 minutes ago, Cop Watch said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/#616831386e1c

In any presidential election year it is inevitable that candidates on both sides of the political spectrum will begin hailing or bashing tax breaks, subsidies, and regulations throughout the US business landscape. No business is more susceptible to these discussions than the Oil & Gas industry. Depending on the date and audience a candidate is speaking to, an observer will hear that the oil & gas industry is subsidized between $10 billion to $52 billion.

Before we break down the numbers behind the claims, let’s first define subsidy. According to Dictionary.com subsidy can be defined four ways:

1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2. a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3. a grant or contribution of money.
4. money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

 

 

The definition does not claim that a subsidy is defined as not paying a certain amount in taxes.

Now let’s break down the so-called subsidies. You will see these numbers inflated or deflated depending upon the source. In order to arrive at the $52 billion amount we have to analyze estimates at the higher end of the spectrum. The top six “subsidies” included in the $10-$18.5 billion estimates are as follows:

Master Limited Partnerships ($3.9 billion “subsidy”) – Ending the MLP “subsidy” would result in MLP’s being considered corporations that must be taxed before their distributions are passed along to shareholders. Therefore, any MLP income would be taxed at the corporate level and then again at the dividend level. Distributions to shareholders would be impacted substantially. Preventing double taxation is not a subsidy. MLPs also exist for Real Estate and other industries. Furthermore, the “subsidy” affects people across the spectrum from Pensioners, 401ks holders, to widows and orphans - hardly a “subsidy” for the oil and gas industry.

 

Intangible Drilling Costs ($3.5 billion “subsidy” – low estimate is $780 million) - Intangible Drilling Costs are essentially the cost of drilling a new well that have no salvageable value. Currently, most exploration companies are allowed to deduct 100% of the costs in the year they are incurred with the majors able to deduct 70% of the costs immediately with the remaining 30% amortized over 5 years. In what world would money spent that may or may not be recovered be capitalized as an asset?

Royalty Payment Reductions on Federal Lands ($2.2 billion “subsidy”) While paying no royalties on some offshore plots and reduced royalties in some regions might be considered a break by many. The incomes derived from operations are taxed at the same levels as any other income - hardly a “subsidy”.

Depletion Allowance ($1 billion subsidy – low estimate is $900 million) The depletion allowance allows companies to treat reserves in the ground as a capitalized asset that may be written down by 15% per year. The government only allows the “subsidy” for independent producers. Integrated oil companies such as Exxon, BP etc. are not allowed the exemption. Companies across the US are allowed a depreciation deduction for taxation purposes. The oil & gas industry should not be an exception.

Domestic Manufacturing Deduction ($1.7 billion per year – low estimate is $574 million) – Congress passed the tax break in 2004 to encourage manufacturing companies to maintain their operations in the US. The tax break has been extended to oil & gas companies and allows them to deduct 9% of their income from operations. Critics charge that companies would not leave for a lower tax rate. Ever looked at how much cheaper it would be to operate a refinery in another country? Furthermore, the tax break extends to companies across multiple business segments – not just the oil & gas sector.

Foreign Tax Credit ($900 million) The tax break allows US companies to deduct taxes paid in foreign countries from profits when the money is returned to the US. Of all the tax breaks, calling the Foreign Tax Credit a subsidy for the oil & gas industry has to be the most egregious. The US Federal Government allows any corporation doing business outside of the US the same exception.

Several “subsidies” totaling an additional $3 billion combine to complete the $18.5 billion estimate.

In addition to the $18.5 billion in “subsidies” states also grant an additional $3 billion in tax breaks to the oil & gas sector that can be considered subsides. Politicians and political pundits tend to lump state and federal subsidies together. Shockingly, nobody holds them accountable for their misstatements. In addition to the “subsidies” given to oil & gas company operations, politicians attempt to lump in an additional $16 billion in consumption incentives to the oil & gas industry. Consumption incentives range from direct subsidies to low income households for heating oil to tax breaks for farmers, and the US military. It seems that these should be classified as breaks for farmers and the military rather than to oil & gas industry. To somehow get to the $52 billion total, activists then lump in the military costs to defend shipping lanes and pipelines in the Middle East.

Now let’s analyze what the oil & gas sector pays in taxes. In 2012 the top two corporations paying federal taxes in the US were ExxonMobil and Chevron CVX -0.85% paying a combined total of $45.2 billion. On average, the industry pays a 45% tax rate when all state, federal, and foreign taxes are totaled up. By comparison the Healthcare Industry pays a total rate of 35% and the Pharmaceuticals pay an estimated rate of 21%. Based upon these numbers it’s hard to believe which business sector is criticized the most for “subsidies”.

 

Thanks. I will look at those numbers tonight. 

[steve from amherst]

Just now, revkevsdi said:

I would say that's a bad thing.  

It is what it is. Ya just need to learn to look for the brighter things in life. Rainier weather should make kayaking more fun. Well when its dry enough to want to go.

[revkevsdi]

6 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

It is what it is. Ya just need to learn to look for the brighter things in life. Rainier weather should make kayaking more fun. Well when its dry enough to want to go.

I have a deep well at my house and a well at the two business properties I own. They all produce a lot of water. I will be fine.

They are also located in Canada which will benefit from a longer growing cycle and I'm well above sea level.

Doesn't mean I want the rest of the world to suffer. 

[steve from amherst]

And Ill be fine too. See , life is good.

[ArcticCrusher]

Just now, steve from amherst said:

And Ill be fine too. See , life is good.

We'll all be fine.

[steve from amherst]

1 minute ago, ArcticCrusher said:

We'll all be fine.

But ya gotta admit. Thinking about the economic opportunities of a redesigned coastline is kinda exciting.

[snopro31]

3 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Sorry dumb dumb. You are lying again or were lied to. That’s the problem with following extreme right sites.  They tell you she said something stupid so you will ignore the rest of her message. 

It’s kind of like when mainecat posts something that the right can’t argue with so they call him a pants shitter or some other childish insult. 

so what she said on live tv was false? 

pretty sure she just said it without being under duress.  

but you can sit there and state its false when it is a FACT.

[irv]

2 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

 

So the rest of the world is following Trumps lead. Which will lead to more climate change and one of the largest economies no longer has the moral authority to challenge them because the President doesn't believe in science. 

Yeah, it's all Trump's fault because the Chinese care so much what he thinks. 

[snopro31]

2 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

 

So the rest of the world is following Trumps lead. Which will lead to more climate change and one of the largest economies no longer has the moral authority to challenge them because the President doesn't believe in science. 

Didnt the USA have the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions under Donald the man Trump?

[revkevsdi]

5 hours ago, snopro31 said:

so what she said on live tv was false? 

pretty sure she just said it without being under duress.  

but you can sit there and state its false when it is a FACT.

Where is your link to her saying it?

[Dave]

7 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

I have a deep well at my house and a well at the two business properties I own. They all produce a lot of water. I will be fine.

They are also located in Canada which will benefit from a longer growing cycle and I'm well above sea level.

Doesn't mean I want the rest of the world to suffer. 

There you go lying again.

[Dave]

4 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Where is your link to her saying it?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/

 

[revkevsdi]

8 hours ago, Cop Watch said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/#616831386e1c

In any presidential election year it is inevitable that candidates on both sides of the political spectrum will begin hailing or bashing tax breaks, subsidies, and regulations throughout the US business landscape. No business is more susceptible to these discussions than the Oil & Gas industry. Depending on the date and audience a candidate is speaking to, an observer will hear that the oil & gas industry is subsidized between $10 billion to $52 billion.

Before we break down the numbers behind the claims, let’s first define subsidy. According to Dictionary.com subsidy can be defined four ways:

1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2. a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3. a grant or contribution of money.
4. money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

 

 

The definition does not claim that a subsidy is defined as not paying a certain amount in taxes.

Now let’s break down the so-called subsidies. You will see these numbers inflated or deflated depending upon the source. In order to arrive at the $52 billion amount we have to analyze estimates at the higher end of the spectrum. The top six “subsidies” included in the $10-$18.5 billion estimates are as follows:

Master Limited Partnerships ($3.9 billion “subsidy”) – Ending the MLP “subsidy” would result in MLP’s being considered corporations that must be taxed before their distributions are passed along to shareholders. Therefore, any MLP income would be taxed at the corporate level and then again at the dividend level. Distributions to shareholders would be impacted substantially. Preventing double taxation is not a subsidy. MLPs also exist for Real Estate and other industries. Furthermore, the “subsidy” affects people across the spectrum from Pensioners, 401ks holders, to widows and orphans - hardly a “subsidy” for the oil and gas industry.

 

Intangible Drilling Costs ($3.5 billion “subsidy” – low estimate is $780 million) - Intangible Drilling Costs are essentially the cost of drilling a new well that have no salvageable value. Currently, most exploration companies are allowed to deduct 100% of the costs in the year they are incurred with the majors able to deduct 70% of the costs immediately with the remaining 30% amortized over 5 years. In what world would money spent that may or may not be recovered be capitalized as an asset?

Royalty Payment Reductions on Federal Lands ($2.2 billion “subsidy”) While paying no royalties on some offshore plots and reduced royalties in some regions might be considered a break by many. The incomes derived from operations are taxed at the same levels as any other income - hardly a “subsidy”.

Depletion Allowance ($1 billion subsidy – low estimate is $900 million) The depletion allowance allows companies to treat reserves in the ground as a capitalized asset that may be written down by 15% per year. The government only allows the “subsidy” for independent producers. Integrated oil companies such as Exxon, BP etc. are not allowed the exemption. Companies across the US are allowed a depreciation deduction for taxation purposes. The oil & gas industry should not be an exception.

Domestic Manufacturing Deduction ($1.7 billion per year – low estimate is $574 million) – Congress passed the tax break in 2004 to encourage manufacturing companies to maintain their operations in the US. The tax break has been extended to oil & gas companies and allows them to deduct 9% of their income from operations. Critics charge that companies would not leave for a lower tax rate. Ever looked at how much cheaper it would be to operate a refinery in another country? Furthermore, the tax break extends to companies across multiple business segments – not just the oil & gas sector.

Foreign Tax Credit ($900 million) The tax break allows US companies to deduct taxes paid in foreign countries from profits when the money is returned to the US. Of all the tax breaks, calling the Foreign Tax Credit a subsidy for the oil & gas industry has to be the most egregious. The US Federal Government allows any corporation doing business outside of the US the same exception.

Several “subsidies” totaling an additional $3 billion combine to complete the $18.5 billion estimate.

In addition to the $18.5 billion in “subsidies” states also grant an additional $3 billion in tax breaks to the oil & gas sector that can be considered subsides. Politicians and political pundits tend to lump state and federal subsidies together. Shockingly, nobody holds them accountable for their misstatements. In addition to the “subsidies” given to oil & gas company operations, politicians attempt to lump in an additional $16 billion in consumption incentives to the oil & gas industry. Consumption incentives range from direct subsidies to low income households for heating oil to tax breaks for farmers, and the US military. It seems that these should be classified as breaks for farmers and the military rather than to oil & gas industry. To somehow get to the $52 billion total, activists then lump in the military costs to defend shipping lanes and pipelines in the Middle East.

Now let’s analyze what the oil & gas sector pays in taxes. In 2012 the top two corporations paying federal taxes in the US were ExxonMobil and Chevron CVX -0.85% paying a combined total of $45.2 billion. On average, the industry pays a 45% tax rate when all state, federal, and foreign taxes are totaled up. By comparison the Healthcare Industry pays a total rate of 35% and the Pharmaceuticals pay an estimated rate of 21%. Based upon these numbers it’s hard to believe which business sector is criticized the most for “subsidies”.

 

This article argues why it’s wrong for the oil companies to get the same subsidies as mfg’s. not whether they get them. 

It does that to explain 18 billion then says this.   

y. To somehow get to the $52 billion total, activists then lump in the military costs to defend shipping lanes and pipelines in the Middle East.

 

So in order to keep oil and gas prices low the government spends 34 billion protecting Saudi oil. 

You’re ok with that instead of green energy?  

[revkevsdi]

3 minutes ago, DAVE said:

There you go lying again.

 

1 minute ago, DAVE said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/

 

Dumb Fuck Dave.  Your stupidity is on full display again.  That’s not Greta. 

[Dave]

Just now, revkevsdi said:

 

Dumb Fuck Dave.  Your stupidity is on full display again.  That’s not Greta. 

Oh thats who i thought you were talking about.