| Conundrum |
| ||
|
http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/03/senate-republicans-defeat-white-house-proposal-strip-subsidies-from-oil-companies-senate-gop-defeats-white-house-plan-strip-oil-subsidies/ukS3mjDoTIO86sAp0rMTmL/index.html They have record profits, they control our supply through owning the refineries and deciding how much oil to export, oil production has never been higher. We are hurting with high gas prices. So why do they need our subsidy? |
| Lyndon Larouche |
| ||
|
The oil companies are victims....they need our help! |
| Sammy13 |
| ||
|
Oil excutives are like high priced welfare queens. Both have a sense of entitlement. |
| Duh? |
| ||
|
It's what the Republicans want. |
| coach d |
| ||
|
But I'll bet every one of those republicans voting for the oil company welfare queens will try to blame Obama for the federal debt (and fail to remember that he inherited at $1.7 trillion federal deficit from GWB's last year). |
| Rational Economics |
| ||
|
Your question has a socialist premise. A subsidy is the provision of money to one party that was collected from other taxpayers. In this case, the "subsidies" in question are actually tax credits, so you're distorting the very concept of a subsidy. The conflation of tax credits with subsidies assumes that the earnings of oil companies are the collective property of society, which is the moral basis of socialism and communism. Also, oil companies do not control how much product gets exported; currency exchange rates do. Oil companies give strength to our currency by producing values for which the U.S. dollar can be redeemed. The weakening of our currency is being caused by the fiscal and monetary policies whose primary champions are the current crop of leftists, who openly recommend weakening the dollar to "stimulate" the economy and promote exports. |
| Blowing.Rock Master |
| ||
|
Define "subsidy". |
| gasser |
| ||
You're distorting the concept between a credit available to all companies/industries and those available only to select companies/industries. The latter would be a subsidy. |
| Rational Economics |
| ||
A tax credit is NEVER a subsidy under any circumstance. |
| Reality Checker |
| ||
|
Obviously the oil companies do not need these subsidies (or tax credits). The Republicans whine about big gov't and waste, but they hypocritically vote for big oil profits with one hand while getting the other one greased by big oil. Meanwhile they pass Ryan's budget which includes tax breaks for millionaires funded by Medicare cuts. What are they thinking? They're not only making sure Obama gets re-elected, but they're going to lose a number of congressional seats, too. |
| Information |
| ||
|
Paul Ryan never served in the military. |
| Blowing.Rock Master |
| ||
No company should receive subsidies - period. And that also goes for all the ones Democrats support. The rest of your post has nothing to do with this argument, but I will point out that Warren Buffet's tax bill would go up under Ryan's plan. |
| ryan foreman |
| ||
|
Because we have a mild form of fascist government in our country. Corporations are part of the government and government is part of the corporations. Any other questions? |
| coach d |
| ||
|
A tax credit is giving someone something (or allowing them to pay less) that somebody else has to pay for. That IS a SUBSIDY unless everyone gets it.
It appears that the taxpayers are GIVING the oil industry more in subsidies dishonestly (by paying off people like Ryan and Santorum) than they are making "honestly" (why is the gasoline-crude price spread in the futures market substantially greater than it was in the first half of 2008?) in the marketplace. |
| Reality Checker |
| ||
Read it again. It has everything to do with answering the OP's question. |
| health freedom |
| ||
Actually oil companies DO need to keep their own earnings. |
| Corrupt-o-crat Conundrums |
| ||
|
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/21/tax_repatriation_holiday/ These companies' profit margins make the oil companions look like girl scouts fundraisers. Why do the corruptocrats not piss, moan and whine about them? |
| Blowing.Rock Master |
| ||
If you get to keep some of the money you earned via a tax credit, how is somebody else paying you? Was it their money to begin with? If so, then how much of what you earn actually belongs to someone else? 10%, 50%, 100%? For you to get a subsidy, money has to be taken from someone else and given to you. You can only classify keeping money you earned as a subsidy if you assume that everything you earn belongs to someone else. |
| Blowing.Rock Master |
| ||
Read it again. It has everything to do with answering the OP's question.[/quote] Here's the OP's question: "They have record profits, they control our supply through owning the refineries and deciding how much oil to export, oil production has never been higher. We are hurting with high gas prices. So why do they need our subsidy?" Please point out where the OP mentioned Paul Ryan, Medicare, or giving tax breaks (that they're not getting) to millionaires. |
| gasser |
| ||
|
Argue over semantics if you wish but you are purposefully mis-stating the situation. There is no economic difference between a company paying taxes at a discounted rate, or the company paying the given rate and then receiving a refunded credit. A credit-eligible oil or gas outfit will pay taxes at a lower rate than your local coffee shop assuming the same level of income. This is an example of subsidized tax policy directed toward one business relative to another. Or if you wish to play semantics one could say that it's a direct government penalty to one un-favored business over another. It doesn't have to be an oil company to be true. |