Interesting article on pulling fossil fuel subsidies

I’m no expert so maybe there is a bigger picture to consider but why are we subsidizing companies that declare 300 billion dollars in annual profits ?

As far as fossil fuels going away it’s inevitable. By their own estimates oil reserves will begin to deplete as early as 50 years. I’m not likely to see it but that doesn’t mean it isn’t coming. We better figure out some big ass batteries or clean nuclear or something.

Maybe subsidies should be spent on whatever is going to replace fossil fuels ? I know common sense isn’t common but the writing is on the wall.

As you know neither is a subsidy. Yes the percentage depletion allowance is a tax loophole. Maybe intangible drilling costs too. The argument for IDC’s is that they have no salvage value, unlike pumps, tubing, surface equipment etc., so they should be deducted the year they are incurred instead of depreciated.

In any event oil companies pay severance tax, which is like a tax loophole in reverse. It’s a tax other companies don’t have to pay. And the cost of severance taxes exceeds the benefit of percentage depletion and IDC’s.

In other words, Obama was full of it when he called these subsidies. They’re not. They’re complications in the tax code. Originally Posted by Tiny

Obama was constantly full of shit

Obama would talk about the subsidies for oil and gas, then Romney would come back with solyndra, saying something like obama shouldn't pick winners and losers but even so why did he always pick the loser

Fossil fuel going nowhere anytime soon, and don't need green energy isn't perfected ( unless u like cold ) , nuclear is the way forward

I'm a big proponent of nuclear.

Right now I'm a big proponent of them all.

What I get tired of are these idiots crying about green subsidies and not acknowledging fossil fuels.

You are lying once again. If you look closely the article was really about debt and austerity.

But you are a little picture guy. You can make shit up about interpretations of picture and paintings. You are not capable of comprehending a movie and sitting through reality. With your limited world view and alternate reality. This from the article:

On October 1, Moreno’s government announced the rapid removal of subsidies for gasoline and diesel as part of a larger austerity package (el paquetazo) initiated by the government in response to an International Monetary Fund loan from February 2019 that is conditional on fiscal reforms. The removal of these subsidies alone were estimated to result in savings of around of USD 1.4 billion per year. Originally Posted by WTF

Only a habitual lying liar like you accuses someone else of lying without pointing out a single lie. Unlike everyone else, I DID read the article. Unlike you, I explained what it was about. Only after you were caught with your pants down did you admit it's about "debt and austerity" in Ecuador. So it has nothing to do with the kind of "subsidies" oil companies are stupidly accused of enjoying, i.e. depletion allowances and the like. It has to do with the government of Ecuador subsidizing the retail price of gasoline.

Only a sloppy moron would call this a thread on "pulling fossil fuel subsidies" and then turn around and admit it's really about "debt and austerity".

You're a small pee-pee guy pretending you have a big swinging dick. You've been hopelessly out of touch with that reality since the day you were born. You needed forceps to make it out of the birth canal. You've been trying to "fake it til you make it" ever since. Problem is you never get past the "fake it" stage because you are constantly exposed as an ignorant fraud.

I have no link other than I pay attention

especially when oil and gas is mentioned

mine is but a simple interpretation of obama's own statements, statements that spring to mind given in debates with romney

research for a link if you wish Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

He's too fucking LAZY to research anything! But I recall the debate you are referring to.

Romney pointed out the $$ amounts involved are far higher for green subsidies than for anything wrongly called an oil & gas subsidy.

He's too fucking LAZY to research anything! But I recall the debate you are referring to.

Romney pointed out the $$ amounts involved are far higher for green subsidies than for anything wrongly called an oil & gas subsidy. Originally Posted by lustylad

and there we have it

Only a habitual lying liar like you accuses someone else of lying without pointing out a single lie. Unlike everyone else, I DID read the article. Unlike you, I explained what it was about.You posted wtf you thought it was about. That it was a lie is on you.
Only after you were caught with your pants down did you admit it's about "debt and austerity" in Ecuador. another of your homoerotic dreams.It was about both. Fuck. Like debating a Caveman...a gay one. So it has nothing to do with the kind of "subsidies" oil companies are stupidly accused of enjoying, i.e. depletion allowances and the like. It has to do with the government of Ecuador subsidizing the retail price of gasoline.

Only a sloppy moron would call this a thread on "pulling fossil fuel subsidies" and then turn around and admit it's really about "debt and austerity".

You're a small pee-pee guy pretending you have a big swinging dick. Wtf is you obsession with my ass and dick? . . Originally Posted by lustylad

The article was about many things.

Mostly cause and effect and education.

I think it was the last point that lost you.

I'm not against ff. So that argument you can shelve. I'd lose a lot of money if ff were banned right now. I i have a mid to long term bet on ff.

But I do like the truth....not a distorted truth to try and make one's point but the whole truth.

I do not get from you that you have the same desire. You just try and present a distorted truth to reinforce your idol worship of Reagan and now Trump. You're the result of a parrot and sheep...a sherot

nevergivesitathough offered no proof Obama said such. Originally Posted by WTF

Judging from some of the comments on the board, people think you should offer links or proof if you disagree with them, not the other way around. Some unsolicited advice, if you're curious why they think what they do, yes, ask. But don't ask them to jump through hoops. That's not a good way to win friends and influence people.

Are you going to argue oil companies have no subsidies or loopholes?

We can go way back and I could argue the expansion of the nations highways transitioning moving people by car instead of rail was a subsidy for both big oil and the auto industry.

The federal gas tax was supposed to pay for that but that is paid for by the consumer. Originally Posted by WTF

Come on man. Don't you know those gasoline taxes, that average 55 cents a gallon, are being taken out of the pockets of the employees of the gas stations and the refiners and the oil companies? That's one of the reasons why our tax system is so regressive. Some of these poor guys are paying more gasoline tax than they actually make. Or at least that seems to be one of the points the left is making in the debate about the progressivity of the tax system. I think you're agreeing in Unique Carpenter's tax thread that's not reasonable, as applied to payroll taxes paid by employers, but am not sure.

The gasoline tax depending on whether you looking at the buyers or the sellers or the supply chain, is paid by the people and companies who use the roads, the refiners, the gas stations, and the oil companies. If you're correct that the gas tax pays for the highway system and other roads, I don't see how that's a massive subsidy to big oil.

The only subsidies oil companies have gotten were small, research by the DOE and grants, some of the costs of the U.S. Geological Survey, etc. They're a drop in the bucket compared to what the industry spends on research. And a drop in the bucket compared to the severance tax which oil companies pay and other industries don't.

Tiny - thank for your cogent comment

A POV - I am not the economist or energy expert you and others are - still:


the 'gas tax' to subsidize highways, roads and transportation infrastructure - enables and encourages automobile use of those roads - and indirectly aids and abets more gas and oil usage in those automobiles.

Indirect 'subsidy' - perhaps - but encourages the transportation segment and our economy .

IMHO.

Tiny - thank for your cogent comment

A POV - I am not the economist or energy expert you and others are - still:


the 'gas tax' to subsidize highways, roads and transportation infrastructure - enables and encourages automobile use of those roads - and indirectly aids and abets more gas and oil usage in those automobiles.

Indirect 'subsidy' - perhaps - but encourages the transportation segment and our economy .

IMHO. Originally Posted by oeb11

I guess it depends on how you define subsidy Oeb. I like the way it's structured, in that the people who benefit from the highways pay the tax, in proportion to the gasoline and diesel they consume or sell, depending on how you look at it.

So when we're all driving EVs will wtf be whining about the highways being a subsidy for greenies?

I guess it depends on how you define subsidy Oeb. I like the way it's structured, in that the people who benefit from the highways pay the tax, in proportion to the gasoline and diesel they consume or sell, depending on how you look at it. Originally Posted by Tiny

correct

its a usage tax

you get a refund of that tax for off road use


of the tax itself only about 60% goes toward maintaining and constructing roads and bridges, with the rest pilfered off into the great unknown

as vehicles have become more fuel efficient the tax burden per mile has steadily decreased

many states, as well as the feds, assess a fuel tax

I recall a just about fool-proof mafia scam, maybe by now its been several decades ago

I think it went like this but I could be wrong:

the wise-guys would form an entity, buy up gas stations, sell the gas and diesel but never remit the fuel taxes

made millions it seems forming entity after entity and buying station after station from independents

here I found an old article about it

I was incorrect on details but right about the scam

but I can swear I saw some tv show about the gas station thing

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/06/n...gas-taxes.html

But I do like the truth....not a distorted truth to try and make one's point but the whole truth.

I do not get from you that you have the same desire. Originally Posted by WTF

When pressed you had to back off from calling me a liar. Now you vaguely accuse me of presenting a "distorted truth". Any time you're interested in genuine truth, you can start by flipping your own opinions.

The only thing you got right is I have never shared your desire to look stupid and stir up shit all day.