Interesting article on pulling fossil fuel subsidies

https://www.iisd.org/gsi/subsidy-wat...lesson-ecuador


There’s no question that abandoning fossil fuel subsidies will benefit the economy and the planet, but as protests in Ecuador show, reforms require careful design and considerate execution in order to look after the vulnerable and get citizens on board.

I'm for removing subsidies on the premise that I'm against subsidies, but fossil fuel isn't going anywhere

I'm not clicking a link WTF made a poor case for. Every article I've seen overinflates the "fossil fuel subsidies." The oil, gas and chemical industries pays billions in taxes from both the corporation, Sales and Use, payroll and a whole host of other taxes.

If those companies get some back, no big deal.

The stupid Progressives will find a way to tax sunlight.

I'm for removing subsidies on the premise that I'm against subsidies, but fossil fuel isn't going anywhere Originally Posted by GastonGlock

Agreed

The irony is staggering. The Democrat party, the champion of "subsidizing" every crazy idea under the sun is against this particular subsidy that literally brought us the wealth we have.

The article isn't about any "subsidies" to oil companies.

It's about foreign governments subsidizing the retail price of gasoline. They do that shit in shithole countries like Ecuador and Venezuela. Then after their socialist policies wreck the economy and they have to run to the IMF for a bailout loan, the IMF tells them in order to get the loan they have to stop keeping retail gas prices artificially low. When they bite the bullet, their citizens riot in the streets because they don't like paying what the rest of the world pays at the pump.

Wtf is constantly starting threads about articles he doesn't understand. That's why his sloppy thread titles don't match his links.

I'm not clicking a link WTF made a poor case for. Every article I've seen overinflates the "fossil fuel subsidies." The oil, gas and chemical industries pays billions in taxes from both the corporation, Sales and Use, payroll and a whole host of other taxes.

If those companies get some back, no big deal.

The stupid Progressives will find a way to tax sunlight. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Every article you've seen overinflates "fossil fuel subsidies"? Is that like all the lights being on at Houston car dealerships in areas the power is out everywhere else? I don't believe this claim either.

Where are the correct numbers at? Exactly what taxes do they pay and what percentage of their profit are those taxes?
The average % of corporate income tax paid by oil and gas is 3.6%.

https://itep.org/corporate-tax-avoid...trump-tax-law/

Getting rid of subsidies is a complicated subject with many pros and cons. It's not an open and shut case. Many other companies in the US pay those same taxes with no subsidies
I don't think the OP link was an argument for getting rid of subsidies. I saw it as an example of what can happen to a less developed country that doesn't implement changes in a less damaging way.

The irony is staggering. The Democrat party, the champion of "subsidizing" every crazy idea under the sun is against this particular subsidy that literally brought us the wealth we have. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

We are 30 trillion in debt.

The article isn't about any "subsidies" to oil companies.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

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.

the oil "subsidy" obama used to refer to as unfair and to be done away with, without naming are the depletion allowance and idc

the oil "subsidy" obama used to refer to as unfair and to be done away with, without naming are the depletion allowance and idc Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Link please.

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

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

I'm not researching your bullshit interpretation of something Obama said to Romney in a debate 9 years ago.

Holy shit.

the oil "subsidy" obama used to refer to as unfair and to be done away with, without naming are the depletion allowance and idc Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Come on. Don’t you know the government lays claim to everything, and you should be content with whatever crumbs it leaves in your hands? You didn’t build that business, the government did. That’s the logic behind calling percentage depletion and IDC’s subsidies.

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 and deducted over a period of years.

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 considered these subsidies. They’re not. They’re complications in the tax code.

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

nevergivesitathought offered no proof Obama said such.

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.