Oil Company Tax Breaks

Why do oil companies get special tax treatment?

And don't say that without it they will raise prices. Why is it the job of other taxpayers to pay more so that oil companies can get a tax break? If that leads to higher prices at the pump, so be it. I can choose how much I want to drive and what kind of car I choose to drive. I can't choose to not pay income tax.

You say that, and then in 2 sentences proceed to explain how that would (must) happen.




I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, that they do get a tax break. I've never looked into it. But it isn't arguable that all corporate taxes are paid by the consumer....ALL. Exxon Mobile for example, only has a 4-9% net profit, and that remains the same whether you add corporate taxes or not. They necessarily include it in their overhead.

You say we choose how much we want to drive. That's only true up to a point. Our cities, other than New York City, were built out for the most part, not up. Getting to work and getting groceries, at a minimum, requires a car for almost everybody. This is above and beyond the freedom our vehicles and the highways represent, and the stimulation to the economy exercising that freedom brings about.

I doubt that whatever the tax break to the oil companies works out to be at the pump, it isn't as much as is added per gallon by the federal gasoline tax. If they were serious about helping the economy in this area (and it would), then repeal that tax in addition to not levying the oil tax on the oil companies.

Assuming that's true. So? The point is that they get special tax treatment that other corporations don't, so the other corporations have to pay more taxes. If what you say is true, the consumers are paying for it anyway, so why not allocate it to the oil companies instead of every other company?



People have considerable latitude to control how much they drive. They can combine trips. They can take vacations closer to home. They can take jobs closer to home or move closer to a job. And you act as though the layout of cities is merely a cause. It's actually an effect, it's the effect of artificially low oil prices. If the true price of oil, including environmental and health effects and paying the same taxes as other corporations, were factored in oil would be much more expensive and cities would be more compact.



Right, it probably doesn't work out to very much, but at least it puts the tax burden the most on the people who use the most. Isn't that how it should be? Having it any other way is essentially redistributing wealth from people who don't drive a lot to people who do.

What they're doing is giving the consumers (the public) a tax break on oil. I don't like that the government picks and chooses where we get tax breaks, but as long as they're doing it, that's a good place to do it to help the economy.



Boy THAT'S cold, given the jobs climate. Many people are lucky to have a job anywhere. They can take vacations closer to home? More government control. Let the market handle it instead of strangling the supply like Oby is doing.




Don't you mean artificially high, with government taxes? And cities build out instead of up in most cases, if they have the land. It's more cost effective to build a road than a skyscraper, while interconnecting a lot more land and people.



I wish you could have been around to see the air pollution 40 years ago. What we have now is a vast improvement, it's almost always negligible, and as vehicle technology improves, is continuing to become more so. I love the way you say the true price of oil includes taxes. Again, consumers pay ALL corporate taxes, so they should be abolished, even though it would remove one more demagogic talking point from the Left. Evil capitalism, evil corporations, Ooo, Ooo, Corporate Jets!!! (Why don't you bring that issue up with Mz. Pilosi next time you see her, Miss Double Standard personified.)



I don't disagree with that at all. In fact, I'm for the FairTax which would do exactly that, AND eliminate income and all other taxes on businesses and corporations, along with eliminating personal income taxes. Hoooahhh! But the lobbyists, lawyers and control freak politicians won't have it.



Yes, hard as it seems, I agree. Re: my last comment.

How is that a good place to do it? We spend $1 million a minute on imported oil! How does that help the economy?



It's not government control! You're advocating the government intervening to let people take vacations further from home? Why should the government (taxpayers) support that?



Not at all. Government gas taxes go to fund roads. It's self perpetuating. And the price of oil does not include externalities such as environmental damage and health problems caused by car exhaust. If it included those it would be much more expensive. I can't speak to the relative cost of building up vs. building roads, but building out rather than up isn't as cost effective when you price in the true cost of oil. Why should oil get special treatment that amounts to a subsidy for building out, which results in more demand for oil? (most of which is foreign, btw)




Yeah, that evil EPA and the clean air act are to blame for that. I suppose you think those are anti business, job killing regulations. Aren't a lot of tea baggers saying we need to abolish the EPA?




Well, it is a terrible idea.



So why are you defending it?

Because the economy requires energy to run. And whose fault is it we depend on foreign oil?




I'm not advocating the government "let" the people do anything. Powers not granted to the feds, are reserved to the states or the people. And as you've already said, the ones that go further pay more. It isn't a free ride.



Pleeze. And Social Security taxes pays Social Security. That money was spent on other s*** decades ago. It's all a slush fund, and its so out of control, well, no one has control. The government is scared to death of an audit.



Oh really, what are and how bad are exhaust pollution problems, that are getting better every year as clunkers come of the roads. And how much are the costing, if anything. I think they're way overblown if they exist at all.

You want to see real health problems due to pollution, go to China and India. We're pristine in comparison.



There you go again with the undocumented "true cost of oil", in which I presume you're still including taxes.



Whether you agree that building out costs less or not, that's what's happened. We can't change it. And it's foreign oil because domestic development of resources and refinement have been strangled due to demagogic environmental rabid anti-capitalists.




Yes. I'm not arguing against pollution regulations, it's why we have so little of it today and it's improving. But we don't need the EPA to do it. The Dept. of the Interior could handle the little that needs legislation and control. The rest of it is a conduit for leftist control and expenditure of funds. Put them in the same basket as Fish and Wildlife, which destroys massive areas of property protecting some subspecies of fish--like the best agricultural land in the World in the San Joaquin Valley in California. It's f***ing immoral what they've done there. Put all those environmental eggs in one basket so we can sift the wheat from the chaff better.




??? The principle idea was yours.

What is the why of federal taxes in the United States? Why is one thing taxed and not another?

I think if must have something to do with the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party has controlled Congress for most of the last eighty years, so the tax system must a thing created by the Democrat Party.

One of Lyndon Johnson's biographers suggests that Johnson sold the government to the oil companies. That might have something to do with tax breaks for oil companies.

So? Why does that have to equate to us giving unneeded tax cuts to oil companies that nobody else gets?



Well, at our current rates of use we could not produce enough on our own to satisfy our demand, even if we drilled in all the places oil companies want to drill. So I guess we could blame whoever benefits from us having inefficient cars and buildings.




So, get rid of the oil subsidies.



The government spends more on roads than they collect from the gas tax. https://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09025/944323-85.stm




Ever heard of climate change? Probably not.



I'd think an anti EPA tea bagger or Republican would feel right at home there.



Ok, show me what oil company claims we could replace all our current demand with purely domestic oil.

I'll wait.



yeah, environmental laws are some vast liberal conspiracy you're too funny.




My idea is to end the oil company subsidies, and you apparently think that's a bad idea. What's so confusing about that?




So you're "guessing" that it was on party or another, but in reality you have no idea. Why don't you go do some research and tell us what you find out.

Because they pay off the politicians instead.

J.R.

Repeat after me, "Tax cuts on oil do nothing but reduce the price of oil for the consumer." If you need to reboot, send an email to someone who gives a s***.



First I didn't say we could completely replace our foreign oil. Frankly I don't know if we can and neither do you. If we started switching over to natural gas, we could, but we can't get at much of it thanks to Obama, EPA and its supposed "green" allies.

"The existence of huge shale gas and oil reserves is ruining the current Washington-based campaign to make conventional energy sources expensive. The statements by President Obama and the actions of the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency make it clear that the administration’s strategy is to make oil, gas and coal so expensive that energy from solar, wind and ethanol can be price competitive. Working hand-in-hand with the green lobby, the EPA is attacking shale gas development. The hysteria about hydraulic fracturing polluting ground water is being fomented in the states
of New York and Pennsylvania. Such nonsense would never fly in gas producing states of Oklahoma, Texas or Louisiana. Meanwhile the Department of Interior has made 97% of the onshore and 94% of the offshore areas controlled by the federal government off-limits for gas exploration. The anti-energy strategy may not work. During 2009 and 2010 the big oil companies began buying the small
entrepreneurial but politically weak companies that made the shale gas revolution possible. Say what you will about the evils of big oil, but this time they are on the side of the people, and they have the means to fight back.

By the way, the use of shale gas producing techniques developed in the relatively free enterprise system of the U.S. is spreading to the rest of the world with U.S. government encouragement! Increased access to energy is a key to economic progress in the undeveloped world. Too bad we can’t export capitalism along with its technical and scientific fruits.

US obstructs production of shale oil.

In a 2010 report, the EPA actually said that methane was a major component of shale gas. Well duh!. Essentially methane IS natural gas.

*Environmental Protection Agency, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry, Background Technical Support Document, posted to web 30 November 2010.



You see a question answered but you keep asking it. WTF?



So?



Yeah, they used to call it Global Warming until that was discredited, at least as being human caused, and it doesn't look like the globe is warming anyway. Looks like your snide was wasted.


[quotge]I'd think an anti EPA tea bagger or Republican would feel right at home there.