Taxes and the GOP walkout of debt ceiling negotiations.

[Diogenes]

Another example of recent California nuttery.

California, a State that Has Gone Stark Raving Mad



http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Californi ... Raving-Mad

[Diogenes]

And yet another tale about something wrong in California.


L.A. County's Private Property War


http://www.laweekly.com/2011-06-23/news ... perty-war/

Believe me people, i'm not looking for this stuff, it's just showing up today on websites that I normally read.

[ScottL]

I don't think the "internet tax" was a good idea by any means. Tax on property certainly, the internet not so much.

[ScottL]

Another example of recent California nuttery.

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Californi ... Raving-Mad

Is this about the plastic vs. paper bags? I wouldn't call that nuttery, but a logical control on the release of paper bags into our eco-systems. The idea being that they'll use re-usable bags which is very common here now.

[Maui]

Okay, so the breaking news tonight is that Boehner has rejected Obama's call for $4T in cuts, and wants to stick to the $2T the GOP originally proposed.

I haven't been following things that closely, but my assumption is that Obama was attempting to offer deeper cuts (including at least some cuts to entitlements) in exchange for the GOP agreeing to ending of some tax subsidies. My assumption is that this means the GOP is choosing to keep these subsidies vs go along with legislation that would have resulted in much deeper cuts and a budget that is significantly closer to balanced.

Assuming I'm correct in my take on this, my question to GOP'rs is: Do you agree with this? (If my take is not correct, how is it wrong?)

To me, this is surprising. I realize that maybe this is a little less embarrassing of a compromise than doing an about face on the very stark line in the sand the GOP drew on these subsidies... but in the long run, is it really going to be easier to defend turning down $2T more in cuts offered by Obama?

I'm really surprised to GOP is so stuck on these subsidies. The line between "tax" and "spending" is at the least muddled when it comes to subsidies... many would consider them outright spending. What's even more perplexing to me is that I've read the GOP has agreed to cut farm subsidies, but won't cave on the oil subsidies? The only way I can make sense of this is lobbying/corruption.

Back to the point though: would you guys really prefer to keep handing out subsidies to oil companies than go along with $2T in extra spending cuts that Obama offered?

[TDPerk]

I haven't been following things that closely, but my assumption is that Obama was attempting to offer deeper cuts (including at least some cuts to entitlements) in exchange for the GOP agreeing to ending of some tax subsidies.

Lowering taxes on the wealthy towards a median level is not a subsidiy--a tax system which is as flat as possible is all that is just. It is not government's job to move income between economic classes.

"Do you agree with this? (If my take is not correct, how is it wrong?) "

It's better than raising taxes in a way that penalizes growth and entrepreneurial activity when we need the growth and jobs more than we need to subsidize more government borrowing and spending by minisculely raising immediate government income so the immediate balance sheet sheet looks slightly better. Raising taxes is eating the seed corn.

Waiting for 2012 to take an axe to the government is better than giving it any fertilizer now.

"What's even more perplexing to me is that I've read the GOP has agreed to cut farm subsidies, but won't cave on the oil subsidies?"

There are no "oil company" subsidies. Every resource extraction industry can take a fraction of the value of the natural resource they have a proprietary interest in which they make use of off of their income, because simply by being in business at all they are lowering their net worth. An equivalent in manufacturing industries would be capital depreciation on aging used equipment. The farmers--if they're doing it right--don't lose the value of their soil by farming. Farmers of course can take capital depreciation off their income. What are being ended are a fraction of the payments being made to agribusiness for being in a business at all in the unavoidable framework of the USDA, the FDR era relic which takes a near Stalinist, managed economy approach to food production--actual subsidies. If you're a "farmer", you can get paid a lot of money for not being productive, for participating in price fixing, for turning food into fuel that destroys engines and starves people a half a world away. Democrats want to perpetuate that insanity.

When you talk about "oil company" subsidies, you sound to people who know what those really are, like someone who has bought the left's lies hook line and sinker--or you are one of the one's selling those lies.

And do you really think that doing things that raise the price of gas will be easier for Republicans to defend? Really?

[Diogenes]

I'm really surprised to GOP is so stuck on these subsidies. The line between "tax" and "spending" is at the least muddled when it comes to subsidies... many would consider them outright spending. What's even more perplexing to me is that I've read the GOP has agreed to cut farm subsidies, but won't cave on the oil subsidies? The only way I can make sense of this is lobbying/corruption.

Back to the point though: would you guys really prefer to keep handing out subsidies to oil companies than go along with $2T in extra spending cuts that Obama offered?

To which subsidies are you referring? I am unaware of any subsidies to any oil companies. I AM aware of Farm Subsidies (a left over from the Roosevelt Administration.) and I would like to see those ended, especially for ethanol. (Another incredibly stupid idea from the Democrats.)

WHAT oil company subsidies?

[ScottL]

A tax subsidy is not an expenditure, but a selective tax reduction, as distinct from some general or uniform reduction. Hence to eliminate a tax subsidy is to raise taxes. But eliminating a tax “subsidy” sounds like reducing wasteful government spending rather than raising taxes, so it has more popular appeal than an explicit tax increase.

Subsidy....tax break....

[Maui]

I'm really surprised to GOP is so stuck on these subsidies. The line between "tax" and "spending" is at the least muddled when it comes to subsidies... many would consider them outright spending. What's even more perplexing to me is that I've read the GOP has agreed to cut farm subsidies, but won't cave on the oil subsidies? The only way I can make sense of this is lobbying/corruption.

Back to the point though: would you guys really prefer to keep handing out subsidies to oil companies than go along with $2T in extra spending cuts that Obama offered?

To which subsidies are you referring? I am unaware of any subsidies to any oil companies. I AM aware of Farm Subsidies (a left over from the Roosevelt Administration.) and I would like to see those ended, especially for ethanol. (Another incredibly stupid idea from the Democrats.)

WHAT oil company subsidies?

Are you seriously not aware of them? Or are you parsing words and insisting that these are "targeted tax breaks" and not subsidies?

I'm referring to the some of the subsidies that would have been killed with Senate Bill 940 (which died by filibuster).

[KitemanSA]

WHAT oil company subsidies?

Dry hole drilling write off (3 to 1 IIRC)
Depletion write-off.
Several others that I don't recall since I have not been related with the business for about 4 decades.
Then there are the subtle ones like using taxes to take over and also build a large system of roads to hide the REAL cost of building and maintenance which makes the total cost of using petro fueled cars seem much lower than using trains and the like.

[KitemanSA]

A tax subsidy is not an expenditure, but a selective tax reduction, as distinct from some general or uniform reduction. Hence to eliminate a tax subsidy is to raise taxes. But eliminating a tax “subsidy” sounds like reducing wasteful government spending rather than raising taxes, so it has more popular appeal than an explicit tax increase.

Subsidy....tax break....

It makes the market all screwy and destroys the consumers ability to make rational choises. Call it what you will, subsidy, tax break, they are bad for the economy.
And oh by the way, when the oil companies DON'T have to pay the taxes, the rest of us do. And yes, if they did have to pay them, the price of petroleum products would be higher, but that is what the market is all about REAL prices for real choises.

[Diogenes]

A tax subsidy is not an expenditure, but a selective tax reduction, as distinct from some general or uniform reduction. Hence to eliminate a tax subsidy is to raise taxes. But eliminating a tax “subsidy” sounds like reducing wasteful government spending rather than raising taxes, so it has more popular appeal than an explicit tax increase.

Subsidy....tax break....

You mean because Oil Companies are not getting their money stolen from them at the same rate that other companies are getting their money stolen from them then that is the same thing as giving them money?

This theory presumes that the money belongs to the government in the first place. It does not. I don't believe the government should steal any more money from oil companies, and I would very much like them to quit stealing so much money from other companies. If you are arguing that taxes ought to be reduced so that other companies are on an equal footing then I absolutely agree.

Anyway, now I understand why Republicans are in favor of what you call "oil" subsidies. It's because they don't consider letting a company keep it's own money as "subsidizing" it.

When I say "Steal" I mean taking more money than they are rightfully entitled to to perform necessary and appropriate government functions.
Were it up to me, I would completely eliminate whole departments of the government. Agriculture, Energy, Education for example. Completely worthless since they were created and totally deserving of elimination.

I just recently saw that the Budget for the Dept. of Agriculture was more than the sum total of all the money made by the farmers they were designed to help! Yeah, we don't need that department anymore, if we ever did at all.

[Diogenes]

Are you seriously not aware of them? Or are you parsing words and insisting that these are "targeted tax breaks" and not subsidies?

I'm referring to the some of the subsidies that would have been killed with Senate Bill 940 (which died by filibuster).

My understanding of the word "subsidy" means to give someone money. It does not mean letting them keep what is already theirs.

People need to be disabused of the notion that a government is "entitled" to other people's money. It doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to the people who own the companies.

[Diogenes]

WHAT oil company subsidies?

Dry hole drilling write off (3 to 1 IIRC)
Depletion write-off.
Several others that I don't recall since I have not been related with the business for about 4 decades.
Then there are the subtle ones like using taxes to take over and also build a large system of roads to hide the REAL cost of building and maintenance which makes the total cost of using petro fueled cars seem much lower than using trains and the like.

I have been on a lot of oil leases, and it looks to me like they built their own roads. If you're argument is that the tax system is unfair, I agree. Everyone should be on the same footing. At this point, I'm thinking that a national sales tax should replace the national income tax. Everyone would be paying it instead of just some. It would catch the "underground" economy as well, and it leaves it up to free will as to whether or not you pay it (you don't have to buy something if you don't want to) and it would eliminate the costly accounting needed just to deal with it. Likewise, it would be harder to hide the fact of so much money going into that massive federal maw. Just a few reasons among many.

[Diogenes]

A tax subsidy is not an expenditure, but a selective tax reduction, as distinct from some general or uniform reduction. Hence to eliminate a tax subsidy is to raise taxes. But eliminating a tax “subsidy” sounds like reducing wasteful government spending rather than raising taxes, so it has more popular appeal than an explicit tax increase.

Subsidy....tax break....

It makes the market all screwy and destroys the consumers ability to make rational choises. Call it what you will, subsidy, tax break, they are bad for the economy.
And oh by the way, when the oil companies DON'T have to pay the taxes, the rest of us do. And yes, if they did have to pay them, the price of petroleum products would be higher, but that is what the market is all about REAL prices for real choises.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. My recollection is that the taxes on Gasoline and Diesel are quite substantial. I don't know of an oil product that isn't taxed, and if I recall properly, the Government share is by far greater than the oil companies profit on the same gallon.

If I'm wrong about this, let me know.