Drill baby drill ...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     


    Sorry you can't follow a simple example.  Your loss.
    BTW:  the 400K tax credit? ( is there such a thing as a tax subsidy, as you claim? I don't think so)  yah, it applies to profit, it doesn't flow to the bottom line as 400K, but as the previously taxed portion of 400K.  If the tax rate is 50%, that means 200K eventually show up as profit.

    MAn, you progressives are clueless.
    Learn some finance and get back to us.
    [/QUOTE]

    Once again you've got it bass ackwards.
     
    How do you determine your profit?

     

    By applying all the deductions, write-offs and tax subsidies to the amount of money you received for the contract ... the total value of the contract.

     

    That means if the contract is $2 million the potential or nominal tax ... before deductions, tax subsidies etc. ... is roughly $700,000 (35%).

     

    So tax subsidies, when applied to the contracts total renumeration value, could easily be worth $400,000.

     

    And tax subsidies can also have the effect of totaling more than a company's profits ... meaning they could have a negative tax liability which they can apply to future income.

     

    How do you think GE gets away with paying no tax at all while other companies pay 15-20-25% tax rates?

     

    According to your argument, GE can't be making a profit, they must always be in the red, else they would be paying taxes ... but everyone knows that can't be true ... they'd be out of business by now ... or their stock would be priced in the pennies.

     

    If there are no such things as tax subsidies, i.e. special treatment for certain businesses, then why isn't every other corp paying zero taxes? 

     

    Want to try again?

     

    So far you're 0 for 5 ....

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, no. You flap your gums but understand nothing.  There are tax breaks (lower or no tax on profits), and their are subsidies (cash applied to expenses).

    that's it. Sorry. No matter how many times progressives try, the two are not the same.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To RR, depositing a $100 check at an ATM with $50 cash back is somehow different than depositing a $100 check and then making a withdrawal for $50.

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe you are still confused by the difference between a subsidy and a tax credit.  Your example doesn't address that.  It is a stupid example.

    [/QUOTE]

    How about a Tax Subsidy?

    [/QUOTE]

    No such thing.

    but, I give up. You can't teach old progressive dogs economics or finance, no matter how hard you try.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, take a knee ... get some ice on that lump ... you've been getting pummeled by facts and logic and you're unable to respond.

    If this was boxing you'd be TKO'd.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oh skeeter, you're a true master of missing the point.

    [/QUOTE]

    Missing the point is as wrong as cancer. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Is this the Rules for Radicals you use when losing a debate?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


     


     


    [QUOTE]


     



    Sorry you can't follow a simple example.  Your loss.
    BTW:  the 400K tax credit? ( is there such a thing as a tax subsidy, as you claim? I don't think so)  yah, it applies to profit, it doesn't flow to the bottom line as 400K, but as the previously taxed portion of 400K.  If the tax rate is 50%, that means 200K eventually show up as profit.

    MAn, you progressives are clueless.
    Learn some finance and get back to us.


    Once again you've got it bass ackwards.
     
    How do you determine your profit?


     


    By applying all the deductions, write-offs and tax subsidies to the amount of money you received for the contract ... the total value of the contract.


     


    That means if the contract is $2 million the potential or nominal tax ... before deductions, tax subsidies etc. ... is roughly $700,000 (35%).


     


    So tax subsidies, when applied to the contracts total renumeration value, could easily be worth $400,000.


     


    And tax subsidies can also have the effect of totaling more than a company's profits ... meaning they could have a negative tax liability which they can apply to future income.


     


    How do you think GE gets away with paying no tax at all while other companies pay 15-20-25% tax rates?


     


    According to your argument, GE can't be making a profit, they must always be in the red, else they would be paying taxes ... but everyone knows that can't be true ... they'd be out of business by now ... or their stock would be priced in the pennies.


     


    If there are no such things as tax subsidies, i.e. special treatment for certain businesses, then why isn't every other corp paying zero taxes? 


     


    Want to try again?


     


    So far you're 0 for 5 ....


    [/QUOTE]

    Well, no. You flap your gums but understand nothing.  There are tax breaks (lower or no tax on profits), and their are subsidies (cash applied to expenses).


    that's it. Sorry. No matter how many times progressives try, the two are not the same.


    [/QUOTE]


    BWAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


    Sorry that I attempted to use facts and logic ... I should've just declared myself correct and left it at that.


    Here ya go:


    You don't have a clue what you're babbling on about ... you've been smacked around on this thread so badly you don't know which way is up ... and the only feeble response you can post is "Nah ...nah ... nah ... I'm right and I don't care what every expert in the field of economics says or the facts themselves"


    I'm right you're wrong!


    See ya in the funny papers spanky.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To RR, depositing a $100 check at an ATM with $50 cash back is somehow different than depositing a $100 check and then making a withdrawal for $50.

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe you are still confused by the difference between a subsidy and a tax credit.  Your example doesn't address that.  It is a stupid example.

    [/QUOTE]

    How about a Tax Subsidy?

    [/QUOTE]

    No such thing.

    but, I give up. You can't teach old progressive dogs economics or finance, no matter how hard you try.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, take a knee ... get some ice on that lump ... you've been getting pummeled by facts and logic and you're unable to respond.

    If this was boxing you'd be TKO'd.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not a single fact has passed your lips.  No matter how you try, a tax break and subsidy are not the same.

    i guess you think if you say: "yes they are!" Enough times, you think you win.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oh skeeter, you're a true master of missing the point.

    [/QUOTE]

    You would get the point if it was on top of your head. Tax breaks and tax subsidies are not the same.  That, and;  It is not Brazil, alone, that is in shock after the greatest humiliation in World Cup history.

    Those of us who have held the 1970 Brazil team of Pelé, Gérson, Tostão, Carlos Alberto and others as the pinnacle of how soccer can and should be played must now put Brazil’s capitulation on Tuesday as the nadir.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To RR, depositing a $100 check at an ATM with $50 cash back is somehow different than depositing a $100 check and then making a withdrawal for $50.

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe you are still confused by the difference between a subsidy and a tax credit.  Your example doesn't address that.  It is a stupid example.

    [/QUOTE]

    How about a Tax Subsidy?

    [/QUOTE]

    I'll try one more time.  Read this:

    http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/

    best part:

    "So let us clear the conceptual field. Properly speaking, a “subsidy” means the government giving wealth that it forcibly seized from individuals or businesses to other individuals or businesses. Examples include corporate bailouts, tax-supported loans, and Social Security payments. A “tax cut” means reducing the amount of wealth the government forcibly seizes from individuals or businesses."

    is that clear enough for your? Is that enough of a fact to get you to shut your piehole  with the stupid, lazy, progressive muddling of what words really mean.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     


    Sorry you can't follow a simple example.  Your loss.
    BTW:  the 400K tax credit? ( is there such a thing as a tax subsidy, as you claim? I don't think so)  yah, it applies to profit, it doesn't flow to the bottom line as 400K, but as the previously taxed portion of 400K.  If the tax rate is 50%, that means 200K eventually show up as profit.

    MAn, you progressives are clueless.
    Learn some finance and get back to us.
    [/QUOTE]

    Once again you've got it bass ackwards.
     
    How do you determine your profit?

     

    By applying all the deductions, write-offs and tax subsidies to the amount of money you received for the contract ... the total value of the contract.

     

    That means if the contract is $2 million the potential or nominal tax ... before deductions, tax subsidies etc. ... is roughly $700,000 (35%).

     

    So tax subsidies, when applied to the contracts total renumeration value, could easily be worth $400,000.

     

    And tax subsidies can also have the effect of totaling more than a company's profits ... meaning they could have a negative tax liability which they can apply to future income.

     

    How do you think GE gets away with paying no tax at all while other companies pay 15-20-25% tax rates?

     

    According to your argument, GE can't be making a profit, they must always be in the red, else they would be paying taxes ... but everyone knows that can't be true ... they'd be out of business by now ... or their stock would be priced in the pennies.

     

    If there are no such things as tax subsidies, i.e. special treatment for certain businesses, then why isn't every other corp paying zero taxes? 

     

    Want to try again?

     

    So far you're 0 for 5 ....

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, no. You flap your gums but understand nothing.  There are tax breaks (lower or no tax on profits), and their are subsidies (cash applied to expenses).

    that's it. Sorry. No matter how many times progressives try, the two are not the same.

    [/QUOTE]


    BWAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    Sorry that I attempted to use facts and logic ... I should've just declared myself correct and left it at that.

    Here ya go:

    You don't have a clue what you're babbling on about ... you've been smacked around on this thread so badly you don't know which way is up ... and the only feeble response you can post is "Nah ...nah ... nah ... I'm right and I don't care what every expert in the field of economics says or the facts themselves"

    See ya in the funny papers spanky.

    [/QUOTE]

    The Koch bros. have set up web sites to "educate" the simple minded on the difference between a Tax Cut/Credits/Break and a Subsidy.  The web sites are basically set up to provide people a way of rationalizing lower taxes for the wealthy.

    From a Government perspective the do the same thing and have the same impact on the budget.  A subsidy usually goes to new companies or new industries.  Tax Breaks don't work because the companies aren't profitable and don't pay taxes.  No Taxes, then all the tax breaks in the world will have no effect.  The theory behind the subsidy is the industry is new and it takes a while for the industry to become profitable.

    Tax Breaks are used when they want to get profitable companies to do more of something that isn't profitable enough to warrant expansion or investment.

    For Obamacare, they are using a combination of Tax Breaks and Subsidies based on income because Tax Breaks to low income people make no sense because they aren't paying much in taxes to begin with.

    From a Societal standpoint, from Government stant point, to a company's profit and loss statement, from an International Trade stand point, tax breaks and subsidies are viewed the same.  They play the exact same roll.

    Except in bad economic times when the tax breaks may not have any impact because no one is making a profit. 

    Taking less money, or taking the same and giving some back, it has the same impact. 

    Arguing symantics to justify letting the Kochs' bank account to get even fatter while the poor get poorer is silly.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    To RR, depositing a $100 check at an ATM with $50 cash back is somehow different than depositing a $100 check and then making a withdrawal for $50.




    Maybe you are still confused by the difference between a subsidy and a tax credit.  Your example doesn't address that.  It is a stupid example.


    [/QUOTE]

    How about a Tax Subsidy?


    [/QUOTE]

    I'll try one more time.  Read this:


    http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/


    best part:


    "So let us clear the conceptual field. Properly speaking, a “subsidy” means the government giving wealth that it forcibly seized from individuals or businesses to other individuals or businesses. Examples include corporate bailouts, tax-supported loans, and Social Security payments. A “tax cut” means reducing the amount of wealth the government forcibly seizes from individuals or businesses."


    is that clear enough for your? Is that enough of a fact to get you to shut your piehole  with the stupid, lazy, progressive muddling of what words really mean.


    [/QUOTE]


    Congratulations; You found an echo chamber website pushing a defense of tax subsidies.


    Let's use the only definition that matters: The GAO and the definition of 'subsidies' used in the budget process.


    This is the only definition that matters because the gov't is the originator of the subsidies and therefore it is the only entity who is allowed to determine how they are defined and treated in the federal budget.


    Specifically their publication "Glossary of Terms Used in the Budget Process"


    Subsidy
    Generally, a payment or benefit made by the federal government where the benefit
    exceeds the cost to the beneficiary. Subsidies are designed to support the conduct of
    an economic enterprise or activity, such as ship operations. They also refer to
    (1) provisions in the tax laws for certain tax expenditures and (2) the provision of
    loans, goods, and services to the public at prices lower than market value. These
    include interest subsidies.


    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05734sp.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05734sp.pdf


     


    And as DWL and WDYWN pointed out, it doesn't matter what you call them, they have the same effect on both gov't revenue and corporate profits.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:


      "A subsidy usually goes to new companies or new industries.  Tax Breaks don't work because the companies aren't profitable and don't pay taxes.  No Taxes, then all the tax breaks in the world will have no effect.  The theory behind the subsidy is the industry is new and it takes a while for the industry to become profitable."


     




    The Theory behind the subsidy is, the Government knows how to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.... a theory discredited many times over...


    Taking lawfully earned taxpayers money and handing it over to wealthy crony capitalists, who just coincidentally may have made campaign contributions. A Win-win for the Government and its cronies, a loser for taxpayers and the private sector.


    But hey, the Nanny State will hand out other people's money to cronies who "play ball"...otherwise, you are   subject to the Regulatory State coming down on you. The IRS comes after enemies of the Regime, as does the EPA ....AG Holder abuses his powers as well....


    And again, a tax subsidy and tax cut are the same, to those who do not have any concept of property rights. It is all one big pot of wealth, that the Almighty State can divvy out as it pleases....

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from irc123. Show irc123's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    Click 

    sig

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To RR, depositing a $100 check at an ATM with $50 cash back is somehow different than depositing a $100 check and then making a withdrawal for $50.

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe you are still confused by the difference between a subsidy and a tax credit.  Your example doesn't address that.  It is a stupid example.

    [/QUOTE]

    How about a Tax Subsidy?

    [/QUOTE]

    I'll try one more time.  Read this:

    http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/

    best part:

    "So let us clear the conceptual field. Properly speaking, a “subsidy” means the government giving wealth that it forcibly seized from individuals or businesses to other individuals or businesses. Examples include corporate bailouts, tax-supported loans, and Social Security payments. A “tax cut” means reducing the amount of wealth the government forcibly seizes from individuals or businesses."

    is that clear enough for your? Is that enough of a fact to get you to shut your piehole  with the stupid, lazy, progressive muddling of what words really mean.

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude - the authors of the quote don't even understand the concept of wealth.  A subsidy isn't wealth.  Wealth includes stocks, bonds, property.  Taxes don't take wealth.  Seriously, get a clue.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    To RR, depositing a $100 check at an ATM with $50 cash back is somehow different than depositing a $100 check and then making a withdrawal for $50.




    Maybe you are still confused by the difference between a subsidy and a tax credit.  Your example doesn't address that.  It is a stupid example.


    [/QUOTE]

    How about a Tax Subsidy?


    [/QUOTE]

    I'll try one more time.  Read this:


    http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/11/the-crucial-distinction-between-subsidies-and-tax-cuts/


    best part:


    "So let us clear the conceptual field. Properly speaking, a “subsidy” means the government giving wealth that it forcibly seized from individuals or businesses to other individuals or businesses. Examples include corporate bailouts, tax-supported loans, and Social Security payments. A “tax cut” means reducing the amount of wealth the government forcibly seizes from individuals or businesses."


    is that clear enough for your? Is that enough of a fact to get you to shut your piehole  with the stupid, lazy, progressive muddling of what words really mean.


    [/QUOTE]

    Dude - the authors of the quote don't even understand the concept of wealth.  A subsidy isn't wealth.  Wealth includes stocks, bonds, property.  Taxes don't take wealth.  Seriously, get a clue.


    [/QUOTE]

    Dude, can you comprehend the difference? 


    Apparently not.


    so,we leave this debate with the progressives trying to state that a subsidy is identical to a tax break.


    unbelievable.


    i'll try to open your eyes AGAIN, with a different source, Forbes:


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/01/02/oil-gas-tax-provisions-are-not-subsidies-for-big-oil/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/01/02/oil-gas-tax-provisions-are-not-subsidies-for-big-oil/


    Key:


    "The ongoing debate in Washington over the possible repeal of what news media outlets commonly refer to as “subsidies” to the oil and gas industry has been an ongoing source of amusement and consternation to those who work in the industry for four years now. It’s somewhat amusing given the reality that, as Harold Hamm told a recent congressional hearing, the oil and natural gas industry does not actually receive any tax “subsidies” from the federal government, but frustrating because pretty much no one in the news media ever reports on the subject accurately."


    And this:


    "So how did all of this misinformation get started? It all began in 2009. Within days of being sworn in as the nation’s 44th President, Barack Obama ordered his staff to scour the tax code for any provision that was relevant to the oil and gas industry, and promptly began proposing them for repeal. The oil and gas industry has always been an easy target for political demagoguery, and that dynamic has played out repeatedly and consistently in this Administration."


    so, the bottom line is that this is nothing but a bunch of know-nothing progressives that don't understand the issue to which they complain.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The only thing skeeter here does know is that he's deliberately talking about something other than what we are.

     

     

     

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Apparently skeeterfan is confused by the fact that if a profitable company's profit is increased 100k by a government action, then it doesn't change the financial picture whether the government action is a tax credit or subsidy, from either the company or the government's perspective.

     

    The poor tool tripped over the semantics and can't get up.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    [/QUOTE]

    Your red herring example is BS. I don't know how many times or ways I can show that.

    when you start with the premise that oil companies are getting subsidies, and they are not, then move to that they get tax credits, and that's the same thing, and they are not, you lose.

    no amount of calling me names, trying to change the story changes the fact that you and your progressive minions, are factually wrong.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Drill baby drill ...

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


     


     


    [QUOTE]when you start with the premise that oil companies are getting subsidies



    Nope, not my premise at all.


     


     


    My premise was that because oil companies are immensely profitable, it makes exactly zero difference to the financial balance sheet of both oil companies and government whether the government action is a subsidy or a tax credit.


     


    Stop lying already.


    [/QUOTE]

    Ah, the lying charge, sure sign of a loser.


    sure, change the premise of your argument to try to salvage something out of this argument, and you still lose.


    profits in oil companies run @ 9%. Apple, Ford, and many other companies easily have higher returns on their investments.

     

Share