Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Tax reform the dramatic way

Tax reform the dramatic way
Thread Tools
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2017, 08:39 PM
 
If you loved the healthcare debate, you will love the upcoming tax reform efforts. source link for quote:

But the path to tax reform has its own set of hurdles. When Congress returns in September, lawmakers face two urgent deadlines that will likely consume the legislative calendar. They must pass a bill to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, known as the debt ceiling, or risk defaulting on the country’s debt. And before the start of the fiscal year on 1 October, they must pass a series of spending bills if they want to keep the federal government operating.

That leaves little time to focus on tax reform before the end of the year. And McConnell said this week that he plans to overhaul tax policy without Democrats’ help, setting the stage for another partisan battle.

Democrats, who have largely been sidelined during this year’s major legislative debates, have urged Republicans to not repeat the process they attempted to use for healthcare reform: trying to pass legislation with a simple majority of votes.
emphasis added

The only reason to avoid Democrat involvement, is if the reform proposals are against the public interest. So I'm expecting:

• Tax cuts for the rich. Gotta help those who need it least.
• Possible tax breaks for the biggest multinationals.
• Service cuts for the poor. Take away the safety net, make them so miserable, they give up being poor.
• Limit (or remove) debt forgiveness for education debt. Make sure the debt follows one to the grave.
• More attacks on Planned Parenthood, this time via the budget process.
• Nothing about the minimum wage. Won't even be mentioned. Even though a minimum-wage worker can afford a single-bedroom home in only 12 counties (mostly rural) and cannot afford a 2-bedroom home in any county or city in the US.
• Endless public battles and protests, until the Senate admits it is unable to muster 50 Republican votes. Only afterwards will any compromise get discussed.

Mark your calendars, folks. Dramatic news coverage will resume in September, as our elected members of congress try to write budget & tax bills without input from half the population.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2017, 09:00 PM
 
Why hasn't McConnell learnt from the ACA repeal debacle? Why not focus on passing the first regular budget in years and try and work things out without rushing them? Why half ars it?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2017, 02:32 PM
 
Ah yes, an entire strawman thread, discussing points entirely fabricated based on the biases of the OP.

There are other reasons not to work with the democrats here - namely they don't (at least shouldn't) need to and the democrat's zealous jihad against all things republican.

The dramatic news coverage is a given, since the media have finally proved to themselves that a dramatic narrative loosely based on the facts is far more profitable than objective news coverage. Tax reform or not, the media is only giving us what we want - outrage and tribalism. Divide and conquer comrade.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2017, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Why hasn't McConnell learnt from the ACA repeal debacle? Why not focus on passing the first regular budget in years and try and work things out without rushing them? Why half ars it?
Because an opportunity exists, through the loading dock sized door the previous administration left in the process, to game the system to an advantage and spin it in the media.

Unfortunately, the republicans suck at this kind of manipulation and are quite envious of the previous administration's prowess at it. Add in the dramatization the media will throw at it, and it will be a toss-up between this coverage and Teen Mom 16 for which "reality" TV show American's of all political leanings tune in to to satisfy their "Oh no he didn't!" itch.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2017, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
the democrat's zealous jihad against all things republican.
Quick check - how would you describe the attitude of the Republicans in congress toward Obama?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2017, 07:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
There are other reasons not to work with the democrats here - namely they don't (at least shouldn't) need to and the democrat's zealous jihad against all things republican.
How will the Republicans pass tax reform without some Democratic involvement? Why do you think tax reform is different from health care reform?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2017, 11:23 PM
 
I'm not sure I understand what's unreasonable about the Democrats stance on Tax Reform:

A. Pass the bill through regular legislation rather than budget reconciliation.
B. The bill must be revenue neutral
C. No net tax cut to the highest-earning one percent

A isn't a problem unless you go partisan
B shouldn't be a problem since the GOP is always going on about the deficit
C ...well, I think we found out problem, if the AHCA was any indication.

(Decet breakdown here)

I also covered this back in the day, though it's not all that useful
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Quick check - how would you describe the attitude of the Republicans in congress toward Obama?
The same, except republicans aimed at policies and not the people themselves. I don't recall every calling half of liberals deplorable as a matter of policy.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
How will the Republicans pass tax reform without some Democratic involvement? Why do you think tax reform is different from health care reform?
Why would it be the same?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm not sure I understand what's unreasonable about the Democrats stance on Tax Reform:

A. Pass the bill through regular legislation rather than budget reconciliation.
B. The bill must be revenue neutral
C. No net tax cut to the highest-earning one percent

A isn't a problem unless you go partisan
B shouldn't be a problem since the GOP is always going on about the deficit
C ...well, I think we found out problem, if the AHCA was any indication.

(Decet breakdown here)

I also covered this back in the day, though it's not all that useful
Because that's not the democrats stance on tax reform. Else, that's what they would have done in the 8 years of the Obama administration. Their stance is "anything to make it harder for the republicans to meet their goals", which is why they changed their tune precisely after getting ousted from power over the process.

The dems have no moral high ground to make these claims from, nor any practical reason for the republicans to make it harder on themselves beyond straight up opposition and grandstanding.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The same, except republicans aimed at policies and not the people themselves.
Birth certificate?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Their stance is "anything to make it harder for the republicans to meet their goals",
[citation needed]
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 06:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
[citation needed]
Citation being the 8 years when the democrats had chance after chance to set the process right, and willfully chose not to.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Birth certificate?
touche.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Citation being the 8 years when the democrats had chance after chance to set the process right, and willfully chose not to.
So that's your interpretation of their stance. It's not like someone ever came out and said something to the effect of, "my number one priority is making sure president Obama's a one-term president."
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
So that's your interpretation of their stance. It's not like someone ever came out and said something to the effect of, "my number one priority is making sure president Obama's a one-term president."
Words are wind Lam. I don't judge someone's stance based on what they say it is - I base it on what they do about it and what they stand to gain from the grandstanding. It isn't hard to see through.

Considering you have sitting congressional democrats saying they will have Trump impeached by December, i try to ignore the fluff on all accounts.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 07:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Why would it be the same?
Why don't you answer my question? I don't see any essential differences: it is a hugely complex topic, the Republicans have not really worked out what their position is and it seems likely that the same unbridgeable rift between moderate and Freedom Caucus Republicans kills the deal. This is compounded by the failure of passing any of the health care reform bills that included massive spending cuts as well as the promised significant increase of the military budget. But I'm curious as to what your opinion is. If you think I am wrong with any of that, please tell me where.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 10:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Words are wind Lam. I don't judge someone's stance based on what they say it is - I base it on what they do about it and what they stand to gain from the grandstanding. It isn't hard to see through.
And how do you account for your own biases when interpreting the actions of those you would consider political rivals?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
And how do you account for your own biases when interpreting the actions of those you would consider political rivals?
By assuming the worst of all politicians, (R) or (D) - usually holds true anyways.

Also, by taking a thought or an idea and "running a simulation" in my head reversing the political sign, and seeing if I still feel the same way (in this case I do).

I am not bias free. Nor are you. Nor is anyone.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Why don't you answer my question?
Because your premise makes an assumption that I don't believe to be true.

I don't see any essential differences: it is a hugely complex topic, the Republicans have not really worked out what their position is and it seems likely that the same unbridgeable rift between moderate and Freedom Caucus Republicans kills the deal. This is compounded by the failure of passing any of the health care reform bills that included massive spending cuts as well as the promised significant increase of the military budget. But I'm curious as to what your opinion is. If you think I am wrong with any of that, please tell me where.
I don't disagree with any of that. Where we disconnect is mainly in predicting what will or what would happen - I think some give the democrats too much credit and take their word for their obvious grandstanding, when very recent history demonstrates they were perfectly content using the broken process year after year when it suited their agenda. Now that it is convenient for them to "take the high road" while at the same time making it harder on their opposition, we're told all along that's what it should be and Republicans are evil for playing the same game the same way the dems did when they held the presidency, less than a year ago.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
By assuming the worst of all politicians, (R) or (D) - usually holds true anyways.

Also, by taking a thought or an idea and "running a simulation" in my head reversing the political sign, and seeing if I still feel the same way (in this case I do).

I am not bias free. Nor are you. Nor is anyone.
Is there a single valid interpretation of a large number of actions taken by a large number of people over an eight year time period? I feel like you're insinuating that there is, and that the valid interpretation conveniently lines up with your political ideology.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 03:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Is there a single valid interpretation of a large number of actions taken by a large number of people over an eight year time period? I feel like you're insinuating that there is, and that the valid interpretation conveniently lines up with your political ideology.
Precisely - also precisely what I am accusing the democrats of.

Almost like I'm insinuating that's how the game is played, and we shouldn't expect it to be any different today than it was when the dems were doing the same thing and the hooing and hawing and grandstanding and moral/ethical superiority came from this side of the aisle.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
when the dems were doing the same thing
Were they?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Were they?
Yes
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2017, 10:50 PM
 
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/35...different-with
Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.) told The New York Times that deficit reduction is a more popular "talking point" when Republicans are in the minority in Washington.

“It’s a great talking point when you have an administration that’s Democrat-led,” the conservative lawmaker said. “It’s a little different now that Republicans have both houses and the administration.”

“There’s been less talk about it this year with a Republican-led administration than there has been the last seven or eight years,” Walker, who is concerned about a tax bill adding to the deficit, told the Times.

Last year, Republicans pointed to the deficit as the most challenging issue Trump would face in office. But that focus on the deficit has largely disappeared since January.
*Hmmmmm*
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2017, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Who could have seen this coming?
The “new” tax plan doesn't even include tax brackets yet, which makes pricing it impossible.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 10:39 AM
 
I don't think I've heard an argument for why we need less tax brackets.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 11:33 AM
 
1. The only thing people know about the current tax code is that it has tax brackets
2. Everyone knows we need to simplify the tax code
3. Reducing the number of tax brackets is a simplification that everyone can understand

Political success.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
1. The only thing people know about the current tax code is that it has tax brackets
2. Everyone knows we need to simplify the tax code
3. Reducing the number of tax brackets is a simplification that everyone can understand

Political success.
That's probably accurate.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2017, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I don't think I've heard an argument for why we need less tax brackets.
If that was in response to me, then I’m arguing something even more basic: since we don’t know what incomes are taxed at what percentage, we won’t even know the fiscal impact. The “tax reform” is just a tax cut that hasn’t left the back-of-the-envelope calculation stage. I agree that having fewer tax brackets doesn’t really change the difficult part of the tax code, that’s all the rules, exceptions and such which can’t be packaged neatly for the news.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2017, 12:09 AM
 
Not aimed at you. My issue is it feels like a cheat code to lower taxes on the top. Condense higher tier brackets, obviously you're not gonna raise the rate the lower tiers are paying, so, boom, tax cut.

Plus, with the growing disparity in pay, it's completely counter-intuitive. We need more tax brackets, not less.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2017, 01:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Not aimed at you. My issue is it feels like a cheat code to lower taxes on the top. Condense higher tier brackets, obviously you're not gonna raise the rate the lower tiers are paying, so, boom, tax cut.

Plus, with the growing disparity in pay, it's completely counter-intuitive. We need more tax brackets, not less.
Oh, I agree. For the lowest tax bracket, taxes are increased by two percentage points from 10 % to 12 %, while the people in the highest tax bracket will pay less (plus, the mandatory minimum will be abolished as well). The tax increase will not lead to a lot of tax revenue, but it speaks volumes about the myth of lowering taxes for everyone, and not just this being about tax breaks for the rich.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2017, 08:09 PM
 
To beat a dead horse: https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/a...ts-early-bumps
“I’ve been very candid about this. We need to have new deficits because of that. We need to have the growth,” Mulvaney said. “If we simply look at this as being deficit-neutral, you’re never going to get the type of tax reform and tax reductions that you need to get to sustain 3 percent economic growth.”
Where was this kind of thinking in 2009-2011 when our economy was in the gutter? I seem to recall a stimulus and adding to the deficit was anathema to the GOP back then.

Wait, let me think harder...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/03/omb-...-tax-plan.html
"We really believe you can't spend money you don't have," Mulvaney said in his 2010 victory speech, according to The Washington Post.

In 2013, he supported major budget cuts to offset a relief package for the areas battered by Superstorm Sandy. At the time, he said Congress needed to find "ways to pay for it rather than adding to the nation's ballooning deficit."
Mulvaney is one of tea party anti-establishment freedom caucus types. Guess he's part of the swamp now.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2017, 08:04 PM
 
Republicans saying this is a once in a lifetime chance also irk me. Most of them were around for Reagan, and some for Nixon as well.

Plus, you know, they mostly mean tax cuts, and that's happened with two of the last three GOP presidents. And the one who didn't (H.W.), didn't because he actually stuck to the conservative principle of reducing the deficit.

So, in short, **** off, GOP
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 22, 2017, 03:48 PM
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ax-cut-offsets
“I think this level of national debt is dangerous and unacceptable,” McConnell said, adding he hopes Congress doesn’t lose sight of that when it acts next year. “My preference on tax reform is that it be revenue neutral,” he said.
Heh.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2017, 12:56 PM
 
GOP has repealing Johnson Amendment as part of tax bill
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2017, 01:10 PM
 
So churches would be able to endorse a candidate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2017, 01:46 PM
 
Yes
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2017, 03:34 PM
 
Few things I've caught so far:

Removing deductions for medical bills and student loans seems bad

I'm fine with lowering the mortgage deduction
     
reader50  (op)
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2017, 03:52 PM
 
They want to end the $7,500 tax credit for buying electric cars, and reduce the wind power credit. But everyone can rest easy - no fossil fuel subsidies were endangered while writing this tax plan.

Oh, and eliminate inheritance taxes on the wealthy. As well as reducing tax brackets. Sure sounds like a net decrease on the top people. Also, top corporate tax permanently reduced from 35% to 20%.

It is not specified who will pay for all the tax cuts on those with the most money. Perhaps the plan assumes the ACA will be cancelled, along with welfare and unemployment assistance. And the deficit will blossom if those services are not cut.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2017, 04:18 PM
 
I'm ok with reducing the tax credit for electric. I'm open to being told why it should be kept
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2017, 08:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm ok with reducing the tax credit for electric. I'm open to being told why it should be kept
Whether you believe electric cars are any better for the environment than fossil-fuel cars is probably divided right across party lines.

Are you okay with those subsidies being removed while fossil fuel subsidies remain?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2017, 12:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Whether you believe electric cars are any better for the environment than fossil-fuel cars is probably divided right across party lines.

Are you okay with those subsidies being removed while fossil fuel subsidies remain?
Ok? No. I'm against any fossil fuel subsidies. It's just not a topic I'm willing to expend much effort pointing out the hypocrisy, partly because I'm not even knowledgeable enough to even point out any specific fossil fuel subsidies.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2017, 01:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Ok? No. I'm against any fossil fuel subsidies. It's just not a topic I'm willing to expend much effort pointing out the hypocrisy, partly because I'm not even knowledgeable enough to even point out any specific fossil fuel subsidies.
The fossil fuel industry is also getting a lot of indirect help such as when pushing for new pipelines (Keystone XL), lowering fuel emission and fuel economy standards, or when allowing fracking in natural reserves. The incumbents have enjoyed such advantages for a very long time that they have a lot of clout with politicians.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2017, 04:11 AM
 
Kind of a threadjack, but without CPT here to create controversy, what else is there to post about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

According to a 2015 estimate by the Obama administration, the US oil industry benefited from subsidies of about $4.6 billion per year.[27] A 2017 study by researchers at Stockholm Environment Institute published in the journal Nature Energy estimated that nearly half of U.S. oil production would be unprofitable without subsidies.[27]
...
Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.
...
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expense ($7.1 billion)
The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:

Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)
So they're given tax breaks and credits, they're exempt from some price controls and rate-of-return limits. The government is propping up the ethanol industry, also potentially driving up food costs as corn is diverted from food consumption to fuel production.

If the quote is correct and half of US refining would be unprofitable were they required to pay the actual tax rate, that would mean less energy independence for the US.
     
reader50  (op)
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2017, 05:24 AM
 
I would have guessed the fossil fuel subsidies were larger. Thanks for the real data.

One observation. With the possible exception of the "Renewable Electricity Production Credit", the electric car purchase credit is the only one middle-class citizens can use. All the rest are aimed at corporations.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2017, 05:07 PM
 
This is a really interesting take on tax and tax avoidance. Some of you won't necessarily get the specific references to people and possibly the avoidance methods in question, but the overall principle is a rather lovely piece of thinking.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2017, 05:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Kind of a threadjack, but without CPT here to create controversy, what else is there to post about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies



So they're given tax breaks and credits, they're exempt from some price controls and rate-of-return limits. The government is propping up the ethanol industry, also potentially driving up food costs as corn is diverted from food consumption to fuel production.

If the quote is correct and half of US refining would be unprofitable were they required to pay the actual tax rate, that would mean less energy independence for the US.
I feel like this tangent might be worth it's own thread, but I'll test the waters here.

My simplest thought is this could be defensible if the subsidies were triggered when oil hit certain price points. i.e., when oil is trading at <X subsidies are not needed because it is cheap. When oil is trading at >Y subsidies are not needed because oil is very profitable. Between x & y is where energy independence may be more desirable than working within the free market.

I'm against ethanol subsidies. I haven't heard anything good about it, really. Plus **** Iowa and it's dumb caucus.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 03:45 PM
 
Committee voted down an amendment to the tax bill that would stop cuts if the deficit explodes or it doesn't boost economic growth.

I've always dreamt something like this should happen with these kind of bills. Really says it all.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2017, 11:23 AM
 
So the plan will remove the ability of individuals to deduct state and local taxes but businesses will. What the **** is this shit?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:05 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,