• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Obama $10-Per-Barrel Oil Tax Seen Landing With Thud in Congress

CharlesDavenport

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
9,583
Reaction score
5,866
Points
113
President Barack Obama will propose a $10 per barrel tax on oil in his fiscal 2017 budget plan, an idea likely to receive a chilly reception in the Republican-controlled Congress that oversees spending.
With the proceeds targeted to transportation and climate initiatives, the proposal seems designed to deepen Obama’s environmental credentials and signify his ambitions to aggressively push action on climate change during his final year in office.
"By placing a fee on oil, the president’s plan creates a clear incentive for private sector innovation to reduce our reliance on oil and at the same time invests in clean energy technologies that will power our future," the White House said Thursday in a statement.

No. It provides an incentive for shady businessmen to create ironically unsustainable companies to get money confiscated from private companies by the government. Somehow politicians and their friends get rich as these green graft engines pop up and thrive under government funding and then die off when exposed to true market forces.

This better be ******* DOA but you never know with Ryan.

from - http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...0-per-barrel-oil-tax-for-transportation-needs
 
Place a fee on oil at a time when large and small oil and gas companies are laying off people and cancelling projects....

brilliant
 
...the proposal seems designed to deepen Obama’s environmental credentials and signify his ambitions to aggressively push action on climate change...
It's about damn time. Obama's got to set the stage for the next Democratic president who can then hopefully push forward with a faster pace.
 
It's about damn time. Obama's got to set the stage for the next Democratic president who can then hopefully push forward with a faster pace.

Taxing oil at $10 per barrel is "pushing forward"? No, it's not.

It is ******* not.

The oil industry is struggling right now. That industry has produced more wealth - automobile manufacturing, oil production, oil transportation, oil refinement, oil and gas sales - than any other business in the history of the planet. Tens of thousands of Americans earn very good livings stemming from oil production, transportation, refinement and use - without being propped up by tax dollars.

In point of fact, even without this idiotic proposed tax, governments earn a lot more money on gasoline sales than do oil companies.

gas-tax-em-profit_FINAL-420x411.jpg


Yep, governments earn 8 times as much on a gallon of gas than do oil producers.

So the next time a politician whines about "high gas prices," tell him to reduce the massive tax burden (55 cents per gallon in California, NOT including the billions in income tax paid by those who earn a living via petroleum production, refinement or use) and shut the **** up.
 
Maybe we reduce the subsidies paid by that amount.
 
Maybe we reduce the subsidies paid by that amount.

Your delusional if you ever think a government expense is going to go away or decline in costs. Anything the government subsidizes goes up to crazy costs....look at the cost of a college education!

This monkey in the White House is one of the dumbest mother ******* ever! I say crucify him in a mosque....drop a ******* Nuke into the dump and put an end to all his st00pid *** ideas! He's the biggest ******* terrorist threat to this country EVER!
 
next step in moving America beyond the dirty fossil fuels that are driving climate change

Back to the golf course, ***** - American has heard enough of your lunatic socialist liberal ideas


Oil companies would pay the fee


Complete bullshit - the cost will be paid by the consumer (that's you and me )

Any Republican in congress that votes for this better be run out of office on a rail in November.
 
Last edited:
This monkey in the White House is one of the dumbest mother ******* ever! I say crucify him in a mosque....drop a ******* Nuke into the dump and put an end to all his st00pid *** ideas! He's the biggest ******* terrorist threat to this country EVER!
Just when you think this board can't sink any lower....damn.
 
Democrats always want to do that when the price of oil goes down but they forget that it always goes back up. The poor and women are hurt first.
 
Taxing oil at $10 per barrel is "pushing forward"? No, it's not.

It is ******* not.

The oil industry is struggling right now. That industry has produced more wealth - automobile manufacturing, oil production, oil transportation, oil refinement, oil and gas sales - than any other business in the history of the planet. Tens of thousands of Americans earn very good livings stemming from oil production, transportation, refinement and use - without being propped up by tax dollars.

In point of fact, even without this idiotic proposed tax, governments earn a lot more money on gasoline sales than do oil companies.

gas-tax-em-profit_FINAL-420x411.jpg


Yep, governments earn 8 times as much on a gallon of gas than do oil producers.

So the next time a politician whines about "high gas prices," tell him to reduce the massive tax burden (55 cents per gallon in California, NOT including the billions in income tax paid by those who earn a living via petroleum production, refinement or use) and shut the **** up.

I read a while back that the oil company's profit is closer to 10 cents per gallon, rather than 8 cents.
 
Maybe we reduce the subsidies paid by that amount.

That would be great but the Pols will never give up the ability to peddle that type of influence willingly. The citizens will have to demand that they stop it.
 
I have always believed that subsidies should be for fixed period of time as well as declining during that time. Once the subsidies run out there should be an increasing tax implemented to fund research to move forward
 
I don't believe that anything should be subsidized by the government.
 
I don't believe that anything should be subsidized by the government.

Indeed.

The government has only three things that it needs to do in the markets:

1) Enforce contract law.

2) Provide courts of law.

3) Enforce criminal fraud and theft statutes.

That's the only legitimate roll of government in business.
 
Maybe we reduce the subsidies paid by that amount.

There are no oil "subsidies". "Oil subsidy" is a liberal's word for "allowing oil companies to deduct their costs from their revenues" the same way all businesses are allowed to do. In other words, not paying taxes on money they didn't actually earn.

https://www.aei.org/publication/the-truth-about-all-those-subsidies-for-big-oil/

The truth is that the oil and gas industry receives the same kinds of tax treatments that every other manufacturing or extractive industry receives in the federal tax code. There is nothing uncommon or out of the mainstream of tax treatments about any of the provisions that have been repeatedly proposed for repeal.

1. A great example of just how inaccurate this depiction is applies to Percentage Depletion, which has been a feature of the tax code since 1913. Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves. Every industry of any kind is allowed a depreciation deduction on its assets under the U.S. Tax Code, but, far from being a “subsidy” for “big oil”, this tax treatment was in fact repealed for all integrated oil companies, i.e., ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc., in 1975, and is today available only to independent producers and royalty owners. So repeal of this extremely long-standing, completely common tax treatment would have no effect on “big oil” at all, and would in fact hit small producers and royalty owners harder than anyone else.

2. Another great example of the specious mischaracterization of these tax treatments is the Manufacturer’s Tax Deduction, more commonly referred to as Section 199. The Section 199 provision was enacted by congress in 2004 as a means of encouraging manufacturers to relocate overseas jobs to the U.S., and is in no way specific to or limited to the oil and gas industry. In fact, the oil & gas industry’s ability to take advantage of this provision has already been singled out for limitation – in 2008, Congress reduced the industry’s deduction under this provision to 2/3rds of what other manufacturing industries are allowed to deduct.

3. The tax code contains a couple of credits related to the oil and gas industry – the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit, and the Marginal Well Tax Credit. Far from being “subsidies” to “big oil,” these tax credits are used almost exclusively by small to mid-size independent producers who tend to become the operators of marginal oil and gas fields as they age and are divested by the larger companies. The EOR credit was implemented in 1990, and the Marginal Well Credit was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

4. Finally, let’s talk about Intangible Drilling Costs (IDCs), another feature of the federal tax code that will enjoy its 100th birthday in 2013. Basically, IDCs are the costs incurred by the oil and gas industry in the drilling of its wells. Since drilling wells is the only means of finding oil and natural gas, IDCs essentially amount to what any other industry would be able to deduct as a part of its cost of goods sold, a concept of accounting and tax law as old as the tax code itself.

Independent producers and royalty owners are allowed an election to either a) expense these costs in the year they are incurred, or b) amortize them over a 5-year period. Again, most media reports commonly characterize this as a “subsidy” for “big oil”, as does the Obama Administration. The truth is that “big oil” – the ExxonMobils, Chevrons, Shells and BPs of the world – benefit much less from this tax treatment, it having been severely limited to them by congress in 1986, and again in 1992. And the truth also is that IDCs are not a “subsidy” to anyone engaged in the oil and gas business.

Bottom line: Despite the Administration’s rhetoric that has been so widely repeated in the press, the tax treatments in question are not “subsidies” that are in any way outside of the mainstream of tax treatments commonly available to all U.S. industries. Rather than being mostly a benefit to “big oil,” the repeal of these and other oil and gas industry-related tax provisions would mainly impact smaller independent producers and royalty owners. Such repeal would serve no legitimate public policy purpose, other than to unfairly discriminate via the tax code against one of the nation’s most productive – albeit easily demonized – manufacturing industries.
 
There are no oil "subsidies". "Oil subsidy" is a liberal's word for "allowing oil companies to deduct their costs from their revenues" the same way all businesses are allowed to do. In other words, not paying taxes on money they didn't actually earn.

https://www.aei.org/publication/the-truth-about-all-those-subsidies-for-big-oil/

The truth is that the oil and gas industry receives the same kinds of tax treatments that every other manufacturing or extractive industry receives in the federal tax code. There is nothing uncommon or out of the mainstream of tax treatments about any of the provisions that have been repeatedly proposed for repeal.

1. A great example of just how inaccurate this depiction is applies to Percentage Depletion, which has been a feature of the tax code since 1913. Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry’s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves. Every industry of any kind is allowed a depreciation deduction on its assets under the U.S. Tax Code, but, far from being a “subsidy” for “big oil”, this tax treatment was in fact repealed for all integrated oil companies, i.e., ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc., in 1975, and is today available only to independent producers and royalty owners. So repeal of this extremely long-standing, completely common tax treatment would have no effect on “big oil” at all, and would in fact hit small producers and royalty owners harder than anyone else.

2. Another great example of the specious mischaracterization of these tax treatments is the Manufacturer’s Tax Deduction, more commonly referred to as Section 199. The Section 199 provision was enacted by congress in 2004 as a means of encouraging manufacturers to relocate overseas jobs to the U.S., and is in no way specific to or limited to the oil and gas industry. In fact, the oil & gas industry’s ability to take advantage of this provision has already been singled out for limitation – in 2008, Congress reduced the industry’s deduction under this provision to 2/3rds of what other manufacturing industries are allowed to deduct.

3. The tax code contains a couple of credits related to the oil and gas industry – the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit, and the Marginal Well Tax Credit. Far from being “subsidies” to “big oil,” these tax credits are used almost exclusively by small to mid-size independent producers who tend to become the operators of marginal oil and gas fields as they age and are divested by the larger companies. The EOR credit was implemented in 1990, and the Marginal Well Credit was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

4. Finally, let’s talk about Intangible Drilling Costs (IDCs), another feature of the federal tax code that will enjoy its 100th birthday in 2013. Basically, IDCs are the costs incurred by the oil and gas industry in the drilling of its wells. Since drilling wells is the only means of finding oil and natural gas, IDCs essentially amount to what any other industry would be able to deduct as a part of its cost of goods sold, a concept of accounting and tax law as old as the tax code itself.

Independent producers and royalty owners are allowed an election to either a) expense these costs in the year they are incurred, or b) amortize them over a 5-year period. Again, most media reports commonly characterize this as a “subsidy” for “big oil”, as does the Obama Administration. The truth is that “big oil” – the ExxonMobils, Chevrons, Shells and BPs of the world – benefit much less from this tax treatment, it having been severely limited to them by congress in 1986, and again in 1992. And the truth also is that IDCs are not a “subsidy” to anyone engaged in the oil and gas business.

Bottom line: Despite the Administration’s rhetoric that has been so widely repeated in the press, the tax treatments in question are not “subsidies” that are in any way outside of the mainstream of tax treatments commonly available to all U.S. industries. Rather than being mostly a benefit to “big oil,” the repeal of these and other oil and gas industry-related tax provisions would mainly impact smaller independent producers and royalty owners. Such repeal would serve no legitimate public policy purpose, other than to unfairly discriminate via the tax code against one of the nation’s most productive – albeit easily demonized – manufacturing industries.

T-bone had a description of one of your items (probably 3 or 4) that allowed the oil companies to continue getting tax credits well past the time that the expenses were recovered. It seemed way over the top for deductions.

In any event, outside the one T-bone described, I'd bet most of their "subsidies" are the same things that other companies can deduct.
 
All taxes on gas do it hit poor and middle-class Americans with another tax the most. It also hits small businesses.

Will $10/barrel effect Google or Microsoft or Exxon or any other Forbes 500 business? Nope... they'll just absorb the short-term cost increase and recoup it in their next price cycle to the consumer.

But adding $.50/gallon is a tax that the government will never "give back" when gas starts to rise in cost. They'll keep it when gas is $2.00/gallon or $3.00/gallon or $4.00/gallon. And small businesses can't "eat" the costs and find ways to pass it on to consumers as many small businesses live year-to-year (and month-to-month) on purchase orders, backlog and fixed income/prices.

Every time the government just decides something is too "cheap" and wants to skim off the top to pay for itself is a bad policy.
 
Who would be hurt most by this move? Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia
 
Top