Monday, March 19, 2012

GM and Chrysler wing/smoke-mirrors

  • http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/03/oil_subsidies.html#comments
  •  
  • Griff (1,699) Says:
    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) listed $24bn in subsidies. This was made up of $3.5bn in Department of Energy spending, half of which went on renewables, and $20.5bn on “tax preferences” or tax credits.
    Looking at these figures gives a very different story than the headline attached to the report.
    Of that $20.5bn, it lists just $2.5bn as designated for fossil fuels, compared to $12.9bn for a variety of renewable energy initiatives. This includes payments to small and medium sized businesses for generating their own power, to tax credits for investment in larger renewable infrastructure.
  • tom hunter (2,836) Says:
    Obama is on the right side of this one.
    DPF – any chance you might update this thread with some of the links and material that commentators have introduced, to do what this blog often does, which is to not allow the MSM to simply and brainlessly repeat leftist political propaganda?
  • kiwi in america (1,658) Says:
    David
    I’m with Tom and others on this. A tax credit by way of an accelerated tax write off is not in the same category as the massive direct payments, grants and loans made to the alternative energy sector – they merely delay the tax take from oil industry not reduce it. Furthermore the difference is not only in type of assistance but differs in the sheer size of the assistance – $4 billion vs $20 billion
    This from the Science and Environment Policy Project http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2011/TWTW%202011-4-30.pdf
    “Number of the Week: $4 Billion. This the amount that Mr. Obama claims to be the tax subsidies extended to the oil and gas industry. It is not clear how the amount is calculated. By contrast, in an article referenced in last week’s The Week That Was, the Department of Energy announced it has given $21 Billion in (not tax) subsidies to the alternative energy industry in the form of loan guarantees. … Since the stimulus bill of 2009, direct subsidies to alternative energy producers have increased dramatically by orders of magnitude, but for the US these subsidies are not centrally compiled as far as SEPP has been able to determine. …
    The tax subsidies, “loopholes,” to oil and gas companies are largely in three categories: 1) oil depletion allowance, 2) expensing indirect drilling costs, and 3) a tax credit for taxes paid to foreign nations during foreign operations (foreign tax credit). The first category is a favorite among independent producers (and similar depletion allowances are available for all mineral extraction, timber, etc.). The independent producers can pass the depletion on to individual investors. Since the mid-1970s, the allowance has not been permitted for integrated oil companies. The smaller producers will bitterly fight for this “loophole” and the larger producers will be blamed.
    The second category permits writing off indirect drilling costs in the year incurred rather than capitalizing them and writing them off over several years. Closing this “loophole” would only change timing of taking the expense, not total amounts of the so-called tax subsidy. The third category is available for all international companies. Closing this “loophole” would discriminate against oil and gas companies in favor of other international companies such as General Electric. “

No comments: