- 10,805
Feel free to provide references to back up your claims at any time.
I can provide another dozen to back up mine if you would like. And the links I provided are US, not global. Global warming has nothing to do with any of it.
EV Takes 4 Days to Charge
- Thread starter somarco
- Start date
Feel free to provide references to back up your claims at any time.
I can provide another dozen to back up mine if you would like. And the links I provided are US, not global. Global warming has nothing to do with any of it.
whatyouwantfinally
Guru
- 527
What claim? That what you're saying isn't true? You don't use "sources" to prove negatives. I've explained, in detail, why YOUR claim is false. I've pointed out your "sources" don't substantiate it. There's nothing more for me to do.
I'm sure you can find hundreds of propaganda "sources" repeating the same lie, and I can point out and explain how it's a lie over and over. Then you can ignore the explanation and keep spewing the lie. It's pointless.
You're not the first cultist I've talked to.
What parts of the tax code are available to all businesses or even individuals? The standard deduction and what else exactly?
Our entire income tax code is a preposterous behemoth of targeted BS that someone paid for and some politician pushed through by accepting some other politician's BS pushed through. The politicians look out for themselves and not for us.
They also make vast fortunes by the overcharging of the taxpayers for every single thing government does. Why does it seem that the wealthiest people I know almost always do government contract work? Because government doesn't care how much they spend (and the people receiving the $$$ have clever ways for rewarding their government sponsors.)
BTW, the list you have is not specific to oil/gas/coal but can be used by them.
- 26,079
Let's look at a huge "Clean Energy" infrastructure project. Proposed and managed by the California government. High Speed Rail - HSR
"Back in 2008, California voters approved about $10 billion in bond funds to partially finance a HSR system that would stretch across the state, from the south to north, and from the valleys to the coast, promising travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in just two and one-half hours, with trains traveling at 220 miles per hour. The system was to be operational by 2020, for a cost of about $34 billion. Too date, the cost has escalated to about $105 billion, just for the 520-mile Los Angeles–San Francisco leg. And now that we are in 2022, the only certainty is that costs that will rise further, and that a completion date—"completion" meaning whatever bits and pieces of the system ultimately are finished—will stretch further into the future."
"In response to this lack of oversight, State Senator Brian Dahle (R, First District), who is a committee member, and his Senate Republican colleagues have produced a fact sheet about HSR. The fact sheet highlights some of the project's most egregious failures and why continuing the project makes no sense."
( here is the fact sheet link) >> https://cssrc.us/issue/get-facts-high-speed-rail-california
https://www.hoover.org/research/little-engine-couldnt-californias-high-speed-rail-costs-rise-200-million-mile#:~:text=The system was to be,Los Angeles–San Francisco leg.
What does this infrastructure look like today? hundreds of pieces of disconnected parts.
Fire Aim Ready
"Back in 2008, California voters approved about $10 billion in bond funds to partially finance a HSR system that would stretch across the state, from the south to north, and from the valleys to the coast, promising travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in just two and one-half hours, with trains traveling at 220 miles per hour. The system was to be operational by 2020, for a cost of about $34 billion. Too date, the cost has escalated to about $105 billion, just for the 520-mile Los Angeles–San Francisco leg. And now that we are in 2022, the only certainty is that costs that will rise further, and that a completion date—"completion" meaning whatever bits and pieces of the system ultimately are finished—will stretch further into the future."
"In response to this lack of oversight, State Senator Brian Dahle (R, First District), who is a committee member, and his Senate Republican colleagues have produced a fact sheet about HSR. The fact sheet highlights some of the project's most egregious failures and why continuing the project makes no sense."
( here is the fact sheet link) >> https://cssrc.us/issue/get-facts-high-speed-rail-california
https://www.hoover.org/research/little-engine-couldnt-californias-high-speed-rail-costs-rise-200-million-mile#:~:text=The system was to be,Los Angeles–San Francisco leg.
What does this infrastructure look like today? hundreds of pieces of disconnected parts.
Fire Aim Ready
- 10,805
I never said it was specific to them. I specifically stated that on the ones that are not. That is partly why they are "soft" indirect subsidies.
However, the 80% - 100% deduction for investments into exploration MLPs is specific to only the oil and gas industry.
whatyouwantfinally
Guru
- 527
This isn't true either. There is not an "80%-100% deduction for investment into exploration MLPs."
Typically, 80-90% of the $ returned to investors in MLP is treated as a return of capital, which is deducted from the original cost basis of the investment. Tax liability is DEFERRED until the units are sold.
- 10,805
This is not specific to MLPs. Its specific to exploration companies. Again, you dont know what Im talking about.
An exploration company could be a MLP, LLC, LLP, S-Corp, C-Corp. Most are MLPs, but not all. The organizational status of the business does not determine this deduction. Exploring for new oil & gas wells determines it.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/oil-tax-break.asp
-----
And if its deducted from taxable income, its a tax deduction. Doesnt matter if its subject to taxes down the road. A 401k contribution is a tax-deductible contribution to an investment, but it gets taxed when you pull it out.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-deduction.asp
Actually, it's run by large corporations via their lobbyists.
whatyouwantfinally
Guru
- 527
How can anyone know what you're talking about when you say the below...
"However, the 80% - 100% deduction for investments into exploration MLPs is specific to only the oil and gas industry."
...and the above "This is not specific to MLPs."
Which is it? I explained how what you said is NOT the case for MLPs, are you at least conceding that now?
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/oil-tax-break.asp
The words "exploring," "explore," "exploratory," etc. don't appear anywhere in that article. Be specific; WHAT deduction are you talking about?
So, now you ARE talking about MLPs? If so, go back to what I said before; distributions to unit owners of MLPs are largely (80-90%) treated as return of capital, which is subtracted from the original cost basis. Once the cost basis hits 0, they are taxed as capital gains.
To call this a "subsidy" to the oil industry is...ridiculous.
Similar threads
