So... an industry does not receive SUBSIDIES if it's a big enough industry to PAY TAXES, and it pays more in taxes then the subsidies it receives?
Technically it received subsidies. If I gave you a dollar, and took everything you own, you would still have received money from me. But it isn't subsidized, any more than you would be in that above scenario. Give someone X, take multiples of X, and your not in any important sense giving to them.
If the industry pays more in taxes, then it gets from the government, than its a net contributor, not a net taker. That point includes the ordinary taxes that are charged to many, like corporate income taxes, but for the sake of argument I'll ignore them. Just consider the special taxes added on to the industry. Ignore all the corporate income taxes, and the property taxes paid by the oil companies, and the "employer's share" of payroll taxes (which should probably count more as a tax on the employee anyway), and just count the special taxes specific to the oil industry. Just counting those taxes, and none of the general/normal/broad based taxes, the industry still contributes more to the government than the government contributes to the industry.
Contrast that with many alternative sources, where even if you do count the normal and broad based taxes the industry still receives more from the government than the government receives from the industry.
Which doesn't mean there are no problems with oil subsidies, they still tend to lead to distorted decision making. I'd support getting rid of direct subsidies and special industry specific tax breaks for the oil companies. But the point is that they are not riding high on the hog on the government's/taxpayer's expense. They are strong net-contributors to the government, and in fact the government takes more of the profit from oil and its refined products than they do. |
