Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (15383)	4/21/2012 1:06:58 AM
From: Sdgla	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

You can't selectivley decide to remove the tax breaks for just one industry... You do it for all or none. The oil companies pay significant taxes and reinvest their profits. Why do you focus only on oil ?

To: Rock_nj who wrote (15383)	4/21/2012 6:54:29 AM
From: Farmboy	3 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

Please explain just what it is you have against the Oil companies, and having gasoline available at the gas station down at the corner.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (15383)	4/21/2012 3:53:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

I can agree with you there. Let's get big government out of the business of subsidizing big oil to the tune of Trillions over the decades That hasn't happened. There are little or no direct subsidies. Targeted tax breaks are also objectionable, and have a similar even perhaps identical economic effect to subsidies, but they are not subsidies because its letting people keep more of their own money, not giving them money. The money still flows to the government. The targeted tax breaks don't add up to trillions even if you are going to consider them as subsidies. Most tax breaks for the oil companies are targeted, or even really breaks at all, they are allowing the oil companies to deduct expenses, we tax income for companies not gross revenue. And even the actual breaks, are largely those available to companies in general. Also governments in the US get a lot of money from special taxes on the products of the oil industry, so the net subsidy for the industry is negative. Military spending isn't a subsidy for oil any more than having a police force is a subsidy for banks because the cops catch bank robbers. Its keeping peace and securing trade, not a subsidy. Also if you where to consider it a subsidy it would be a very small part of defense spending. If the US imported no oil, or even if it used no oil, the vast majority of military spending would be unaffected (other than the military's direct spending on oil, and presumably it would be replaced with spending on something else). stopping the use of the U.S. military as the U.S. Petroleum Protection Service that ensures the oil routes are free and clear. The US military protects transit in all important commodities. The navy secures the seas for materials that go in to solar panels and windmills as well.