Oil industry Lemon socialism?

[noob_trad3r]

I dont get it, if developing an energy supply is profitable then they do not need taxpayer money. Oil companies are very profitable so why do they need corporate welfare?

They will drill if there is oil they can sell. They do not need welfare. So why give it to them?

Capitalism means free market economy with no government intervention.

I think what they want is the Government to cover the failed prospects on taxpayer money. But privatize the gains if the prospect has profitable oil.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...n-the-hot-seat/2011/05/12/AFDcD6zG_story.html

But the oil executives fought back against congressional efforts to eliminate tax benefits for the petroleum industry, asserting that if Congress wants to boost revenues and lower gasoline prices it should open up more federal land and waters for exploration to generate more production and tax and royalty payments.

“Tax increases on the oil and gas industry — which will result if you change long-standing provisions in the U.S. tax code — will hinder development of energy supplies needed to moderate rising energy prices,” said Chevron chief executive John Watson. “It will also mean fewer dollars to state and federal treasuries ... and fewer jobs — all at a time when our economic recovery remains fragile.”

 

[olias]

Quote from noob_trad3r:

I dont get it, if developing an energy supply is profitable then they do not need taxpayer money. Oil companies are very profitable so why do they need corporate welfare?

They don't need it. At least, not right now. But times aren't always so good. And even if they don't 'need' it, they 'want it'. I'm sure there's some concern that we will lose more and more dependance on oil as we encourage exploration into other energies.

I'm on your side here, but I'm playing devil's advocate. I'm in favor of ending these tax breaks for big oil. I don't buy the argument that ending these tax breaks would lead to higher prices at the pump, and I'm willing to take that risk.

Republicans in congress will not pass this legislation anyway, sadly.

 

[hoodooman]

Bring on the electric car. I won't ever drive with gasoline again, if I get the chance.

 

[clacy]

Quote from hoodooman:

Bring on the electric car. I won't ever drive with gasoline again, if I get the chance.

Speaking of government subsidies.

 

[hoodooman]

Speaking of government subsidies.
------------------------------
So be it. Great place to put the oil subsidies.

 

[burn8]

Quote from hoodooman:

Speaking of government subsidies.
------------------------------
So be it. Great place to put the oil subsidies.

So move the subsidies from oil to coal??? How does that make sense?

-burn8

 

[SCI new york]

Quote from noob_trad3r:

I dont get it, if developing an energy supply is profitable then they do not need taxpayer money. Oil companies are very profitable so why do they need corporate welfare?

They will drill if there is oil they can sell. They do not need welfare. So why give it to them?

Capitalism means free market economy with no government intervention.

I think what they want is the Government to cover the failed prospects on taxpayer money. But privatize the gains if the prospect has profitable oil.

What about the idea that no government intervention means allowing them to utilize these tax breaks? Why not let them? It's not thier fault the tax code has all these holes. Instead of trying to put pressure on big oil, or other large corportations, why not change the tax code across the board.

Who likes paying taxes anyway?

 

[dumb_mother]

Quote from noob_trad3r:

I dont get it, if developing an energy supply is profitable then they do not need taxpayer money. Oil companies are very profitable so why do they need corporate welfare?

They will drill if there is oil they can sell. They do not need welfare. So why give it to them?

Capitalism means free market economy with no government intervention.

I think what they want is the Government to cover the failed prospects on taxpayer money. But privatize the gains if the prospect has profitable oil.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...n-the-hot-seat/2011/05/12/AFDcD6zG_story.html

But the oil executives fought back against congressional efforts to eliminate tax benefits for the petroleum industry, asserting that if Congress wants to boost revenues and lower gasoline prices it should open up more federal land and waters for exploration to generate more production and tax and royalty payments.

“Tax increases on the oil and gas industry — which will result if you change long-standing provisions in the U.S. tax code — will hinder development of energy supplies needed to moderate rising energy prices,” said Chevron chief executive John Watson. “It will also mean fewer dollars to state and federal treasuries ... and fewer jobs — all at a time when our economic recovery remains fragile.”

i hope you aren't writing off your internet, or cable or anything related to trading (making the unlikely assumption you are a prof trader)- because it is the exact same write off. why should we subsidize your trading costs? if it is profitable you'll pay anyways. or your gas if you are in point sales? or your meals if you have a business lunch?

selectively applying laws [the tax code] is unamerican