Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    18 May '11 07:49
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/17/republicans-block-oil-tax-break-repeal/

    I don't think for a minute that ending said tax breaks will make gasoline any cheaper (not that increased offshore drilling will any time soon, either), but I still think it's ridiculous that in a time of record profits for oil companies, coinciding with a time of record deficits for the government, that our government feels compelled to fund these tax breaks. Heaven forbid Congress should appear "un-American."
  2. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    18 May '11 07:57
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/17/republicans-block-oil-tax-break-repeal/

    I don't think for a minute that ending said tax breaks will make gasoline any cheaper (not that increased offshore drilling will any time soon, either), but I still think it's ridiculous that in a time of record profits for oil companies, coinciding with a time of r ...[text shortened]... els compelled to fund these tax breaks. Heaven forbid Congress should appear "un-American."
    A tax break is not a subsidy.
  3. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    18 May '11 08:12
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    A tax break is not a subsidy.
    Fine. I'm past the thread-title-edit-timeout, so consider my title henceforth "Bill to Cut Oil Companies' Tax Breaks Filibustered".
  4. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    18 May '11 08:17
    The fuel companies are making a profit. Gummint is racking up record shattering losses. Schumer has a problem with that.

    Get the fuel company guys to run the gummint.

    “'Bureaucrats: they are dead at 30 and buried at 60.
    They are like custard pies; you can't nail them to a wall.”
    - Frank Lloyd Wright
  5. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    18 May '11 08:27
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    The fuel companies are making a profit.
    No kidding.

    Why should taxpayers continue to fund oil companies' tax breaks in the context of their making a record profit?
  6. 18 May '11 11:00
    Why did they get these tax breaks in the first place?
  7. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    18 May '11 11:37
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/17/republicans-block-oil-tax-break-repeal/

    I don't think for a minute that ending said tax breaks will make gasoline any cheaper (not that increased offshore drilling will any time soon, either), but I still think it's ridiculous that in a time of record profits for oil companies, coinciding with a time of r ...[text shortened]... els compelled to fund these tax breaks. Heaven forbid Congress should appear "un-American."
    I don't quite understand the Democrats logic -- repeal tax breaks for oil exploration/drilling in a time when oil prices are high? Surely one wants to increase supply, not decrease it?
  8. 18 May '11 11:39
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    I don't quite understand the Democrats logic -- repeal tax breaks for oil exploration/drilling in a time when oil prices are high? Surely one wants to increase supply, not decrease it?
    If oil prices are high then exploration and drilling are already a lot more profitable.
  9. 18 May '11 14:43
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Why did they get these tax breaks in the first place?
    I think this is an important question. Do we want to subsidize certain activity? do we want to offset the fact that we tax gasoline use? Perhaps it is completely unjustified but the fact that they have record profits right now is not really the issue.

    I am far from an expert but it seems like oil is a risky business and that when profits are high people think their profits are unjustified but when things are bad (oil spills) people want to kill the companies. I am wondering if this attitude is really a reflection of people just feeling we should use alternate energy sources and has nothing to do with the actions and profits of oil companies.
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 May '11 14:54
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I am far from an expert but it seems like oil is a risky business and that when profits are high people think their profits are unjustified but when things are bad (oil spills) people want to kill the companies.
    Do oil companies sell oil at a loss "when things are bad"?
  11. 18 May '11 15:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Do oil companies sell oil at a loss "when things are bad"?
    I am not sure how it is relevant but when oil goes down your inventory is worth less so you make less money. I am sure BP lost money as a result of the Gulf spill. I would guess that if oil comapnies have huge fixed costs that are never re-captured if price or demand goes down. Its not like everyone wants to start their own oil company because it is so easy to make profits.

    I don't know all the facts (and I'm guess neither do other people who posted above based on their arguments) but the idea that we need to change tax laws because an industry is profitable seems awfully silly.
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 May '11 15:12
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I am sure BP lost money as a result of the Gulf spill.
    Do you mean you think BP made a loss as a result of the Gulf spill or that BP had to spend money as a result of the Gulf spill?
  13. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    18 May '11 15:21
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    If oil prices are high then exploration and drilling are already a lot more profitable.
    Well, if the tax break wasn't to stimulate exploring/drilling, what was it for?
  14. 18 May '11 15:45
    Originally posted by FMF
    Do you mean you think BP made a loss as a result of the Gulf spill or that BP had to spend money as a result of the Gulf spill?
    I am sure the costs to BP directly and indirectly were huge. Is this even debatable?
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    18 May '11 15:46
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I am sure the costs to BP directly and indirectly were huge. Is this even debatable?
    You seemed to suggest that they made a loss.