Financial transactions tax

[Absentglare]

Really?

I've run the numbers before. The small gains after several years, after inflation, is a loss. Not a gain.

Do you have numbers that show differently?


Yes, businesses fail from time to time. That's why we don't tax capital investors very much, because they are risking complete losses. If a capital investor doesn't want to risk his money, why should the government risk our tax dollars?

It was a loan that should have never happened. It was never going to succeed. It was a liberal feel-good loan. "We will fund green energy." How many votes did they buy from easily duped people?

I never mentioned inflation. You're shifting goalposts.

It wasn't a feel good loan. It was a loan.

Why don't we talk about the "profit margins" of oil subsidies ? How about agriculture subsidies ? We spend, what, $20 billion per year just handing farmers money for no reason ? How does that compare to Solyndra ?

How many farmers votes do those policies buy ?

 

[ludin]

Only in losing deals that politicians want. And it's the lefties who want that. Not right leaning people. They push for things that corporations would never risk their own money for, like Solyndra.

what is worse is that the taxpayers never got their money back.
it was rigged so that all the assets paid went to Obama's big investor friends that had
donated to his campaign and the taxpayers got left out in the cold.

there were a number of those that occurred.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I never mentioned inflation. You're shifting goalposts.

No, I'm keeping it real. If after ten years, you only get a 1% profit, was it really a profit? Can you buy $10 worth of 2006 good for $11 today?

It wasn't a feel good loan. It was a loan.

Why don't we talk about the "profit margins" of oil subsidies ? How about agriculture subsidies ? We spend, what, $20 billion per year just handing farmers money for no reason ? How does that compare to Solyndra ?

How many farmers votes do those policies buy ?

It wasn't a feel good loan. It was a loan.

Why didn't they get the load from a bank, or adventure capitalists?

Why do you want the government to do so much?

Why don't we talk about the "profit margins" of oil subsidies ? How about agriculture subsidies ? We spend, what, $20 billion per year just handing farmers money for no reason ? How does that compare to Solyndra ?

What oil subsidies? I haven't seen one yet. Tax breaks, yes. Subsidies, no!

Words have meaning!

Are you defending the Solyndra Decision? Even in hindsight? It was a losing proposition from the start. Only a fool though it has a valid chance. The CEO's are laughing all the way to the bank, about the stupidity of those they fleeced!

How many farmers votes do those policies buy ?

Too many.

I'm on record as in favor of eliminating all subsidies.

 

[Lord of Planar]

what is worse is that the taxpayers never got their money back.
it was rigged so that all the assets paid went to Obama's big investor friends that had
donated to his campaign and the taxpayers got left out in the cold.

there were a number of those that occurred.

Why do we keep putting in Chicago style criminals in government? Why hasn't the average voter learned yet?

 

[Absentglare]

what is worse is that the taxpayers never got their money back.
it was rigged so that all the assets paid went to Obama's big investor friends that had
donated to his campaign and the taxpayers got left out in the cold.

there were a number of those that occurred.

Actually they did, and then some, unlike agriculture subsidies (aka the republican fund exploited to buy farmers votes).

 

[ludin]

Why do we keep putting in Chicago style criminals in government? Why hasn't the average voter learned yet?

nope in general individual voters are quite smart. when you start grouping them into crowds the mass public on average is quite dumb.

 

[Absentglare]

No, I'm keeping it real. If after ten years, you only get a 1% profit, was it really a profit? Can you buy $10 worth of 2006 good for $11 today?

You seem confused. Yes, it was still a profit.

Why didn't they get the load from a bank, or adventure capitalists?

Many of them do.

Why do you want the government to do so much?

Becoming independent of our need for oil is a national security issue. Do you remember the 70s ?

What oil subsidies? I haven't seen one yet. Tax breaks, yes. Subsidies, no!

Oh, you admit that we hand them cash, but you're not aware that we hand them cash. Okay...

Words have meaning!

Are you defending the Solyndra Decision? Even in hindsight? It was a losing proposition from the start. Only a fool though it has a valid chance. The CEO's are laughing all the way to the bank, about the stupidity of those they fleeced!

I can't even pretend to agonize over the amount of resources spent on Solyndra. The Iraq war has it beaten more than a thousand fold on money alone.

Too many.

I'm on record as in favor of eliminating all subsidies.

Okay.

 

[ludin]

Actually they did, and then some, unlike agriculture subsidies (aka the republican fund exploited to buy farmers votes).

which started by FDR LOL.
ooppss.

actually not they didn't. the bulk of the bankruptcy went to Obama's big donators that were invested.
there were a couple more that did the same thing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You seem confused. Yes, it was still a profit.

If it was realized in an accounting cycle of a quarter, or year, it can be considered a profit. However, over several accounting cycles, inflation has to be taken into account.

Oh, you admit that we hand them cash, but you're not aware that we hand them cash. Okay...

What cash have we handed them, except for the same money granted to anyone for green energy?

What money have we given them for fossil fuel?

Link please.

They would be stupid not to take free money the government doles out. But it's not being given out for oil.

I can't even pretend to agonize over the amount of resources spent on Solyndra. The Iraq war has it beaten more than a thousand fold on money alone.

Does that apple taste like an orange to you?

War is war, and acknowledged in the constitution.

 

[KLATTU]

You


Oh, you admit that we hand them cash, but you're not aware that we hand them cash. Okay...


y.

No . He clearly said the US govt. does NOT hand the oil companies cash. If you have info otherwise-post it

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually they did, and then some, unlike agriculture subsidies (aka the republican fund exploited to buy farmers votes).

Where did you read that horse pucky from? I had to look this one up, and unlike you, I did. The last five year farm bill was HR 2642/S.954. It was a farm bill with subsidy reductions. Not a subsidy act. Everyone knows to cut addicts off cold turkey can be bad. You have to do it in stages first. Let them adjust over time.

It initially went for a house vote with an overwhelming support for reduction and opposed by democrats:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll353.xml

After the amendments, it lost a great deal of republican votes, and gained democrat votes, and wasn't as large of a reduction.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll031.xml

The senate vote was mostly democrats:

U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote

It became public law on 2/7/14:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-113publ79/html/PLAW-113publ79.htm

 

[Absentglare]

If it was realized in an accounting cycle of a quarter, or year, it can be considered a profit. However, over several accounting cycles, inflation has to be taken into account.

No, profit is different from inflation.

What cash have we handed them, except for the same money granted to anyone for green energy?

What money have we given them for fossil fuel?

Link please.

Here :

"...oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period [1950-2010]."

http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf

They would be stupid not to take free money the government doles out. But it's not being given out for oil.


Does that apple taste like an orange to you?

War is war, and acknowledged in the constitution.

It absolutely is.

 

[Mr Person]

Why Isn’t Everyone In Favor of Taxing Financial Speculation? | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

This is a coherent explanation of the benefits of a proposed Financial Transactions Tax.

Thoughts?

I think anything like this should not kick in until you are dealing with pretty large trades or large trading institutions.

The last thing we need to do is add any discouragement for the average middle class American to tuck away money here and there in index funds, etc.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, profit is different from inflation.

Believe as you wish.

When going more than one fiscal year, the government uses comparisons like "in 2005 dollars."

How does your so-called profit look when every thing is calculated in 2005 dollars?

Here :

"...oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period [1950-2010]."

http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf

You really should read what you link, instead of throwing feces on the wall to check if it sticks.

Please quote me where tax dollars are given to those industries. I have only found that under "encourage the use of renewable energy" which is something I acknowledged.

Then there is this, which is probably the most incorrect I was:

This category involves direct financial subsidies such as grants. Since 1950, direct federal grants
and subsidies have played a very small role in energy policy, accounting for –$6 billion, a negligible
fraction of total incentives.

An example of federal disbursements is subsidies for the construction and operating costs of oil
tankers. For nuclear energy, federal disbursements are negative, meaning the industry pays more
than it receives in disbursements as a result of the contributions the industry makes to the Nuclear
Waste Fund. As of 2010, the Nuclear Waste Fund had accumulated an $18 billion surplus. The
entry shown in Exhibits 1 and 2 for disbursements to nuclear energy is shown as a negative value
to reflect the industry’s overpayment compared to what has been disbursed on its behalf.

Oil tankers...

Is that the best you have?

Since 1950... I wonder when the last time is that the government helped to buy oil tankers. I'm going to assume the Vietnam war.

You really should read the material you link, and quote a paragraph with meaning.

 

[Absentglare]

Believe as you wish.

When going more than one fiscal year, the government uses comparisons like "in 2005 dollars."

How does your so-called profit look when every thing is calculated in 2005 dollars?



You really should read what you link, instead of throwing feces on the wall to check if it sticks.

Please quote me where tax dollars are given to those industries. I have only found that under "encourage the use of renewable energy" which is something I acknowledged.

Then there is this, which is probably the most incorrect I was:



Oil tankers...

Is that the best you have?

Since 1950... I wonder when the last time is that the government helped to buy oil tankers. I'm going to assume the Vietnam war.

You really should read the material you link, and quote a paragraph with meaning.

Again, profit is not the same as inflation. If the loan came from me, where i had $x in the bank and lent $x earning $Cx where C is less than inflation, it would have been a bad investment for me relative to other investment opportunities. That's not how the government, when it issues a loan, operates. You either make $100 (which you could claim to lose to inflation out of ignorance but it's untrue) or you make $0 (because the money for the loan came from nowhere).

"Please quote me where tax dollars are given to those industries."

I have no idea what this sentence says.

Tax benefits are subsidies. You seem to want to avoid that fact of reality.

 

[Absentglare]

No . He clearly said the US govt. does NOT hand the oil companies cash. If you have info otherwise-post it

If i give you $100 out of nowhere or i give you $100 after you do your taxes, they are both cash handouts.

Don't let the inversion of taxes relative to revenue confuse you. The effect is exactly the same: cash gets redistributed from the government to a recipient.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Again, profit is not the same as inflation. If the loan came from me, where i had $x in the bank and lent $x earning $Cx where C is less than inflation, it would have been a bad investment for me relative to other investment opportunities. That's not how the government, when it issues a loan, operates. You either make $100 (which you could claim to lose to inflation out of ignorance but it's untrue) or you make $0 (because the money for the loan came from nowhere).

"Please quote me where tax dollars are given to those industries."

I have no idea what this sentence says.

Tax benefits are subsidies. You seem to want to avoid that fact of reality.

Well how about this.

Let's not worry about what profit actually means, and worry about if the loan paid off better than putting the money in a bond fund.

Did it do better than bonds?

 

[Lord of Planar]

If i give you $100 out of nowhere or i give you $100 after you do your taxes, they are both cash handouts.

Don't let the inversion of taxes relative to revenue confuse you. The effect is exactly the same: cash gets redistributed from the government to a recipient.

If I paid $12,000 in taxes during the year coming out of my paycheck, and when I file my taxes, get $248 back...

Was I subsidized by the government?

 

[Absentglare]

Well how about this.

Let's not worry about what profit actually means, and worry about if the loan paid off better than putting the money in a bond fund.

Did it do better than bonds?

You don't seem to understand. We don't take out loans to invest in bonds, that's why compensating for inflation is inappropriate.

 

[Absentglare]

If I paid $12,000 in taxes during the year coming out of my paycheck, and when I file my taxes, get $248 back...

Was I subsidized by the government?

If the government changes the law to give you, personally, a tax cut, the result is equivalent to a cash handout.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You don't seem to understand. We don't take out loans to invest in bonds, that's why compensating for inflation is inappropriate.

OK, what if you loaned a friend $1,000 twenty years ago. Today, they just paid you back $1,010. You made $10, but did you lose or gain value in that loan?

 

[Lord of Planar]

If the government changes the law to give you, personally, a tax cut, the result is equivalent to a cash handout.

No, a tax cut is not a handout. If I already was paying zero, then they don't give me money.

 

[ludin]

No, a tax cut is not a handout. If I already was paying zero, then they don't give me money.

he is one of those people that think the government allowing you to keep your money is a hand out because all money belongs to the government.
we know that this is not the case, but that doesn't stop this belief.

 

[Ahlevah]

he is one of those people that think the government allowing you to keep your money is a hand out because all money belongs to the government.
we know that this is not the case, but that doesn't stop this belief.

He's engaging in Orwellian doublespeak. If I make $10 selling one asset and lose $10 selling another I haven't made any money. But according to this sort of twisted logic, if the government agrees that I don't owe a tax because I didn't make any money (by letting me write off the loss against the gain), that's a subsidy. It's pure lunacy.

 

[KLATTU]

Now my recollection of what a subsidy means is when you are given money to do something. I guess when I drilled 17 dry holes in a row I missed that pay window. No one sent me a check.” – Harold Hamm, Chairman and CEO of Continental Resources....


Bottom line: Despite the Administration’s rhetoric that has been so widely repeated in the press, the tax treatments in question are not “subsidies” that are in any way outside of the mainstream of tax treatments commonly available to all U.S. industries. Rather than being mostly a benefit to “big oil”, the repeal of these and other oil and gas industry-related tax provisions would mainly impact smaller independent producers and royalty owners. Such repeal would serve no legitimate public policy purpose, other than to unfairly discriminate via the tax code against one of the nation’s most productive – albeit easily demonized – manufacturing industries.

It would be a benefit to everyone if media outlets and their reporters would quit repeating Administration talking points on this issue, and instead engage in some real journalism on the subject. I doubt anyone in the oil and gas industry will be holding their breath waiting for that to happen.
Forbes Welcome