Chevy Volt a Failure - GM to Layoff 1,300

Yes, I am serious.

Calling me "simplistic" and "childish" and a bunch of names, or characterizing my post as a "fit" (I am not the one characterizing you -- I was addressing what you actually said) is lame. I am addressing what you posted. Why not try that too?

EVs are actually SUBSIDIZED -- as in Tesla is actually given money that it didn't earn. That money is taken from others and given to Tesla.

The oil industry is NOT given a penny taken from others. It doesn't live off of taxpayers. It doesn't get a check for doing absolutely nothing other than existing -- the way the EV industry has been.

Comparing those "tax subsidies"you furiously googled up to the outright cash payments that a company like Tesla is getting (for nothing other than being in political favor) would be like someone saying that you are subsidized the same way as someone who received food stamps (but pays no taxes) because you took a mortgage deduction on your tax return. EVERYONE is subsidized using that kind of characterization -- because we have a stupidly complicated tax code filled with pages and pages of things that would qualify as "subsidies."

There isn't an industry you could point to that you couldn't say is "subsidized" if you want to demonize it in that kind of a vacuum. And it would be just plain wrong.

That isn't what you are talking about with Tesla -- the beneficiary of some tax deduction (of which ALL industries have various things in the tax code that can be deducted). Tesla is outright given cash -- taken from others -- that it didn't earn. That is an ACTUAL subsidy -- as in, it gets ACTUAL financial aid at someone else's expense.

 

I'd point out that the strategic oil reserve wasn't ostensibly set up to benefit to the oil industry -- it would be like saying that Dell is subsidized by all of us, because the Federal government bought a bunch of computers from them.

But fine, let's call that a "subsidy."

And let's say that is all right. Because, really, there is nothing "scientific" about any of that stuff--it is essentially people making up arbitrary dollar amounts of supposed "benefit" to the industry.

But still, let's just take whatever part you might want to say *is* specific to the oil industry -- whatever you (not you, but someone who is inclined) want to call a "subsidy" that is specific to their industry.

Before you call ANY of it a benefit, shouldn't you look at how the industry fares relative to all the other industries out there in terms of how the tax code treats it?

You still have to look at all the other industries out there and the "subsidies" specific to their industries to see if the oil industry actually gets more benefit from the tax code in the aggregate than others in terms of its tax treatment. Put in that context (not a vacuum), this whole "they are treated better" thing is a myth.

Aside from that, though, only in a backward world in which money you earn doesn't belong to you -- it all belongs to everyone else who then decides to get what you keep -- does ANY of this qualify as an industry being subsidized by everyone else.

The EV industry gets outright cash payments from the rest of us. It isn't an income tax deduction of any sort (whether others get it or not). It's an outright "money for nothing" proposition for them. *That* is clearly something being subsidized.

 

The government doesn't "hand" money to oil companies -- or refiners (your example). Those companies EARN their income. You are talking about their income tax treatment, not them being given handouts at the expense of the rest of us.

And even with that, you are still not talking about tax treatment that is all that remarkable relative to the specialized treatment OTHER industry segments receive -- the thing no one ever wants to point out in those things you tried to latch onto (because it would difficult to quantify, and if someone took the trouble of trying, it wouldn't look like the oil industry is treated any better than most other industries). Unless we are now going full Orwellian, and any entity that takes any kind of income tax deduction is an example of a "subsidized" entity -- except it only ever is used to demonize a select couple of industries, even though EVERYONE is somehow being "subsidized," using that kind of logic.

Whatever tax credit you quoted (I don't know where that came from, what state and for what purpose the credit exists), you are throwing it out in a vacuum -- which is the point of much of the BS written with regard to this. Anyone can throw out an arbitrary number in the billions of dollars made up from some derived benefit *they* are claiming that the industry gets. They call it a "subsidy." And they lead people to believe that an industry is picking everyone else's pockets -- against all reason.

If you really want to try to have that conversation, you are going to tell me how the tax treatment of Shell OVERALL compares to the tax treatment of hundreds of thousands of other companies, most which receive specialized tax credits and deductions based on their specific industries -- deductions that Shell doesn't get, for what it is worth.

I can point out dozens of manufacturing industries, for example, that receive "lucrative tax breaks" (to use the term in that thing you quoted) specific to their industries -- many depreciation or research credits that look more lucrative than anything an oil refiner has ever received. Those kinds of specialized tax write offs are prevalent -- ACROSS industries. It isn't something specific to oil refiners the way you want to believe.

And even with that. ... If that is really the conversation you want to have, fine. I'd be the first to argue that our tax code is a mess -- I'd strip it down to something easy to follow and I'd get rid of all the specialized tax credits that weave their way through various industries. At the least it would cut down the massive costs in simply complying with the bullshit. It is inefficient. Let's put a bunch of accountants who serve no useful purpose out of business.

And that said. ... that still has ZERO to do with Tesla or the ACTUAL subsidies Tesla has received -- at all of our expense. Or you trying to create an equivalency between the subsidies that EVs have received and the oil industry, which doesn't get the kinds of cash handouts (in all kinds of forms, for example, resellable tax credits) that Tesla has gotten. That kind of thing has as much to do with Shell, as you taking a mortgage deduction has to someone who pays nothing in taxes and gets an EBT card loaded with money. Using your specious thinking, you are both getting "subsidies". ... even though you are actually handing over money you earned, which then gets redistributed to the other person.

In reality, Tesla pays zero in income taxes to anyone -- it just takes money from the rest of us -- REALLY handed out by politicians, if you want to talk about hand outs. It is corrupt, in my estimation. In addition to billions of dollars of government handouts (at all of our expense) due to that corruption and billions of dollars of debt (with an insane cash burn rate going, as long as it can continue to run up debt), Tesla doesn't earn a penny to tax. It doesn't belong anywhere near a conversation about any income tax credits Royal Dutch Shell is eligible for. Shell actually pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes worldwide every year -- it actually has taxable income. It certainly isn't living off of anything OTHER than its ability to generate income on its own. You can't say anything like that about Tesla. It exists BECAUSE of handouts.

 

Don't ignore the conversation and tell me what I am defining "earn" as -- with your mischaracterizations that have zero to do with anything I have said attributed to me. This is pretty straightforward. Earn means profits -- as in income. As in what your profit-loss statement says. As in a business that actually sells things and sells it for more than the cost of producing and selling it. It's not a some piece of bullshit that you can gump around by flooding me with random links. It doesn't take any parsing. You either sell things for a PROFIT in a marketplace or you don't.

And the oil industry is NOT subsidized by you, me or anyone else. No matter how many times you make mealy generalizations about "tax breaks." They are NOT being given money out of my pocket, your pocket or anyone else's pocket. Period. Even if you want to try to claim somehow that random income tax deductions (presented in a vacuum without regard to how those deductions compare to the deductions EVERYONE ELSE GETS) somehow constitute subsidization in a ass-backward way, then EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING that benefits from an income tax deductions is "subsidized" to your way of thinking. Anyone who takes a mortgage deduction is living off of everyone else.

Of course, the reality is that the tax treatment of oil and gas companies isn't really any different in effect than the tax treatment of lots of other industries. It's not like they get great tax treatment that everyone else doesn't -- the impression people try to create when they point out their "tax breaks" in a vacuum, without pointing out that those, or similar "breaks" (it sounds so ominous!) are available to lots of industries. Why pick out oil and gas as an industry? Are steel producers subsidized to your way of thinking -- they have industry-specific plant deductions? How about car makers--they get their own tax benefits specific to the industry? Forget just various industry tax "breaks." Are teachers subsidized at all of our expense, because they can deduct the cost of any supplies they buy out of pocket (a random tax benefit specific to what they do)? Am I being "subsidized" because the tax code allowed me to earn money in an IRA in a tax-deferred way?

It's nonsensical. And again, comparing ANY of this to the EV industry, which has benefited from billions of dollars of CASH TRANSFERS (that really is a subsidization) is NOT the same thing. None of those tax deductions that EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING (not just companies in the oil industry) takes are cash transfers that have everyone living off of other people's tit -- the way the EV industry is.

By the way, that random link (quick, hit google and find a link!) that was your big example? It has zero to do with the oil industry, for what it is worth. It related to a petrochemical plant. You can google all day long and find random things like that -- related to any number of industries. (which is kind of the point -- the companies within the oil and gas industry don't get treatment that LOTS OF OTHER industries don't get). And it still isn't subsidization. Not the way Tesla has been subsidized -- with cash being transferred to them at others' expense. A state trying to induce a plant to come there by saying, "We will tax you LESS than we would have, if you come here" is not the same as the treatment that Tesla has gotten. By way of the closest example of that with relation to Tesla, when Tesla was shopping its battery factory to Nevada, the amount of money in play was WAY MORE than the random thing you found related to that petrochemical plant (which is now a proxy for the oil industry, I guess). And it wasn't a simple case of a reduced tax rate to induce them to set up shop in that state. They actually gave Tesla tax credits that it could resell for cash to others -- in effect, they wrote Tesla a check -- as in, SUBSIDIZATION!

This shouldn't even be a conversation. Oil producers don't get tax treatment that is materially better than the kind of tax treatment LOTS OF OTHER INDUSTRIES get. Even if you want to ignore that, though, and claim that they are "subsidized" you have to start from the vantage point of the money they earn (as in profit from selling product) isn't theirs. Unless they hand over 100 percent of those earnings in taxes, someone could write something claiming that they get billions of dollars (make up whatever number you want) of "subsidies" in the form of "tax breaks." And of course, you can find any number of links like that. It's always the oil industry that is subsidized, too! It's rarely any of the other dozens of industries (well, sometimes the "banks" are subsidized) that have been given their own specific tax treatment -- in many cases, more beneficial.