© Copyright 2007-2024 iBankCoin All rights reserved under penalty of bodily harm. DISCLAIMER: This is a personal web site, reflecting the opinions of its author(s). It is not a production of my employer, and it is unaffiliated with any FINRA broker/dealer. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of anyone other than myself. The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only, and are not investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities. DATA INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE USERS "AS IS." NEITHER iBankCoin, NOR ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY THIRD PARTY DATA PROVIDER MAKE ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND REGARDING THE DATA INFORMATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE. Privacy Policy
That seems ridiculous, considering how much bigger the oil and gas industry (and coal) is than the alternative fuels industry, not to mention the amount of people employed. It should be at least 100:1.
perhaps bjam,
but it should not be for cash flow positive companies either….
Why should profitable ongoing enterprises receive ANY subsidies from the government at all? It makes no sense at all, except for the fact that politicians are bought off.
I see the point of subsidizing industries that can’t make it in the market place for strategic & national defense reasons. I can see the point for point to developing new industries primarily through research and some small subsidies during the start up phase if there is no private capital available. But all of the little piggies feeding at the trough is a bit much.
Yep, totally agree with Yogi.
Bitching about oil and gas, but then giving Jeff Immelt a pass seems…nefarious.
Specifically, what are the subsidies? Do they subtract out government royalties paid by companies? Are they just accounting/tax calculations? How do you define subsidy? How about government tax revenues from energy sales, like gas taxes at the pump?
Once again, it seems we need a little clarification about Washington double speak: subsidies.
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/04/28/exxonmobil-earnings-the-real-story-you-wont-hear-in-washington/
…and the more current one:
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2012/01/31/the-facts-behind-exxonmobils-earnings/
From what I’ve read, they are defining “subsidy” as a tax deduction that is applicable to a lot of other industries and they want to take it away specifically from energy companies, but I could be wrong.
There are certainly a lot of obvious problems with the tax code, but I think these companies really have the government backed into a corner. They could easily come out and say “you do whatever you have to do and we’ll do what we have to do.” Meaning, take whatever you want and we’ll stick around if it’s worth it, but just remember our need to ensure survival far outweighs our moral obligation to anyone in a given country.
As such, I’m not too optimistic about anything happening.