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.
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.
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?
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.
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.