1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Chevy Volt a Failure - GM to Layoff 1,300

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L), Mar 2, 2012.

  1. FileNotFound

    FileNotFound Well-Known Member

    Most of that cost in Europe is taxes.
    Hermes likes this.
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    How do you think "we subsidize" oil?

    Andarko Petroleum had an effective tax rate last year of 37.5 percent. Conocophillips' effective tax rate was 35.55 percent. Exxon Mobile? 29 percent. Chevron? 28.75 percent.

    I can't find one instance of any integrated oil company receiving a government subsidy at all of our expense.

    Europeans pay more for gas because it is taxed at a ridiculously high rate there. It has nothing to do with subsidization or lack of it.
  3. Hermes

    Hermes Well-Known Member

    I suppose we as taxpayers did get some money back for our government having to clean up 210 million gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico along with the death of countless animals and the killing of a priceless ecosystem, so....we're all square here, right?
  4. micropolitan guy

    micropolitan guy Well-Known Member

  5. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    BitterYoungMatador2 likes this.
  6. justgladtobehere

    justgladtobehere Well-Known Member

  7. micropolitan guy

    micropolitan guy Well-Known Member

  8. justgladtobehere

    justgladtobehere Well-Known Member

    Just claiming tax laws are subsidies without any further discussions is nice, also.
  9. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    1) A lack of being taxed isn't a subsidy (not that that remotely applies to the integrated oil business). Unless you start out with the belief that when you earn a dollar it isn't yours, because everyone else has a claim on it first. A subsidy is being handed money you didn't earn. Integrated oil companies profit by selling a product, not from handouts, the way Tesla does. Tesla doesn't pay income tax. It has never had a yearly profit to be taxed on. It has, however, received lots of money it hasn't actually earned, at the expense of others -- i.e. a subsidy.
    2) The whole "tax break / subsidy" thing is nonsense anyhow, when it comes to integrated oil companies. These are companies that have very high effective tax rates. They don't receive tax treatment that is preferable. They pay effective tax rates that are 25 to 50 percent higher than the average effective corporate tax rate in this country.

    The subsidy trope, which somehow proliferates, is populist nonsense. The fact that people mindlessly repeat it is typical of the stupidity in this country. Those stories follow a similar dishonesty. They first redefine the word subsidy. Then they somehow turn subsidies paid to others into subsidies for oil companies, using tortured logic -- they'll take some expenditure our government gave to others, and then using some six degrees of Kevin Bacon logic, make it into a dollar-for-dollar subsidy for the oil industry, because of some benefit they have assigned it. They never look at other industries, just the industry they want to demonize (banks get this treatment too). Then, they'll take some obscure Federal tax code thing that affects everyone equally, such as a depreciation allowance, and make it like it only applies to the oil industry. It's dishonest. Our tax code is a jumbled mess. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how you navigated that mess. What matters is how much you actually handed over of what you earned. And this is an industry that hands over close to 30 percent of what it earns in the US in taxes. That is way more than most industries. It not only isn't subsidized, it is paying a lot to subsidize others.
    FileNotFound and Buck like this.
  11. LanceyHoward

    LanceyHoward Well-Known Member

    Where did you get the 37% effective tax rate for Ankardo. According to the 10-K the company has also lost money for three straight years.

    I pulled up their financial report for 2017. According to footnote 13 the company reported an income tax expenses of 236 million dollars. But they reported a federal tax benefit 0f 2,082 billion dollars (about 60% was a result of the Trump tax cut). I could go through the entire report and still have no idea what the company actually paid in federal taxes but I don't see how someone came up with a 37.5% effective rate. Given the size of the tax benefit they booked I would guess that the net cash federal income tax paid was zero or lower.
  12. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page