General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Tax Breaks That Are Killing the Planet
ExxonMobil, the worlds largest oil company, hauled in a $32.6 billion profit last year. Chief executive Rex Tillerson got a 3 percent bump in his pay package, sending it above $28 million. And today, the company gets its annual boost from the federal government: an estimated $600 million in tax breaks.
All told, the government gifts as much as $4.8 billion to the oil industry each year, more than any other country. Much of that comes not as direct handouts but instead via loopholes in the tax code; deductions for depleting oil reserves, for example, and write-offs for the expense of drilling a new well. These reflect a long-past era in which oil exploration was financially risky, and prices were low. Now oil prices and profits are high, and the government is losing revenue while promoting the continued exploitation of carbon-intensive fuels. In the face of a changing climate and a constrained domestic budget, the lunacy of such preferential treatment is hard to overstate.
Perverse is the word the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found for such policies in its latest report, which was released in full on Tuesday. Globally, subsidies for fossil fuel productionamounting to $1.9 trillion in 2011, or 8 percent of government revenues, according to the International Monetary Fund prove to increase emissions and put heavy burdens on public budgets, reads the report.
On the other hand, rolling them back could be a key part of a serious climate agenda. The IMF estimates that eliminating fossil fuel subsidies could lower emissions by 13 percent. That general principle, if not the exact figure, is supported by the IPCC, which wrote, Lowering or removing such subsidies would contribute to global mitigation, but this has proved difficult.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/179357/tax-breaks-are-killing-planet
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)understand also why one could say it is not a loophole) but the costs of drilling a well are not a loophole at all. It is part of the costs of goods sold. That would be like saying if I made a wiggit that I sold for $100, but it cost me $10 in materials and $10 in shipping costs, and $20 in labor costs, I would still have a profit of $100, rather than $60.
What am I missing here?
Even if you want to say that the cost of drilling the oil well should be depreciated/amortized over the life of the well, instead of accelerated/expensed, you still get to take the deduction as it is legitimately part of the cost of goods sold.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)It's too hard. Ranters gotta rant.
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)review it. Claiming the cost of goods sold deduction is a loophole is CRAZYTALK!
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... around here leaves much to be desired. Hearts are in the right place, but .......
MindMover
(5,016 posts)and your snarkiness is really just willful ignorance ...
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)So you think deducting the expense of drilling a well is a loophole, like the author of the article? Really?
And no, I am not an accountant, I am a retired Electronics Engineer.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 15, 2014, 10:54 PM - Edit history (1)
should every cost of doing business be deductible ... ?
I do not believe the deduction of drilling a well is justifiably warranted today ...
I do believe that at one time, before technology, the cost could have been deducted over a certain time period because of the wildcat nature of drilling over 50 years ago ... when we supposedly had to have oil to build the supercalifragilistic society on top of the hill we have today ....
But today, in the Energy Industrial Complex, they have bought our political system to underwrite thru the tax code the exploration and development and now destruction of our world ....
and it is way past the time that the EIC pay at the very least, its fair share of taxes ....
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)at that as we seem to differ on what is and is not a legitimate cost of doing business.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)Is it moral or ethical, absolutely NOT ....
or is it a legal loophole, absolutely YES ...
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)business should be allowed and others should not. OK, and there is president for that! Like bribes. Bribes in many countries/cultures are a cost of doing business. Several years ago the IRS set forth that paying bribes, although a legitimate 'cost of doing business' could not be clamed as a deduction for cost of goods sold.
So, if I get your point, you are saying that the environmental impact of well drilling is so bad that that 'legitimate' cost of goods sold should be disallowed, just like bribes. Am I getting close to understanding your position?
I
MindMover
(5,016 posts)I do believe that at one time, before technology, the cost could have been deducted over a certain time period because of the wildcat nature of drilling over 50 years ago ... when we supposedly had to have oil to build the supercalifragilistic society on top of the hill we have today ....
But today, in the Energy Industrial Complex, they have bought our political system to underwrite thru the tax code the exploration and development and now destruction of our world ....
and it is way past the time that the EIC pay at the very least, its fair share of taxes ....
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)The only argument is over what period you amortize the costs for something like drilling a well.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)it is a legal loophole ....
handmade34
(22,756 posts)though not saying it seems to realize there are tremendous "external costs" to society from the oil industry that they conveniently don't have to pay for... we do!
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)As a 15 year tax CPA, I have given up on addressing these articles. The authors are either negligent or incompetent.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)Nothing incompetent about calling out a legal loophole that should have been closed over three decades ago ....
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Like I said, I have given up. The ignorant usually want to stay ignorant.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)and 1 + 2 will not = you owe me $750.00
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)So, I am not too worried.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I favor making the tax code as complicated as possible....until the day after I retire.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts).. supposed to make sense?
MindMover
(5,016 posts)by stating we do not understand accounting principles ...
I made the statement that an accountant would not like the present tax system to change because he/she makes there living off the complexity of the current system ... if this does not compute, then you are not listening ....
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)What did that mean? And why were you addressing it to me? I don't care.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)or did you mean something else ... ?
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Even though I never stated any reluctance to go to a simpler tax system, or any reference to a tax system at all. And your "And an accountant ..." makes no sense. Did you mean "As an accountant ...."? Which still makes no sense as I never stated I was an accountant.
But never mind, I can see we are not connecting. Have a nice evening.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 15, 2014, 11:08 PM - Edit history (2)
and directed those words towards us dummies ...
and you will not acknowledge using them ...
obfuscation or perverse reactionism ....
MindMover
(5,016 posts)Cmon, I can understand apologists and there rationale but when you have 75,000 pages you just can not apologize often enough ...
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)of drilling a well and taking that cost as a deduction a loophole? HELL NO! Did the article YOU posted say that deducting the cost of the well was a loophole? Yes it did.
If you believe the cost of goods sold is somehow a loophole, please explain why.
I was just commenting on the article you posted. If you did not want comments, maybe you should not have posted it.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)and who said I do not want comments ...
and if you do not like what I am commenting, then go back to your IRS apologist role