Oh my some inconvenient truths that prove the Democrats, Leftists and their CNN is full of $#@!. Yet we allow them to keep talking about it. Rather than prove they are lying and intentionally deceiving the American People. But especially their own ilk.
Survey Says...
If you were to survey people and ask the question "Should we subsidize oil companies?" -- the overwhelming majority would undoubtedly respond "No!" The idea that we are subsidizing oil companies generates outrage in many people, but in this article I will show why these subsidies aren't going to go away any time soon. The reason may surprise you.
So let's ask the question in a different way: "Should we allow oil companies to take a tax deduction also available to any U.S. manufacturer such as Apple or Microsoft?" A lot of people will still answer "No" to that question, but certainly fewer than answered "No" to the original question.
Now ask the question "Should farmers be allowed a fuel tax exemption for the fuel they use on the farm?" In this case, some people are going to say "No", but farmers are going to be near unanimous in saying "Yes!" Let's ask one final question: "Should we fund programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) that help low-income families with their heating bills?" The irony in this question is that some of the people who are the most vehemently opposed to fossil fuel subsidies will argue that this is an important program that helps keep poor people from freezing to death in winter, and thus it would be inhumane to eliminate it.
Yet unless you answered "No" to all four questions you support programs that have been specifically identified as fossil fuel subsidies.
McKibben himself indicates sympathy for subsidies when he wrote: "Many of those subsidies, however, take the form of cheap, subsidized gas in petro-states, often with impoverished populations -- as in Nigeria, where popular protests forced the government to back down on a decision to cut such subsidies earlier this year." However, he then incorrectly asserts "In the U.S., though, they’re simply straightforward presents to rich companies, gifts from the 99% to the 1%."
That's just not true, and a failure to understand this is why we continue to be outraged over fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S. (As an aside, characterizing the oil companies as "the 1%" is also misleading, because oil companies are overwhelmingly owned by the 99%).
When Republicans tried to cut funding for the program, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the proposal an "extreme idea" that would "set the country backwards." Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass, states on his website that he is a "longtime Congressional champion of providing assistance to low-income families to heat and cool their homes."
Yet each one of these Democrats was defending a program that is lumped into that all-encompassing category of "oil subsidies."
Of course many Democrats will complain that those aren't the kinds of subsidies they are protesting. That's not the point; the fact that some programs that are popular with Democrats are classified as oil subsidies is exactly why we will never be rid of oil subsidies. People don't take the time to consider just what an oil subsidy actually is. If they did they might find that they are a beneficiary.
Last year CNN did a story where they put together their own list of the so-called oil subsidies, and in their list the "largest single tax break" — amounting to $1.7 billion per year for the oil industry — is a manufacturer’s tax deduction that is defined in Section 199 of the IRS code. This is a tax credit designed to keep manufacturing in the U.S., but it isn’t specific to oil companies. It is a tax credit enjoyed by highly profitable companies like Microsoft and Apple, and even foreign companies that operate factories in the U.S. Further, the deduction for oil companies is already limited. Apple is able to take a 9% manufacturer's tax deduction, but ExxonMobil is only allowed to take a 6% deduction......snip~
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energys.../#4f35b44f3279
Reply With Quote