PDA

View Full Version : Boehner opens door to cutting U.S. oil tax breaks



Roger Perry
04-26-2011, 06:50 PM
Bonner wants to cut tax breaks to the oil companies but his Republican buddies that get their political contributions from big oil are mum on the subject.:rolleyes:

updated 4/26/2011 11:07:01 AM ET 2011-04-26T15:07:01
WASHINGTON — Congress should consider cutting multibillion-dollar subsidies to oil companies amid rising concern over skyrocketing gas prices, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Monday.
"It's certainly something we should be looking at," Boehner said in an ABC News interview. "We're in a time when the federal government's short on revenues. They ought to be paying their fair share."
"Everybody wants to go after the oil companies and frankly, they've got some part of this to blame," he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42763592/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

subroc
04-26-2011, 06:56 PM
Bonner wants to cut tax breaks to the oil companies but his Republican buddies that get their political contributions from big oil are mum on the subject.:rolleyes:


didn't obama take more from big oil than any republican?

Roger Perry
04-26-2011, 07:02 PM
didn't obama take more from big oil than any republican?

Don't think so unless you have a link to support that.

Obama released a TV spot saying McCain's campaign got $2 million from "Big Oil" while McCain proposed "another $4 billion in tax breaks" for the industry.

The truth is that McCain's campaign has received $1.33 million from individuals employed in the oil and gas industry, not $2 million. Obama himself has received nearly $400,000, according to the most authoritative figures available. We find the $2 million figure is based on a mistaken calculation.

TxHillHunter
04-26-2011, 08:04 PM
You may be remembering a report that Obama got more from BP than any other candidate. His Campaign pooh-poohed it, but it was widely reported.

But as for the question about whether he took more from Big Oil, nope, but a cool million is a too much as well!

Top 20 Presidential Candidates
Rank Candidate Amount
1 McCain, John (R) $2,404,637
2 Obama, Barack (D) $905,951
3 Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) $609,858
4 Romney, Mitt (R) $517,519
5 Clinton, Hillary (D) $388,642
6 Richardson, Bill (D) $221,125
7 Thompson, Fred (R) $196,704
8 Paul, Ron (R) $131,582
9 Huckabee, Mike (R) $122,739
10 Brownback, Sam (R) $62,265
11 Edwards, John (D) $39,008
12 Dodd, Chris (D) $32,850
13 Gilmore, Jim (R) $23,300
14 Biden, Joseph R Jr (D) $22,200
15 Thompson, Tommy (R) $20,400
16 Tancredo, Tom (R) $10,250
17 Hunter, Duncan (R) $4,100
18 Barr, Bob (L) $3,500
19 Gravel, Mike (L) $2,300
20 Vilsack, Thomas J (D) $2,300
METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more.

All donations took place during the 2007-2008 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday, May 12, 2009.

luvmylabs23139
04-26-2011, 11:26 PM
The only problem with it is the big oil companies will just find away to pass it on to us at the pump.

Franco
04-27-2011, 12:29 AM
The only problem with it is the big oil companies will just find away to pass it on to us at the pump.

And, just how would they do that? Oil companies don't even own or operate the retail location that carry thier name.

Lets also don't forget that the ethanol subsidies are 5 times greater than what oil compnaies receive! Why doesn't Congress go after that one too as ethanol is a much bigger burden to tax payers?

Buzz
04-27-2011, 01:03 AM
And, just how would they do that? Oil companies don't even own or operate the retail location that carry thier name.

Lets also don't forget that the ethanol subsidies are 5 times greater than what oil compnaies receive! Why doesn't Congress go after that one too as ethanol is a much bigger burden to tax payers?

Do you have those figures? I was under the impression that oil subsidies are about 2 1/2 times ethanol subsidies. And that doesn't include the military spending to keep oil flowing around the world.

I do not understand supporting the government borrowing money to subsidize oil out of fear that they will pass the cost on to us consumers the subsidies are taken away. So, we pass the cost of today's gasoline consumption on to our kids. Sweet, the ultimate USA credit card mentality.

Marvin S
04-27-2011, 11:52 AM
In the beginning the extractive industries were given a depletion allowance. This was to encourage settlement & industry, sort of like all the free land the government gave away :o.

When I was in the mining industry tha allowance was 27% of the gross to be applied to net profit, but no more than 50% of the net profit could be utilized. I'm not certain but I believe that has changed somewhat!

The easy stuff has long been extracted, does anyone here have a clue about the investment (all real money) necessary to drill a dry hole or bore to a mineral property only to find the ore is a lower grade?

IMO, the oil companies have made precious little profit in comparison to the taxes extracted by state & local governments for precious little value added. But the OP is typical of those challenged by the concept of numbers larger than 20 (fingers & toes) & the original intent of that item in the tax code ;-).

duckheads
04-27-2011, 12:02 PM
Boehner wasn't going to get backed into a corner and fight for the oil companies. that is how I read it. plenty of subsidies to cut. How about let's not add any more subsidies towards green energy and the big global warming scam! that would be a good start. Let's not give any more money to AL Gore to build green cars in Iceland.

road kill
04-27-2011, 12:12 PM
Boehner wasn't going to get backed into a corner and fight for the oil companies. that is how I read it. plenty of subsidies to cut. How about let's not add any more subsidies towards green energy and the big global warming scam! that would be a good start. Let's not give any more money to AL Gore to build green cars in Iceland.

How's about cutting corn subsidies?

Ethanol???


RK

Buzz
04-27-2011, 12:17 PM
Boehner wasn't going to get backed into a corner and fight for the oil companies. that is how I read it. plenty of subsidies to cut. How about let's not add any more subsidies towards green energy and the big global warming scam! that would be a good start. Let's not give any more money to AL Gore to build green cars in Iceland.

Yup, that what I "read" too.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/26/john-boehner-big-oil-fair-share/


According to Boehner spokesman Michael Steel, Boehner now supports oil subsidies again. Although the speaker told Jonathan Karl that the government needs to increase revenues (i.e. raise taxes) and that the oil depletion allowance should be dropped, according to Steel, that's not what happened:
The speaker made clear in the interview that raising taxes was a nonstarter, and he's told the president that. He simply wasn't going to take the bait and fall into the trap of defending 'Big Oil' companies.

It appears that Boehner's support for ending some oil subsidies wasn't intended to be a factual statement.

In other words, it was more political BS.

Franco
04-27-2011, 02:58 PM
Do you have those figures? I was under the impression that oil subsidies are about 2 1/2 times ethanol subsidies. And that doesn't include the military spending to keep oil flowing around the world.

I do not understand supporting the government borrowing money to subsidize oil out of fear that they will pass the cost on to us consumers the subsidies are taken away. So, we pass the cost of today's gasoline consumption on to our kids. Sweet, the ultimate USA credit card mentality.

The info might be on Fox Business News website. John Stossel did a show 3 weeks ago on Corporate Welfare and he showed a listing of the industries getting welfare. He made a point of emphasis that the Ethanol industry received five times as much as the oil industry.

True that oil subsidies were to help with depletion. Then, we realized that there was more oil than we had thought.

Here is why they get it today and I don't agree with any coporate welfare;

$50 per barrel is the brake even price. At $60 per barrel there is some incentive to drill. The higher the price, the more incentive. Generally, no company will begin new drilling if the price is below $60. The subsidies come into play for when the price is below $50 per barrel to keep the domestic companies drilling. I don't see the price getting that low anytime in the near future. With the added cost to drilling with all the new regs, $60 may be the new breakeven price.

TxHillHunter
04-27-2011, 03:27 PM
And, just how would they do that? Oil companies don't even own or operate the retail location that carry thier name.

Lets also don't forget that the ethanol subsidies are 5 times greater than what oil compnaies receive! Why doesn't Congress go after that one too as ethanol is a much bigger burden to tax payers?

True, but they do own the upstream pricing process....simply raise their prices to the refineries/distributors. Not that tough.

M&K's Retrievers
04-27-2011, 03:55 PM
The info might be on Fox Business News website. John Stossel did a show 3 weeks ago on Corporate Welfare and he showed a listing of the industries getting welfare. He made a point of emphasis that the Ethanol industry received five times as much as the oil industry.

True that oil subsidies were to help with depletion. Then, we realized that there was more oil than we had thought.

Here is why they get it today and I don't agree with any coporate welfare;

$50 per barrel is the brake even price. At $60 per barrel there is some incentive to drill. The higher the price, the more incentive. Generally, no company will begin new drilling if the price is below $60. The subsidies come into play for when the price is below $50 per barrel to keep the domestic companies drilling. I don't see the price getting that low anytime in the near future. With the added cost to drilling with all the new regs, $60 may be the new breakeven price.

We started getting AFEs to drill oil wells after the price hit the $90 range however we started getting AFEs for gas wells when the price hit $75ish. The logic(???) for drilling offset gas wells is the high price for condensate would make up for the low price for natural gas. I'm not buying that BS. Based on existing production, the gas wells we drilled in 07-08 will take 15 years to pay out at today's price.