View Poll Results: Should the U.S. subsidize the construction of nuclear plants power plants?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    10 40.00%
  • No

    15 60.00%
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 64

Thread: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear plants power plants?

  1. #41
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Without thought, I'd agree.
    With 3 seconds of thought, this is shortsighted, at best.
    To the best of my knowledge, the power source is available and the disposal of waste is solvable.
    Power in our nation is a must, nuclear plants are extreme expensive, subsidies may well be necessary.
    If you think nukes are expensive, wait til we get "clean" coal, TRULY CLEAN....
    the cleanup systems for the plant will be bigger than the plant...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  2. #42
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Absolutely !
    This would not be the case if the right things were done generations ago.
    What is "fussion" ?
    What is spell-check ?
    Fussion is clearly a typo.....Fusion is not all its cracked up to be....
    Fission was going to be so cheap that it wouldn't even be metered, so said some media outlets of my youth.
    That was a lie.
    So is much of what they tell us about Fusion...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  3. #43
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:56 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,170

    Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's in the link. It shows the advantage they share from their lobbying of Congress, the ultimate low tax rates they fall under which are exceedingly lower than other business. As for the other lack of proper regulation thing.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/w...11royalty.html

    This, BTW, is from the second link I provided that you wouldn't read (though I thought you wanted to get to the bottom of it)

    But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

    According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

    And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.

    “The flow of revenues to oil companies is like the gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico: heavy and constant,” said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, who has worked alongside the Obama administration on a bill that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks over the next decade. “There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer.”

    Oil industry officials say that the tax breaks, which average about $4 billion a year according to various government reports, are a bargain for taxpayers. By helping producers weather market fluctuations and invest in technology, tax incentives are supporting an industry that the officials say provides 9.2 million jobs.

    The American Petroleum Institute, an industry advocacy group, argues that even with subsidies, oil producers paid or incurred $280 billion in American income taxes from 2006 to 2008, and pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes than most other American corporations.

    As oil continues to spread across the Gulf of Mexico, however, the industry is being forced to defend tax breaks that some say are being abused or are outdated.

    The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday announced that it was investigating whether Transocean had exploited tax laws by moving overseas to avoid paying taxes in the United States. Efforts to curtail the tax breaks are likely to face fierce opposition in Congress; the oil and natural gas industry has spent $340 million on lobbyists since 2008, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors political spending.


    But some government watchdog groups say that only the industry’s political muscle is preserving the tax breaks. An economist for the Treasury Department said in 2009 that a study had found that oil prices and potential profits were so high that eliminating the subsidies would decrease American output by less than half of one percent.

    “We’re giving tax breaks to highly profitable companies to do what they would be doing anyway,” said Sima J. Gandhi, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization. “That’s not an incentive; that’s a giveaway.”

    Some of the tax breaks date back nearly a century, when they were intended to encourage exploration in an era of rudimentary technology, when costly investments frequently produced only dry holes. Because of one lingering provision from the Tariff Act of 1913, many small and midsize oil companies based in the United States can claim deductions for the lost value of tapped oil fields far beyond the amount the companies actually paid for the oil rights.

    Other tax breaks were born of international politics. In an attempt to deter Soviet influence in the Middle East in the 1950s, the State Department backed a Saudi Arabian accounting maneuver that reclassified the royalties charged by foreign governments to American oil drillers. Saudi Arabia and others began to treat some of the royalties as taxes, which entitled the companies to subtract those payments from their American tax bills. Despite repeated attempts to forbid this accounting practice, companies continue to deduct the payments. The Treasury Department estimates that it will cost $8.2 billion over the next decade.

    Over the last 10 years, oil companies have also been aggressive in using foreign tax havens. Many rigs, like Deepwater Horizon, are registered in Panama or in the Marshall Islands, where they are subject to lower taxes and less stringent safety and staff regulations. American producers have also aggressively exploited the tax code by opening small offices in low-tax countries. A recent study by Martin A. Sullivan, an economist for the trade publication Tax Analysts, found that the five oil drilling companies that had undergone these “corporate inversions” had saved themselves a total of $4 billion in taxes since 1999.
    Thank you!!!!!!! You could have saved us a lot of time had you just posted this when requested. I read the first article and since it did not tell me anything useful, I wasn't going to waste my time. Now, let's review the item above:

    First paragraph does not address my quest.

    The second one says this: According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry. The key word here is like. I am not a CPA or a tax attorney. So, my question about this paragraph is can other industries deduct "capital investments." My guess is they can. If I am correct, then this paragraph is misleading.

    The third paragraph gets the same comments as the second.

    Paragraph 4 doesn't say that the breaks are only for oil companies.

    Paragraph 5 comments are the same as 4.

    Paragraph 6 states that there are subsidies, but do not list any. Interesting, that paragraph states the reverse of prior claims with regards to percentage of taxes paid. I'll wait to see if the article disputes this.

    Paragraph 7 states nothing useful.

    Over half way through the article and nothing useful yet.

    Paragraph 8 states nothing useful.

    Paragraph 9 states nothing useful.

    Paragraph 10 states nothing useful.

    Paragraph 11 finally states a subsidy. Okay, we now have one. How much is that subsidy worth in further tax revenues?

    Paragraph 12 states a 2nd subsidy. Okay, let's eliminate that one. That is worth $820,000 million a year. Cool.

    Paragraph 13 states nothing useful.

    It now appears that we have found two subsidies and we know that the NY Times says it is worth $820 million per year for the one, but gives no figure for the other. You could have saved me a great deal of time by posting only the relevant portions of the article.

    I am fine with doing away with the two and any others that someone may provide. However, if we do away with these subsidies, then I think we ought to do away with all subsidies for all businesses. My question is why are you interested only in picking on the oil industry? No CEO of oil was even alive when one of the two identified subsidies was enacted. Why are we blaming the oil companies? Shouldn't the blame fall at the feet of those who passed those subsidies, i.e. Congress? Are people all bent out of shape about the oil companies because of the price of gasoline at the pumps? If so, maybe the anger should be vented towards state and federal governments rather than the oil companies. They get more per gallon than does the oil company.
    Last edited by LesGovt; 06-08-11 at 06:39 PM. Reason: clarification - added per year to the $820 million

  4. #44
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,073

    Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    End govt. subsidies.
    indeed.



    get rid of the red tape and let them be built.



    but no subsidies.

  5. #45
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

    Quote Originally Posted by LesGovt View Post
    Thank you!!!!!!! You could have saved us a lot of time had you just posted this when requested. I read the first article and since it did not tell me anything useful, I wasn't going to waste my time. Now, let's review the item above:

    First paragraph does not address my quest.

    The second one says this: According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry. The key word here is like. I am not a CPA or a tax attorney. So, my question about this paragraph is can other industries deduct "capital investments." My guess is they can. If I am correct, then this paragraph is misleading.

    The third paragraph gets the same comments as the second.

    Paragraph 4 doesn't say that the breaks are only for oil companies.

    Paragraph 5 comments are the same as 4.

    Paragraph 6 states that there are subsidies, but do not list any. Interesting, that paragraph states the reverse of prior claims with regards to percentage of taxes paid. I'll wait to see if the article disputes this.

    Paragraph 7 states nothing useful.

    Over half way through the article and nothing useful yet.

    Paragraph 8 states nothing useful.

    Paragraph 9 states nothing useful.

    Paragraph 10 states nothing useful.

    Paragraph 11 finally states a subsidy. Okay, we now have one. How much is that subsidy worth in further tax revenues?

    Paragraph 12 states a 2nd subsidy. Okay, let's eliminate that one. That is worth $820,000 million a year. Cool.

    Paragraph 13 states nothing useful.

    It now appears that we have found two subsidies and we know that the NY Times says it is worth $820 million per year for the one, but gives no figure for the other. You could have saved me a great deal of time by posting only the relevant portions of the article.

    I am fine with doing away with the two and any others that someone may provide. However, if we do away with these subsidies, then I think we ought to do away with all subsidies for all businesses. My question is why are you interested only in picking on the oil industry? No CEO of oil was even alive when one of the two identified subsidies was enacted. Why are we blaming the oil companies? Shouldn't the blame fall at the feet of those who passed those subsidies, i.e. Congress? Are people all bent out of shape about the oil companies because of the price of gasoline at the pumps? If so, maybe the anger should be vented towards state and federal governments rather than the oil companies. They get more per gallon than does the oil company.
    The govt does provide some services with that tax money.....or would you rather drive on rutted roads?
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  6. #46
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Being as they are nuclear...personally I think that the Fed's should RUN them.
    *giggle*

    Because with the government in charge nothing is ever fubar. . . everything's just a little snafu
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  7. #47
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

    I would end subsidies for all corporations. No tax breaks, no deals, no special treatment. Everyone pays, if you don't you're in trouble. Because all these special cuts and subsidies to the tune of 4 billion a year for the oil industry cost all of us money. Whether we're paying people to not farm, incentives for turning food into gas, or giving tax incentives to follow the law essentially; the tax payers should not be paying for it. The oil industry already enjoys some of the most aggressive subsidies of all companies and it should be ended. In the end, as it is currently with our corporate capitalist model (as opposed to free market capitalism), corporations on the whole enjoy various perks and benefits from their existence, which in essence stifles proper competition.

    As for your smarmy "you should have posted" blah blah blah. I did. At any point, you could have read the article. I find it a bit unbelievable that I had to hold your hand this far. But whatever, so it goes.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #48
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    The govt does provide some services with that tax money.....or would you rather drive on rutted roads?
    There's no such thing as a free lunch, all these subsidies have to be accounted for somehow. But as typical with government, it's made up for by the tax payer while the corporations enjoy all the perks. Kinda ass backwards.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Power in our nation is a must, nuclear plants are extreme expensive, subsidies may well be necessary.
    If power is a must people will find a way to get past any sort of cost issues. If we fail even with the overwhelming weight of that need then we have failed completely on more accounts than you are actually thinking of.

  10. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    In short, reduce startup costs.
    If the start up costs are too high its just not worth doing and the idea is poor.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •