• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Democrats’ budget plan will reopen battle over taxes

Whipsnade said:
Let us hope that “4 times “will somehow morph to at least a hundred fold increases of green subsidies to environmental friendly companies. Think that one thru for a bit. If successful, it will help wean us off of oil that comes from countries that don’t like us; it will also provide jobs in this country, that HOPEFULLY will prime the pump for said GREEN COMPANIES, perhaps, sometime in the future that can look forward to earning $80 billion in profits WITHOUT lining up at the public tit to get their allowance.:peace
Click to expand...

Judging from your response, you havent noticed that green tech is primarily not profitable. Its dependent upon subsidies as part of its business model--it actually retards progress when a business becomes dependent upon the government for its profit.

I would argue the same is true of the oil industry but a lot of what you term "subsidies" are really just capital tax breaks that almost every company gets to deduct. I would say that their non use lease subsidy needs to be rescinded. Allowing for current tech, they know what a given well will yield and shouldnt be paid for not drilling on leased land. There a number of other things I would say they can end.

That doesnt make the green subsidies any more correct than the oil ones.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Judging from your response, you havent noticed that green tech is primarily not profitable. Its dependent upon subsidies as part of its business model--it actually retards progress when a business becomes dependent upon the government for its profit.

I would argue the same is true of the oil industry but a lot of what you term "subsidies" are really just capital tax breaks that almost every company gets to deduct. I would say that their non use lease subsidy needs to be rescinded. Allowing for current tech, they know what a given well will yield and shouldnt be paid for not drilling on leased land. There a number of other things I would say they can end.

That doesnt make the green subsidies any more correct than the oil ones.
Click to expand...

Amazingly government funding didn’t retard progress when it actually accounted for roughly three-quarters of computer development. Go figure.In the sixties more than one third of the R&D at IBM was propped up by the Gov,s tit. We wouldn't be discussing Gov. Subsidies today if it weren't for Gov. Subsidies going to Big Blue(IBM).

Indeed, you can give Big Blue and Bell labs/and the Gov. tit a well done on the development of the transistor; forerunner to the microscopic chips we see today.

Not a whole lot of R&D needed to drill a hole in the ground to see if there is any oil down there though.

You’re right on these points though “capital tax breaks that almost every company gets to deduct. “And “. Allowing for current tech, they know what a given well will yield and shouldn't be paid for not drilling on leased land. “:peace
 
OpportunityCost said:
Judging from your response, you havent noticed that green tech is primarily not profitable. Its dependent upon subsidies as part of its business model--it actually retards progress when a business becomes dependent upon the government for its profit.
Click to expand...

And everyone knows the govt should only subsidize businesses that don't need subsidies because they're already profitable :doh
 
Whipsnade said:
By Lori Montgomery, Sunday, January 20, 2:37 PM

Looks like the republican party are getting what they ask for...in spades.:2wave:

<Senate Democrats plan to draft a budget blueprint that calls for significantly higher taxes on the wealthy, oil and gas companies and corporations doing business overseas, reopening a battle over taxes Republicans had hoped to lay to rest with the “fiscal cliff.”>


<“There’s going to have to be some spending cuts, and those will be negotiated,” Schumer, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, said in an interview after the show. “But doing a budget is the best way for us to get revenues.”>

<House Republicans are eager to draft a reconciliation bill to cut spending on federal health programs and to overhaul the tax code, in part by cutting rates. And Democrats are eager to draft a reconciliation bill that would raise additional revenue, in part by limiting tax breaks for wealthy individuals, oil and gas companies and multinational corporations.>

Senate Democrats’ budget plan will reopen battle over taxes - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

Hope this is true. Then we can have an honest debate on your tax issues and what an appropriate rate this president feels makes sense. Perhaps we can learn why he did not adjust the favorable treatment given to hedge fund managers, many of whom supported him. Or perhaps you can explain why allowing carried interest to be taxed at capital gains versus ordinary income makes sense.
 
Whipsnade said:
Amazingly government funding didn’t retard progress when it actually accounted for roughly three-quarters of computer development. Go figure.In the sixties more than one third of the R&D at IBM was propped up by the Gov,s tit. We wouldn't be discussing Gov. Subsidies today if it weren't for Gov. Subsidies going to Big Blue(IBM).

Indeed, you can give Big Blue and Bell labs/and the Gov. tit a well done on the development of the transistor; forerunner to the microscopic chips we see today.

Not a whole lot of R&D needed to drill a hole in the ground to see if there is any oil down there though.

You’re right on these points though “capital tax breaks that almost every company gets to deduct. “And “. Allowing for current tech, they know what a given well will yield and shouldn't be paid for not drilling on leased land. “:peace
Click to expand...

Of course, you neglect to point up it was military spending--which you support cutting. Irony, indeed.
 
sangha said:
And everyone knows the govt should only subsidize businesses that don't need subsidies because they're already profitable :doh
Click to expand...

Lets ask Stephen Chu in Energy how thats model is working out?
 
sangha said:
It's working great!!

That's why other nations are also pouring money into developing the technology
Click to expand...

Except Spain, where it has already failed.

There is a reason why Chu is on the verge of resignation. The green energy spur has been a failure. R&D to get marketable products that are profitable is far less expensive than propping up products that are not marketable. Its also worth noting that the oil industry, on the whole, pays in far more in taxes than it gets in subsidies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom