• 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!

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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 36.4%
  • No

    Votes: 14 63.6%

  • Total voters
    22
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

Sorry, but I do not need to google the subject. I asked Ikari to tell me what subsidies the oil companies get and I still want to see the answer. The answer is important.

Here is a link to an answer:

Oil Company “Subsidies” Clarified « Hot Air

a blog, not even a blog by tax experts....did I say there were 5 sides to the story? I was being conservative....
When industries, not just oil, can make billions in profits and pay NO taxes, or extremely low taxes, how is that not subsidizing an industry?
We have no idea what the true costs of our energy supplies are...just my opinion, tho, not that of a blog...:2razz:
 
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

Oil Companies Reap Billions in U.S. Subsidies and Tax Breaks - DailyFinance

Oil Companies Reap Billions From Subsidies - NYTimes.com

So it's about 4 billion a year for the oil industry. Which is a good return on their $340 million spent on lobbyists since 2008. Wish I could get that sort of return on investments.

I read the first link and I don't see where it specifies any subsidy. It talks about tax policy that effects all corporations, but I don't see one specified for the oil industry. Please show us the specific subsidy that only the oil industry gets. Thanks.
 
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

a blog, not even a blog by tax experts....did I say there were 5 sides to the story? I was being conservative....
When industries, not just oil, can make billions in profits and pay NO taxes, or extremely low taxes, how is that not subsidizing an industry?
We have no idea what the true costs of our energy supplies are...just my opinion, tho, not that of a blog...:2razz:

I chose that site because of two things. It was the first I clicked on and it provided a quote from the oil industry. I have asked Ikari to provide a specific subsidy that the oil industry gets that no other industry gets. I ask you the same.

Now, if there are none, let's just do away with all tax deductions for businesses and end taxing companies. That would solve any issue with regards to any subsidy... or deduction.
 
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

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

I do not want any new nuclear power plants constructed and I do not want the government subsidizing anything with tax payer dollars.

Any good reason for this, other than fear ?
 
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

Being as they are nuclear...personally I think that the Fed's should RUN them.
I see and accept your point; many states cannot do this,IMO...
I wonder how France does this ??
We can learn from nations that are more advanced.......
 
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

Absolutely they should. Energy independence is a national security issue.
Absolutely !
This would not be the case if the right things were done generations ago.
What is "fussion" ?
What is spell-check ?
 
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

I read the first link and I don't see where it specifies any subsidy. It talks about tax policy that effects all corporations, but I don't see one specified for the oil industry. Please show us the specific subsidy that only the oil industry gets. Thanks.

The NY Times article explains it. kthnxbye
 
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

The NY Times article explains it. kthnxbye

LOL! You post one article that doesn't provide any requested information, but now you say the second one does. I don't see a need for me to spend more time chasing your claim. Why don't you just provide the evidence of the claim in brief form? That should not be asking too much. Thanks.
 
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

LOL! You post one article that doesn't provide any requested information, but now you say the second one does. I don't see a need for me to spend more time chasing your claim. Why don't you just provide the evidence of the claim in brief form? That should not be asking too much. Thanks.

Cause I did. I gave you two links. One which briefly goes over the magnitude of the subsidies, the other which goes through the reports and such as to where the numbers came from. If you can read, you can figure it out. I'm assuming you possess the ability to read.
 
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

Cause I did. I gave you two links. One which briefly goes over the magnitude of the subsidies, the other which goes through the reports and such as to where the numbers came from. If you can read, you can figure it out. I'm assuming you possess the ability to read.

I don't see the need to do your work for you. Your first article showed nothing. Any company can move its HQ. Any company can write-off certain expenses. These are not subsidies; they are deductions.

Do you believe in equal taxation treatment for corporations? Or, do you just want to punish the oil companies? I believe in equal taxation treatment and that is why I favor doing away with all subsidies for businesses. Of course, I go even further and want to end taxing and over-regulating them.

I will freely admit that I could be wrong and that oil companies do get specific subsidies that no one else gets. However, since it was your argument that they do and since you won't provide a specific subsidy that only oil companies get, I will just accept that you incorrectly stated that oil companies get subsidies.
 
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

Oil companies pay a much lower marginal tax rate than other businesses. If we were to use a fair tax treatment, we'd be getting about 4 billion more a year in taxes from the oil companies. The moving of HQ to exploit tax returns is done more heavily by the oil companies than others (which was explained in the first link).

Speaking of over regulation, wasn't there a story a few years back about the federal government's regulatory committees or something for mineral/oil taking bribes and gifts including drugs and sex? That one may be a bit older, but I thought I remember hearing something of the sort.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

Oil companies pay a much lower marginal tax rate than other businesses. If we were to use a fair tax treatment, we'd be getting about 4 billion more a year in taxes from the oil companies. The moving of HQ to exploit tax returns is done more heavily by the oil companies than others (which was explained in the first link).

Speaking of over regulation, wasn't there a story a few years back about the federal government's regulatory committees or something for mineral/oil taking bribes and gifts including drugs and sex? That one may be a bit older, but I thought I remember hearing something of the sort.

Please explain how paying a much lower marginal tax rate is a subsidy. Are they paying a lower rate today or do they always pay a lower rate or do they sometimes pay a higher rate? Is this based on a subsidy or is this based on the tax structure that is set for all businesses?

The Fair Tax is not in place so it is not meaningful to this discussion. I see that you agree that moving your HQ is not a subsidy or do you think it is?

Sorry, I still see no evidence of any subsidy. I think you have been listening to the media and the Dems too much and have swallowed their garbledy-gook hook, line, and sinker.

As for the regulation story, I apologize, but I am not familiar with that one.

If I am being tough on you, it is only because I don't believe that oil companies are getting subsidies. If this is not the truth, then I want it uncovered in print and clearly shown that it is a subsidy and that other types of companies do not get comparable tax breaks. Please believe me when I say that I have asked at least one other person my same question prior to asking you. This is not personal, but rather a chance to get to the bottom of an issue.

I am in favor of ending all subsidies. I believe our [yours and mine] over-all goal is the same and that is ending subsidies for all businesses, but where we differ is over whether or not oil companies get special subsidies. I still await anyone to show me that they do.
 
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

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/washington/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.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

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

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

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

End govt. subsidies.

indeed.



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



but no subsidies.
 
Re: Should the U.S. government subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants?

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

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

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

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

In short, reduce startup costs.

If the start up costs are too high its just not worth doing and the idea is poor.
 
Back
Top Bottom