4 ms·

Farm subsidies are widely condemned, but their existence is explained through public choice theory. Perhaps you would explain to which oil subsidies you are re

by abtinf 11y ago

Farm subsidies are widely condemned, but their existence is explained through public choice theory. Perhaps you would explain to which oil subsidies you are referring?

abhi3 11y ago
While the west has removed subsidies on oil mostly (but don't tax it either), developing countries over the world have spend a considerable portion of their budget subsidizing the oil industry. Renewable energy subsidies are not even 1% of them aggregate.
- abtinf 11y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by the west doesn't tax oil. Just off the top of my head, oil is subject to the following taxes: * Consumer purchases of the final products of oil are heavily taxed (especially in Europe). * Oil companies pay significant income tax. Exxon alone paid over $5.5B, or about 25% of net profit, in taxes last year, while in 2013 they paid closer to 42%. [1] * After they pay income tax, their dividends are taxes again. I'm sure there are other invisible taxes throughout the production and rights-acquisition process. [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM+Income+Statement&annual https://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM+Income+Statement&annual
- yeahsure 11y ago
  I don't know how it works for the oil industry as a whole, but in Argentina gas is taxed at about 45%. Solar has 0 subsidies.
skorgu 11y ago
It's not a direct oil subsidy but roads are ~50% subsidized: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-percent-of-u-s-road-spending/ http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-...
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  Tesla doesn't benefit from this, too?
- abtinf 11y ago
  Car ownership is extremely broad across all income groups in the United States, see http://www.newgeography.com/content/002666-how-lower-income-citizens-commute http://www.newgeography.com/content/002666-how-lower-income-.... The overwhelming majority of income taxes are paid by high earners, with the the top 10% paying close to 70% of all income taxes. If roads are subsidized by income taxes in addition to gas taxes, they are being paid for in an extremely progressive way. Effectively, roads are provided for free to over half the population. Or maybe I misunderstood and you are trying to make a different point?
  - aljones 11y ago
    Half the population doesn't pay gas taxes? You're aware that they do. That was a silly thing to say. Gas taxes may be trivial to the portion of the population that pays most of the income taxes, but I doubt the bottom half thinks of them that way. You need to show what portion of the road cost is paid for by income taxes before you can claim the rest. I don't understand why you brought any of this up. A subsidy is a subsidy no matter who pays.
    - abtinf 11y ago
      You are correct that I made an error in my calculation, but my point still largely stands. I took the parent at face value for the claim that 50% of roads are funded by use fees. That means the other 50% are paid for with general income taxes. Nearly all income taxes are paid for by the top half of earners. If we assume that everyone drives about the same amount, then the bottom half of the country gets the full value and use of roads while only paying for 25% of the total cost. I bring this up because the parents point seemed to be that road subsidies are an implicit subsidy to oil companies. But people need to get around somehow, and the current way of funding roads should be perfectly compatible to conventional morality. At the same time, I oppose all subsidies and can only imagine the amazing methods of transport that would exist if the government did not actively interfere and manage this market.
jhayward 11y ago
The standard answer is to start with the US 5th fleet and work upward from there.
- abtinf 11y ago
  Please point out a specific military intervention that was intended to protect the property rights of American oil companies. I am not sure I've ever seen one, quite the opposite. The United States has, in every instance, left oil companies to defend themselves when their facilities and technology are nationalized by foreign nations.
  - aljones 11y ago
    Please point out where this discussion about oil subsidies became restricted to American oil companies.
    - abtinf 11y ago
      > The standard answer is to start with the US 5th fleet and work upward from there. For this sub-thread, that is where. Unless you think the US military is out defending foreign oil companies?
      - aljones 11y ago
        They are. That isn't the actual goal, but a side effect. What they do is ensure the supply of oil to America.
adevine 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States
- abtinf 11y ago
  The GP's point is that there are signficant Oil subsidies. But the data in that link indicates that the overwhelming majority of subsidies are going directly to renewables and energy efficiency. What is the salient data point from that link that you would like to highlight?
  - jnosdfosdknmf 11y ago
    > The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. Which part confuses you?
    - abtinf 11y ago
      There really isn't enough detail there, but what detail there is suggests those numbers are completely made up. You left out the part where the report covers the period of 1950-2010 - a 60 year period. A multi-decade accounting isn't useful when we are discussing the current state of subsidies across industries. The tax-based "subsidies" appear to just be referring to the ability to write off expenses, an aspect of the tax code that is nearly universal to every industry in all nations. There are very, very few examples of income taxes that do not allow the write-off of expenses. The second part of that summary, referring to "exemptions" from economic regulations, is bizarre. We don't generally have price controls or limits on the rate of return in the United States. It seems like that report probably just chose arbitrary numbers for what it felt the profit rate should have been, and added the difference between that and the real numbers into the subsidy number. That is more an argument for communism than anything related to a discussion about subsidy policy. You also left out the part where the real subsidies, those to the renewables industries, are actual giveaways of money. I'm not sure how an honest inquiry could make these mistakes and engage in these false comparisons, which probably explains why you used a throwaway account to post.
krastanov 11y ago
The International Monetary Fund had a detailed report. Here is a Guardian article about it (admittedly, not the most impartial one either, but the report speaks for itself): http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fu...
- abtinf 11y ago
  That is a terrible report. The numbers are entirely made up. And its condemnation of China is shockingly immoral, essentially calling for policy changes that would amount to genocide.

by abtinf 11y ago

Farm subsidies are widely condemned, but their existence is explained through public choice theory. Perhaps you would explain to which oil subsidies you are referring?

abhi3 11y ago

While the west has removed subsidies on oil mostly (but don't tax it either), developing countries over the world have spend a considerable portion of their budget subsidizing the oil industry. Renewable energy subsidies are not even 1% of them aggregate.

abtinf 11y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by the west doesn't tax oil. Just off the top of my head, oil is subject to the following taxes: * Consumer purchases of the final products of oil are heavily taxed (especially in Europe). * Oil companies pay significant income tax. Exxon alone paid over $5.5B, or about 25% of net profit, in taxes last year, while in 2013 they paid closer to 42%. [1] * After they pay income tax, their dividends are taxes again. I'm sure there are other invisible taxes throughout the production and rights-acquisition process. [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM+Income+Statement&annual https://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM+Income+Statement&annual
yeahsure 11y ago
I don't know how it works for the oil industry as a whole, but in Argentina gas is taxed at about 45%. Solar has 0 subsidies.

skorgu 11y ago

It's not a direct oil subsidy but roads are ~50% subsidized: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-percent-of-u-s-road-spending/ http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-...

tosseraccount 11y ago
Tesla doesn't benefit from this, too?
abtinf 11y ago
Car ownership is extremely broad across all income groups in the United States, see http://www.newgeography.com/content/002666-how-lower-income-citizens-commute http://www.newgeography.com/content/002666-how-lower-income-.... The overwhelming majority of income taxes are paid by high earners, with the the top 10% paying close to 70% of all income taxes. If roads are subsidized by income taxes in addition to gas taxes, they are being paid for in an extremely progressive way. Effectively, roads are provided for free to over half the population. Or maybe I misunderstood and you are trying to make a different point?
- aljones 11y ago
  Half the population doesn't pay gas taxes? You're aware that they do. That was a silly thing to say. Gas taxes may be trivial to the portion of the population that pays most of the income taxes, but I doubt the bottom half thinks of them that way. You need to show what portion of the road cost is paid for by income taxes before you can claim the rest. I don't understand why you brought any of this up. A subsidy is a subsidy no matter who pays.
  - abtinf 11y ago
    You are correct that I made an error in my calculation, but my point still largely stands. I took the parent at face value for the claim that 50% of roads are funded by use fees. That means the other 50% are paid for with general income taxes. Nearly all income taxes are paid for by the top half of earners. If we assume that everyone drives about the same amount, then the bottom half of the country gets the full value and use of roads while only paying for 25% of the total cost. I bring this up because the parents point seemed to be that road subsidies are an implicit subsidy to oil companies. But people need to get around somehow, and the current way of funding roads should be perfectly compatible to conventional morality. At the same time, I oppose all subsidies and can only imagine the amazing methods of transport that would exist if the government did not actively interfere and manage this market.

jhayward 11y ago

The standard answer is to start with the US 5th fleet and work upward from there.

abtinf 11y ago
Please point out a specific military intervention that was intended to protect the property rights of American oil companies. I am not sure I've ever seen one, quite the opposite. The United States has, in every instance, left oil companies to defend themselves when their facilities and technology are nationalized by foreign nations.
- aljones 11y ago
  Please point out where this discussion about oil subsidies became restricted to American oil companies.
  - abtinf 11y ago
    > The standard answer is to start with the US 5th fleet and work upward from there. For this sub-thread, that is where. Unless you think the US military is out defending foreign oil companies?
    - aljones 11y ago
      They are. That isn't the actual goal, but a side effect. What they do is ensure the supply of oil to America.

adevine 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#United_States

abtinf 11y ago
The GP's point is that there are signficant Oil subsidies. But the data in that link indicates that the overwhelming majority of subsidies are going directly to renewables and energy efficiency. What is the salient data point from that link that you would like to highlight?
- jnosdfosdknmf 11y ago
  > The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. Which part confuses you?
  - abtinf 11y ago
    There really isn't enough detail there, but what detail there is suggests those numbers are completely made up. You left out the part where the report covers the period of 1950-2010 - a 60 year period. A multi-decade accounting isn't useful when we are discussing the current state of subsidies across industries. The tax-based "subsidies" appear to just be referring to the ability to write off expenses, an aspect of the tax code that is nearly universal to every industry in all nations. There are very, very few examples of income taxes that do not allow the write-off of expenses. The second part of that summary, referring to "exemptions" from economic regulations, is bizarre. We don't generally have price controls or limits on the rate of return in the United States. It seems like that report probably just chose arbitrary numbers for what it felt the profit rate should have been, and added the difference between that and the real numbers into the subsidy number. That is more an argument for communism than anything related to a discussion about subsidy policy. You also left out the part where the real subsidies, those to the renewables industries, are actual giveaways of money. I'm not sure how an honest inquiry could make these mistakes and engage in these false comparisons, which probably explains why you used a throwaway account to post.

krastanov 11y ago

The International Monetary Fund had a detailed report. Here is a Guardian article about it (admittedly, not the most impartial one either, but the report speaks for itself): http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fu...

abtinf 11y ago
That is a terrible report. The numbers are entirely made up. And its condemnation of China is shockingly immoral, essentially calling for policy changes that would amount to genocide.