3 ms·

> 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 sub

> 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 10y 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.
- bjelkeman-again 10y ago
  Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn a year, according to an estimate by the International Monetary Fund researchers. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0
- jnosdfosdknmf 10y ago
  The wikipedia article has citations and external links, which are far more trustworthy than your hand waving and bullshit which you just made up on the spot. > There really isn't enough detail there, but what detail there is suggests those numbers are completely made up. Read the report, it has plenty of details, I don't really feel like spoonfeeding an ignorant and dishonest bullshitter. > A multi-decade accounting isn't useful when we are discussing the current state of subsidies across industries. Of course it's useful, just because it doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't make it irrelevant. > 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. No, there are specific tax subsidies, which is why it is mentioned explicitly. Not sure why you are handwaving and trying to imagine a reality which agrees with your retarded opinion. > There are very, very few examples of income taxes that do not allow the write-off of expenses. Blah blah. Not even worth arguing. > 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. There are many price controls in the US, once again you are showing your extreme ignorance. > 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. No, it's just that you are very stupid and dishonest. > That is more an argument for communism than anything related to a discussion about subsidy policy. Hahahaha.
  - dang 10y ago
    We've banned this account for breaking the HN guidelines. Please stop making accounts to do this with.

abtinf 10y 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.

bjelkeman-again 10y ago
Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn a year, according to an estimate by the International Monetary Fund researchers. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0
jnosdfosdknmf 10y ago
The wikipedia article has citations and external links, which are far more trustworthy than your hand waving and bullshit which you just made up on the spot. > There really isn't enough detail there, but what detail there is suggests those numbers are completely made up. Read the report, it has plenty of details, I don't really feel like spoonfeeding an ignorant and dishonest bullshitter. > A multi-decade accounting isn't useful when we are discussing the current state of subsidies across industries. Of course it's useful, just because it doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't make it irrelevant. > 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. No, there are specific tax subsidies, which is why it is mentioned explicitly. Not sure why you are handwaving and trying to imagine a reality which agrees with your retarded opinion. > There are very, very few examples of income taxes that do not allow the write-off of expenses. Blah blah. Not even worth arguing. > 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. There are many price controls in the US, once again you are showing your extreme ignorance. > 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. No, it's just that you are very stupid and dishonest. > That is more an argument for communism than anything related to a discussion about subsidy policy. Hahahaha.
- dang 10y ago
  We've banned this account for breaking the HN guidelines. Please stop making accounts to do this with.