3 ms·
Great use of NewSpeak, but the absence of a tax is not a subsidy. There is a pretty big subsidy for the non-Saudi companies that are part of ARAMCO, though. T
by tomohawk 8y ago
Great use of NewSpeak, but the absence of a tax is not a subsidy.
There is a pretty big subsidy for the non-Saudi companies that are part of ARAMCO, though.
The Saudis wanted a bigger slice of the pie when the company was formed, but instead of just splitting the revenue along those lines, they worked out a deal where the Saudi government would tax the non-Saudi companies to an amount that would split the pie the way they wanted it. The American companies can write off that foreign tax. So American taxpayers are subsidizing the arrangement.
- pdpi 8y agoThere’s a reasonable argument to be made that letting you get away with something with negative externalities, which then have to be dealt with by spending public money, is effectively the same as giving you that money directly.
- tomohawk 8y agoOnly if those "negative externalities" are illegal for everyone. In this case, they're perfectly legal activities. It's not a "break" or "subsidy" just because someone's allowed to carry on a perfectly legal activity. Look, if it is bad to use oil for fuel, then just tax it. But playing these word games is lame.