4 ms·

And? So is gasoline and petroleum products. And so is corn products through ethanol, which is legally mandated to be in fuel at 10% for no good reason.

by kefka 11y ago

adventured 11y ago
Not a great comparison. The US doles out $15 to $20 billion annually toward subsidies for fossil fuels. $4 to $5 billion goes to the oil industry. Exxon and Chevron paid $120 billion in income taxes in just the last three years. US oil majors pay among the highest corporate tax rates on earth. Exxon and Chevron are getting about $1.3 billion in tax breaks per year combined.
- brianobush 11y ago
  Exxon and Chevron paid those taxes on actual earnings. As soon as Tesla starts profiting, then they will owe taxes as well.
  - adventured 11y ago
    Of course, and the point is that the fossil fuel industry in the US more than pays its own way. Should the US Govt. stop subsidizing fossil fuels? I think so. However, many of the subsidies that companies like Exxon or Chevron claim, are general industrial / manufacturing tax breaks, that are available to any industrial firms. Those two are doing $600 billion in sales, and claiming $1.3 billion in tax breaks, it's an almost comically small number compared to the taxes they pay and the scale of their businesses. I don't think there's any legitimate gripe to be had with the weight the US oil industry is carrying in terms of paying a fair sum in taxes.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- revelation 11y ago
  So, what is the environment worth? Cause that seems awfully cheap.
  - adventured 11y ago
    The US environment overall is doing extraordinarily well in fact. And it's not cheap, the EPA is one of the toughest environmental regulators, which has helped lead to a dramatic improvement in US environmental quality in the last 40 years. What's having a functioning economy worth? Are we going to pretend that we could have had a US economy, with ~50% of global manufacturing in 1965, running on solar and wind? No? Then it's obviously understood that the renewable shift inherently requires vast, prior energy systems. What was battery technology like in 1965 or 1985? Let's say we had deployed an all-nuclear infrastructure (built courtesy of what? fossil fuels of course). What would that have done for electric cars? Nothing, we haven't had the ability to build practical electric cars until the last decade, due to huge improvements in batteries. We still have horrible batteries for the home. Even Tesla's Powerwall does not (yet) work as a practical battery for the home, according to their own statements on the matter. The US could have done a lot better. There's just no sense in pretending that you get from there to here, without a massive fossil fuel industry.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > The US environment overall is doing extraordinarily well in fact I strongly disagree; climate change is likely on track to be catastrophic, and the United States is the biggest cause.
      - brucefancher 11y ago
        No, "climate change" is not on track to be catastrophic and b) the US is not the largest emitter of CO2, China is.
    - vonklaus 11y ago
      > The US environment overall is doing extraordinarily well in fact. Record draughts in California. Mild drought on East Coast. Sea Level Rising. World Temp Rising. 11 inches of Rain in Texas in one day. inb4 these are not conclusive. Sure they aren't. The environment is an unpriced externality, and it is very difficult to measure the effects that humans have on it. Let's keep running uncontrolled experiments here until we have a problem. Luckily the Mars colonial transporter will be built by the time we do real damage. /Somewhat snide and sarcastic. Somewhat.
- Brakenshire 11y ago
  They pay their way, but they also transfer indirect costs to the rest of society which are not accounted for in the sort of calculations made in the linked article. For instance, in London electric cars are exempt from road tax, and the congestion charge. These would be counted as subsidies, but without taking into account the indirect costs which the subsidies in fact aim to at least partly price in - that is, the impact on health from vehicle internal combustion engines in the city. For instance, exposure to particulate matter is one of the major risk factors for heart attack and cardiovascular disease, and it alone is responsible for over 3000 premature deaths each year, just in London: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332854/PHE_CRCE_010.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... Then add in the effects of Nitrogen and Sulphur oxides on asthma, emphysema, bronchitis and general respiratory illness. These have direct costs, of loss of productivity and increased hospital admissions, and also impacts on people's lives which cannot be priced into calculations. None of this is taken into account when you attempt to directly compare one thing to the other based purely on the market price.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > US oil majors pay among the highest corporate tax rates on earth. How much do you know about this? I've heard this statement, and I've heard it's a myth, that it only refers to one tax of many and that overall the overall tax rate in the US is relatively low for corporations. However, I have no independent knowledge would like to learn more. Also, they don't pay for two enormous externalities: The military and wars in the Middle East, and climate change.
- rgbrenner 11y ago
  Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to compare worldwide taxes and worldwide revenue with US subsidies? How much did they pay in income taxes to the US government?
ElComradio 11y ago
A thousand wrongs don't make a right.

And? So is gasoline and petroleum products. And so is corn products through ethanol, which is legally mandated to be in fuel at 10% for no good reason.

by kefka 11y ago

And? So is gasoline and petroleum products. And so is corn products through ethanol, which is legally mandated to be in fuel at 10% for no good reason.

adventured 11y ago

Not a great comparison. The US doles out $15 to $20 billion annually toward subsidies for fossil fuels. $4 to $5 billion goes to the oil industry. Exxon and Chevron paid $120 billion in income taxes in just the last three years. US oil majors pay among the highest corporate tax rates on earth. Exxon and Chevron are getting about $1.3 billion in tax breaks per year combined.

brianobush 11y ago
Exxon and Chevron paid those taxes on actual earnings. As soon as Tesla starts profiting, then they will owe taxes as well.
- adventured 11y ago
  Of course, and the point is that the fossil fuel industry in the US more than pays its own way. Should the US Govt. stop subsidizing fossil fuels? I think so. However, many of the subsidies that companies like Exxon or Chevron claim, are general industrial / manufacturing tax breaks, that are available to any industrial firms. Those two are doing $600 billion in sales, and claiming $1.3 billion in tax breaks, it's an almost comically small number compared to the taxes they pay and the scale of their businesses. I don't think there's any legitimate gripe to be had with the weight the US oil industry is carrying in terms of paying a fair sum in taxes.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
revelation 11y ago
So, what is the environment worth? Cause that seems awfully cheap.
- adventured 11y ago
  The US environment overall is doing extraordinarily well in fact. And it's not cheap, the EPA is one of the toughest environmental regulators, which has helped lead to a dramatic improvement in US environmental quality in the last 40 years. What's having a functioning economy worth? Are we going to pretend that we could have had a US economy, with ~50% of global manufacturing in 1965, running on solar and wind? No? Then it's obviously understood that the renewable shift inherently requires vast, prior energy systems. What was battery technology like in 1965 or 1985? Let's say we had deployed an all-nuclear infrastructure (built courtesy of what? fossil fuels of course). What would that have done for electric cars? Nothing, we haven't had the ability to build practical electric cars until the last decade, due to huge improvements in batteries. We still have horrible batteries for the home. Even Tesla's Powerwall does not (yet) work as a practical battery for the home, according to their own statements on the matter. The US could have done a lot better. There's just no sense in pretending that you get from there to here, without a massive fossil fuel industry.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > The US environment overall is doing extraordinarily well in fact I strongly disagree; climate change is likely on track to be catastrophic, and the United States is the biggest cause.
    - brucefancher 11y ago
      No, "climate change" is not on track to be catastrophic and b) the US is not the largest emitter of CO2, China is.
  - vonklaus 11y ago
    > The US environment overall is doing extraordinarily well in fact. Record draughts in California. Mild drought on East Coast. Sea Level Rising. World Temp Rising. 11 inches of Rain in Texas in one day. inb4 these are not conclusive. Sure they aren't. The environment is an unpriced externality, and it is very difficult to measure the effects that humans have on it. Let's keep running uncontrolled experiments here until we have a problem. Luckily the Mars colonial transporter will be built by the time we do real damage. /Somewhat snide and sarcastic. Somewhat.
Brakenshire 11y ago
They pay their way, but they also transfer indirect costs to the rest of society which are not accounted for in the sort of calculations made in the linked article. For instance, in London electric cars are exempt from road tax, and the congestion charge. These would be counted as subsidies, but without taking into account the indirect costs which the subsidies in fact aim to at least partly price in - that is, the impact on health from vehicle internal combustion engines in the city. For instance, exposure to particulate matter is one of the major risk factors for heart attack and cardiovascular disease, and it alone is responsible for over 3000 premature deaths each year, just in London: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332854/PHE_CRCE_010.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... Then add in the effects of Nitrogen and Sulphur oxides on asthma, emphysema, bronchitis and general respiratory illness. These have direct costs, of loss of productivity and increased hospital admissions, and also impacts on people's lives which cannot be priced into calculations. None of this is taken into account when you attempt to directly compare one thing to the other based purely on the market price.
hackuser 11y ago
> US oil majors pay among the highest corporate tax rates on earth. How much do you know about this? I've heard this statement, and I've heard it's a myth, that it only refers to one tax of many and that overall the overall tax rate in the US is relatively low for corporations. However, I have no independent knowledge would like to learn more. Also, they don't pay for two enormous externalities: The military and wars in the Middle East, and climate change.
rgbrenner 11y ago
Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to compare worldwide taxes and worldwide revenue with US subsidies? How much did they pay in income taxes to the US government?

ElComradio 11y ago

A thousand wrongs don't make a right.