Skip to comments.House Dems: Closing special tax breaks not same as raising taxes
Posted on 06/27/2011 6:43:15 AM PDT by jda
House Democrats have demanded that a deficit-reduction deal include measures to raise tax revenue but they argue those proposals shouldnt be viewed as proposed tax increases.
Rep. Jim Clyburn (S.C.), the assistant House Democratic leader and a member of the debt-limit negotiating team, said Sunday that closing tax loopholes are not the same as tax increases.
The fact of the matter is, we have on the table all kinds of revenue raises that [Republicans] keep calling tax increases. How do you call closing loopholes to oil companies that are making billions of dollars in profits, closing up these loopholes that would generate $40 to $50 billion in revenue, how do you call that a tax hike? Clyburn said on ABC Newss "This Week".
That is no tax hike. You only hike taxes when you raise rates, he argued.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
For the "when is a tax not a tax" file.
This is the ultimate in entitlement mentality - they think all of the money belongs to them and forget who the money belongs to in the first place. The so-called "loopholes" are there because of legislation that instituted the tax in the first place, but provides certain exemptions or credits.
The best policy when it comes to the government - keep both hands on your billfold.
OK, then ending earned income tax credits for people who do not pay Federal Income tax isn't a tax increase, either.
Does anyone have a summary on what this oil company loophole is? I hear the Dems harp on it constantly, but I have never seen what the "loophole" really is.
The Democrats promised Pres. Reagan they would cut spending if he raised taxes. They lied and spent everything that came in and more.
The Democrats promised Pres. Bush 41 that they would cut spending if he raised taxes. They lied and spent everything that came in and more.
If Republicans fall for their lies this time, they should be voted out of office next year. Democrats cannot be trusted with more money because they will simply spend it on new benefits for the labor unions and favored lobbies, and the debt will continue to balloon. They love picking the “winners” and the taxpayers are always the losers. NO NEW TAXES FOR ANYONE, RICH, MIDDLE CLASS OR BUSINESSES!
This from the party of oral sex isn’t sex and the meaning of “is” minions.
Evil, stupid, and dishonest: those who make this sort of claim fit at least two of those three categories. My bet is that all three apply.
Amen, Clyburn! I'm with you, bro!
If I was President, I'd make Big Oil pay the same tax rate as General Electric. That'll learn 'em! HA!
Oh. Wait. General Electric doesn't pay any taxes. I wonder how that came to be.
“Does anyone have a summary on what this oil company loophole is? I hear the Dems harp on it constantly, but I have never seen what the “loophole” really is.”
I would consider it a loophole if it were unintended. The “loopholes” their talking about were not...
He still imagines that changing depreciation from 4 years to 5 years in a period where NO ONE is paying real interest, nor are they earning serious profits on stripper wells, will generate revenue over 10 years.
No, Jim, it doesn't. So, Jim, you are brain dead. Get over it.
Funny how this idea only came to Clyburn AFTER the RATS lost The House.
From 2006 to 2010, the nation's five largest oil companies posted an average profit margin of 6.65%. By contrast, Apple's profit margin exceeded 22% and Coca-Cola's surpassed 33%.
In defense of Big Oil: The truth about those huge, hated earnings numbers
"Big Oil" profits fluctuate with the price of oil which the Obama regime has plenty of influence over in terms of withholding drilling permits, moratoriums, war on Libya, misusing the strategic reserve...
What did Clyburn pay in taxes? The Bidens (23%) and Obamas (26%) used loopholes to avoid their 35% tax bracket.
It involves mostly existing oil fields ON SHORE. Wells gum up, the walls cave in, etc. so even in really old fields with just a few stripper wells around working intermittently as oil drains into collection areas, the owners have to drill new wells and put in new equipment. The period alloted for capital depreciation for these wells is 4 years. The Democrats claim you can make more taxes by stretching that out 5 years. They claim the difference is a SUBSIDY.
In truth during a period where interest rates are low, profits are low, and spending is low, the analytical techniques to figure out the impact of capital depreciation over time reveal no meaningful difference between 4 and 5 years.
The reason is that in year 6 the depreciation disappears and it's no longer available as a business expense. Over 10 years the business expenses are IDENTICAL no matter what the period of depreciation is (provided it's 10 years or less).
Every now and then you'll see a Democrat pointing to some whopping big number but that only happens when they add in off-shore wells.
There the oil is being pumped from US Government owned wells ~ the oil companies pay a lease fee for the area they're drilling in, plus they pay a royalty on each barrel pumped, plus they pay taxes on profits when they sell that oil in the form of gasoline or diesel, or pavement binder.
If you increase the period of depreciation, that will reduce the amount of capital the oil companies have available for one year, and that will turn into a reduction of value of leased sites (and the rent will drop as well when leases are renegotiated periodically), and the amount of oil pumped will decline and the US government will lose the royalties, and then the other taxes incurred in marketing that oil.
It's a really big loser for the Treasury to screw with depreciation affecting offshore wells in the slightest respect. It's just a big NOTHING when it comes to the on-shore wells.
I think the Democrats are mentally ill or something.
If the government has a "right" to force me to buy insurance, do I have a right to be undocumented?
Rep. Jim Clyburn (S.C.), the assistant House Democratic leader and a member of the debt-limit negotiating team...
How the hell can you negotiate with deceptive cretins like Clyburn and company?
Like Bruce Springsteen who claims his estate as a farm in order to take a big tax cut,
Talk about the rich. Who is richer than these creeps?
These people are all WINNERS IN LIFE'S LOTTERY. Their incomes are all well above the ordinary working man's.
None of these will harm the economy in any way because none of these groups produce anything nor do they hire people.
Raising targeted tax increases for these people will increase revenues and reduce the deficit.
There are a gazillion wells around owned by small consortiums of lawyers (for example), or doctors, or school teachers, or municipal retirement funds.
Depending on the ownership arrangements there may not even be taxes of any kind paid on the wells and equipment ~ just transfer tax on bulk oil sales to marketing companies.
A friend of mine had some spare cash 30 years ago so he put it into a sort of non-taxed family trust for the future use of his daughter decades later. He directed the trust to start buying into wildcat oil wells ~ the trust got lucky! I have no idea what it's worth today, but he's not the kind of guy to let his trusts give away money.
Clymer fails to understand that existing oil fields will always have new wells to replace old failing wells, and all that "depreciation" he imagines is sitting there really isn't ~ odds are a nonprofit or tax deferred corporation owns the well.
Doesn't leave him much room for advancement does it.
I believe they are talking about a depletion deduction, which is a tax deduction you are allowed to take because your mineral rights have been depleted. This is a normal business deduction, similar to other business deductions in other industries. The Dems however have a hatred of the oil industry that borders on irrational. They have already succeeded in knocking this deduction down from 27% to the 14% it is now.
How about: mentally ill AND something...
Loopholes? I’m getting tired of the over-use of this term. Tax breaks are fine for the industries they like, but when the same exact tax breaks are used by the oil companies, suddenly they are “loopholes.”
This is one of the significant issues in the negotiation and everyone needs to understand the substance of the argument.
There is only one item I am aware of that affects the "big (major) oil companies who are making billions of dollars" which is the Sec. 199 credit. It is a credit for production activities in the US--originally enacted to incentivize the movie companies to make movies in the US instead of offshore. To get it, the company needs to be paying significant W-2 income to people who work in the US.
I don't think there is a great deal of money at issue on this item--in fact, for the most part, the major oil companies left the Continental US in the 70's with most production activities. Yes, there are exceptions but I don't believe they result in $50bil of tax on the 199 credit.
There are two other items that affect only "small producers" (under the Small Producer Exception). One is the Intangible Drilling Cost deduction (deduct the cost of drilling the well as paid) and Percentage Depletion (write off 15% of gross taxable revenue from the well for depletion of the reservoir). Big oil doesn't get either one of these deductions--only small producers.
And the total tax number at issue on these deductions is less than $4bil in 2011 I believe (my memory of the last CBO report I saw).
As to the IDC and Percentage Depletion--the bottom line is that most Domestic Exploration is conducted by small companies based in the midwest; most of the money comes from people like you and me who can take those deductions.
Point is that Domestic Exploration is not a particularly profitable activity. Much of the production comes from oil wells (strippers) that produce 10-20 bbls a day; or 100 Mcf of gas a day or less. Absent the IDC, these wells don't get drilled; absent the Percentage Depletion, it costs more to produce these wells than they yield and the wells get plugged. Either is bad--the individuals who do the actual work get paid decent wages and those jobs are gone; and we send the money for the energy to entities that produce the energy offshore.
Among the other negative consequences, to get a deduction (write off actual costs of producing the reserves or doing the drilling) you need an expensive engineering report showing how much your reserves are and how much you have produced etc. The Big Oil Companies have a staff that does this stuff; Small Producers do not and cannot afford to have staff to do this. Part of why the activity is not economic without the deductions.
This is the argument that has kept Congress and previous administrations from repealing these deductions.
I am not real clear about the Sec. 199 credit because it seems to me it is like your hypothetical question--it is an actual cost issue which could be added to the cost of domestic oil if it were repealed.
I own the mineral rights to a piece of producing land. I do not own the land. I intend to keep the mineral rights for as long as I live and give it to my children. It has been producing since the 1970’s. When would you say I get my deduction?
tax breaks help move products which are produced and sold with peopel working at jobs.
private jets have to be flowin in the USA, maintained in the usa, stored in the usa, and paid for in the usa.
each tax break removed is another job loss, another foreclosure, another family on the street. IOW good news for democrats.
If ending special tax breaks isn’t raising taxes, then ending higher tax rates that only apply to the rich isn’t giving money to the rich, either.