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 shouldn’t 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 News’s "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.
WHITE HOUSE GE's Immelt to Head Obama's New 'Jobs and Competitiveness' Board
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.