The payroll tax expiration fight thread.

[Wrong Direction]

Hopefully everyone understands what's going on here.

Both parties want to extend the payroll tax cut, though some R's are opposed.

The D's are offering a millionaire's tax payfor, which they know R's will never go for. It's a purely political move.

The R's are offering the Keystone pipeline, which they know D's won't go for. It's a purely political move.

In the end, there will be no millionaire's tax, no pipeline and they'll pay for the extension with the ending of tax writeoffs or other accounting gimmicks.

Neither party is trying to get anything done. Both parties are trying to win the White House in 2012. Instill confidence in any of y'all?

2013 can't get here soon enough. That's when a real debt/tax reform bill will happen. Everything in between in meant to get us all worked up.

[PeterMP]

We could be Hubbs....except for the NIMBY's

The oil industry doesn't have time to drill in all of the places they've been approved to drill.

[twa]

The oil industry doesn't have time to drill in all of the places they've been approved to drill.

So you are opposed to them paying us even more for not drilling then?

I guess we don't need the money.

Get out of the way and watch

[Hubbs]

Hopefully everyone understands what's going on here.

Both parties want to extend the payroll tax cut, though some R's are opposed.

The D's are offering a millionaire's tax payfor, which they know R's will never go for. It's a purely political move.

The R's are offering the Keystone pipeline, which they know D's won't go for. It's a purely political move.

In the end, there will be no millionaire's tax, no pipeline and they'll pay for the extension with the ending of tax writeoffs or other accounting gimmicks.

Neither party is trying to get anything done. Both parties are trying to win the White House in 2012. Instill confidence in any of y'all?

2013 can't get here soon enough. That's when a real debt/tax reform bill will happen. Everything in between in meant to get us all worked up.

I'm not at all sure that the Dems will actually block the Keystone pipeline at the end of the day. The unions want it, and there plenty of Democrats who aren't all that enthused about the environmental wing of the party and would do it just as a move to shift away from Middle East oil. (Plus, even among the more environmentally inclined, I'd bet that there are at least a few who see this as ultimately burning the same amount of oil, but getting more of it from an ally.)

Right now, the pipeline is still being treated as a purely political thing. But when we ultimately get down to whether or not it's inherently a good idea, I think quite a few Dems will decide that it is.

[PeterMP]

So you are opposed to them paying us even more for not drilling then?

I guess we don't need the money.

Get out of the way and watch

You mean the money that is 100% tax deductable:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/oil-tax-break.asp#axzz1g0SE7grs

And below the global norms (including the royalties of any recovered gas):

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20100518/research-shows-federal-oil-leasing-and-royalty-income-raw-deal-taxpayers?page=2

Somehow the net effect doesn't really sound like that big of a pay day.

You mean like they did for the deepwater horizon?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011780029_oilrules05.html

Yeah, that worked out really well.

---------- Post added December-8th-2011 at 11:25 PM ----------

I'm not at all sure that the Dems will actually block the Keystone pipeline at the end of the day. The unions want it, and there plenty of Democrats who aren't all that enthused about the environmental wing of the party and would do it just as a move to shift away from Middle East oil. (Plus, even among the more environmentally inclined, I'd bet that there are at least a few who see this as ultimately burning the same amount of oil, but getting more of it from an ally.)

Right now, the pipeline is still being treated as a purely political thing. But when we ultimately get down to whether or not it's inherently a good idea, I think quite a few Dems will decide that it is.

Realistically, Obama has cover.

The state of NB didn't even support the old route and had passed legislation to prevent it.

http://news.yahoo.com/nebraska-welcomes-pipeline-route-232231889.html

But if you reroute it, as they TransCanada has agreed to do, then you have to start over with environomental impact statements. It is simple to say it is safer, but you still have to go through the motions.

[twa]

Horizon seemed to work out well for researchers income....kinda ironic eh

how much does oil and gas bring the US in a yr with all them tax breaks and not drilling?

[PeterMP]

how much does oil and gas bring the US in a yr with all them tax breaks and not drilling?

how much money does the US government spend a year to protect the global interest of the oil companies?

**EDIT***

The fact of the matter is that the amount that the oil companies have to pay the US government in terms of leases isn't that high, and it is further offset by the tax breaks they get on leases, including inactive leases.

AND it helps an oil companies stock to say that we own rights to XXX billions of oil.

The combination is that there is a low pressure to drill in the US.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-offshore-drilling-make-us-independent&page=2

"In fact, oil companies have yet to take advantage of the nearly 86 billion barrels of offshore oil in areas already available for leasing and development. So why are they chomping at the drill bit to open up the moratorium waters and survey them anew?

"Oil company stocks are valued in large part based on how much proved reserves they have," says Robert Kaufman, an expert on world oil markets and director of Boston University's Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. Translation: just having more promising leases in hand would be worth billions of dollars."

[twa]

how much money does the US government spend a year to protect the global interest of the oil companies?

All the more reason to drill here and pipe in from Canada isn't it.

Though the excuse will change then right?

add

this is a rather foolish exercise in a thread about tax cuts that are supposedly needed to stimulate the economy

about as stupid as Obama's comment about the tax cut and extended unemployment benefits creating more jobs than allowing building infrastructure.

it is comical.

[PeterMP]

All the more reason to drill here and pipe in from Canada isn't it.

Though the excuse will change then right?

Only if consumption doesn't increase with the increase to access to oil.

If you drive up supply and drive up consumption, you haven't done jack.

I did edit the other post.

[twa]

if you want to cut consumption simply raise the tax....if you dare

those are not very convincing excuses, though the lease deduction raises a question(that I admit I don't know the answer)

Are oil leases taxed thereafter as assets?...it would seem likely

[PeterMP]

if you want to cut consumption simply raise the tax....if you dare

I'm not the one claiming that drilling in North America is going to cut demand from elsewhere.

(I used to be one of these people that believed "cheap" energy was the answer to many of the worlds problems. That if we could drive down energy prices that would mak things cheaper worldwide. Then I started doing some reading and calculation, and I came to the conclusion that we'd have to produce about 20X more energy than we already do globally at the same price for it to make much of a difference. Consumption would just increase in many parts of the world and that would off set the increase in the amount of energy, and the amount really saved wouldn't "trickle down" to poorer people. You'd have to have HUGE amounts of energy at pretty low costs for a long period of time to make a difference. Maybe Larry's plan of "beaming it down from space" would have that kind of impact over the long haul, but nothing that we are really pursuing now appears to be on track to make that kind of difference. This isn't likely to happen in my life time, and I doubt my kids life time, if ever.)

Then why are there 86 billions of untapped oil sitting in the Gulf that are in areas open for drilling?

Either the oil industry can't physically get to all of the oil they are being given access to (i.e. they don't have enough time, men, or equipment), or they don't want to.

[twa]

are those deposits economically viable?

Or are you talking deepwater leases that they have had a freeze on ?

a bit of detail on which tract might help if you want a answer

added

we are wandering far afield

[PeterMP]

are those deposits economically viable?

Or are you talking deepwater leases that they have had a freeze on ?

a bit of detail on which tract might help if you want a answer

We're talking about Gulf oil in areas where industry begged to have it opened.

The "freeze" was only for a short period of time and has now been lifted. The process is slowed because they are actually going through the process (instead of letting companies declare there won't be any environmental impact because there won't be a spill), but it wasn't like they were tapping it before the freeze.

What areas does industry want opened where the oil is more economically viable?

The fact of the matter is that the Gulf was opened first for a reason- based on the data, it was believed to be the most economically viable area and as the Scientific American piece I linked nobody has really gone back and checked the other areas.

[twa]

you mean part of the gulf was opened

a short freeze my ass

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37894

[Larry]

about as stupid as Obama's comment about the tax cut and extended unemployment benefits creating more jobs than allowing building infrastructure.

He may be correct.

I don't like arguments where people make claims about what the spin off effects of a policy will be, because IMO it's simply way too easy to BS. But there are secondary effects. (Of both the tax cuts, and the pipeline.)

[RedskinsFan44]

I'm a bit late but I agree with wrong directions post on page 2. The hypocrisy exhibited by the parties on this issue is amazing.

[skinsmarydu]

I thought tax cuts were not equal to spending and therefore do not have to be paid for.

GOP always says that tax cuts don't have to be paid for unless it's middle-class folks getting that tax cut.:evilg:

[PeterMP]

you mean part of the gulf was opened

a short freeze my ass

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37894

ALL of the reserved underwater areas are only believed to contain 18 billion barrells of oil. That includes the reserved parts of the Gulf, the Atlantic, and Pacific based on the data we have (see the Scientific American piece I already linked).

The part of the Gulf that was opened is believed to contain the vast majority of underwater oil in US territory.

Like I said, if you actually make the oil companies go throught the process and not make claims like, there will be no oil spilled so there are no environmental risks and no need to have a plan in case of spill, reviewing applicants actually takes time.

They've actually increased the rate of approval of shallow water perimts and are approving them faster than pre-spill recently, and they are doing deep water permits, only slower than before (which isn't unexpected given the issues with a deep water leak if you actually follow the "rules").

http://www.thesttammanynews.com/articles/2011/11/27/news/doc4ed13d163bfb0625609644.txt

[RedskinsFan44]

These two issues should stand or fall on their own merits. Bundling of issues helps bad policies get through.

[Ellis]

An extra 100 dollars a month in taxes? No way.

No to raising the payroll taxes

It wouldn't be considered raising though. It would be considered restoring them to where they were prior to the Bush Tax Cut. It was never designed to be permanent. There was always an expiration date and everyone was made aware of that from day 1.

I would like to see the tax rate for people making below a certain amount--say, households making $250,000 or less--keep their tax cut.

[Hubbs]

We're talking about Gulf oil in areas where industry begged to have it opened.

The "freeze" was only for a short period of time and has now been lifted. The process is slowed because they are actually going through the process (instead of letting companies declare there won't be any environmental impact because there won't be a spill), but it wasn't like they were tapping it before the freeze.

What areas does industry want opened where the oil is more economically viable?

The fact of the matter is that the Gulf was opened first for a reason- based on the data, it was believed to be the most economically viable area and as the Scientific American piece I linked nobody has really gone back and checked the other areas.

Then who the **** cares?

Seriously, I don't understand the argument you've been making at all. If the oil companies drill, the new supply might be offset, but "offset" either means that more Americans have access to cheap-enough energy that they expand their economic activity, or it means that we sell more to the rest of the world. But if the oil companies don't drill, their leases are tax deductible, and this is "bad" because they'll pay, say, $100,000, and then get to claim $100,000 less in profit that would have been taxed at a maximum of 35%, meaning that the government still has net gains. Even if it was a strict dollar-for-dollar swap, if there's no drilling, the end result is that nothing happens, so, again, who the **** cares? Plus, this whole thing is in the context of a conversation about a pipeline that will either be built to sell oil to us, or a different pipeline that will be built to sell the same oil to China. Either way, the oil is used.

We get it. You don't like oil companies. But when your argument collapses all the way down to, "We shouldn't give oil companies more access to reserves because they might not even drill!," then I think you need to step back and think about what you're saying.

[chipwhich]

Then who the **** cares?

Seriously, I don't understand the argument you've been making at all. If the oil companies drill, the new supply might be offset, but "offset" either means that more Americans have access to cheap-enough energy that they expand their economic activity, or it means that we sell more to the rest of the world. But if the oil companies don't drill, their leases are tax deductible, and this is "bad" because they'll pay, say, $100,000, and then get to claim $100,000 less in profit that would have been taxed at a maximum of 35%, meaning that the government still has net gains. Even if it was a strict dollar-for-dollar swap, if there's no drilling, the end result is that nothing happens, so, again, who the **** cares? Plus, this whole thing is in the context of a conversation about a pipeline that will either be built to sell oil to us, or a different pipeline that will be built to sell the same oil to China. Either way, the oil is used.

We get it. You don't like oil companies. But when your argument collapses all the way down to, "We shouldn't give oil companies more access to reserves because they might not even drill!," then I think you need to step back and think about what you're saying.

Couldn't have said it better.

[Thiebear]

PAYGO:

Pay for the tax cut for everyone

by

Enacting the Pipeline causing jobs and reduced dollars per barrel. 20k+ at start.

Then

Next Bill to keep unemployment and doctor fix. 200billion

by

Enacting the payroll tax on the 1%

Then

The other 15 projects not funded can stop pointing to the millionaires and find another means of funding.

This is the first time in 62 years we've had a surplus of oil and allows us to sell it to MAKE MONEY!

Lets not impede that process going forward as we are broke ass broke.

[PeterMP]

Then who the **** cares?

Seriously, I don't understand the argument you've been making at all. If the oil companies drill, the new supply might be offset, but "offset" either means that more Americans have access to cheap-enough energy that they expand their economic activity, or it means that we sell more to the rest of the world. But if the oil companies don't drill, their leases are tax deductible, and this is "bad" because they'll pay, say, $100,000, and then get to claim $100,000 less in profit that would have been taxed at a maximum of 35%, meaning that the government still has net gains. Even if it was a strict dollar-for-dollar swap, if there's no drilling, the end result is that nothing happens, so, again, who the **** cares? Plus, this whole thing is in the context of a conversation about a pipeline that will either be built to sell oil to us, or a different pipeline that will be built to sell the same oil to China. Either way, the oil is used.

We get it. You don't like oil companies. But when your argument collapses all the way down to, "We shouldn't give oil companies more access to reserves because they might not even drill!," then I think you need to step back and think about what you're saying.

Read the thread. My comments about opening land was in direct response to a claim that twa made about NIMBYs preventing us from being an oil exporter (a "resource provider").

The fact of the matter is there is absolutely no reason to believe it's true. There's no reason to believe that most of the areas that haven't been opened contain much oil or that what oil is there is economically viable w/ respect to other resources, and if it is economically viable w/ respect to other resources that'll be economically viable with respect to the benefits oil companies get for just sitting on it in terms of the value of their stocks.

There's no reason to believe that a SINGLE drop of oil would be removed from the ground any time soon if we opened up new area- that in DIRECT contradiction to twa's comment.

I haven't said don't bulid the pipeline (I don't honestly know enough about pipelines and how much they leak to comment on that. Though I did say if it is up the US, I think it'll be built).

I haven't said don't open new areas for them to drill.

I AM saying let's be honest about the effects of doing it. It isn't at all likely to make us an oil exporter or even oil independent. It isn't the economic boon that industry experts make it sound like it is, and it isn't going to be the economic boon that is for other countries (that charge much more for leases, penalties for not drilling, and royalties on oil recovered).

You won't find a post where I've EVER said we shouldn't open up no new areas. I can find you posts where I've agreed with twa that we SHOULD open up new areas and put that money into supporting other energy forms.

http://www.extremeskins.com/archive/index.php/t-252004.html

"I've always thought a silent auction open to EVERYBODY with a limited amount of time on the lease (less than 50 years) was the way to go. After that, the entity winning the bidding pays the goverment nothing (assuming no clean ups required (how are those going to be handeled has to be part of the contract they are bidding on w/ my line of thinking (what is a spill? who cleans up? who decides what is "clean"?, etc.)). You'd also need a minimum bid to win it.

Your way you are waiting until oil starts coming out of the ground to make much money. This way, you could get a bunch of money up front and start using that money to do things ASAP.

Your way you might make more, but you might not, especially if you figure the time component into the calculation."

Generally, I like the idea so I'll vote yes."

However that doesn't mean we shouldn't be honest about the effects of opening up new land, that we shouldn't try and get as much value out of the resources as possible, or that people shouldn't be called on spreading misinformation.

**EDIT**

Let me clear about something. I also don't think the way out of this economic downturn is simply to consume more. I reject the idea that the solution to our current problem lies down the road of lowering gasoline prices so more people will think it is a good idea to go out and buy Hummers (admittedly, that's a bit of an overstatement of the idea as presented in most cases, but you get the gist). I am for consuming more NOW in a very limited manner (i.e. generally mantaining current effeciency) with the idea that the consumption will be tied to trying to even be more effecient in the future.

The solution to ineffecient consumption isn't more consumption for the sake of consumption

[SkinsHokieFan]

It wouldn't be considered raising though. It would be considered restoring them to where they were prior to the Bush Tax Cut. It was never designed to be permanent. There was always an expiration date and everyone was made aware of that from day 1.

I would like to see the tax rate for people making below a certain amount--say, households making $250,000 or less--keep their tax cut.

These weren't part of the Bush Tax cuts. Pay attention to your pay stubs from this year and last year