The future of the coal industry

[bladefd]

Those wind turbines out west, how many rare birds have they killed? The dams we built, how many ecosystems did we destroy?

Birds killed by wind turbines:


As for dams, you don't build them everywhere due to ecosystem damage.. Only certain places.

Yeah nuclear energy is awesome until Japan happens. You can build a nuclear plant in the middle of ****ing nowhere and if it malfunctions, it will affect areas hundreds of miles away.

It didn't malfunction but was flooded out.. France has been running nuclear plants for decades without issues.

[DeuceWallaces]

Bats are bigger problem for wind farms. But White Nose Syndrome will likely kill them all anyway.

[Hawker]

Yes they are, and it goes well beyond that. Maybe you should try out this thing called Google.

No they are not.

I've googled it plenty and still can't find direct payments from the government to oil and gas companies. Keep making stuff up. The government lists its subsidies online. I've checked. Should be easy for you to show me.

[DeuceWallaces]

No they are not.

I've googled it plenty and still can't find direct payments from the government to oil and gas companies. Keep making stuff up. The government lists its subsidies online. I've checked. Should be easy for you to show me.

Your first problem is that you don't know what the word subsidy means. I would start there with your Google search, and then move on once you have a grasp of the basic definition of what we're talking about.

[bdreason]

I've recently turned my attention to Photovoltaic energy. Just finished my NABCEP Entry Level Certification and planning to get the NABCEP PV Technical Sales Certification, although I haven't decided how I'm going to go about getting hands-on experience. My eventual goal is to work as a Photovoltaic Commissioner, which is essentially someone who reviews Photovoltaic installations. Perhaps one day I can advance to designing Photovoltaic systems, although those jobs typically require a degree in Engineering.

On a side note, I also invested a substantial amount in First Solar Energy today as their stock fell ~7% to $62 per share for no substantial reason. The Solar Energy market is going to explode over the next couple years, and First Solar dominates the commercial market in regards to installed capacity.

[Hawker]

Your first problem is that you don't know what the word subsidy means. I would start there with your Google search, and then move on once you have a grasp of the basic definition of what we're talking about.

Subsidy is and will always mean a direct payment from the government. Expansion to tax breaks is only counted to fit the anti-oil agenda. Still waiting for you to show me the government grants given to the oil and gas industry.

When I declare moving expenses as part of my job on my tax return, am I then being subsidized? Hell no.

[masonanddixon]

Hopefully the coal industry is shut down 100% soon.

[ALBballer]

Subsidy is and will always mean a direct payment from the government. Expansion to tax breaks is only counted to fit the anti-oil agenda. Still waiting for you to show me the government grants given to the oil and gas industry.

When I declare moving expenses as part of my job on my tax return, am I then being subsidized? Hell no.

Hawker just stop it man. I'm not here to argue semantics but if you want to think of tax breaks as indirect subsidies.

And yes, the government is subsidizing your moving expense whether it be directly or indirectly. If the cost of moving to another location for a new job would normally cost $10,000 and you your tax rate is 35% the government is essentially subsidizing $3,500 of your moving expenses.

And yes, Oil companies receive billions of dollars a year in tax subsidies. Oil and Gas companies aren't the only ones that are for corporate welfare.

[bdreason]

Subsidies and Tax Breaks are most certainly not the same thing. Subsidies take taxpayer money and use it to promote a particular industry. Tax Breaks just allow a particular industry to keep more of their own money. A Subsidy is a hand-out. A Tax Break is a reward for production.

[Hawker]

Hawker just stop it man. I'm not here to argue semantics but if you want to think of tax breaks as indirect subsidies.

And yes, the government is subsidizing your moving expense whether it be directly or indirectly. If the cost of moving to another location for a new job would normally cost $10,000 and you your tax rate is 35% the government is essentially subsidizing $3,500 of your moving expenses.

And yes, Oil companies receive billions of dollars a year in tax subsidies. Oil and Gas companies aren't the only ones that are for corporate welfare.

What you call semantics is what I call a mischaracterization and a common talking point of those that are anti-oil (very obama/hillary like). Make no mistake about it, there are ZERO programs granting taxpayer money to oil and gas companies out there.

Furthermore, there are no special tax breaks given to the oil and gas business that aren't any different than any manufacture or resources business. They are all there to recover expenses like all business in the US. And many independent, small business take advantage of this in the united states which is a main reason for the rise in oil and gas production in the US.

[Hawker]

Subsidies and Tax Breaks are most certainly not the same thing. Subsidies take taxpayer money and use it to promote a particular industry. Tax Breaks just allow a particular industry to keep more of their own money. A Subsidy is a hand-out. A Tax Break is a reward for production.

[ALBballer]

Subsidies and Tax Breaks are most certainly not the same thing. Subsidies take taxpayer money and use it to promote a particular industry. Tax Breaks just allow a particular industry to keep more of their own money. A Subsidy is a hand-out. A Tax Break is a reward for production.

They are essentially the same thing. If tax breaks are selectively given to a certain group then the tax burden will be shifted to another group to make up for the shortfall.

We all like "rewards" as you put it and even your average middle class household has their favorite tax deduction (ie mortgage interest deduction, day care expenses etc) but it doesn't take away that it is essentially a subsidy.

[Hawker]

They are essentially the same thing. If tax breaks are selectively given to a certain group then the tax burden will be shifted to another group to make up for the shortfall.

We all like "rewards" as you put it and even your average middle class household has their favorite tax deduction (ie mortgage interest deduction, day care expenses etc) but it doesn't take away that it is essentially a subsidy.

Except that tax burden wouldn't necessarily be there in the first place.

[ALBballer]

What you call semantics is what I call a mischaracterization and a common talking point of those that are anti-oil (very obama/hillary like). Make no mistake about it, there are ZERO programs granting taxpayer money to oil and gas companies out there.

Furthermore, there are no special tax breaks given to the oil and gas business that aren't any different than any manufacture or resources business. They are all there to recover expenses like all business in the US. And many independent, small business take advantage of this in the united states which is a main reason for the rise in oil and gas production in the US.

I'm not into the demonization of just the oil/gas companies because they are not the only industry that loves corporate welfare but you can't deny that oil/gas companies heavily lobby politicians to keep these subsidies for their own self interest.

Oil and gas companies are just like any other corporation and they must maximize profits, and if they can maximize profits by lobbying for tax breaks and lobbying for tax loopholes then one can argue their executives owe a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to do so.

Finally all businesses incur expenses and individuals do as well. But not all businesses and individuals are given preferential tax breaks to "recover" their expenses like you stated.

[ALBballer]

Except that tax burden wouldn't necessarily be there in the first place.

What does that even mean?