Farm subsidies are widely condemned, but their existence is explained through public choice theory.
Perhaps you would explain to which oil subsidies you are referring?
Perhaps you would explain to which oil subsidies you are referring?
What is the salient data point from that link that you would like to highlight?
Which part confuses you?
You left out the part where the report covers the period of 1950-2010 - a 60 year period. A multi-decade accounting isn't useful when we are discussing the current state of subsidies across industries.
The tax-based "subsidies" appear to just be referring to the ability to write off expenses, an aspect of the tax code that is nearly universal to every industry in all nations. There are very, very few examples of income taxes that do not allow the write-off of expenses.
The second part of that summary, referring to "exemptions" from economic regulations, is bizarre. We don't generally have price controls or limits on the rate of return in the United States. It seems like that report probably just chose arbitrary numbers for what it felt the profit rate should have been, and added the difference between that and the real numbers into the subsidy number. That is more an argument for communism than anything related to a discussion about subsidy policy.
You also left out the part where the real subsidies, those to the renewables industries, are actual giveaways of money.
I'm not sure how an honest inquiry could make these mistakes and engage in these false comparisons, which probably explains why you used a throwaway account to post.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fu...
For this sub-thread, that is where. Unless you think the US military is out defending foreign oil companies?
Renewable energy subsidies are not even 1% of them aggregate.
* Consumer purchases of the final products of oil are heavily taxed (especially in Europe).
* Oil companies pay significant income tax. Exxon alone paid over $5.5B, or about 25% of net profit, in taxes last year, while in 2013 they paid closer to 42%. [1]
* After they pay income tax, their dividends are taxes again.
I'm sure there are other invisible taxes throughout the production and rights-acquisition process.
[1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM+Income+Statement&annual
Or maybe I misunderstood and you are trying to make a different point?
You need to show what portion of the road cost is paid for by income taxes before you can claim the rest.
I don't understand why you brought any of this up. A subsidy is a subsidy no matter who pays.
I took the parent at face value for the claim that 50% of roads are funded by use fees. That means the other 50% are paid for with general income taxes. Nearly all income taxes are paid for by the top half of earners. If we assume that everyone drives about the same amount, then the bottom half of the country gets the full value and use of roads while only paying for 25% of the total cost.
I bring this up because the parents point seemed to be that road subsidies are an implicit subsidy to oil companies. But people need to get around somehow, and the current way of funding roads should be perfectly compatible to conventional morality.
At the same time, I oppose all subsidies and can only imagine the amazing methods of transport that would exist if the government did not actively interfere and manage this market.