Big Oil companies actually receive tax subsidies

What you refer to is a tax refund. A tax break is not being required to pay what a government SAYS you should pay. There is a monster differenceMy argument was that tax breaks have value, a point my opponent wishes to occlude. By filling out forms to get tax breaks, you are avoiding getting poorer. You are not getting a check.A backwards way of conceding that tax breaks have value. "Avoiding getting poorer" is a silly euphemism for the acquisition and maintenance of wealth.Call the IRS and say that you do not believe they will take your money, etc. Income taxes, which are personal property, are taken regardless of whether one uses any government service. It is nothing more than confiscation. Taxes are money owed in exchange for the benefits of governments in the same way that a gas bill is money owed in exchange for the benefit of fuel. In both cases there are consequences for non-payment. You can opt out of citizenship just as you can opt out driving a car or heating your house, every options has its consequences and benefits. There's no such thing as a property owner who does not benefit from government service. Even the most remote Alaskan hermit benefits significantly from civil defense, forestry services, mail delivery, road maintenance, fire protection, law enforcement, etc. In truth, that hermit's remoteness makes those services far more expensive; it is often the case that the very people who view tax as confiscatory are the people who enjoy a disproportionate benefit. If we had a government of, by and for the people, the oil companies represent the people too, right? Only in the sense that some oil company employees are also US citizens. Corporations are legal entities which represent the interests of shareholders, a very different set of rights and responsibilities than US citizens, and often in direct conflict with American interests. We don't have the time or space to document many of these conflicts, but just a few examples regarding the largest Big Oil interest, ExxonMobil.*In the first half of the 20th century, ExxonMobil (then Standard Oil of New Jersey) was the principle patent-holder and manufacturer of ethyl-leaded gasoline, a neurotoxin which even at low levels of exposure has been proven to cause lower IQ in children and anti-social behavior in adults. Although the health risks of leaded oil became apparent when a couple of dozen of plant employees went insane and quickly died, Standard Oil lobbied the government to ignore the dangers and either bought out or actively threatened scientists who warned of the toxicity of leaded gasoline. A 1985 EPA study estimated that as many as 5,000 Americans died annually from lead-related heart disease prior to the country's lead phase out. According to a 1988 report to Congress on childhood lead poisoning in America by the government's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, one can estimate that the blood-lead levels of up to 2 million children were reduced every year to below toxic levels between 1970 and 1987 as leaded gasoline use was reduced. From that report and elsewhere, one can conservatively estimate that a total of about 68 million young children had toxic exposures to lead from gasoline from 1927 to 1987.[1] Although less toxic anti-knock agents were available, Exxon knowingly contributed to the lowered IQ and delinquent behavior of generations of Americans because the patented agent was more profitable.*In 1938, leaded oil was an essential fuel for the German Luftwaffe and Germany had none. Since I.G. Farben (the corporation which constructed Auschwitz with Jewish slaves) was the largest stockholder after Rockefeller, Exxon loaned Germany the hundreds of tons of leaded oil required to fuel the invasions of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and France, and the bombing of Britain. After Britain complained, Exxon moved the registry of its oil tankers to Panama so that it could continue to ship the Nazis this essential fuel until Exxon was brought up under "Trading with the Enemy" charges in March 1942. Exxon pled no contest and paid a $5000 fine. [3]*ExxonMobil is also a principle force in climate-change denial. A 2009 investigation showed that ExxonMobil was behind the phony ClimateGate controversy. [4] A 2011 study of 900 anti-climate change studies determined that 9 out of 10 researchers were funded in part or in whole by ExxonMobil. [5]So, to the extent that Big Oil is content to promote and profit from existential threats to American citizens, it may not be fairly said that Big Oil represents America or even clearly demonstrates loyalty to US interests.RE: Bob and the park on the island nation. In a free society run by the people, the people have equal rights. The majority, who want a park, do not rule.Such baloney. There is not and never has been a society where Bob would have the option of not paying for a share of the park. A totalitarian island would not care much for Bob's opinion. A communist or anarchist island would require Bob to throw most or all of his income into the community chest. On a democratic island, at least, Bob has a right to dissent and the portion of income devoted to the park is relatively limited. But Bob can't pick and choose which projects he wishes to support. Every citizen in a democracy ends up contributing to government projects they don't like, that's one of the challenges of citizenship. A society where individuals pick and choose which community projects they fund is by definition a society in collapse. If a democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing dinner, then most other forms of government are one wolf, two lambs, and no discussion. Bob should quit his whining and instead be grateful his island is one of the few with laws and public meetings about parks and freedom to dissent.But the government only needs 5 trillion so are they going to tell you that you do not need to pay the other 45 trillion because they have enough? No, they will not do that. They will take all 50 trillion and find ways to spend it. False. In fact, governments sometimes even cut taxes. Last year, in terms of percentage of GDP, federal tax receipts for the last 4 years have been at their lowest since 1943. [6] In inflation adjusted terms, we currently pay the lowest taxes of the last two generations of Americans. Another foundational error that you have is that taxpayers ultimately fund oil companies with the subsidies. Which brings us back to our thesis: Big Oil companies receive federal tax subsidies. To the extent that my opponent has conceded that Big Oil receives tax exemptions and deductibles, he has already conceded the debate. Although my opponent would prefer that tax breaks not be called "subsidies," I have shown using objective sources that tax breaks are commonly referred to as subsidies. Therefore, much of the debate has hinged on the definition of the word subsidy. I think we have to prefer the objectivity of sources like Mirriam-Webster and Wikipedia to the new definition of subsidy offered by Big Oil and their spokespeople in Republican media like Steve Forbes' magazine.Some oil subsidies are enjoyed in common with other large enterprises. Many federal subsidies are unique to the oil industry and of these, many date back a century to a time when oil exploration was far riskier and the demand uncertain.There are additional subsidies that we won't get a chanc to consider: subsidies that don't appear on company ledgers and are difficult to track. Only 7% of the world's oil stock is found in territories that allow private companies free access to oil, so oil is more than a commodity, it is a primary international interest. For as long as oil has been manufactured, it has been a cause for war and a spoil of war. When US taxpayers pay subsidies to Egypt, Big Oil receives the benefit of prioritized access to the Suez Canal: a benefit for which Big Oil receives no bill. Likewise, US taxpayers pay billions each year to maintain forces overseas and US defense forces protect Big Oil interests to a disproportionate degree. When the US navy takes action against Somali or Yemeni pirates, Big Oil is the primary beneficiary, but receives no bill. When US satellites supply information to free Western hostages taken from Libyan oil refineries, Big Oil receives no bill.Further, we have not considered the cost of petrol waste and environmental damage. Further, we have not calculated the costs of climate change.My opponent has complained that the word subsidy is used to project Big Oil tax breaks in a negative light. I'll agree that the word subsidy has political connotation, but there is nothing unique about the word's usage in arguments against Big Oil. Certainly, the definition of the word need not be changed for the exclusive benefit of Big Oil. My opponent proceeded into a number of semantic excursions that offered no compelling argument that might disprove Big Oil subsidies or convince English-speakers to change the word's meaning.Finally, my opponent shifted the argument away from Big Oil subsidisation to his concerns that subsidies might be viewed as taxpayer funds. I have countered that to the extent that all federal revenue is fungible, it is not unreasonable to characterize any tax income of any size as funding any government initiative to some degree, including subsidies. Once we set aside politics and semantics, any reasonable person must conclude that Big Oil does receive federal subsidies. My thesis stands proven. VOTE PRO![1] http://www.rachel.org...[2] http://www.thenation.com...[3] http://web.mit.edu...[4] http://thinkprogress.org...[5] http://www.zmescience.com...[6] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...