Big Oil companies actually receive tax subsidies

THESIS: Big Oil companies receive federal tax subsidies. DEFINITION1: Big Oil- "Big Oil" is a name used to describe the world's five or six largest publicly owned oil and gas companies, also known as "supermajors". The supermajors are considered to be BP plc, Chevron Corporation, ExxonMobil Corporation, Royal Dutch Shell plc, and Total SA, with ConocoPhillips Company also sometimes described as forming part of the group. [1]DEFINITION2: Subsidy- noun \G2;səb-sə-dē, -zə-\ : money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function [2] The latin stem of the word originates from the Roman term for reserve troops: subsidium, which is in turn rooted in the latin word for sit or set : sedere. So, the essence of the word's meaning is equivalent to "set aside": set aside troops, set aside money, etc. The purpose or intent for the set aside is not necessarily implied by the word. For a more expansive definition of subsidy, let's look at Wikipedia: "A subsidy is a form of financial or in kind support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting beneficial economic and social outcomes. Although commonly extended from Government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support - for example from NGOs or implicit subsidies. Subsidies have a long track record and today come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans), indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, depreciation write-offs, rent rebates). Furthermore, they can be broad or narrow, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical. The most common forms of subsidies are those to the producer or the consumer. Producer/Production subsidies ensure producers are better off by either supplying market price support, direct support, or payments to factors of production. Consumer/Consumption subsidies commonly reduce the price of goods and services to the consumer, for example in the US at one time it was cheaper to buy petrol than bottled water. " [3] Let's also note that the notion of oil companies receiving subsidies is sufficiently commonplace to be used as the first example of a subsidy in the most popular general reference work available on the internet. Tax breaks and tax write-offs are therefore defined as ordinary examples of indirect subsidy. Since virtually every taxpayer, corporate or otherwise, benefits from some tax breaks and write-offs to some degree, the notion that Big Oil would somehow fail to receive some benefit would seem nonsensical. In truth, the U. S. Senate estimates that Big Oil benefits from roughly $20 billion each year in subsidies provided under six major programs: *Dual Capacity Tax Preferences *Domestic Manufacturing Deductions *Intangible Drilling Cost Deductions *Percentage Depletion Allowances *Tertiary Injections Deductions *Royalty relief for Outer Continental Shelf Deepwater Oil and Gas Production There are other tax breaks and write-offs besides, but these six were candidates for modification or repeal under the provisions of a failed 2012 Senate Bill- SB2204 The "Repeal Big Oil Subsidies Act. " [4] This act is mostly responsible for giving birth to the argument that tax breaks for Big Oil should not be called subsidies. During the debate, the definition of the word "subsidy" itself became politicized in a fashion reminiscent of the way one man's "war hero" is another man's "terrorist. " Conservatives objected to pejorative potential of the word "subsidy" and preferred the positive spin of "incentive" or "business deductions. " "The president repeatedly conflates not taking even more money from oil companies through higher taxes with actual subsidies such as the government giving cash to Solyndra,"is one example of this type of thinking from the office of Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski. [5] Republican venues such as the Washington Times [6] and Fox News picked up the talking point and dutifully disseminated the re-definition of the word "subsidy. " Subsidies to Big Oil were no longer to be referred to as subsidies. Similar or identical subsidies for wind or solar energy interests were still to be referred to as "subsidies. " Outside of the contexts of Big Oil and conservative politics, this novel definition of subsidy has no currency. Republicans use the word subsidy to include tax breaks in any context outside of big oil. Republican Representative Jim Jordan, for example, has no problem including tax breaks when he describes Federal subsidies offered for the Chevy Volt. [7] When Lamar Alexander wants to put an end to identical tax breaks for wind energy, he has no problem calling those tax breaks subsidies. [8] Even Big Oil itself is willing to call some of its tax breaks subsidies. One ExxonMobil document reports, "Of the $16.6 billion spent on U. S. energy subsidies over the course of one year. .. oil and natural gas received about 13 percent. " [9] or BP in its 2030 outlook: "Budget constraints may challenge subsidies for consumption in many emerging economies. .. " [10] Fortunately for the purposes of this debate, we have no need to adjudicate the relative value of Big Oil tax breaks or to take sides in the partisan debate on the matter. We need only to establish that Big Oil companies receive tax breaks and submit tax write-offs just like most other taxpaying companies and people. Since we have established that "subsidy" is a correct and appropriate term for such transactions, Republicans have little cause in thieir objection to word as it is applied to fiscal set asides for Big Oil. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://thomas.loc.gov...:[5]http://www.eenews.net...[6]http://www.washingtontimes.com...[7]http://www.politifact.com...[8]http://www.alexander.senate.gov...[9]http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com...[10]http://www.bp.com...