Big Oil companies actually receive tax subsidies

I find that annoying. My friend thinks that tax dollars go to the oil companies and he routinely calls it a subsidy and it just infuriates him. In all fairness, it would infuriate me too if there were any truth to it. I am not clear on whether or not you agree with him that tax dollars actually go to the oil companies but if you do not, we do not have much of a debate, lol. Either way, I will continue. You gave several definitions of the word "subsidy. " Some were dead on correct and some were not. That is not your fault and it was obvious that you did some research on the topic and I commend you for that. Must have been why you almost ran out of time. I like what you pointed out here: 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. This makes perfect sense because it is money that is set aside and paid to a company. The question is, do oil companies receive money that has been set aside for them? Tax breaks and tax write-offs are therefore defined as ordinary examples of indirect subsidy. What is an indirect subsidy? A company either receives tax dollars or it does not. A tax break is not a subsidy. I am going to lay that to rest more later. 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. This is true and that is why it is politically misleading for the politicians and other media to target oil companies and talk about their "tax breaks. " Every company, large and small and every individual is allowed legal tax breaks where the shoe fits. There is nothing especially allowed and "set aside" for oil companies but if you listen to Obama, you would think otherwise. The IRS does not give them special treatment. They pay billions in taxes. That is a matter of public record. "The president repeatedly conflates not taking even more money from oil companies through higher taxes with actual subsidies There you have it. The president tries hard to intermingle the words "subsidy" and "tax breaks" as if they are the same thing. Not taking something is far from giving something. More on this later. Republicans use the word subsidy to include tax breaks in any context outside of big oil. I never said Republicans have it right either, lol! 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. " Now, this I find interesting. The brainwashing is so deep on the word "subsidy," that even some document from an oil company intermingles the two? However, we must understand that one person who put one statement on a document does not have the legal authority to completely redefine a word. I don't know who wrote that document but I bet they were admonished by it from someone. When people hear a lie over and over again, it starts to sound like and become the truth. Subsidies being compared to tax breaks is one great example. Obama has been intermingling the two for years. In 2011, Exxon paid 27.3 billion in taxes. Let's say that got a literal check from the taxpayers for 16.6 billion. All that really means is that Exxon paid 27.3-16.6 = 10.7 billion in taxes. Where was the subsidy? They did not actually receive any cash for 16.6 billion because that is just a tax break but even if they had, it still did not come out of any taxpayer pockets. The government makes more from Exxon's efforts than Exxon - a lot more. Most of oil company profits are overseas so a lot of the taxes they pay are too. Overseas taxes are a tax break here because they should not have to pay taxes twice. . http://www.forbes.com... . http://money.cnn.com... Since we have established that "subsidy" is a correct and appropriate term for such transactions, Republicans have little cause in their objection to word as it is applied to fiscal set asides for Big Oil. I am assuming you thought I was a Republican? Anyway, I want to forever lay to bed this idea that a tax break is a subsidy and I will do that with some analogies. Let's say you are a company with a $1,000,000 and you have already finished taking all of your tax breaks. Government gives you a real subsidy of another $1,000,000. How much do you have now? $2,000,000 correct? Now, to compare, let's say you are a company with $1,000,000. You are allowed multiple legal tax breaks totalling $1,000,000. In other words, you don't have to pay $1,000,000 in taxes! How much do you have now? Wouldn't say $1,000,000, correct? In the first scenario, you end up with $2,000,000. In the second scenario, you end up with $1,000,000. To figure out if there is a difference between a subsidy and a tax break, all you have to do is ask yourself the following million dollar question (no pun intended): Is $1,000,000 the same as $2,000,000? If it is, then a tax break and a subsidy indeed are the same thing. If not. .. Let's do another one. You have a company with $1,000,000. The IRS contacts you and says you owe $100K in taxes. The next day, they realize they made a mistake because you did not take all of your deductions (fat chance) and call you back and say that you do not owe the $100K after all. Did your company just get richer by $100K> Some would say that you did because you "owed" the 100K but now you have been given a "subsidy/tax break" of 100K. Are you like me and find that totally senseless? How is not paying something the same as getting something? Let me offer more proof that the American public is being mislead about the difference. Liberal websites love to keep pushing this idea that money comes out of taxpayer pockets and "subsidizes" oil companies. The Huffington Post has this article: . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... First paragraph mentions: "my curiosity was peaked as to why some of the wealthiest oil companies in the world were being given a helping hand by the American people. " If subsidies and tax breaks were the same thing, why would even Obama sometimes differentiates between the two? He prefers the phrase "taxpayer subsidies. " Scroll to the 40 second mark of the video above: . http://www.youtube.com... Obama knows that if he just mentions tax breaks, something anyone can get, it won't have nearly the impact as the word "subsidy" because he is smart enough to know that many people know the difference. By calling it a subsidy, he is building an idea in your mind that money is literally coming out of taxpayer's pockets and into the hands of extremely rich companies. Is that supposed to divide people from the "evil" corporations? Absolutely. A blind man in the dark should be able to see that. Part of the confusion comes from simple wording. Tax breaks are not given. They are allowed. Government does not "give" tax breaks. They allow them. No one gets a dollar in tax breaks. They are allowed not to have to pay those dollars due to business expenditures. If I "give" you a present, you conjure up in your mind an actual physical object maybe gift-wrapped that you can open and hold. If you hear of government "giving" subsidies to oil companies, the average person cannot help but think they are being given something as in a check in the mail. Tax breaks cannot be given. The wordage is totally incorrect. The correct word is "allowed. " Tax breaks are allowed. Money that is not extracted from someone is not a subsidy. It is simply money not taken. The politicians like Obama know they can make people angry and get on their side and get re-elected if they can put an image in your mind that says tax dollars are being "given" to rich oil companies. Did it work? Of course it did. That is why so many liberal websites keep repeating that oil companies are "given" subsidies. They are not always being deceitful. They believe it because Obama says it. However, there are sites that explain the actual truth: Check out the article: ". http://www.forbes.com... . .. and particularly this statement: "The truth is that the oil and gas industry receives the same kinds of tax treatments that every other manufacturing or extractive industry receives in the federal tax code. "So why does Obama pick on oil companies and their mythical "subsidies? " It is obvious that it is political pandering. When you hear calls to appeal the "subsidies" that oil companies "get," what you are hearing is a call to end some of their allowable tax breaks. If that were to happen and oil companies had to pay more in taxes, who do you think will absorb that bill? The owners or those who pay at the pump? All