Quote:And almost all of the requirements, of course, end up being free of charge to the NFL, which makes billions in revenue annually. The term "no cost to the NFL" appears exactly 150 times in the 153-page document.

This $9.5 billion organization is not for profit under IRS rules. Tax exempt is not enough they want state and local government freebies, and patrons of local businesses who may not care about the NFL to foot the bill for extra amenities that cater to the NFL.

All rooms must have Red White and Blue M&M's.

The nfl resembles professional wrestling more and more every year. I've all but given up on it.

Herd- you and I finally agree on something, and it's the basis of my whole problem with the country. Politicians doing the bidding of BIG$$ and making them richer and richer. No one else here wants to address this issue, must be contrary to the republican mantra.

I for one doesn't understand why Hollywood, NASCAR, and other worthless things get government subsidies. I can understand subsidies for alternate fuel sources or research for various diseases, but not f*cking NASCAR and the NFL.

I find it odd that we want to call keeping more of your own money "welfare".

I can KINDA understand NASCAR getting some tax-breaks, since they use some of their successful technology efforts and push them into newer models of cars. (Seatbelts for instance, went into production cars, because of their usage in NASCAR)

I find it ironic, Clarion that you pointed out "alternate fuel sources", when it was NASCAR was among the first trying to work with bio-fuels. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.. (one of their last batches of a change to their ethanol was pretty much declared useless in every-day usage). But I believe (i'm not 100% sure) E93 came about specifically because they got it to work in NASCAR at some point.

(06-08-2014 05:07 PM)EagleX Wrote:  I find it odd that we want to call keeping more of your own money "welfare".

In the case of huge industries like energy, agriculture etc. It's not their money . They are entitled to their profits. What they are not entitled to is your money and mine being given to them in the form of unnecssary subsidies. This is the thinnestly veiled form of larceny there is, and we owe it all to our greedy politicians who are bought off by BIG$$

(06-08-2014 07:08 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 05:07 PM)EagleX Wrote:  I find it odd that we want to call keeping more of your own money "welfare".

In the case of huge industries like energy, agriculture etc. It's not their money . They are entitled to their profits. What they are not entitled to is your money and mine being given to them in the form of unnecssary subsidies. This is the thinnestly veiled form of larceny there is, and we owe it all to our greedy politicians who are bought off by BIG$$

. . . such as? I'm genuinely not sure what you're referring to.

I oppose all forms of welfare...social or corporate.

(06-08-2014 07:08 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 05:07 PM)EagleX Wrote:  I find it odd that we want to call keeping more of your own money "welfare".

In the case of huge industries like energy, agriculture etc. It's not their money . They are entitled to their profits. What they are not entitled to is your money and mine being given to them in the form of unnecssary subsidies. This is the thinnestly veiled form of larceny there is, and we owe it all to our greedy politicians who are bought off by BIG$$

The "corporate welfare" most often mentioned with energy Co's, "Big Oil" as it's wrongly referred, to are actually, typically, not going to Big Oil at all. They are simply the same accelerated depreciatiions (available to a wide variety of other small businesses, just not accelerated) that the smaller "wildcatter" can get for those doing work on smal tracts of private land to encourage and make it easier to assume these risks. It ain' money coming out of anyones hands in the form of a check or something. Unless of course you ascribe to the belief that ALL the money is Fed's money and anyone keeping a bit more is an "expense" or subsidy".


Thankfully this is where the current "energy boom" is coming from. It sure as schit isn't BP working offshore or Exxon Mobile drilling in Anwar.

(06-08-2014 07:16 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 07:08 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 05:07 PM)EagleX Wrote:  I find it odd that we want to call keeping more of your own money "welfare".

In the case of huge industries like energy, agriculture etc. It's not their money . They are entitled to their profits. What they are not entitled to is your money and mine being given to them in the form of unnecssary subsidies. This is the thinnestly veiled form of larceny there is, and we owe it all to our greedy politicians who are bought off by BIG$$

. . . such as? I'm genuinely not sure what you're referring to.

I spent about 10 seconds on google an came up with htiis one. If you want to know more about BIG agriculture being paid NOT to plant crops, you'll have to google it yourself

President Obama’s 2011 budget proposes to eliminate nine different tax expenditures that primarily benefit oil and gas companies. Cutting these special tax deductions, preferences, and credits would save the government about $45 billion over the next 10 years.
CAP has previously argued for eliminating tax expenditures for multibillion-dollar oil companies such as BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron that would be profitable even without government subsidies. Here are the tax expenditures that the Obama administration has targeted for elimination.
1. Intangible drilling costs. Firms engaged in the exploration and development of oil or gas properties may expense (deduct in the year paid or incurred) certain types of drilling expenditures from their taxes. These costs include wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies related to and necessary for drilling and preparing wells for the production of oil and gas. Other companies incurring similar types of costs must recover this cost over the life of the investment. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $7.839 billion over 10 years.
2. Deduction for tertiary injectants. Tertiary, or enhanced oil recovery, methods increase the amount of oil that a company can extract from a well by an additional 5 percent to 15 percent according to some research. This tax expenditure subsidizes the costs of tertiary injectants—the fluids, gases, and other chemicals that are pumped into oil and gas reservoirs as part of this process. The subsidy essentially gives companies government money for acting in ways that will enhance their profits. It allows companies to expense the costs of tertiary injectants, even though such costs should be recovered over time. Companies can alternatively choose to deduct these costs as an intangible drilling cost.The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $67 million over 10 years.
3. Percentage depletion allowance. Percentage depletion allows an independent oil company to deduct from its taxes about 15 percent from the revenue generated from a well, even if that amount exceeds the well’s total value. This means that oil companies take a deduction as long as a well is producing oil, without regard to how much, or whether, the well is still declining in value. Companies in other industries are only allowed to deduct an amount that represents the decline in their investment’s value that year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy to produce budget savings of about $10 billion over 10 years.
4. Passive investments. The government generally only allows investors to deduct a limited amount of losses from “passive activities” such as renting land in order to prevent tax shelters. Yet oil and gas properties are exempt from this rule. This gives oil and gas companies a competitive edge over other types of energy companies. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $180 million over 10 years.
5. Domestic manufacturing tax deduction. Companies that manufacture, produce, or extract oil and gas or any primary derivative receive a manufacturing subsidy provided that the product was made in the United States. But since removing this subsidy does not affect the production of oil, the subsidy does not significantly affect business decisions and eliminating the subsidy would not affect consumer prices. The subsidy is essentially a throwaway for oil companies. The tax expenditure is provided through a deduction for 9 percent of income, subject to a limit of 50 percent of the wages paid that are allocable to domestic production during the taxable year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $17.3 billion over 10 years.
6. Geological and geophysical expenditures. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created this tax subsidy, which allows companies to deduct the costs associated with searching for oil, recovering the costs over a two-year period. The administration expects that scaling back the amortization period to seven years would produce budget savings of about $1.1 billion over 10 years.
7. Foreign tax credit. This credit is intended to prevent the double taxation of income that is taxed abroad but also subject to tax in the United States. Yet companies, particularly oil companies, have managed to exploit this subsidy even when they don’t pay income taxes abroad. In total, adjusting the rule would prevent companies from avoiding about $8.5 billion in taxes over a 10-year period.
8. Enhanced oil recovery credit. Companies receive a 15 percent income tax credit for the costs of recovering domestic oil when they use “enhanced oil recovery” methods to extract oil that is too viscous to be extracted by conventional primary and secondary water-flooding techniques. The EOR credit is nonrefundable and is allowed if the average wellhead price of crude oil (using West Texas Intermediate as the reference) in the year before the credit is claimed is below the statutorily established threshold price of $28 (as adjusted for inflation since 1990) in the year the credit is claimed. Oil prices in fiscal year 2006 were too high for companies to receive this subsidy, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
9. Marginal well production. This provision provides a subsidy for oil and gas produced from certain types of oil and gas wells. These wells include those that produce heavy oil and those with an average production within a statutorily specified range. Oil prices were too high for companies to receive this subsidy in fiscal year 2006, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
The total government savings from eliminating these subsidies is projected to be $45 billion over 10 years.
Sima J. Gandhi is a Senior Policy Analyst with the economic policy team.
For more on this topic please see:
The Big Oil Discount by Sima J. Gandhi
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:
Print: Katie Peters (economy, education, poverty, Half in Ten Education Fund)
202.741.6285 or kpeters@americanprogress.org
Print: Anne Shoup (foreign policy and national security, energy and environment)
202.481.7146 or ashoup@americanprogress.org
Print: Madeline Meth (women's issues, Legal Progress, higher education)
202.741.6277 or mmeth@americanprogress.org
Print: Tom Caiazza (health care, LGBT issues, gun-violence prevention, the National Security Agency)
202.481.7141 or tcaiazza@americanprogress.org
Spanish-language and ethnic media: Tanya Arditi
202.741.6258 or tarditi@americanprogress.org
TV: Rachel Rosen
202.483.2675 or rrosen@americanprogress.org
Radio: Chelsea Kiene
202.478.5328 or ckiene@americanprogress.org

Subscribe to Energy and Environment News Alerts

Follow Energy and Environment
Subscribe to the Energy and Environment RSS feed
Related Materials
Fundamental Facts of the EPA’s Climate Protection Proposal by Daniel J. Weiss
Rooftop Solar Adoption in Emerging Residential Markets by Mari Hernandez
Keeping Cool in a Hotter United States by Daniel J. Weiss
Putting Out the Fire: 3 Reasons Why President Obama’s Proposed Reforms to the Wildfire Budget Are Critical for Our Public Lands by Nidhi Thakar
Reducing Poverty Through Climate Action by Molly Elgin-Cossart, Cathleen Kelly, and Abigail Jones
Also by Sima J. Gandhi
A Golden Opportunity to Evaluate Energy Tax Expenditures, July 22, 2010
Ask the Expert: What Are Tax Expenditures?, July 20, 2010
Turn Off the Oil Subsidy Spigot , July 6, 2010
Issues
China
Civil Liberties
Early Childhood
Economy
Education
Energy and Environment
Federal Budget
Guns and Crime
Health Care
Higher Education
Housing
Immigration
Labor and Work
LGBT
Media
Military
National Security
Open Government
Poverty
Progressive Movement
Public Opinion
Race and Ethnicity
Regulation and Markets
Religion and Values
Tax Reform
Technology and Science
Terrorism
Women's Rights
Projects
Climate-Migration-Security
Doctors for America
Enough
Fair Shot Campaign
Faith and Progressive Policy
Generation Progress
Leadership Institute
Legal Progress
Middle-Out Economics
Our Future, Together
Our Working Nation
Progress 2050
Progressive Studies Program
Reel Progress
Sustainable Security
The World in 2030: Ending Global Poverty
Washington Center for Equitable Growth
Connect with CAP
Contact Us
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Tumblr
Newsletters
Donate
Press
Press Room
Logos
Press Inquiries & Booking
General Inquiries
About Us
About CAP
Staff & Fellows
Events
Reports
Jobs
Internships
Our Supporters

Privacy Policy
Reuse Policy
Terms of Use
State Notices

spare me the attitude. you spent 10 seconds on google because you, and only you, knew exactly what you were talking about. you were utterly vague, even a bit dense about the whole damn thing.

(06-08-2014 07:25 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 07:16 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 07:08 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 05:07 PM)EagleX Wrote:  I find it odd that we want to call keeping more of your own money "welfare".

In the case of huge industries like energy, agriculture etc. It's not their money . They are entitled to their profits. What they are not entitled to is your money and mine being given to them in the form of unnecssary subsidies. This is the thinnestly veiled form of larceny there is, and we owe it all to our greedy politicians who are bought off by BIG$$

. . . such as? I'm genuinely not sure what you're referring to.

I spent about 10 seconds on google an came up with htiis one. If you want to know more about BIG agriculture being paid NOT to plant crops, you'll have to google it yourself

President Obama’s 2011 budget

You are referring to Obama's budget that was voted down 99 - 0 right?

(06-08-2014 07:28 PM)EagleX Wrote:  spare me the attitude. you spent 10 seconds on google because you, and only you, knew exactly what you were talking about. you were utterly vague, even a bit dense about the whole damn thing.

No need to be so harsh. I meant no disrespect to you.You said you weren't sure what I was talking about so I provided an example. Maybe I was expecting some blow back before I even posted it. I thought gov't subsidies were a well known fact of life. The politicians have given away billions upon billions to big business, just so they can get a good job when they get out of office. THAT is the real problem in this country.

(06-08-2014 07:29 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 07:25 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 07:16 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 07:08 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 05:07 PM)EagleX Wrote:  I find it odd that we want to call keeping more of your own money "welfare".

In the case of huge industries like energy, agriculture etc. It's not their money . They are entitled to their profits. What they are not entitled to is your money and mine being given to them in the form of unnecssary subsidies. This is the thinnestly veiled form of larceny there is, and we owe it all to our greedy politicians who are bought off by BIG$$

. . . such as? I'm genuinely not sure what you're referring to.

I spent about 10 seconds on google an came up with htiis one. If you want to know more about BIG agriculture being paid NOT to plant crops, you'll have to google it yourself

President Obama’s 2011 budget

You are referring to Obama's budget that was voted down 99 - 0 right?

stop being silly. These subsidies have been around forever. Both dems and repubs hand them out like m&m's.

The entire bid spec, all 154 pages of it, can be seen here

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneap...y#continue

Here is the problem. The US is simply not a competitive place to do business with much of the rest of the world. Through the 1950s and 1960s, we ranked at or very near the top of best places in the world to do business. Now we aren't. We have three alternatives as I see it:

1. Stay where we are and continue toward a retail/service economy while seeing the productive elements of our economy continue to locate elsewhere. This means the end of the middle class and a have/have not society, like Argentina, ultimately moving toward Zimbabwe if the haves get nervous with all the 1% talk and leave.

2. Race to the bottom and take back the jobs sewing up Nikes and making other cheap consumer goods by slashing wages and giving up all environmental, health, and safety regulations. Fortunately, this stupid strategy would be almost impossible to implement.

3. Race to the top by making ourselves more competitive at making more expensive producer goods. We can't compete with Thailand when it comes to sewing together Nikes, so let them do that for us. They can't compete with us in areas that require a highly educated and highly productive labor force and top notch infrastructure. So do the things we need to do to win in that area. Those would include:
- Lower tax rates to world-class levels
- Streamline the regulatory process by getting rid of the 85% or son of regulations that are about preserving jobs for bureaucrats instead of things such as clean air, clean water, and unsafe working conditions
- Improve education by changing the process, not throwing good money after bad into a broken system but implementing true accountability
- Upgrade our infrastructure. I personally think privatizing most of it would be the best way to accomplish this.

So door #1, #2, or #3?

(06-08-2014 09:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is the problem. The US is simply not a competitive place to do business with much of the rest of the world. Through the 1950s and 1960s, we ranked at or very near the top of best places in the world to do business. Now we aren't. We have three alternatives as I see it:

1. Stay where we are and continue toward a retail/service economy while seeing the productive elements of our economy continue to locate elsewhere. This means the end of the middle class and a have/have not society, like Argentina, ultimately moving toward Zimbabwe if the haves get nervous with all the 1% talk and leave.

2. Race to the bottom and take back the jobs sewing up Nikes and making other cheap consumer goods by slashing wages and giving up all environmental, health, and safety regulations. Fortunately, this stupid strategy would be almost impossible to implement.

3. Race to the top by making ourselves more competitive at making more expensive producer goods. We can't compete with Thailand when it comes to sewing together Nikes, so let them do that for us. They can't compete with us in areas that require a highly educated and highly productive labor force and top notch infrastructure. So do the things we need to do to win in that area. Those would include:
- Lower tax rates to world-class levels
- Streamline the regulatory process by getting rid of the 85% or son of regulations that are about preserving jobs for bureaucrats instead of things such as clean air, clean water, and unsafe working conditions
- Improve education by changing the process, not throwing good money after bad into a broken system but implementing true accountability
- Upgrade our infrastructure. I personally think privatizing most of it would be the best way to accomplish this.

So door #1, #2, or #3?

Great post.

I generally agree with the elimination of all corporate welfare but it must be done with an understanding of the impact. Couple of examples.

First, if we are going to eliminate the tax breaks that most of the pencil necks whine about for energy and agribusiness companies, we should be eliminating the ethanol subsidy that both receive. We should also be eliminating the heavily abused clean energy subsidies (remember Solyndra). In fact, subsidies to clean energy startups were 5 times the total that oil companies received in 2012. And while they're at it, eliminate the personal tax credits for buying a hybrid vehicle or new insulation, since these are indirect subsidies to the corporations.

Next, stop all "relocation" bonuses, that states and municipalities offer to get companies to build production facilities in their domains. Let corporations make their facility management decisions based on market factors. And while we're at it, eliminate the artificial barriers that the government tries to impose on relocation. Then if Boeing believes that an assembly plant is a good idea in South Caroline, based on market factors, that's where they should build. Same for sporting events.

Corporate welfare is just crony capitalism by another name. We'll know that these goals have been achieved when there are a lot of For Sale signs on buildings on K Street.

Agree^