(08-05-2009 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-05-2009 01:51 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  "tax based" subsidies to oil that are listed (that make up 2.0 billion of the 2.1 billion) are nothing more than the accelerated depreciation that I readily admit to earlier.

Isn't that amount roughly equal to the subsidy of the US auto industry called "Cash for Clunkers"?

The idiocy is that many refer to sped-up depreciation as "subsidy". All that is is a timing issue; if I spend 2 million to make x, then at some point over y years I can write off the investment made in the project.

Somehow the grandiose "subsidy" is that the number y is z, instead of z + (some other positive integer).

On that basis, the ability to write off my capital investment in a new computer for a solo practice in 1 year as opposed to 3 is a "subsidy". In my view, if the gubbmint said that I can write off 1.5x the amount, *that* would be a transfer worthy of the term "subsidy". Or if the gubbmint belayed completely some tax. But not timing issues.

To be honest, I still have not signed up to see the report, so I might be speculating here on what the executive sumamry reports as "tax subsidies". But, I have a strong suspicion that when I do take a look at it the lion's share of moolah in that amount will be related to timing issues as opposed to transfer issues.