Everybody understood you and got it except hopeless Wingers
[QUOTE=Xpartan;2986913][b] You just don't get it, do you?[/b]
Of course, they won't save their money to taxpayers, that's not why they're there. Instead, they're removing career personal from Pentagon and security agencies including top military and intelligence leaders [B]for no reason at all[/B]! Man, you're not brainless MAGA cultist, how can you possibly NOT see this?[/QUOTE]Absolutely. A single reading of your previous post made it clear as day what you meant.
President Chainsaw Musk isn't taking "an axe" to ANY meaningful budget cuts. When has Trump or anyone standing close enough to Trump to smell him ever SAVED anyone else money? Lolol. He SCAMS people out of more and ever more money. He already drove up the deficit more than any president ever the first time around after being handed a near perfect set of economic trajectories, far better than any outgoing Repub ever handed an incoming Dem in history.
What Musk and Trump are doing will COST Americans more money and ADD to the deficit.
And along the way he will, not might, he will hand over all available USA military intel and control of it to whichever enemy or enemies make the highest bid for it. And it will go directly into his and his oligarch friends' pockets, not the USA Treasury.
Subsidies and Tax Breaks for Green Energy, Demystified!
If the playing field were leveled among all industries, the total tax burden on oil and gas relative to other businesses would be less than it is now. On the other hand, a lot of green energy projects wouldn't be viable. The combination of tax benefits and outright government subsidies exceeds their profit. Here's a list of some, kindly provided by ChatGPT.
As of March 2025, the United States offers a variety of federal subsidies and tax incentives to support manufacturers of green energy and renewable products, as well as their customers. These incentives aim to promote the adoption of clean energy technologies and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Below is an overview of the key programs:8203;.
1. Investment Tax Credit (ITC):
Overview: The ITC provides a dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal income taxes for investments in renewable energy properties, most commonly solar developments. .
Current Rates: The Inflation Reduction Act extended the ITC at a 30% credit for qualified expenditures through 2032. The credit decreases to 26% for systems installed in 2033 and 22% for those installed in 2034. .
2. Production Tax Credit (PTC):
Overview: The PTC offers a per kilowatt-hour (kWh) federal tax credit for electricity generated by qualified renewable energy resources, such as wind and geothermal energy. .
Eligibility: Facilities must produce and sell electricity from qualified resources to an unrelated person during the taxable year to qualify. .
3. Clean Vehicle Tax Credits:
New Clean Vehicles:
Credit Amount: Up to $7,500 for the purchase of a new, qualified plug-in electric vehicle (EV) or fuel cell electric vehicle (FCV).
Eligibility Criteria: The vehicle must undergo final assembly in North America and meet specific battery component and critical mineral sourcing requirements.
Used Clean Vehicles:
Credit Amount: Lesser of $4,000 or 30% of the sales price for eligible used EVs.
Eligibility Criteria: The vehicle must be at least two years old, have a sale price under $25,000, and be purchased from a licensed dealer.
4. Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit:
Overview: This credit covers 30% of the cost, up to $1,000 for residential installations and up to $30,000 for commercial installations, for purchasing and installing qualified alternative fuel vehicle refueling property, including EV charging stations. .
Duration: Available for property placed in service before December 31,2032. .
5. Residential Clean Energy Credit:
Overview: Homeowners can receive a tax credit equal to 30% of the costs for installing qualified clean energy property, such as solar panels, wind turbines, and geothermal heat pumps. .
Duration: Applicable for installations from 2022 through 2032, with a phased reduction thereafter. .
6. Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit:
Overview: Homeowners can claim credits for specific energy-efficient improvements, including insulation, windows, and doors. .
Energystar. Gov.
Annual Limit: Up to $3,200 annually through 2032. .
7. Biofuel Incentives:
Overview: Producers of biodiesel and renewable diesel are eligible for a $1. 00 per gallon tax credit. An additional $0. 10 per gallon credit is available for small agri-biodiesel producers. .
8. Accelerated Depreciation:
Overview: The Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System (MACRS) allows businesses to recover investments in certain property through depreciation deductions. Renewable energy technologies, including solar, wind, and geothermal, qualify for accelerated depreciation over a five-year period. .
9. State and Local Incentives:
Overview: Many states and local governments offer additional incentives, such as rebates, tax credits, and grants, to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. These incentives vary by location and can significantly enhance the benefits provided by federal programs. .
Recent Developments: The political landscape can influence the availability and structure of these incentives. For instance, discussions around the future of the Inflation Reduction Act and associated subsidies have created some uncertainty within the clean energy sector. Companies like Engie have expressed concerns that tariff and tax uncertainties could threaten investments in the USA Additionally, the potential rollback of EV subsidies under the current administration has raised questions about the future of such incentives. .
And here are some more, provided by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which according to Goldman Sachs will cost the Treasury over $1 trillion:
Residential Clean Energy Credit.
Extends the 30% tax credit for installing solar panels, battery storage, and small wind or geothermal systems (available through 2032, then phases out).
High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Program.
Provides up to $14,000 in rebates for low- and moderate-income households to switch to efficient electric appliances (e. G. , heat pumps, stoves, insulation).
Home Energy Audits.
Covers 30% of the cost (up to $150) for professional home energy audits.
Clean Electricity Production and Investment Tax Credits.
Extends Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for renewable energy projects (solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, etc.).
Base credit: 30% of project costs, with potential bonuses for projects in low-income or energy communities.
Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit.
Incentives for USA Production of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and critical minerals.
Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) Tax Credit.
Increased to $85 per ton for carbon capture used in industrial and power facilities.
$180 per ton for direct air capture.
Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit.
Up to $3 per kg for clean hydrogen production, depending on emission levels.
Energy-Efficient Commercial Buildings Deduction (179 D).
Up to $5 per square foot for businesses improving energy efficiency in buildings.
Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit.
Up to $40,000 per vehicle for businesses purchasing electric or fuel-cell commercial vehicles.
Rural Energy for America Program (REAP).
Grants and loans for rural businesses and farmers to install renewable energy systems.
MAGA "clean burning gas" greenwashing attempts at zero 0% emissions...
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2986578]Uh, no. Nobody here said that, or believes it. [/QUOTE]
[i][b](...kkkk!)[/b][/i] No but your American Fuhrer did, and MAGA (and MAGA adjacent alike) ate that shit-up! MAGA greenwashing at it's best!
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2986334]Thanks to clean burning natural gas, USA CO2 emissions are down by 20% since 2007. China's are up by 70%. They were up in China by 5% from 2022 to 2023.[/QUOTE]
But don't try to backpedal, outta your equally idiotic statement of [b]"Thanks to clean clean burning natural gas..." [/b], you said it, you thanked it...[b]now own it![/b]
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2986578]Yes, if you go to sleep in a room that contains 100% methane and no oxygen, you will die. Otherwise methane is not toxic. [/QUOTE] Maybe, not toxic in the traditional sense, but methane is way more potent (80x??), due to its dangerous asphyxiation and explosion risks and an even worse greenhouse gas.
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2986578]I'm reading that "flaring rates", as you put it, in Wyoming and North Dakota are in single digits. If I step onto a section of land in North Dakota or wherever with one producing well, and that well is flaring gas, then the "flare rate" is 100%. That doesn't change the fact the total for the USA is a measly 0. 5%. Methane is coming down. Yes, regulators should clamp down on that, and they are.[/QUOTE]
Let me be clear! You can dibble, dabble and haggle in futility, over a few meaningless flare capturing percentage points here and there, all you want....have at it! Your haggling matters not in the larger scheme of things, when S+W+B emit zero 0% CO2 emissions.
But, your main take-away from this debate, should be that the fossil fuel industry, has been polluting for over 100+ years, and could have another 100+ years and still wouldn't get to zero 0% flaring or zero 0% CO2 emissions from using fossil fuels. Meaning, the very definition of insanity, is...
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2986578][b]Again, perfect is the enemy of good.[/b] The world can spend many trillions and go to net zero carbon in a hurry. But if instead we approach this rationally, and just spend a fraction of the money we would have spent otherwise on things like malaria, micronutrients, vaccinations (sorry Elvis), education and the like, the world will be a much better place.
Disregarding the preceding, global warming actually has saved lives.
[URL]https://unherd.com/newsroom/bjorn-lomborg-how-global-warming-will-save-lives/[/URL][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I often hear that nonsensical statement (IMHO), from those that would love to keep the status quo. Especially when the status quo, benefits them!
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2986578]Ridiculous. [b]I could argue that natural gas is 10X or 100X cleaner burning than coal, [/b]and would be closer to the truth than you are.
You're mistaken perhaps for the same reason you underestimate the level of air pollution in China. Particulate matter is the biggest contributor to mortality from air pollution. Coal produces around 100 X more particulates per kilowatt hour than natural gas. Coal plants also produce 90 X more sulfur dioxide and 5 X more NOx compounds. Yes, coal does produce about 2 X more carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide however is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic gas that doesn't contribute to dirty air. Admittedly, like methane, if you fall asleep in a room with only CO2 and no oxygen, you will die.[/QUOTE]
Hey, I won't stop you, beating yourself up and defending natural gas vs. coal, if that's what you wish to do, over and over again, while convincing yourself with the fossil fuel propaganda that natural gas is "clean burning."
Again, I refer you to my 100+ years response above. But just keep in mind, other alternatives for producing electricity, like S+W+B, that don't emit CO2 and greenhouse gases and didn't take 100+ years to get to 0.5% flaring capture.
But if you are going to argue, that natural gas is 10X or 100X cleaner, [b]I would love to see your facts,[/b] data and sources w/r to such false and dubious claims.
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2986578]The USA, Canada, Australia (probably including your beloved South Australia) and Russia all emit more CO2 per capita than other developed countries. That's because they occupy large areas and people are more spread out. Furthermore people in developed countries, like the USA, consume more energy and thus emit more CO2 per capita than people in developing countries.[/QUOTE] And is the very reason I said, that way I think China is doing much better with their CO2 emission than you realize, given their population size and its only since 2007, they surpass the U.S. as the worse polluter on the plant. The U.S. had been the worst, decades before.
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2986578] We have air conditioning, cars, etc, that many in developing countries, like China, don't have. Our economies and GDP's are larger -- we produce more. [/QUOTE]And YET, developing countries, like China, somehow manage to develop world class AI, EVs and batteries tech at a fraction of the cost. Hmmm...pretty good for a developing country.
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2986578]That said, the USA accounts for about 13% of global carbon emissions and about 26% of global GDP. Compare to China, which has 31% of worldwide CO2 emissions and accounts for about 18% of global GDP.[/QUOTE] Recall, that I said the U.S./Europe has been burning/emitting CO2 emission for a whole lot longer, well I'm betting that if go back perhaps 75 years ago and add up all the U.S. emissions, that would really say something about all the U.S. GDP crap and waster, over 3/4 of a century.
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2986578]I know you're sensitive about me "changing" your posts, so I'll point out it was me that highlighted "Great President Joe Biden" above. I agree with you 100% about Direct Air Capture. The Great President Joe Biden and democrats shouldn't have made the tax benefits so lucrative for this expensive, unproven technology that oil and gas and other companies want to pursue it.
Carbon capture and storage, from sources like flu gas, however holds more promise.[/QUOTE]No, not sensitive, just [b]angry[/b] about you, [b]adding inappropriate words,[/b] I NEVER wrote. Taking what I wrote out of context. But by all means [b]highlight[/b] and [u]underline[/u] the words in my post all you want [b]just don't change them![/b]
As for the IRA being lucrative, well that was probably more the doing of those backstabbing turncoats and DINOs, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Other wise lucrative tax acts and subsides for the rich billionaires and robber barons is something your American Fuhrer's transactional administration is world famous for doing. I'm sure their cup will runneth over, this term.
MLPs sorted! GILTI...To Be Determined?
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2987134]As Elvis and I have already told you, oil and gas producers in general aren't MLP's. A number of the pipeline and other midstream companies are. I can think of a few exceptions, like royalty trusts that don't actually produce hydrocarbons, and at least one producer, Vanguard. But my wild guess is that less than 1% of USA oil and gas is produced by MLP's. [/QUOTE]
Okay...Got it! I thought they'd be more O&G companies, judging from recent results, I was reading in the headlines. [b]2025 MLP Yields Up To 11.3%:[/b] [url]https://www.suredividend.com/mlp-list/[/url]
Judging from many of the MLP investment funds, I thought the number of MLPs is probably more like, about 5-10% of O&G companies.
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2987134]You've gone off on a tangent on GILTI. Income from oil and gas extraction isn't subject to the GILTI tax. My comments earlier about tangible and intangible assets were just to indicate that the GILTI tax, if imposed on foreign income realized by oil and gas companies, wouldn't raise that much revenue. If you're going to have the GILTI tax on foreign income, oil companies should be subject to it. However, at the same time, you should remove the provisions of IRC Section 907, targeted towards oil companies, that limit their ability to take advantage of foreign tax credits. You level the playing field on GILTI and Section 907 and I bet the oil and gas producers would end up paying more tax.[/QUOTE] The articles (and I) were using FOGEI/FORI (Subpar F carveout of IRC Section 907--is what I meant instead of GILTI) for O&G extraction income.
But that's not the point of those articles, because the the tax loophole that's being uncovered, is really only interested in and uses the QBAI calc of the total tangible assets, in order to determine the GILTI for the intangible assets (which are vast the article's and IMH opinion).
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2987134]In fact, if you've been paying attention, I've favored removing all oil and gas "subsidies, tax advantages and loopholes" mentioned by you and in your links, except expensing of Intangible Drilling Costs. And if you want to eliminate Section 179 Depreciation and other accelerated depreciation, for all companies, along with IDC expensing, that would make sense.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, that your in favor having them removed, but why then, were you calling the articles "Ridiculous"? As far as I can make out, their reporting of the O&G tax loophole is accurate.
You also have to ask yourself, and to your point (if it makes sense to remove them), why are O&G companies fighting so hard to hang on to GILTI?
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2987134]The fact is, again, because of severance tax, gasoline taxes, and Section 907, oil and gas is taxed at higher rates than the average for USA. If you removed all the "subsidies, tax advantages and loopholes" available exclusively to oil and gas producers, USA oil and gas output wouldn't fall significantly and revenues to the USA Treasury wouldn't increase significantly. [/QUOTE]I'm not necessarily buying that agreement and I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. O&G have had a pretty good run, some 100+ years (and this is where we probably disagree mostly), perhaps it's time to move on.
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2987134]Contrast with green energy, which in many instances wouldn't be viable without government support. When it's windy in Texas and so there's a surplus of electricity, companies that generate electricity from wind have to pay $.01 or $.02 per kilowatt hour "sell" energy into the grid. And instead of shutting down the windmills to reduce wear and tear, they do it! Why? Because the tax credits are worth $.02+ per kilowatt hour. In the words of Elvis, how fucked up is that?[/QUOTE] Well according to your last statement O&G [b]wouldn't be viable either,[/b] without the all the "subsidies, tax advantages and loopholes". At least my subsides come without emitting [b]CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases![/b]
At the moment (and perhaps I'll circle-back), I can't speak the green energy case, you cite in Texas, but on the surface, isn't this a case for the use of batteries (BESS)? And does shutting down the windmills really give you that much more profit, over and above, the savings from reduced wear-and-tear? Maybe the difference is negligible and not enough to get worked up about?
2 photos
Trump's mission as a longtime Russian Asset is obvious to everyone. As it always was.
Former President of Poland Lech Walesa wrote the following letter to Trump.
Your Excellency, Mr. President,
We watched the report of your conversation with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, with fear and distaste. We find it insulting that you expect Ukraine to show respect and gratitude for the material assistance provided by the United States in its fight against russia. Gratitude is owed to the heroic Ukrainian soldiers who shed their blood in defense of the values of the free world. They have been dying on the front lines for more than 11 years in the name of these values and the independence of their homeland, which was attacked by Putin's russia.
We do not understand how the leader of a country that symbolizes the free world cannot recognize this.
Our alarm was also heightened by the atmosphere in the Oval Office during this conversation, which reminded us of the interrogations we endured at the hands of the Security Services and the debates in Communist courts. Prosecutors and judges, acting on behalf of the all-powerful communist political police, would explain to us that they held all the power while we held none. They demanded that we cease our activities, arguing that thousands of innocent people suffered because of us. They stripped us of our freedoms and civil rights because we refused to cooperate with the government or express gratitude for our oppression. We are shocked that President Volodymyr Zelensky was treated in the same manner.
The history of the 20th century shows that whenever the United States sought to distance itself from democratic values and its European allies, it ultimately became a threat to itself. President Woodrow Wilson understood this when he decided in 1917 that the United States must join World War I. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood this when, after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, he resolved that the war to defend America must be fought not only in the Pacific but also in Europe, in alliance with the nations under attack by the Third Reich.
We remember that without President Ronald Reagan and America's financial commitment, the collapse of the Soviet empire would not have been possible. President Reagan recognized that millions of enslaved people suffered in Soviet russia and the countries it had subjugated, including thousands of political prisoners who paid for their defense of democratic values with their freedom. His greatness lay, among other things, in his unwavering decision to call the USSR an "Empire of Evil" and to fight it decisively. We won, and today, the statue of President Ronald Reagan stands in Warsaw, facing the USA Embassy.
Mr. President, material aidmilitary and financialcan never be equated with the blood shed in the name of Ukraine's independence and the freedom of Europe and the entire free world. Human life is priceless; its value cannot be measured in money. Gratitude is due to those who sacrifice their blood and their freedom. This is self-evident to us, the people of Solidarity, former political prisoners of the communist regime under Soviet russia.
We call on the United States to uphold the guarantees made alongside Great Britain in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which established a direct obligation to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for its relinquishment of nuclear weapons. These guarantees are unconditionalthere is no mention of treating such assistance as an economic transaction.
Signed,
Lech Wał281;sa, former political prisoner, President of Poland.
Nobody told me, it was a gunfight...
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2987140]If the playing field were leveled among all industries, the total tax burden on oil and gas relative to other businesses would be less than it is now. On the other hand, a lot of green energy projects wouldn't be viable. The combination of tax benefits and outright government subsidies exceeds their profit. [b]Here's a list of some, kindly provided by ChatGPT.[/b][/QUOTE]
Well that figures! Chat freakin' GPT!
Well...it looks like I've brought, a "Google Search knife" to an "AI ChatGPT gunfight!" Woe is me? [i][b](...kkkk!)[/b][/i]
Well, despite the very nice long, MarquisdeSade1 (MDS1) style "Cut-n-paste" subsidies list from ChatGPT, allow me to tell ChatGPT, the same thing I'd be telling you, as I did in the last post.
At least my subsides and tax cuts, [b]come without emitting CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases![/b] or plumes of "clean burning methane gas" from outta space!
PS: And while your at it, ask ChatGPT, if natural gas is a [i][b]"clean burning gas",[/b][/i] I'd love to hear the answer.
Not GILTI, but done for now...
[QUOTE=Tiny 12;2987197]Oil and gas extraction income is not subject to GILTI, no matter what the level of tangible assets is. QBAI is irrelevant for oil and gas. I don't believe oil and gas E&P is subject to Subpart F either, unless it's a royalty. It shouldn't be anyway. I don't remember why I thought the headlines were ridiculous. [/QUOTE] Okay...it seems I need to revisit my understanding of GILTI, but one last question for you.
So is it your assertion, that O&G companies have no intangible assets? Because if they do (which I think they do) have intangible assets (no matter how small or seemingly inconsequential), wouldn't they need GILTI to be calculated?
And that calc use some variation of the following, when I do a search?: [b]GILTI = Net CFC Tested Income (10% x QBAI - Interest Expense) [/b]
That's it, I'm done! It seems YOU and GILTI, have done me in....well at least for now!
[b]PS: [i]My apologies[/i][/b] to all the other ISGers, for taking up the forum bandwidth these last few days! I'll try to keep things to a minimum for the next little while.
Thx for your patience and understanding!
The Left is so pathetically LAME lolol
MAGA couldn't ask for a more inept opponent lolololol.
A YUGE thanks to all the losers that voted for Harris.
This video captures your essence quite well.
[URL]https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/when-the-left-is-too-smug-even-for-the-new-york-times/[/URL]
