The scam of corn ethonal

[Almington]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

I just read this quote from Pawlenty in an article about announcing running for president, and thought it was worth a mention here:

"And in Iowa, Pawlenty said Monday that ethanol subsidies, as well as all other energy subsidies, must eventually be phased out."

I don't want to get into the politics, when it relates to specific candidates, because I'm in no mood for a political flame war. I just thought that the quote was relevant to the conversations we've had in this thread.

edit: here's the link: http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/122455524.html

I think that is the only real politically feasible choice, keeps everyone happy now and punts the decision down the road.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

I just read this quote from Pawlenty in an article about announcing running for president, and thought it was worth a mention here:

"And in Iowa, Pawlenty said Monday that ethanol subsidies, as well as all other energy subsidies, must eventually be phased out."

I don't want to get into the politics, when it relates to specific candidates, because I'm in no mood for a political flame war. I just thought that the quote was relevant to the conversations we've had in this thread.

edit: here's the link: http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/122455524.html

Good find. It warms the heart when you see some politicians take aim at issues like this. Yes, EA pales in comparison to other financial matters, but it’s a start. Fiscal responsibility will be a hot ticket in the next two years, and future candidates will be wise to eviscerate Obama and propose changes to help us fix the problem(s). Ditch the tariffs on imported EA, and let them all duke it out on the free market. …that’ll put EA out of business for good.

Preferential treatment is bad in business.

An example I just came across are two companies involved in the oil industry, GE and Exxon. GE has roughly 40% of the market share for gas powered turbines and derive roughly 28 % of their profits from their energy infrastructure activities. The difference? Exxon paid about 1.5 billion in taxes last year while GE was rewarded a 500 million dollar grant, 1.1 billion in loan guarantees. While both derive profits in similar manners, and on similar scales, GE is clearly a favored public company. This has to stop.

(I am reading atlas shrugged, and its amazing how Rynd touches on almost this exact subject)

 

[unofan]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Fiscal responsibility will be a hot ticket in the next two years, and future candidates will be wise to eviscerate Obama and propose changes to help us fix the problem(s)...
(I am reading atlas shrugged, and its amazing how Rynd touches on almost this exact subject)

So, are you re-opening the general fiscal policy debate in this thread, or not? I'd like to know before you complain about me going off-topic responding to your posts.

 

[Almington]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Preferential treatment is bad in business.

Except when you are the one recieving said treatment.

An example I just came across are two companies involved in the oil industry, GE and Exxon. GE has roughly 40% of the market share for gas powered turbines and derive roughly 28 % of their profits from their energy infrastructure activities. The difference? Exxon paid about 1.5 billion in taxes last year while GE was rewarded a 500 million dollar grant, 1.1 billion in loan guarantees. While both derive profits in similar manners, and on similar scales, GE is clearly a favored public company. This has to stop.

Because GE Capital lost their shirts? They are completely different types of companies, as such it is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
GE is a hugely diversified company, what one subsidiary (GE Energy) does can be completely undone by a different subsidiary (GE Capital).

unofan: I'd say you are free to respond, unh opened the door.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Because GE Capital lost their shirts? They are completely different types of companies, as such it is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
GE is a hugely diversified company, what one subsidiary (GE Energy) does can be completely undone by a different subsidiary (GE Capital).

So why should one company get more tax breaks than another? Why should big oil get different treatment than GE? Does it matter that GE is diversified? I thought this was a free economy. Both earn good money, neither need tax breaks, guaranteed loans or the like.

My point since the start of this thread has been to let them all compete on the open market. I don’t hear valid points against that notion. Is the US a free economy or not?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

So why should one company get more tax breaks than another? Why should big oil get different treatment than GE? Does it matter that GE is diversified? I thought this was a free economy. Both earn good money, neither need tax breaks, guaranteed loans or the like.

My point since the start of this thread has been to let them all compete on the open market. I don’t hear valid points against that notion. Is the US a free economy or not?

Not so much.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Not so much.

Edited. Extra info: Exxon’s Rex Tilelrson brought home 21 million ,and GEs Jeff Immelt brought home 19.6 million. Both provide heavily used goods/ services to the US economy. I guess its my opinion that companies should not get preferences, be it EA producers, GE, or anyone. And to be clear, I am against tax breaks for oil.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Care to state your rationale? Exxon’s Rex Tilelrson brought home 21 million ,and GEs Jeff Immelt brought home 19.6 million. Both provide heavily used goods/ services to the US economy. So why , then, should they be treated differently by a government in a ‘free economy’ ?

“Not so much” is very…underwhelming.

My not so much was to your last question, not your first. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

My not so much was to your last question, not your first. Sorry for any confusion.

Ohh my mistake. I'll edit the post since I dont want to disagree with someone who is agreeing.

 

[Almington]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

So why should one company get more tax breaks than another? Why should big oil get different treatment than GE? Does it matter that GE is diversified? I thought this was a free economy. Both earn good money, neither need tax breaks, guaranteed loans or the like.

My point since the start of this thread has been to let them all compete on the open market. I don’t hear valid points against that notion. Is the US a free economy or not?

GE is more a finance company than an energy or manufacturing company anymore. So much of what they do is done oversees that as long as those profits are never brought back into the US they don't have to pay taxes on it. Oil companies can't do that, they have to sell the oil in the US, and have to pay profits on it.

So are you saying that GE should have to pay US taxes on international profits?

Your real problem should be with the overal corporate tax structure in the US, not any specific subsidy or tax break or industry or company. The problem is a government that is dominated by special interest who lobby for what will benifit them regardless to the costs to the nation as a whole.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

You want to tell me when Pawlenty addressed the other energy subsidies? The way the news story is written it sure sounds like he did, but I don't see it that way.

From TPaw's web site:

That's why later this week I'm going to New York City to tell Wall Street that if I'm elected, the era of bailouts and handouts for big banks is over. I'm going to Florida to tell both young people and seniors that our entitlement programs are on an unsustainable path and have to be changed. And, today, I'm in Iowa to speak truthfully about farm subsidies.

Edit: He just posted his speech.

That's why later this week, I'm going to New York City, to tell Wall Street that if I'm elected, the era of bailouts, handouts, and carve outs will be over. No more subsidies, no more special treatment. No more Fannie and Freddie, no more TARP, and no more "too big to fail."

Here it is:

The truth about federal energy subsidies, including federal subsidies for ethanol, is that they have to be phased out. We need to do it gradually. We need to do it fairly. But we need to do it.

It's not only ethanol. We need to change our approach to subsidies in all industries.

It can't be done overnight. The industry has made large investments, and it wouldn't be fair to pull the rug out from under it immediately. But we must face the truth that if we want to invite more competition, more investment, and more innovation into an industry - we need to get government out. We also need the government out of the business of handing out favors and special deals. The free market, not freebies from politicians, should decide a company's success. So, as part of a larger reform, we need to phase out subsidies across all sources of energy and all industries, including ethanol. We simply can't afford them anymore.

So he'll propose ending the subsidies at some point in the future.

 

[Tundra]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Energy department approves exporting 2bcf/day LNG (700bcf/year) forCheniere energy

while Conoco/Marathon is mothballing Kenai LNG plant after 40years of export to Japan this year (50bcf/year). Denali (BP/Conoco) NG pipeline is abandoned after $100million due to NG shale find. AGIA pipeline is up in the air but I would imagine it's aboot to die.

So after lambasting Sarah Palin in 2008 on Alaska LNG export to Japan instead to lower 48. what say you?

 

[alfablue]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

So why should one company get more tax breaks than another? Why should big oil get different treatment than GE? Does it matter that GE is diversified? I thought this was a free economy. Both earn good money, neither need tax breaks, guaranteed loans or the like.

My point since the start of this thread has been to let them all compete on the open market. I don’t hear valid points against that notion. Is the US a free economy or not?

If you want to argue tax breaks, how about the 15% max rate on long term capitol gains? Why should a billionaire pay 15% on his earnings, since that's what he does for a living, and the rest of us pay higher than that unless we don't pay taxes?

There are some very simple economic areas that can be addressed just as easily to be free market. Somehow, investors get a free pass on taxes. Be honest, there's no difference between a tax break and a tax credit- one way or another, investors have a way to pay a max of 15% on their earnings.

I would not be suprised that we give more tax breaks to inevestors than we do to EA. Maybe even GE (who do supply engines to defense planes...)

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Depends how much shade of grey you want to allow while still calling it "free" - compared to Scandinavia or most of Europe, sure it's a free economy. Compared to some idealized libertarian paradise (which some might even call, Randian) free from child labor laws, 40-hour work weeks, and the EPA, then surely not.

I see what your saying and I agree. Afterall, I am opposed to practices on wall streets such as deivatives and highly leveraged banks. Thats another story, but it illustrates that a free economy might be just as bad as a totally regulated one.

1. Your real problem should be with the overal corporate tax structure in the US, not any specific subsidy or tax break or industry or company. The problem is a government that is dominated by special interest who lobby for what will benifit them regardless to the costs to the nation as a whole.


Put another way, I guess, sure. I read an article talking about the different treatment of companies who have similar financial positions who do similar ( not completely the same, as you said) work, but get much different treatment from uncle sam. While I disagree with it, as UNOfan said…its reality. I was just pointing out how reality bites


If you want to argue tax breaks, how about the 15% max rate on long term capitol gains? Why should a billionaire pay 15% on his earnings, since that's what he does for a living, and the rest of us pay higher than that unless we don't pay taxes?

So a billion dollar hedge fund gets taxed the same rates as a 1000 $ zekko account? While I have read a lot of financial literature, taxes was not a part I focused on aside from discounting cap. gains at the levels I would be looking at ( 15%). I am not shocked at all at any of the preferential treatment the financial industry gets. Wall street has had a free pass since at least 1998 (LTCM). I still have yet to see any fallout from 2008 except for record profits years after from goldman.

go bruins?

 

[sagard]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

So he'll propose ending the subsidies at some point in the future.

I wonder if he go after the massive subsidizing of the acquisition of gasoline, or if he will start making us drivers pay some of the defense costs needed to ensure continual delivery from the middle east.

 

[Almington]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Put another way, I guess, sure. I read an article talking about the different treatment of companies who have similar financial positions who do similar ( not completely the same, as you said) work, but get much different treatment from uncle sam. While I disagree with it, as UNOfan said…its reality. I was just pointing out how reality bites

You didn't answer the fundimental question that I asked:
Should a US-based company who earned profits overseas have to pay US corporate taxes on that portion of their profits? What if they never bring that money back into the US?

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

You didn't answer the fundimental question that I asked:
Should a US-based company who earned profits overseas have to pay US corporate taxes on that portion of their profits? What if they never bring that money back into the US?

if they are protected by sanctions and laws imposed by the US, yes. Are you talking about a company that conducts work overseas, or owns branches wholly contained overseas and claims profits only from their country? In that case, maybe not.

it would be like me working overseas and claiming money in the US. It would be subject to normal taxes, no?

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

http://www.sharenet.co.za/news/Tigh...e_surgesUSDA/4fbc0ff71f7af2c046c4e1cb02f4bcff

More news regarding the increase in cost of corn commodities thanks in part to ethanol production. Of particular interest is:

Analysts had expected USDA to predict a smaller 129 million-bushel reduction in end stocks. By the end of next summer, the United States -- which grows 40 percent of the world's corn, more than a third of it used to make ethanol -- would have less than a three-week supply on hand. The stocks-to-use ratio, a gauge of supplies, would be 5.2 percent. The lowest in modern times was 5 percent in 1995/96.

What seems funny is that we are literally subsidizing our own price hikes in corn - thus increasing inflation. If corn spot prices cost more, than this raises the cost of food, animal feed etc, which in turn raises the costs the customers see. This whole thing is so absurd, I just chuckle at it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

http://www.sharenet.co.za/news/Tigh...e_surgesUSDA/4fbc0ff71f7af2c046c4e1cb02f4bcff

More news regarding the increase in cost of corn commodities thanks in part to ethanol production. Of particular interest is:



What seems funny is that we are literally subsidizing our own price hikes in corn - thus increasing inflation. If corn spot prices cost more, than this raises the cost of food, animal feed etc, which in turn raises the costs the customers see. This whole thing is so absurd, I just chuckle at it.

Shhhh. Remember it's the (sniff) American family farm.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The scam of corn ethonal

Ha ha that’s low using ray Leotta to make me change my mind. Now if you had put the goodfellas scene where Joe pesci was asking everyone how he was ‘funny’, you could get me to vote for Palin.