Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Tea party darlings (Score 1) 668

The cognitive dissonance from this is that the politicians that seem to have the strongest tea party support tend to be the most scientifically backward bunch out there. From Michelle "pray the gay away" Bachman, to a whole host of global warming deniers. Have they decided to sacrifice their science principals to achieve the goal of lower taxes and smaller government, no matter what wacko they have to sign on with in order to get that?

Comment Re:second hand e-smoke (Score 5, Insightful) 314

Is it? Is there any *real* evidence that pure nicotine, in these sort of doses, is actually harmful for you, when not associated with tars, benzene, and all the other nasties in cig smoke? Or is it more like caffeine, where it might exactly be "healthy", but the real risk at typical usage levels is miniscule.

Comment Re:Misleading summary (Score 4, Informative) 435

It may have the same effect as a subsidy

If it looks like a duck....

If the government agreed to send oil companies a check for $10 for every barrel of oil produced, we'd all agree that that's a subsidy, right?

If the government instead says, "We'll credit your tax bill $10 for every barrel of oil you produce, reducing the amount on the tax check you send us", it's THE SAME DAMNED THING.

Oh and calling tax write-offs that oil companies take over employee benefits and such a "subsidy", when every other type of company can use those same write-offs is being disingenuous.

No one is calling those tax write-offs available to all businesses subsidies. The subsidies are the tax write-offs available ONLY to oil production companies. One example is the ability to write off the "declining value" of oil wells.

So, if you're an oil company, you spend $20 billion looking for oil reserves, and deduct those expenses. Then, you find a reserve, worth say, $100 billion. Then, you spend $20 billion getting that oil out of the ground, and deduct those expenses, and then you sell the oil for $100 billion. This is all the normal way a business would run. For example, someone might spend $20 million researching a new product, $20 million making the products, and then sell the products for $100 million, making $60 million in profits they are taxed on.

But on top of the normal deductions for ACTUAL COSTS, the oil companies ALSO deduct the "declining value of the wells". You know, since the oil in the ground was worth $100 billion, as they pump the oil out of the ground and the "value" of the oil in the ground declines, THEY DEDUCT THE DECLINING VALUE OF THE WELLS TOO!

And that's a subsidy. It's a tax deduction no normal business gets.

Slashdot Top Deals

Neutrinos have bad breadth.

Working...