Comments
Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iu2lezd wrote
Can we stop calling tax credits socialism?
crazypants9 t1_iu2sube wrote
Yes as soon as we stop calling healthcare and social security a drain on society. How’s that? No safety net, no society. Wait until automation vaporizes a few more million jobs.
Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iu2t1jf wrote
No you have to do both. Just because other people don't know what socialism is doesn't mean you have to also mischaracterize it. Unless your goal is to confuse people on what socialism is, or just sound ignorant. In those instances carry on.
IrresponsibleScience t1_iu3ys9j wrote
You seem to want to be nit-picky with the definition of socialism, so I guess you should know that you also are mischaracterizing it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
When giving corporations and large companies that have the assets to take care of themselves tax money that doesn’t benefit citizens, and turning around and complaining about using that same tax money in a way that directly benefits citizens, seems like a mis-prioritization of standards.
Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iu3z9gz wrote
Yeah that's not socialism. Socialism is about the workers controlling the means of production. There are heavy elements of redistributionism, which is where you seem to be getting hung up. What you're describing is corporate welfare, not socialism.
IrresponsibleScience t1_iu3zka2 wrote
Correct. Following the popular abuse of “socialism” has lead you and the other guy down a rabbit hole and gotten you downvoted. Could have been solved with some clarification early on ;).
But to summarize: corporate welfare bad, give resources to citizens.
Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iu403rx wrote
Lol I really could not care less that I've been downvoted. It's still stupid to mischaracterize socialism if you are claiming to be a proponent of it
IrresponsibleScience t1_iu407v3 wrote
I’m just saying a little clarity of your intentions early on and the whole thing would have been resolved.
IrresponsibleScience t1_iu404pi wrote
I think what u/crazypants9 is hitting on is the “if healthcare for all is ‘socialism,’ than so is corporate welfare.” Which is fair. Ive always dreamed of a politician calling out that BS.
Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iu40gxg wrote
Politicians say that all the time. Joe Biden said it like a week ago.
crazypants9 t1_iu6iajz wrote
Then explain to me how a nation that espouses the pursuit of life liberty happiness calls affordable healthcare for its citizens “socialist” because we all pay for it? BUT WEALTHY CAN BE AFFORDED BREAKS BUT NOT THE COMMON MAN? You have been fed lies, and as long as you buy it you will be on the losing end. Check out other developed nations seizing homes for hospital bills. They were going to have a sheriff sale of my life because my boy had leukemia and the hospital can call that marker in ANYTIME. And this is WITH INSURANCE. I managed to confront the machine that made this decision, oh and they never meant to do that. They called my house every day. Back and forth, beyond reasonable and customary, that’s “experimental”, we won’t pay. My kid lived. Ever wonder why coffee cans on counters in stores are there? A piece of the sky falls on yours and now you lose everything. Wake the fuck up. Socialism is not what you think it is. This is civilization because you do not increase the worth of your house by burning down the ones around you.
crazypants9 t1_iu2x3k3 wrote
Self righteous much? Bye
Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iu2xbya wrote
Lol you're right. Let's just keep calling socialism things it isn't. That's great messaging.
crazypants9 t1_iu5uwk4 wrote
I bet you think you’re a capitalist. But all you are is a worker and a consumer who thinks he’s the same as a billionaire and you think they want to help your world.
Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iu6hvr5 wrote
No, I'm not a capitalist lol. Tell me, what will be your dream job after the revolution you want?
crazypants9 t1_iu6lcvq wrote
Go back to screaming at passing cars. Bye
Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iu6lm9w wrote
Lol right, because I'm the one yelling at clouds rn 😂
Hopeful_Scholar398 t1_iu1nn1y wrote
Mmmmm corporate socialism. Glaaaaaaaaaah....
Matt-33-205 t1_iu1sr0o wrote
The language used regarding tax incentives for energy companies is amusing to me. Let's take a different example.
Let's say I have a 10% off coupon for a $50 dinner at a restaurant. I think the honest way to characterize that is to say that you paid $45 for your meal. However, some people will say the restaurant subsidized you $5 on the backs of other people. I suppose it's all a matter of perspective. One undeniable thing to keep in mind is the fact that you may not otherwise have given any business that restaurant without the coupon. Incentives aren't necessarily a bad thing.
Odd_Description_2295 t1_iu1thq7 wrote
Maybe if the government wasnt using using millions of dollars of OUR money to subsidize fossil fuels.....
But yeah...restraunt analogy or something
jdi000 t1_iu6js5o wrote
Lol there are more subsidies going into "green" energy than fossil fuels. What are you talking about?
Matt-33-205 t1_iu221pb wrote
Okay, let's use a different analogy. Let's say I owe $25,000 in income tax. Let's also say I take advantage of a $1,000 tax credit, this tax credit brings my income tax owed to the government down to $24,000 and I pay that amount to the government.
Did I pay a net of $24,000 or did the government pay me $1,000?
sushimonster13 t1_iu26rp5 wrote
And ask yourself this - who covers the cost of those subsidies? Maybe the tax payers of Pennsylvania? That money could be used for other projects (Pa Roads?????) instead of subsidizing an already profitable industry.
Matt-33-205 t1_iu293b8 wrote
Fundamentally we disagree, the logic people like you use is puzzling to me. This exchange is an attempt for me to understand the thought process of those with different political views.
Another analogy: let's say I have $100 in my pocket, you come up to me and take $25 from me, but then you give me $5 of my own money back, leaving me with a net of $80.
You did not give me $5, you took $20 from me and you allowed me to keep $80 of my own money. You did not give me anyone else's money, again, you simply allowed me to keep a portion of money that was mine.
Giving a net taxpayer a tax credit is not giving them other people's money. It's simply allowing them to keep a portion of their own money.
I know we generally demonize business, capitalism, free markets, things like that in this sub, but I wish you folks would make as honest an attempt to understand perspectives like mine as I do to understand your perspective.
sushimonster13 t1_iu2a522 wrote
All your analogies make 1 failed assumption - that it's a 1 to 1 exchange that doesn't involve millions of other parties that are impacted in a variety of ways as a result of the existence of the exchange. People can't claim these natural gas credits, only natural gas companies can. How is it a free market if certain behaviors are being incentivized by a 3rd party entity? Your perspective is that everything reconciles and a transaction is always a zero sum game - maybe 150 years ago, you would be correct but the world is much more complicated and intertwined nowadays.
Matt-33-205 t1_iu2h5w7 wrote
Now we're getting somewhere. I see your point about specialized tax credits. I agree with you 100%, specialized tax credits seem inherently unfair, and I suspect a lot of them exist as political favors. A recent example of this was Senator Sinema insisting on a tax break for hedge fund managers in order for the D's to get her vote on a major spending bill.
I will say that not many people realize the gravity of the energy situation we are in as a nation right now. The United States should be doing absolutely everything possible to incentivize domestic energy production and refinement of gasoline and Diesel in this country. There are projections that if this is a very cold winter, there may not be enough heating oil to meet demand. That should absolutely not be the case in a first world country with some of the largest energy reserves in the world.
I'm all for a flat tax, or if there was no federal income as it currently exists, some sort of consumption tax. The absolute best solution for taxation would be to require every taxpayer to write a check and send it to the government for any taxes owed. That would result in real accountability for every tax dollar spent.
sushimonster13 t1_iu2ip78 wrote
The only issue with that is that tax credits do serve a purpose - to encourage behaviors that enhance the lives of everyday people and reward people for being active members of society. I agree that certain tax credits like the ones you mentioned have no place in society as they stifle competition. However, I'm all for things like the EITC and Child care tax credit which enhance the lives of people who work but need a little extra boost and help working class families with kids.
Your plan sounds interesting but how are you going to force tax payers to write a check to the gov? And there's plenty of transparency within the government, hence why things seem to go "slow." Government is only inefficient because people want it to be.
Matt-33-205 t1_iu2kyfm wrote
I think government is inherently inefficient, I don't know too many people who want it to be (I certainly don't). There's no competition at all in government, so the incentive to remain accountable is inherently less. Businesses, even big businesses, have to constantly remain accountable to consumers. The bigger they are, the less efficient they become, but if you think Verizon sucks, you can switch your cell service to AT&T or T-Mobile. There's only one government, and the only time for accountability is on election day. They all regurgitate talking points that they think their constituents want to hear, but I feel like they're all cut from the same cloth (which is why I slid that D Senator Sinema reference in my post above). Very few are genuinely there as selfless public servants.
I know a lot of business owners, they all say the same thing: if everyone had to write quarterly checks to the government for tens of thousands of dollars in taxes owed, there would be a revolution in this country. We are so conditioned to having the money automatically withdrawn from our paychecks, we don't even really miss it. The waste, the fraud, the abuse of government spending will never stop until something changes.
sushimonster13 t1_iu2lus7 wrote
The incentive is that people in government will get voted out if their policies and strategies perform poorly. I agree that a lot of politicians are looking out mainly for their own skin but there's plenty of politics and inefficiency in companies as well, the companies you described being major beneficiaries of the problem that you describe
To your second point, you recoup a lot of your witheld money after filing a tax return so it's not like it's really wasted. Quarterly estimates for everyone would just make taxes too confusing so I agree there.
Matt-33-205 t1_iu2sxae wrote
One thing I've noticed about those on the left, not necessarily saying you, but it doesn't really compute with some that lowering tax rates can actually increase total tax revenue. This fundamental principle is lost on many, in particular when it comes to energy companies.
A simplistic and exaggerated example, 10% of $1 billion dollars is a heck of a lot more tax revenue than 90% of $1 million. Taxation on energy is passed on to the consumer, so if energy prices are low, what incentivizes big energy companies to maintain profit is to produce more and bring more energy to the market.
My point being, there is definitely a point of diminishing returns when it comes to taxing business. If they have incentive to produce more, by allowing them to keep more of their revenue, everybody can win. The goal should be to find that equilibrium tax rate, not just to automatically assume increasing taxes on energy companies will result in more revenue for the government. Energy companies typically pass increased taxation onto the consumer. That's who gets hurt, the consumer.
I've read through numerous economic studies on poverty. There is one overwhelming factor relating to poverty, countries with the highest poverty rates have the least economic freedom. Countries with the lowest poverty rates have the highest economic freedom. Economic freedom being the absence of onerous government regulation and taxation.
sushimonster13 t1_iu6af74 wrote
The one assumption that you're making though is that all that money is going towards operations and not towards stock buy backs and other things that impact short term profitability. With private equity leeching into the private sector, there no longer is an incentive to remain profitable for the duration. Why spend 10 billion on operations when you can spend 3 billion on stock buy backs and somebody will take you private and make you rich.
I agree that you can't over tax businesses because they might just leave or become unsustainable ( china being a good example of government going to far ) but everyday consumers are struggling as well and they're the backbone of the entire economy. They need a break more than some natural gas company that may trickle down some benefits to the common folk.
Matt-33-205 t1_iu6ife4 wrote
I suppose we just fundamentally disagree. It's not an assumption, it's a certainty, if taxes are increased on energy companies, those taxes are passed along to the consumer in higher prices.
Additionally, the current Administration has created an environment that is very unfriendly, bordering on hostile, toward fossil fuel companies. The energy companies are reluctant to invest in expensive infrastructure improvements and expansions, when government can pull the plug at any time on permitting, such as Joe Biden did with the Keystone XL Pipeline his first day in office.
Bottom line, I'm not just giving talking points, this is real life stuff. Most people have no idea just how close we are to an energy catastrophe. Diesel Supply in the United States hasn't been this low in decades, and if those trucks stop moving, all hell will break loose in a few days.
Our government should be fostering an energy friendly business environment, it's cool to support green energy, but the problem is supporting the green movement while demonizing fossil fuels. The transition is going to take generations, it's not going to happen overnight. If everyone in the United States bought an electric car tomorrow, it would crash the electrical grid in this country. We need to be building new oil refineries, encouraging continued safe drilling and hydraulic fracturing with oversight, and do whatever is needed to ensure our own energy independence
[deleted] t1_iu3ckj0 wrote
[deleted]
Matt-33-205 t1_iu3z75m wrote
That's not true at all. Do you understand how a flat tax works? 10% of $50,000 income (5,000) is far less than 10% of $500,000 income (50,000).
Like the current federal income tax system, the first "X" number of dollars should be non-taxable. Throw in an arbitrary number, $30,000 for example. The person making $50,000 a year would only pay $2,000 in income tax, while the person making $500,000 a year would pay $47,000 in income tax.
How is that a "higher tax on the poor"?
username-1787 t1_iu4n1l9 wrote
Let's say you have eleventy seven dollars and another guy has a nice even 69. They go on a date a split the bill but one guy pays the tip. Then humpty dumpty fell off the cliff. Corporate subsidies are still a bad deal
BadRabiesJudger t1_iu265h1 wrote
You paid the 24k they were going to make you. The 1k of your own money is a pretend discount to defuse the fact your taxes are going up. Same thing for the 50 dollar meal. They already know the set cost's vs profit. They just cut down into that transaction which they will get back in tax breaks later. Making the shareholders happy and reporting one more year of record growth.
avo_cado t1_iu24r45 wrote
Yes
Matt-33-205 t1_iu250zx wrote
It's funny how the simplest questions are avoided all together by people with certain views
sushimonster13 t1_iu27213 wrote
Why do we need to incentivize natural gas production? It's not like they're already making hand over fist. And that's assuming they use the majority of tax credits to improve their operations which is unlikely.
Mr_Fraunces t1_iu1wec5 wrote
I can choose to patronize a number of restaurants, but they can only get the natural gas from under us. Pennsylvania is a commonwealth which should mean we all own that natural gas and should profit from its extraction. The residents of Alaska get a check every year from the Permanent Dividend Fund for the extraction of their natural resources.
crazypants9 t1_iu20in5 wrote
People are fucked blind by the GOP and they like it. As long as “those” people suffer.
Matt-33-205 t1_iu1zx2o wrote
Should there be private property rights? Honest question. Should I own land, or should the land belong to all of us?
If it's cool with me owning land, how about the lumber that comes from the trees grown on my land? Should we all own and profit from my trees as well?
Mr_Fraunces t1_iu20ox5 wrote
The natural resources belong to all of us. That's why hunters and trappers have to pay for a license. It's why someone needs a license to fish in the waters of Pennsylvania. They are paying for the right to fish and game that belong to all of the residents of Pennsylvania. The waterways of Pennsylvania belong to all of us, so if someone wants to boat, the boat has to be registered.
Matt-33-205 t1_iu21bac wrote
Curious why you avoided all of my questions? Trees are natural resources. Do my trees belong to you and everyone else?
Mr_Fraunces t1_iu21r51 wrote
>Curious why you avoided all of my questions?
Because they are stupid, probably. Loggers need permits to cut trees on state land.
Matt-33-205 t1_iu24x2o wrote
Again, you've completely avoided my questions. You seem reluctant to say what you're feeling about private ownership versus government ownership of property.
Mr_Fraunces t1_iu26r4b wrote
I'm all for private ownership of property. But you don't own the deer or fish that travel through your property. You can't hunt on your own property without a license. Unless you have mineral rights you don't own the coal or natural gas that is under your property. Anyone can fly an aircraft over your property.
sushimonster13 t1_iu27k4b wrote
The original argument wasn't about property rights. They're arguing about the fact that tax credits result in a deficit in tax revenue. Tax credits are often used to incentivize certain behaviors that may impose a burden or help people thrive ( EV tax credit, Solar credit, Child care credit, EITC, etc. The motive for natural gas is clearly present in the millions and billions of profits that they take in year after year.
username-1787 t1_iu4mq7q wrote
Except the restaurant didn't take money out of my paycheck to fund that 10% off coupon. And the restaurant meal doesn't have environmental destructive externalities. And the chef isn't making millions of dollars off that deal
BearPhilly t1_iu1rryf wrote
So my gas bill will go down this winter, right?
undercookedchimken t1_iu2g5iy wrote
lol
vasquca1 t1_iu1y1bq wrote
Nice. Along with their record profits 📈 from 100% increases in price.
Odd_Description_2295 t1_iu1nrmp wrote
Coal and gas stock has been increasing steadily for the past several months. Alot of which, is the democrate's infrastructure bill and Manchins deal with the MVP.
Because, The problem with creating renewable energy: we still can’t get enough of it to users
>Sen. Joe Manchin spoke at the Global Clean Energy Conference in Pittsburgh weeks ago, protesters showed up dressed in red costumes to protest his support of a deal that would enable the Mountain Valley Pipeline and other proposals to increase fossil fuel production.
His side deal with Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer is certainly controversial and problematic. But there is a piece of his bill that’s absolutely critical to successfully addressing climate change: streamlining approval of transmission lines and siting of new renewable generation.
Without this reform, we cannot deploy wind and solar fast enough to meet our commitments to the world to cut our emissions 50% by 2030. Commitments that, if kept, will help our kids and grandkids inherit a liveable planet.
Transmission lines? Why are they so crucial?
Princeton energy modeling expert Jesse Jenkins examined pitfalls that could block efforts to meet our goal of 50% greenhouse gas reductions by 2030 and derail our efforts to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. His study identified four main roadblock areas. 1) Failure to deploy clean infrastructure fast enough; 2) Failure to mobilize capital investments in clean technologies; 3) Not In My Backyard opposition to clean infrastructure projects; and 4) Transforming the workforce fast enough. Roadblocks #1 and #3 require permitting reform for our electric grid.
This may sound technical, dull and boring, but it is a very important problem that needs greater awareness and attention. In the U.S., renewable energy projects currently take 5 to 8 years from concept to completion. When they’re done, we’re good, right? No. Transmission projects take even longer.
The Princeton study shows that we need from 400 to 750 gigawatts of new, utility-scale wind and solar capacity by 2030, which will require several thousand large-scale projects. In 2020, 225 GW of utility-scale solar and wind project proposals were added to the line of projects waiting for connection to U.S. grids, but only 25 GW of new capacity came online. While 2020 represents the largest single year expansion in U.S. history, canceled projects still outnumbered completed projects that year by 4 to 1. Dramatic improvements in both project timelines and completion rates are necessary.
Meanwhile, with demand for renewable energy expected to grow globally, any tightening of global wind and solar supply chains has the potential to further delay projects in the U.S. Renewable energy deployment depends on expanding high-voltage transmission capacity by about 60% by 2030 while improving its resilience.
Our current rate of building electric grid infrastructure is 1% per year. Transmission projects historically take 6 to 15 years to complete, and many are abandoned after failing to obtain permits and support from each state and community they cross. Current practice in transmission expansion is not enough to meet our 2030 goal.
We need more transmission lines in the right places, and this is currently really hard to do because, “if you want to build new transmission, then you need to win the approval of every state, county, city, and in some cases, landowner along the proposed route,” as Robinson Meyer from The Atlantic notes.
Mr. Manchin’s bill would have addressed this problem. Unfortunately, it also had provisions to speed fossil fuel permitting which would expand fossil fuel production — making it harder to reach our climate goals. We need permitting reform for power lines and rolling out renewable power generation.
While Mr. Manchin’s bill currently seems to be on hold, we still want to encourage Congress to continue working toward legislation that will help expedite building the clean energy economy, while supporting community engagement around potential impacts from infrastructure. Please call on Sens. Bob Casey and Pat Toomey, as well as Reps. Conor Lamb and Mike Doyle to work on these important reforms.
And future democratic leaders
yolorelli t1_iu3wj42 wrote
How about passing that community solar bill that has been sitting in legislation for over two years you crooked fucks. Record profits and you’re giving them billions in tax credits… Seems legit.
reddit_1999 t1_iu3ft53 wrote
This is the "SOciAliSm!" that the fuckers at Fox News have no problem with.
lukewwilson t1_iu3yodb wrote
this is the socialism we should all have a problem with, why are we giving a tax break to companies that have increased their price, shown record profits, and have their stocks on the rise, they don't need a hand out.
julietteskyerose t1_iu533c2 wrote
A get what people are trying to say but this is just capitalism screwing over the majority
delco_trash t1_iu2r5u6 wrote
Disgusting. Shame on the democrats who green lit this and shame on wolf for signing it.
elefantsblue t1_iu45gru wrote
Fuck this state and fuck these polluting cowards.
[deleted] t1_iu2t10f wrote
[removed]
hamsandwich467 t1_iu40sp7 wrote
What about the potholes tho
brk1 t1_iu1ixqw wrote
Isn’t natural gas supposed to be the most efficient energy source? Serious question. I don’t know much about the environment except that coal is bad.
Edit: lol @ getting downvoted for asking a question. Peeps need to get a grip
SamShephardsMustache t1_iu1lyzf wrote
It's not the use of NG that's a problem. It's the way it's harvested. Fracking.
[deleted] t1_iu1osjh wrote
[removed]
Mijbr090490 t1_iu1kc7h wrote
As far as fossil fuels go, it's pretty efficient. It would be wise to invest in NG over coal. Until wind and solar are able to handle more, that's the best option unless people want to drop the notion that nuclear is scary and bad.
momlin t1_iu4qf38 wrote
To be honest, before living in PA I kind of thought that nuclear was scary and the towers do look kind of ominous but so far there hasn't been an issue. Compared to NY my energy costs are miniscule, whether nuclear is appropriate for everywhere, not sure. Long term environmental impact of nuclear, not sure.
yeags86 t1_iu2isc0 wrote
Well, uranium wins most efficient by weight - with an insanely huge margin. Of course the cost per kilowatt also knocks that right back down.
Fracking is pretty damn bad for the environment, and that’s the main extraction method here in PA. So that impact is a factor as well and should be included.
For industry we’ll need coal - it’s required to make coke which is then used to make steel. Using coal for energy is bad for the environment, but necessary for other things as a raw resource (like gold for computer chips).
Solar and wind are helpful and we should work towards them. But we do need a base load that can provide extra power when renewables can’t meet demands due to the weather.
Nuclear power is much safer and efficient now. Every significant accident was due to old technology. We’ve learned a lot from those that did happen and aren’t that dumb anymore.
Didn’t really write this out in any particular order. That said, all things considered my thoughts are we should be aiming for solar and wind as well as we can, and have nuclear as a base load. Ramp up the nuclear plants as needed to adjust for renewables if their capacity is lost temporarily. It’s the only long term solution I can see working. Good luck convincing the short sighted corporations and governments of the world that though.
[deleted] t1_iu2s9gr wrote
[removed]
downsly46 t1_iu26ir0 wrote
Good.
crazypants9 t1_iu20cqi wrote
Socialism is evil unless it is for corporate interests then it is wise investments. So your healthcare and Social Security and Medicare are just worthless socialist programs. Get back on that ladder and swing that rip hammer grandpa. Stop complaining about your knees and back. You have enough to buy beans and rice. STFU and get back to work lazy.