i am but its not working.
i am but its not working.
I've considered the same thing. I just wish the tax incentive would apply to duel fuel CNG. I can't understand why it only applies to 100% CNG conversion only. If dual fuel conversion qualified for the tax incentive then you would see real free market competition between CNG and gasoline.
Asked and answered.
It does. At least from the State. You get an 80% break on the cost of a dedicated vehicle and a 50% break on the dual fuel.
As for the State being the only place you get a break, I can see that in light of the federal deficit and all.
See it here
Thanks for the link. I was only aware of the federal incentive; didn't know about the state incentive.
Well there are several things to reply to here.
1) A tax exemption is NOT a subsidy. I know you didn't say that but your article did. This is just like rubbing fingernails on a chalkboard to me. A subsidy is when they actually write a check like with Solyndra. A tax exemption is just a tax exemption and the oil companies don't get any exemptions that say Microsoft and Apple doesn't get that I'm aware of.
2) I don't know if the DOE subsidized research into fraccing or not, probably so according to your article. But what if they did? Lets look at the little fact your article decided to leave out. The little tidbit of royalties being paid to the federal government on their leases. If it weren't for fraccing there would be a whole lot of land sitting on the books of the .gov that would be paying exactly nothing. Yes the .gov gets paid royalties just exactly like you or I do on our private land leased to an oil company. energytommorrow.org states that we pay $86 million dollars a day to the .fed in royalties, rents and bonus fees. The vast majority of that is for O&G. Funny how we never hear this stated by the tax hungry dimocrats. Seems they would want to increase the amount of royalties on future leases and do more of them instead of fewer.
3) I don't really call this a huge tax break. The actual subsidy of $137 million would drill right at 21 whole wells in the Marcellus using today's $6.5 million average well cost. Now for the actual tax break of $10 billion see #1. But both of these being spread out over 22 years? That's hardly huge. Obama has given $90 billion in less that 4 years to his green energy pals. Now that I would call huge.
4) I don't want to get rid of the DOE. It's the EPA, OSHA and MMS that needs serious overhauling. Obama is using the EPA and OSHA to shut down and shakedown (respectively) the drillers. The drilling moratorium in the Gulf? Yes it's pretty much still on. He's using MMS for this and severely restricting how many leases they grant and the EPA now requires an environmental impact study for every well drilled there. There are lands all up and down the Rockies that the companies that DPI and myself work for that would love to go into and drill. But Obama says no.
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread...
I wasn't looking for an argument. I was just curious.
Thanks
Thanks
Sorry if that came across too terse. This stuff just chaps my a$$. I didn't really mean to direct it at you.
A principled argument could be made either way. Money is fungible; if a particular tax is ordinarily due, and the government says "you don't have to pay this," then what is the realistic difference between collecting the tax and sending the taxpayer a cheque, and simply not collecting the tax? The taxpayer still has the same amount of money, the government has the same amount of money; what changes in the end?
This is why we need a much simpler tax code, and a far less powerful government. Government shouldn't have the ability to give subsidies, to pick winners and losers.
Anyone with half a functioning brain cell in their head should get all kinds of pissed off about this.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
