News Huge Energy Bill - Has House Approval

  • Thread starter Thread starter SOS2008
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
Click For Summary
The House approved a significant energy bill that allocates billions in tax breaks and subsidies to energy companies, primarily benefiting traditional energy sectors like oil and gas. Critics argue this legislation will not effectively reduce U.S. oil consumption or lower energy prices, raising concerns about taxpayer funding for an already profitable oil industry. The discussion also highlights a broader frustration with government priorities, linking the energy bill to various political issues, including the Iraq War and perceived failures in promoting personal liberties and scientific progress. Some participants express hope that the bill could revitalize the U.S. nuclear energy program, which they see as a potentially positive outcome. Overall, there is a call for increased accountability from Congress regarding their voting records on such critical issues.
  • #61
The Smoking Man said:
I think I have asked this before ... obliquely, I'll admit ... When the heck did Nuclear EVER become viable?

It never became nonviable. The predjudice against it is merely political. Advocate groups who react to the word nucleus rhe way 16th century Germans reacted to the word witch.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
selfAdjoint said:
It never became nonviable. The predjudice against it is merely political. Advocate groups who react to the word nucleus rhe way 16th century Germans reacted to the word witch.
Unfortunately, we don't really have witches but I can point out Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Candu Reactors, Nuclear waste, dirty bombs, North Korea and Iran to name but a few.

Chernobyl in fact had a sister station however the ex-Soviets can't afford to decomission it.

I'll send you here: http://www.chernobyl.info/

Now prove there were witches in the 16th century. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
Chernobyl was the bad old USSR design, Three Mile Island never hurt anybody. Nuclear weapons are not the same thing as nuclear power. No info on Candu. Nuclear waste can be handled as it is, but a better solution would be to build IFR reactors which can "eat" high-rad waste and produce low-rad waste that can be safely stored. Dirty bombs are an urban legend; once again, weapons and power are not reasonably connected. Take a gander over at the Nuclear Engineering subforum.

Your response reminds me of the sermons against witches that fired the people's imaginations back there in the 16th century.
 
  • #64
selfAdjoint said:
Chernobyl was the bad old USSR design, Three Mile Island never hurt anybody. Nuclear weapons are not the same thing as nuclear power. No info on Candu. Nuclear waste can be handled as it is, but a better solution would be to build IFR reactors which can "eat" high-rad waste and produce low-rad waste that can be safely stored. Dirty bombs are an urban legend; once again, weapons and power are not reasonably connected. Take a gander over at the Nuclear Engineering subforum.

Your response reminds me of the sermons against witches that fired the people's imaginations back there in the 16th century.
I KNOW you'll love this image :biggrin:

I won't bother with the debate here.

It's raging in enough places.

Suffice it to say, I don't agree.

I'm surprised you have not heard of the Candu though!?

I just tried a search on 'Candu Reactor' and got glowing reports over a number of pages.

Then I did a search on'Candu Reactor Cracks' and was equally surprised.
 
  • #65
Doncha LOVE Ben Sargent? http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20050802/sbs050801.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
The Smoking Man said:
Great. And 19% goes to the oil companies who's last major development was unleaded.

Or funding the building of hydrogen fueled public transit fleets and fueling stations.

I think I have asked this before ... obliquely, I'll admit ... When the heck did Nuclear EVER become viable?

It's provided power to a large part of southern California for decades. Maybe if that company you worked for in Ohio had switched, we wouldn't have to worry about all the acid rain in Canada destroying lakes and rivers.

Well, I must admit that the larger funding will end up in the area of the companies with the largest revenues. Now, a quick review of just who those companies are and the 'pull' they have had with the government in general, just who do you think they will be?

Well, I just finished looking over the bill (it's extremely long and I couldn't read all of it) and I can see that there aren't any rebates whatsoever earmarked to any specific companies. Looks like this fuss over 'big energy' was nothing more than a fuss. The rebates are for any company or provider that meets certain standards. Very few have anything to do with oil. Most of the fossil fuel incentives have to do with running 'clean-burning' coal plants and tapping into natural gas resources.

And just to make Patty happy, there actually are rebates in there for installing photovoltaic systems in buildings. They just aren't considered viable for public utilities purposes, which are focusing on hydroelectric and nuclear power, along with a huge number of conservation incentives, in this bill.

You might want to try reading the bill before you bash it next time.

Good god man, even some of the funding provisions in 'Homeland Security' for costal defense was diverted into ALABAMA ... a landlocked state!

Alabama is on the gulf coast, genius.

Sorry, I'll try not to use real English on you next time.

How do you expect me to be familiar with a colloquialism from a country I've never been to?
 
Last edited:
  • #67
The Smoking Man said:
The above list is the byproduct of the type of scheme that is being presented.

Each incarnation has had numerous names over the years but it all boils down to the same thing.

I am really surprised that Bush has been allowed to use it twice during his term. First the rebate to create jobs and now the rebate to create alternate energy. Wow.

Trickle down economic theory states that if you give tax breaks to businesses, they'll have more money to spend on labor, creating jobs. The opposing theory, I suppose, is that we should either tax businesses more and give the money to the poor so that they don't have to get jobs, or have the government directly create jobs. Let's see how you're applying this to energy.

This bill provides tax incentives to companies that meet certain cleanliness standards, conservation standards, tapping of new resource, installation of solar panels on commercial builings, etc. So what is the antithesis to this "trickle-down" theory as you're choosing to call it? We tax energy companies more and use that money to clean up the environment after we've ruined it? We tax them and the government uses that money to buy its own generators? I don't see how the energy situation is all that analagous to employment.

Capitalism is diametrically opposed to working in a democratic system.

What on Earth are you talking about? Is that why capitalism has been so successful in communist and fascist countries and so unsuccessful in democratic countries? Yet another tangential rant that has nothing to do with the energy bill, which I'm sure you haven't even bothered looking at.
 
  • #68
The Smoking Man said:
But then, I'm sure your 'room-mate's dad's start-ups of restaurants and bars' is much richer than my experience specifying parts of the Swiss banking system in Frankfurt, Germany, too. :rolleyes:

So you have a bigger dick than me. Does that have anything to do with who is being more evenhanded in their evaluation of this bill?
 
  • #69
loseyourname said:
Or funding the building of hydrogen fueled public transit fleets and fueling stations.
They have to develop the fuel first and they have no incentive to do so.

loseyourname said:
It's provided power to a large part of southern California for decades. Maybe if that company you worked for in Ohio had switched, we wouldn't have to worry about all the acid rain in Canada destroying lakes and rivers.
Hey, you don't get it ... They don't give a rat's keester either way. All they know is they get a tax break for owning them. That is IN FACT what I have been telling you. The rebate system is flawed when there is no check for compliance or targetting of goals.

loseyourname said:
Well, I just finished looking over the bill (it's extremely long and I couldn't read all of it) and I can see that there aren't any rebates whatsoever earmarked to any specific companies. Looks like this fuss over 'big energy' was nothing more than a fuss. The rebates are for any company or provider that meets certain standards. Very few have anything to do with oil. Most of the fossil fuel incentives have to do with running 'clean-burning' coal plants and tapping into natural gas resources.
Don't worry. Big energy has had teams of lawyers and accountants running over it for you and will cut to the heart of the matter.

loseyourname said:
And just to make Patty happy, there actually are rebates in there for installing photovoltaic systems in buildings. They just aren't considered viable for public utilities purposes, which are focusing on hydroelectric and nuclear power, along with a huge number of conservation incentives, in this bill.

You might want to try reading the bill before you bash it next time.
LOL, I just told you how the largest supplier in the NE USA tapped the 'conservation incentives' in the last bill. They didn't have to even break stride to collect on this one too.
loseyourname said:
Alabama is on the gulf coast, genius.
Sorry, I meant Arkansas ... Oooo and it also appears that becasue Oklahoma has the Canadian River, they get some cash too! Goo ooo oooly Sargeant! We kin eat in Mayberry Tonight!
loseyourname said:
How do you expect me to be familiar with a colloquialism from a country I've never been to?
Oh, no reason ... just thought you might have seen a movie or two. :rolleyes:
 
  • #70
loseyourname said:
And just to make Patty happy, there actually are rebates in there for installing photovoltaic systems in buildings. They just aren't considered viable for public utilities purposes...

Out of curiosity, why? If we could drop the real cost of solar cells by a factor of two with research investment, it might be possible to deal with the energy crisis once and for all. If I did my calculations correctly, a moderate clime gets on the order of 4 kWHrs/day/square meter. That's about 20 square meters per household for a state like California, which isn't so bad. If we can double the efficiency (which is possible) solar farms in Arizona could power Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego and probably Texas as well-which would be a pretty big load off conventional power sources. You would need some advances in power storage for nighttime operations, but it's certainly moving closer and closer to viable.
 
  • #71
The Smoking Man said:
They have to develop the fuel first and they have no incentive to do so.

Do you mean they have to develop better cells that are commerically viable? You certainly can't mean that they have to develop hydrogen. It's the most abundant element in the universe and easy enough to extract from water.

Hey, you don't get it ... They don't give a rat's keester either way. All they know is they get a tax break for owning them. That is IN FACT what I have been telling you. The rebate system is flawed when there is no check for compliance or targetting of goals.

Don't worry. Big energy has had teams of lawyers and accountants running over it for you and will cut to the heart of the matter.

LOL, I just told you how the largest supplier in the NE USA tapped the 'conservation incentives' in the last bill. They didn't have to even break stride to collect on this one too.

So are you going to bother looking at the bill at all, or do you just think any rebate scheme can't work? Despite almost all of the objections you make to the actual bill being factually incorrect and based on your not having read the bill, you're just going to continue along these lines.

By the way, your point about the Ohio provider had nothing to do with the conservation incentives in this bill. Those incentives aren't even for providers. Again, read the damn bill before criticizing it.

just thought you might have seen a movie or two. :rolleyes:

I've seen quite a bit more than two. None where any characters ever used the phrase 'taking the piss' to mean anything other than taking a piss.

Didn't you say you were going to sleep?
 
  • #72
loseyourname said:
So you have a bigger dick than me. Does that have anything to do with who is being more evenhanded in their evaluation of this bill?
No son, I just have 25 years more experience as an analyst than you and have not to mention living through the eras that you only talk about.

I have also lived and worked in 6 different countries including the USA.

Heck, by the time I had hit your age, I had sat through the whole Watergate inquest, watched vietnam rage on my TV set and saw it end.

You had better stop this naive approach of analysis of 'Bills' that come down from on high. Look for loopholes and how it will be abused from the onset.

To approach ANYTHING that comes out of the government without acknowledging the whole 'lobby system' and what they influence and hide in each bill is like sticking a sign on you that says 'Rape Me'.

Don't be even handed. You can bet they aren't.
 
  • #73
danAlwyn said:
Out of curiosity, why? If we could drop the real cost of solar cells by a factor of two with research investment, it might be possible to deal with the energy crisis once and for all. If I did my calculations correctly, a moderate clime gets on the order of 4 kWHrs/day/square meter. That's about 20 square meters per household for a state like California, which isn't so bad. If we can double the efficiency (which is possible) solar farms in Arizona could power Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego and probably Texas as well-which would be a pretty big load off conventional power sources. You would need some advances in power storage for nighttime operations, but it's certainly moving closer and closer to viable.

Well first, probably because it would require a huge change in infrastructure. Commercial solar power right now, what little of it there is, doesn't even use photovoltaic cells. If you wanted to actually do that, you'd have to build huge arrays to power an entire grid. No public utility has the resources to do that, but individual businesses can certainly do it to their buildings. The bill does encourage research - in the form of new university grants - into making solar power more viable, which frankly is about the best we can do with it right now.
 
  • #74
The Smoking Man said:
No son, I just have 25 years more experience as an analyst than you and have not to mention living through the eras that you only talk about.

I have also lived and worked in 6 different countries including the USA.

You're also quite the expert on ad hominem arguments, aren't you? I'm younger than you and haven't lived in as many places, therefore I must be wrong and you must be right. Was that still considered to be a valid argument form when you were in school? Meanwhile, you don't even look at the bill being discussed, but you're the expert on it because you once worked for a utility company.

What exactly do you expect from the government? I have to wonder. Is there such a thing as a bill with no loopholes? Seriously, man, read the damn bill and tell me what you would change about it. I'm sure it has plenty of real shortcomings, plenty that even a young sapling like I could find. Have you considered the alternative plans that were proposed and whether or not they were any better? Or are you simply going to complain no matter what is done? Until you at least look at the actual plan, you're making yourself look like a fool, with the appeal to age/wisdom/experience card. Come on.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
loseyourname said:
Do you mean they have to develop better cells that are commerically viable? You certainly can't mean that they have to develop hydrogen. It's the most abundant element in the universe and easy enough to extract from water.
Going to go all literal on me now are you? Yeah, cells of many types. One is the type you envision and another is based on a sealed battery design.

Hydrogen IS plentiful, yes. Unfortunately, it takes electricity to extract from water ... electrolysis. Power to get power. The process needs work.
loseyourname said:
So are you going to bother looking at the bill at all, or do you just think any rebate scheme can't work? Despite almost all of the objections you make to the actual bill being factually incorrect and based on your not having read the bill, you're just going to continue along these lines.
Let me ask YOU since you have read it ... What is the demonstration to the government that you qualify for the rebate? What are the Checks and Balances? Basically, what happens in these schemes is that they leave it up to the TAX OFFICE to enforce the chriteria. THAT is the flaw with all of these schemes. You have a tax accountant looking over a balance sheet.
loseyourname said:
By the way, your point about the Ohio provider had nothing to do with the conservation incentives in this bill. Those incentives aren't even for providers. Again, read the damn bill before criticizing it.
LOL ... Rebates don't work. Grants that are justified with targets etc. DO. It is a simple fact.
loseyourname said:
I've seen quite a bit more than two. None where any characters ever used the phrase 'taking the piss' to mean anything other than taking a piss.
Allow me to educate you then: http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv5-&p=taking the piss&ei=UTF-8
loseyourname said:
Didn't you say you were going to sleep?
I did ... I only sleep 4 hours a night.
 
  • #76
The Smoking Man said:
Great. And 19% goes to the oil companies who's last major development was unleaded.
Fossil fuels, unfortunately, are of vital importance to the way this country's economy runs. It would make no sense for this country to deny their importance and not be sure to keep the industry, that helps support so many others, prospering. It would make even less sense to smack them around like a redheaded step child because we're pissed that they are that important to us.
Aside from that...
http://www.chevron.com/technology/new_energy_technologies/renewable_energy.asp
http://www.energyvortex.com/pages/headlinedetails.cfm?id=1701

The Smoking Man said:
I think I have asked this before ... obliquely, I'll admit ... When the heck did Nuclear EVER become viable?
Integral Fast Reactors...
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/
The website for Argonne National Laboratory mentioned in previous link...
http://www.anl.gov/
France and Nuclear Power...
http://greennature.com/article744.html
China and Nuclear Power...
http://www.rednova.com/news/science/179030/china_races_to_expand_nuclear_power/
Japan and Nuclear Power...
http://www.japannuclear.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
loseyourname said:
You're also quite the expert on ad hominem arguments, aren't you? I'm younger than you and haven't lived in as many places, therefore I must be wrong and you must be right. Was that still considered to be a valid argument form when you were in school? Meanwhile, you don't even look at the bill being discussed, but you're the expert on it because you once worked for a utility company.
Actually, yes it was a valid argument and now it wasn't considered ad hominem.

There is something to be said for respecting your elders simply becasue of what they have experienced and the conclusions they have drawn from that experience.

You tell me to read this legislation for instance becasue in your reading, you didn't find anything wrong with it.

Well, in my 'experience', I have seen a great many pieces of similar legislation and it is not the content of the bill that is in question but the TYPE of legislation.

I have specified systems for banks in three countries, insurance companies in two countries and a power company in one and they were all 'tax based' legislation with the onus on the tax office to verify and administer decisions that were not in their perview.

loseyourname said:
What exactly do you expect from the government? I have to wonder. Is there such a thing as a bill with no loopholes? Seriously, man, read the damn bill and tell me what you would change about it. I'm sure it has plenty of real shortcomings, plenty that even a young sapling like I could find. Have you considered the alternative plans that were proposed and whether or not they were any better? Or are you simply going to complain no matter what is done? Until you at least look at the actual plan, you're making yourself look like a fool, with the appeal to age/wisdom/experience card. Come on.
I can answer it simply ... 'Who in the tax office is trained as a tax accountant and an expert in alternate fuel source development?' Did that require me to read a bill?

Nope.

How did I do that?

Experience through 4 administrations of US policy does that since inevitably 'all systems now lead to the USA'. (Instead of all roads lead to Rome.)

Without exception, trickled down especially when led by a specific target this is doomed to failure.

It's the football in the nuts scenario ... been there done that already.
 
  • #78
russ_watters said:
That a Senator would send money toward his home state is unsurprising and certainly not unique to Republicans, so you cannot use that as a stick with which to beat Republicans. But step back and have a look at what you are opposing: R&D. Personally, I think the US government has a vested interest in funding energy R&D.

Russ it is time to earn your super mentor status and make sure you have some knowledge on a subject before you start voicing an opinion.

Tom DeLay is a congressional representative from Texas, not a Senator. If you don't even know that most basic of information about him then you should not offer an opinion about his ethics.
 
  • #79
I apologize for not reading all the posts but I need to sleep and wanted to add a thought and ask a question before bedtime.

The current US government is willing to spend hundreds of billions a year on a war with no well defined goals.

What would happen to the price of PV panels if the government invested 100 billion a year to subsidize the production of photo-voltaics?

Reading how the actual tax incentives work is frightening, the tax incentive for hybrids laughable. It only covers the first 60,000 vehicles. Toyota will sell that many in 4 months.And the incentive for the purchaser is about $2000. I can still buy a loaded H2 and get a $60,000 write-off the first year.
 
  • #80
TheStatutoryApe said:
Fossil fuels, unfortunately, are of vital importance to the way this country's economy runs. It would make no sense for this country to deny their importance and not be sure to keep the industry, that helps support so many others, prospering. It would make even less sense to smack them around like a redheaded step child because we're pissed that they are that important to us.
Aside from that...
http://www.chevron.com/technology/new_energy_technologies/renewable_energy.asp
http://www.energyvortex.com/pages/headlinedetails.cfm?id=1701


Integral Fast Reactors...
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/
The website for Argonne National Laboratory mentioned in previous link...
http://www.anl.gov/
France and Nuclear Power...
http://greennature.com/article744.html
China and Nuclear Power...
http://www.rednova.com/news/science/179030/china_races_to_expand_nuclear_power/
Japan and Nuclear Power...
http://www.japannuclear.com/
I know what you're saying but I always have the nasty thought in my mind of San Andreas and Japan. Or even a conventional war.

Bomb my wind farm, shake my dam, break my solar panels but nuclear sites? ... It's really hard to justify a nuclear halflife based on results in ideal conditions. Even the Exxon Valdize doesn't have half the problems that a large nuclear accident could bring.

And I'm sorry but, I was in the UK when they started finding radioactive particles on the beach just down fron a British Nuke site. People were sunbathing on that beach and anyone laying on it would have been irradiated.

You just don't hear stories like this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1512884,00.html with regard to wind farms and the like. So far, the best they have come up with is they are ugly.

A couple of the sites you sent me to were cool. The U of Chicago biomass for example. I'm all for that.

I know I don't live in an ideal world AND I am a pessimist. I am very hard to convince on this issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
Skyhunter said:
I apologize for not reading all the posts but I need to sleep and wanted to add a thought and ask a question before bedtime.

The current US government is willing to spend hundreds of billions a year on a war with no well defined goals.
I know I am way off topic with this comment and I apologize in advance but:

Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide?
A: $900+ billion

Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.?
A: 50%

Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world,according to the UN?
A: 10% (that's about $40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund the US retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).
 
  • #82
The Smoking Man said:
People were sunbathing on that beach and anyone laying on it would have been irradiated.
Could one sunbathe without being irradiated?
 
  • #83
hitssquad said:
Could one sunbathe without being irradiated?
In the North of England ... YES.

Do yourselves a favour and never tell these people about global warming. They'll be on the streets in droves burning old refrigerators and squirting aerosols into the air.

They had a clear day once near where I was born and they were threatening to sacrifice a virgin so the 'big yellow thing' would leave the sky. Thank heavens they couldn't find one.

:biggrin:
 
  • #84
The Smoking Man said:
Rebates don't work. Grants that are justified with targets etc. DO. It is a simple fact.

Grants are a large part of the bill. Again, something you would know if you would read it already.
 
  • #85
The Smoking Man said:
Actually, yes it was a valid argument and now it wasn't considered ad hominem.

Argumentum ad hominem means argumentation against the person. It's a way of deflecting from the actual arguments being made by your opponent. It is and has always been considered an informal logical fallacy. If you think this:

I am older and more experienced than you.
Therefore, you are wrong.

Is a valid argument, show me the truth table for it. It isn't.

There is something to be said for respecting your elders simply becasue of what they have experienced and the conclusions they have drawn from that experience.

You have the same amount of experience with this particular bill as I do - none. Heck, I might have more experience than you since I bothered to take a look at the thing before deciding it was all bunk. I decided to make up my own mind instead of accepting the headline accounts of what it contained.

You tell me to read this legislation for instance becasue in your reading, you didn't find anything wrong with it.

Not at all. I find plenty wrong with it. But they had to pass a policy of some sort and this is as good as anything else that was proposed. I'm asking you to read it because I feel that knowledge of a given bill is a prerequisite for intelligent discussion of the bill.

Well, in my 'experience', I have seen a great many pieces of similar legislation and it is not the content of the bill that is in question but the TYPE of legislation.

What "type?" All you've complained about are the rebates, which make up something like 11 out of 40 titles in the bill. There is a lot more to it than that, including many of the things you are saying should be included.

Without exception, trickled down especially when led by a specific target this is doomed to failure.

If you insist, but guess what? There are men as expert as you, more expert than you, that think otherwise. The appeal to authority doesn't work when the authorities can't come to agreement. That's why I'd like to at least see a specific objection to this legislation. Besides, you're wrong on at least one count. Tax rebates for energy conservation here in California have been very effective, and I'm glad this bill expands them. Or perhaps you thought the conservation rebates were primarily for energy providers, not individuals and businesses that actually use the energy. Maybe if you read the bill you wouldn't think that.
 
Last edited:
  • #86
Skyhunter said:
Toyota will sell that many in 4 months.And the incentive for the purchaser is about $2000. I can still buy a loaded H2 and get a $60,000 write-off the first year.

As far as I know, you don't get a tax break just for buying an H-2. You get one if you use it for business purposes, but that is the case for any car. A brother and sister pair I know have most of their leases on a Corvette and a Viper deductible because they advertise the name of commercial websites they own on the rear windshield.
 
  • #87
loseyourname said:
As far as I know, you don't get a tax break just for buying an H-2.
Yes, you do. There is a special tax break just for trucks.
http://www.unlockingwealth.com/free_suv.htm

--
The break for trucks got bigger this year under a schedule Congress adopted in 1996 when businesses could claim $17,500 in accelerated depreciation on equipment. That lump sum increased to $20,000 last year. It went up to $24,000 this year. Next year and thereafter the deduction will be $25,000.
[...]
The code is not as generous for luxury cars.
--
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
hitssquad said:
Yes, you do. There is a special tax break just for trucks.
http://www.unlockingwealth.com/free_suv.htm

No you don't. That site even says you have to be self-employed and use the SUV for business purposes. The average citizen can't just buy an SUV and get a tax break.

You can get a larger deduction on luxury vehicles by counting it as a travel expense and as an advertising expense.

Don't get me wrong here. I think both loopholes should be closed, personally, but these are hardly the extent of how to get around paying taxes and get free things. There are plenty of creative accounting techniques one can use.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #89
loseyourname said:
No you don't. That site even says you have to be self-employed and use the SUV for business purposes. The average citizen can't just buy an SUV and get a tax break.

You can get a larger deduction on luxury vehicles by counting it as a travel expense and as an advertising expense.

Don't get me wrong here. I think both loopholes should be closed, personally, but these are hardly the extent of how to get around paying taxes and get free things. There are plenty of creative accounting techniques one can use.
Question: Do you know it is possible for a private citizen to register himself as a business and then purchase assets in the name of that business?

You can then draw your salary tax free to that company and pay yourself substantially less while maintaining all your assets in your company name. You would then only be liable for personal income tax on the amount you pay yourself which is essentially enough to buy things that are not tax deductable.

The rest of your money then becomes subject to corporate taxes AND corporate deductions including the purchase of SUVs, H2s and the like.

"There is more in this heaven and Earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
 
  • #90
The Smoking Man said:
Question: Do you know it is possible for a private citizen to register himself as a business and then purchase assets in the name of that business?

You can then draw your salary tax free to that company and pay yourself substantially less while maintaining all your assets in your company name. You would then only be liable for personal income tax on the amount you pay yourself which is essentially enough to buy things that are not tax deductable.

The rest of your money then becomes subject to corporate taxes AND corporate deductions including the purchase of SUVs, H2s and the like.
"There is more in this heaven and Earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Well...It's a bit more complicated then that...and bit more costly then your portraying.
 

Similar threads

News Will the House Funding Bill Ignite a Government Shutdown?
  • · Replies 200 ·
7
Replies
200
Views
72K
News The House is bringing back the Keystone pipeline
  • · Replies 162 ·
6
Replies
162
Views
22K
News Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act 2005/2007
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
Creationist bill passed by Louisiana House of Representatives
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
10K
News Is the Bush Era Truly Over with Congress Overriding His Veto?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
News Is it Time for a Democratic Congress in 2006?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
News How Can We Improve Mass Transit to Reduce Dependence on Cars?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
News Polarized America & Class War Politics
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
News Has President Bush broken his oath?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
News Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
27K