re: Stupid tax bill restores $1 biodiesel tax credit

quote:

---

I hope for a veto.

---

Same. I wonder how the 2008-09 version of the Tea Party would feel- I bet they would too.

quote:

---

quote:
The simplest way to explain this to you is that these people will have negative tax rates. IF that is not a subsidy what is it???

Are you privy to the personal and business tax returns of the individuals benefitting from this bill? You know these producers will be at a negative tax liability if this bill is signed?

---

Jay you are just wrong. They are getting $1 per finished gallon whether or not they make a taxable profit on the gallon or not.

If they passed a law tomorrow saying Jay gets $1 a mile in tax credits for every mile he drives regardless of his income what would you call that?

quote:

---

Politicians, being more than a bit slimey, can use credits to further agendas.

---

Not that all such agendas are bad, but we should see this particular tool for what it is and call it as such.

quote:

---

Not that all such agendas are bad, but we should see this particular tool for what it is and call it as such.

---

Ahh the moral hazard of treating one group differently than another. Good and bad are certainly in eye of the beholder.

quote:

---

Good and bad are certainly in eye of the beholder.

---

Right, should have said "not all such agendas are inherently bad", I guess

Jay how about you get educated a little before you ask me questions. A simple google of biodiesel tax credits will give you a long list of articles to read.

But from the opening post article.

quote:

---

Dozens of other tax perks would have been extended through the end of next year, including breaks for race horse owners, manufacturers of electric motorcycles and improvements at NASCAR tracks. Other extenders include tax credits for biodiesel, for coal produced in Indian country, and breaks for energy-efficient homes and commercial buildings.

Many of the breaks have been criticized as wasteful, inefficient and archaic, but their collective weight has always powered them through Congress. Critics did claim one casualty: a much-criticized tax credit for wind power, which would phase out in three years. Some of the biggest supporters of the credit, however, have been Midwestern Republicans.

---

One thing that reporters don't understand is that some of these tax things are deductions and some are credits. A big difference.

The NASCAR tax treatment, for example, is simply a change in how NASCAR can take depreciation. (I have already called for an end to these arcane depreciation rulings and a simple cash treatment of asset purchases for all businesses. This would solve things for NASCAR and everybody else.)

NASCAR wants to deduct their investments in tracks over 7 years like an amusement park can deduct rides and equipment. NASCAR tracks have far longer depreciation schedules for tax purposes. The impact over the long run in revenue for the government is small but in the short run is large.

Several reporters are making claims as too how much money this special treatment will have save NASCAR over 5 years or 10 years but none of them point out that the treatment will cost them more in 15 years or 20 years because they will have expensed all their depreciation earlier.

I am not for special treatment of NASCAR.

I am for simpler treatment of all businesses. NOTHING a responsible Congress and President could do today would impact the economy more than simply allowing businesses to deduct their asset purchases 100% in the year the make the purchases. Oh it would mean a huge reduction in tax revenue for a year or two but then would mean a huge addition to revenue in latter years.

We have trillions in cash on the balance sheets of large corporations because of our misguided tax laws regarding foreign income of US corporations. We should immediately go back to our old treatment of such income (we didn't tax it) and implement 100% deductions in the year of the purchase of assets. Those trillions would be spent in the US and would come into the economy very quickly.

Most tax credits are non refundable. They simply can't reduce tax liability below zero. Others allow for a partial or full refund.

The article you provided doesn't say how this bill addresses negative liability.

And don't be a dick like you were earlier. If you start a thread people are going to ask questions.

Now back to your whole tax credit vs subsidy debate. With biodiesel demanding a lower price than its 100% fossil fuel counter part. Companies who blend the product have no reason to manufacture the alternative. The "tax credit" is used to make blended fuels more profitable or at least equal to manufacturing 100% fossil fuels. With the democrats constant debate about renewable energy, you would think they would be first on board to entice fuel manufactures to make alternatives to 100% fossil fuels but the can't look past the term tax credit.

quote:

---

Now back to your whole tax credit vs subsidy debate. With biodiesel demanding a lower price than its 100% fossil fuel counter part.

---

Link please

BTW I challenge you to find any biodiesel today given the biodiesel subsidy is not in place right now.