Same ole same ole story......

[Tex]

My personal opinion is that the birther movement tapped into a lot of latent racism and sour grapes because they lost the election (along with some really tied in monied interests). Trump has tried to capitalize on this with his baiting of the issue with his "investigators" who were uncovering "lots of interesting stuff".

We really need to keep the eye on the ball and this whole thing was a diversionary issue to give time to the monied interests to get a game plan going, pay off more members of Congress, and get the PR firms working for them in shaping the debate.

This was much the same as the American Farm Bureau supporting a stalling of the GIPSA rules.

I think we have the same story with the oil industry's tax breaks that are only being shallowly covered by the media.


Here is an excerpt form a more competent discussion on the oil company's tax breaks (as we have to endure BP's pr push on television and the oil company's spin on the tax breaks):



http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3704

As Robert Bryce pointed out in his book, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate (2004): "Numerous studies showed that the oilmen were getting a tax break that was unprecedented in American business. While other businessmen had to pay taxes on their income regardless of what they sold, the oilmen got special treatment."

Bryce gives an example in his book how the oil depreciation allowance works. "An oilman drills a well that costs $100,000. He finds a reservoir containing $10,000,000 worth of oil. The well produces $1 million worth of oil per year for ten years. In the very first year, thanks to the depletion allowance, the oilman could deduct 27.5 per cent, or $275,000, of that $1 million in income from his taxable income. Thus, in just one year, he's deducted nearly three times his initial investment. But the depletion allowance continues to pay off. For each of the next nine years, he gets to continue taking the $275,000 depletion deduction. By the end of the tenth year, the oilman has deducted $2.75 million from his taxable income, even though his initial investment was only $100,000."

Such a system was clearly unfair and only benefited a small group of businessmen in Texas. It seemed only a matter of time before Congress removed this tax loophole. However, these oilmen used some of their great wealth to manipulate the politicians in Washington.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3704

Oh, the spin and politicians money buys! It is the same ole story........


Tex

 

[hypocritexposer]

Tex, I think your example leaves out the costs of exploration, development, royalties and environmental remediation.

Subsidies to American oil companies allow them to better compete globally. If cut, the lack of subsidies would increase dependence on foreign oil and also result in lost jobs.

then the Government would spend the $4 Billion somewhere else in an attempt to create the lost jobs.

How much would the taxpayer lose in tax revenue if the oil companies were to take their ball to another field?

I bet it's more than the $4 Billion that is being talked about.

 

[Whitewing]

And then maybe some of those who doubted his veracity on the issue of his birth certificate were simply basing their doubts on the numerous lies he's told the American people.

Just sayin'.

 

[Tex]

Tex, I think your example leaves out the costs of exploration, development, royalties and environmental remediation.

Subsidies to American oil companies allow them to better compete globally. If cut, the lack of subsidies would increase dependence on foreign oil and also result in lost jobs.

then the Government would spend the $4 Billion somewhere else in an attempt to create the lost jobs.

How much would the taxpayer lose in tax revenue if the oil companies were to take their ball to another field?

I bet it's more than the $4 Billion that is being talked about.

Forgive me if I am wrong, and please correct me, but aren't all of these things business write offs already?

Costs of exploration are business write offs. Royalties are either not counted as income to the corporation or written off as an expense, development the same, and environmental remediation the same.


I don't buy the argument that we have to give extra write offs over and above the actual costs.

I don't think we will be oil independent even if we paid the oil companies with public money instead of taxing them (which is what these tax breaks seem to do).

This is just part of the crazy spin that we have to give, give, give to corporations to get them to do what we want or require them to do. I think the government is way too in debt to keep giving carrots out.

For goodness sake, we are talking about cutting SS to old ladies to do what, give more carrots to big business so they will act the way we want them to?

How about telling big business that playing their game caused the financial crisis (thanks, Phil Gramm) we just went through and then we used public resources to save their butts without hardly any accountability?

We WILL NOT be able to drill our way out of our energy problems. We have reached Peak Oil and we have to adjust. No amount of tax incentives are going to change that economic reality. I don't think catering to big oil and their major investors is going to help the country despite all the crying they do.

As a matter of fact, this whole story shows why Mideast countries nationalized their oil industries. They were tired of the big money games in their own countries.

Since the carrots haven't helped the oil companies stop the price of oil going up because of dwindling supplies, maybe we need to ask for some of that tax money back from them.

I wonder how much in taxes they have actually dodged and banked over the years of this depletion allowance sham?

It might have been enough in present value dollars to pay off the national debt and instead it just went into some rich guy's account thanks to paid off politicians. At least Boehner isn't dismissing the possibility of this as a revenue source.

I don't believe the whole global competition big business argument. They ring very hollow to me. It is just another excuse dodge taxes that someone else has to pay or that turns into debt as the politicians put everything on the nation's credit card.

The game is up. Read the article from the link I posted:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3704


Just sayin'.



Tex

 

[hypocritexposer]

The $4 billion that is being talked about includes the "tax credits" that these companies take advantage of.

It's estimated that oil companies profit 2 cents/gallon of gas. The Federal and State governments reap upwards of 48 cents per Gallon, depending on state tax

One of the reasons for the tax is to pay for the credits that oil companies receive. Where does the money actually go, or where has it gone, might be a better question.

But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies' returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.

"The flow of revenues to oil companies is like the gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico: heavy and constant," said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, who has worked alongside the Obama administration on a bill that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks over the next decade. "There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer."

Oil industry officials say that the tax breaks, which average about $4 billion a year according to various government reports, are a bargain for taxpayers. By helping producers weather market fluctuations and invest in technology, tax incentives are supporting an industry that the officials say provides 9.2 million jobs.

The American Petroleum Institute, an industry advocacy group, argues that even with subsidies, oil producers paid or incurred $280 billion in American income taxes from 2006 to 2008, and pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes than most other American corporations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

 

[Tex]

The $4 billion that is being talked about includes the "tax credits" that these companies take advantage of.

It's estimated that oil companies profit 2 cents/gallon of gas. The Federal and State governments reap upwards of 48 cents per Gallon, depending on state tax

One of the reasons for the tax is to pay for the credits that oil companies receive. Where does the money actually go, or where has it gone, might be a better question.

But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies' returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.

"The flow of revenues to oil companies is like the gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico: heavy and constant," said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, who has worked alongside the Obama administration on a bill that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks over the next decade. "There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer."

Oil industry officials say that the tax breaks, which average about $4 billion a year according to various government reports, are a bargain for taxpayers. By helping producers weather market fluctuations and invest in technology, tax incentives are supporting an industry that the officials say provides 9.2 million jobs.

The American Petroleum Institute, an industry advocacy group, argues that even with subsidies, oil producers paid or incurred $280 billion in American income taxes from 2006 to 2008, and pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes than most other American corporations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

No, tax breaks can't be there just to offset taxes. That is a pretty silly argument.

Taxes are paid to support the expenses of a government which includes roads and infrastructure, law enforcement, national defense (these oil companies have been profiting a whole lot from that one), and other necessary functions of the government. Politicians have looted over payment of SS taxes to pay for these items.

If all these oil industry tax breaks are working so well and are the answer to solving high gas prices, why aren't they working?

The reality is that energy will cost more because the cheap oil has already been tapped-- a long time ago. The lack of requiring energy efficient long term infrastructure like auto gas mileage standards and more efficient appliances has made the problem worse. Yes, we are getting some of that now, but it continues to cost the nation because we still have gas guzzlers, inefficient houses that were built with lax efficiency standards when prices were low, and other inefficient long term investments still in use.

Appeasing businesses interests may seem like the answer but in reality, it has been part of the problem. The financial crisis proved that one.

Giving oil companies more tax breaks will not solve the oil crisis. It hasn't yet. It is just an accounting trick to move more taxes onto others that the oil industry doesn't pay or putting it on our nation's credit card. This whole argument by business to get more carrots from others doesn't work out in the long run. It is just a transfer of wealth.

Tex

 

[hypocritexposer]

you are failing to take into account inflation, in your attempt to demonize the corporations and give Government a free pass.

 

[Tex]

you are failing to take into account inflation, in your attempt to demonize the corporations and give Government a free pass.

I am not demonizing anyone. Why would you say that?

Inflation is something everyone has to deal with. Why and how does that factor in?

I don't give government a free pass. I think politicians have been abusing their power by passing out favors for a while. This is but one example. In the meantime, they have been borrowing the money to pass out these favors and a lot from the SS system from the people paying it involuntarily. That tax is the most regressive tax there is with what is turning up as empty promises in part because politicians have been passing off favors to people with money because they have been pulling the puppet strings.

Capitalism can not guarantee a profit to the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. It ceases to be capitalism and just subsidizes the rich investors who have these kind of loopholes. That was the mistake the politicians got us into with the recent financial crisis.




Tex

 

[Oldgoat]

I thought that percentge depletion was phased out for large producers in the 1980s

 

[hypocritexposer]

you are failing to take into account inflation, in your attempt to demonize the corporations and give Government a free pass.

I am not demonizing anyone. Why would you say that?

Inflation is something everyone has to deal with. Why and how does that factor in?

I don't give government a free pass. I think politicians have been abusing their power by passing out favors for a while. This is but one example. In the meantime, they have been borrowing the money to pass out these favors and a lot from the SS system from the people paying it involuntarily. That tax is the most regressive tax there is with what is turning up as empty promises in part because politicians have been passing off favors to people with money because they have been pulling the puppet strings.

Capitalism can not guarantee a profit to the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. It ceases to be capitalism and just subsidizes the rich investors who have these kind of loopholes. That was the mistake the politicians got us into with the recent financial crisis.

Tex

"Inflation is something everyone has to deal with. Why and how does that factor in?'

are you seriously asking how inflation and the value of the USD affects the price of oil?

It wasn't the threat of tax credits, that have been in existence for almost ever, to oil companies that lead me to suggest people invest in Gold and oil at the beginning of 2009, it was the overspending and by obama.

and , yes, tax loopholes should be closed, but for both individuals and corporations. Lower the tax rates at the same time and reduce the size and power the Federal Government wields.

Paul Ryan's plan is sounding better all the time.

edited to add: personally I hope the US taxes the oil companies to the hilt. We could use the additional tax revenue in Canada.

Canada just keeps lowering the corporate tax rate and we just keep gaining the corporations, employment and tax revenue.


Just wondering what happens if the US takes back even 50% of $4 Billion and the companies effective tax rates on profits are reduced by even 5%, due to reduced drilling etc.

Just a quick calculation, that might not be totally accurate, but ....

Tax payer gains
+ $2 Billion per year


$208 Billion /3 = 69.3 * .95 = 65.9 * .05 = $ 3.46 Billion per year lost in tax revenue from reduced US profits.

 

[Tex]

I thought that percentge depletion was phased out for large producers in the 1980s

The article I posted seems to say otherwise.

I really don't know about the depletion allowance but it should never be more than the original costs which the article said it does.

I think the Wall Street Journal and others should clarify this in their articles but I haven't seen it yet.

Tex

 

[hypocritexposer]

I thought that percentge depletion was phased out for large producers in the 1980s

The article I posted seems to say otherwise.

I really don't know about the depletion allowance but it should never be more than the original costs which the article said it does.

I think the Wall Street Journal and others should clarify this in their articles but I haven't seen it yet.

Tex

I also found this at the link that you posted to the article :roll:

I was researching the oil depletion allowance on-line and encountered this information.

It would appear the elimination of the oil depletion allowance may have had unintended consequences.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3704

and this......

During the 1960 presidential election John F. Kennedy gave his support for the oil depletion allowance. In October, 1960, he said that he appreciated "the value and importance of the oil-depletion allowance. I realize its purpose and value... The oil-depletion allowance has served us well."

However, two years later, Kennedy decided to take on the oil industry. On 16th October, 1962, Kennedy was able to persuade Congress to pass an act that removed the distinction between repatriated profits and profits reinvested abroad. While this law applied to industry as a whole, it especially affected the oil companies. It was estimated that as a result of this legislation, wealthy oilmen saw a fall in their earnings on foreign investment from 30 per cent to 15 per cent.

On 17th January, 1963, President Kennedy presented his proposals for tax reform. This included relieving the tax burdens of low-income and elderly citizens. Kennedy also claimed he wanted to remove special privileges and loopholes. He even said he wanted to do away with the oil depletion allowance. It is estimated that the proposed removal of the oil depletion allowance would result in a loss of around $300 million a year to Texas oilmen.

After the assassination of Kennedy, President Lyndon B. Johnson dropped the government plans to remove the oil depletion allowance. Richard Nixon followed his example and it was not until the arrival of Jimmy Carter that the oil depletion allowance was removed.

 

[hypocritexposer]

The fact is that the US economy is too large and complicated for us on a forum to decide what is best for the taxpayers or any Country.

What we see going on in the media etc. is an attempt to sway public opinion, with misinformation, towards a progressive/liberal agenda.

Take away the $4 billion in tax credits or a certain amount of subsidies and you may just find that even 1 company moving off shore will damage the economic health of the Country.

The problem is the Federal Government meddling in the free markets. they meddle now, it might end in unintended consequences that are more detrimental than what the existing situation is.

But do not blame it on Capitalism. The US has not seen true Capitalism for decades.

Maybe if the US were to look at the economic health of other Countries or even provinces, they might get an idea of how things could be done differently, so as to benefit the citizens?


when it comes to energy, take a look at Alberta. Everything isn't perfect, but it seems to be more economically stable than the US.

and when it comes to corporate tax rates....

The corporate tax rate will decrease as follows:

* 21% before January 1, 2008
* 19.5% effective January 1, 2008
* 19% effective January 1, 2009
* 18% effective January 1, 2010
* 16.5% effective January 1, 2011
* 15% effective January 1, 2012

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/scr/on/ofn/index-eng.asp


But why would anybody spend the time to learn from one of the most economically stable Countries in the World......


....unless there is a political agenda that is being worked towards?

 

[Oldgoat]

I think the oil depletion allowance was phased out in the 1980s, I was working in the tax compliance unit of one of the largest oil companies at the time. We did an analysis (was done as an adjunct to our federal tax return) that showed that every field we owned and the percentage depletion taken.

Far and away, most fields were subject to cost depletion.

At a tax conference in Dallas in the mid 80s, one of our tax attorneys was lamenting the disappearance of the depletion allowance. I countered that it was the worst tax advantgage we had ever had because the cash saved was wasted on inefficient service stations on every corner. In the end, we would have been better off without it.

I have no clue what Obama is talking about whenhe attacks oil companies except, perhaps, that those companies drilling in deep water and frontier areas are forgiven some royalties to encourage exploration.

Unless someone can come up with specific examples other than what I have given, it is pretty clear that you don't understand the oil business.

Look at what the so-called subsized oil companies have done in the past 25 years.

Gulf Oil ws bought out byChevron
Getty Oil was bought out by Texaco
Texaco was bought out by Chevron
Unocal was bought out by Chevron
Amoco was boughtt out by BP
ARCO was bought out by (forgot)
Conoco merged with Phillips.
Mobil was bought out by ExXON
Sohio was bought out by BP
And some I don't remember

Look at what has happened to the retail gasoline business in the past 25 years. Fewer and bigger stations. Look at how many refineries have been shut down because of the cos of complying with the EPA.

(Denver used to have half a dozen refineries - there is one left.)

If you were areound in the 1970s when the Arabs shut off our oil
you would remember that having gasoline at all was a big deal.

The government has never found any oil and never will. The oil in the Alaska NW wildlife is quite subsatantial - it was discovered by Conoco and Chevron. And has yet to produce any oil. Also, the Alaskan pipeline is running at abou a third of capacity and will have to be shut down unless additional oil is found. It about 400,000 barrels day now.

 

[Steve]

I thought that percentge depletion was phased out for large producers in the 1980s

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch09.html

Oil and Gas Wells

You cannot claim percentage depletion for an oil or gas well unless at least one of the following applies.

* You are either an independent producer or a royalty owner.

However, certain refiners, as explained next, and certain retailers and transferees of proven oil and gas properties, as explained later, cannot claim percentage depletion.

 

[Steve]

Oh, the spin and politicians money buys! It is the same ole story........

the spin,.. Tex finds a 6 year old article, spins it,

blames everyone and forgets the line..

it was not until the arrival of Jimmy Carter that the oil depletion allowance was removed.

two pages arguing over a tax credit that died in the eighties..

the irony.. Tex started by calling conservatives racists, and lamenting how Trump lost credibility by hitching his team to the birther issue..

well Tex, how much credibility do you lose by bringing up a six year old blog post on a tax credit that was eliminated in the 80's... ????

or should I say well Tex, how much credibility do you lose by bringing up "selected parts" of a six year old blog post on a tax credit that was eliminated in the 80's. just because it supported your agenda"?

 

[hypocritexposer]

Oh, the spin and politicians money buys! It is the same ole story........

the spin,.. Tex finds a 6 year old article, spins it,

blames everyone and forgets the line..

it was not until the arrival of Jimmy Carter that the oil depletion allowance was removed.

two pages arguing over a tax credit that died in the eighties..

the irony.. Tex started by calling conservatives racists, and lamenting how Trump lost credibility by hitching his team to the birther issue..

well Tex, how much credibility do you lose by bringing up a six year old blog post on a tax credit that was eliminated in the 80's... ????

or should I say well Tex, how much credibility do you lose by bringing up "selected parts" of a six year old blog post on a tax credit that was eliminated in the 80's. just because it supported your agenda"?

Steve, you weren't supposed to hit him so hard on your first post in the thread. let him dig for a bit. :lol:

 

[Steve]

Oh, the spin and politicians money buys! It is the same ole story........

the spin,.. Tex finds a 6 year old article, spins it,

blames everyone and forgets the line..

it was not until the arrival of Jimmy Carter that the oil depletion allowance was removed.

two pages arguing over a tax credit that died in the eighties..

the irony.. Tex started by calling conservatives racists, and lamenting how Trump lost credibility by hitching his team to the birther issue..

well Tex, how much credibility do you lose by bringing up a six year old blog post on a tax credit that was eliminated in the 80's... ????

or should I say well Tex, how much credibility do you lose by bringing up "selected parts" of a six year old blog post on a tax credit that was eliminated in the 80's. just because it supported your agenda"?

Steve, you weren't supposed to hit him so hard on your first post in the thread. let him dig for a bit. :lol:

sorry, I seem to have lost patience with the people who use "race" and "racist" as an opening statement...

beyond that, I am really not a fan of this deduction.. if an item has value and the value depreciates through use it is a legitimate cost..

and I am referring to things like tractors, ect. , even a horse, or bull losses value and eventually is used up..

if you can claim the entire cost in the purchase year, then there is no legitimate reason to be able to depreciate the value, but on most big ticket purchases we are able to depreciate the used value over the items lifetime.

while I am not a tax expert, The kicker is if we sell the item and we used accelerated depreciation, we may end up having to pay back some of the write off or tax credit we received.

so how can a mineral owner get a depreciation credit "based" on the part they sell?

the credit is a crock..

example... if I build my herd to 1000 head, and sell 250, can I write off the profit I didn't make off their calves for the next 6 years?

can I write off the lost value to my herd? surely a 1000 head herd is worth more then a 750 head herd..

and what about the feed I didn't have to buy after selling them.. can I get a credit for not buying that as well...


we need to fix our tax code... we need to make it fair. and equatable..

and we need to make it lucrative for a business to operate here..

but we do not need to be stupid and give unneeded credits just to up their bottom line..


sadly, had Tex not opened with calling conservatives racist, and posting part of a six year old irrelevant article, I might have even agreed with him on this issue..

 

[Tex]

Oh, the spin and politicians money buys! It is the same ole story........

the spin,.. Tex finds a 6 year old article, spins it,

blames everyone and forgets the line..

it was not until the arrival of Jimmy Carter that the oil depletion allowance was removed.

two pages arguing over a tax credit that died in the eighties..

the irony.. Tex started by calling conservatives racists, and lamenting how Trump lost credibility by hitching his team to the birther issue..

well Tex, how much credibility do you lose by bringing up a six year old blog post on a tax credit that was eliminated in the 80's... ????

or should I say well Tex, how much credibility do you lose by bringing up "selected parts" of a six year old blog post on a tax credit that was eliminated in the 80's. just because it supported your agenda"?

I didn't call anyone a racist. You might have thought I implied it with conservatives, but I didn't. I just said the whole birther movement seemed to have latent racism involved.

I would have been open to the idea that Obama wasn't born in the U.S. except for the fact he had the short form from the hospital and a bunch of birthers were calling for a long form which is ordinarily not given to the public.

I am still open to anything that can be reasonably proven but many of these people are not reasonable. They believe what they want to believe with no evidence to the contrary. Many have also said Obama was born in Kenya and on and on.

These are allegations that can be checked out, were, and we still had a bunch of goofballs on the birther bandwagon showing they weren't conservatives, but unreasonable people. I find most conservatives I know reasonable, and some of these people just are not.

I called on a more in depth recent reporting on the depletion allowance to clear some of these things up. Again, reasonable. I used to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and I thought they used to cover subjects well. The article I read recently from WSJ was so shallow I could have found it in a high school newspaper.

I still don't know the truth on the depletion allowance and want some real and credible reporting on it, not a bunch of opinion by steve and hypcritexposer. Bring the articles that do this and I will be open to it.

I think oil companies should be able to rapidly write off real expenses from their operations because they are real costs they have to pay and sometimes on wells that don't pay out. If they drill a well and it doesn't produce, I think they should be able to write the whole thing off because it already cost them. If it makes later, they should count that as income.

You can't write things off like this and then call it "depletion expense" and write off more than it costs. That ends up being a tax break and loophole. Those are fine if the Congress had a balanced budget, but not when they borrow from SS or sell Tbills and bonds because they don't have the political nuts to balance the budget.

This "six year old article" was the most credible and in depth discussion on the issue.

I dare you, no, I double dare you to come up with a better one. That is why I opened the thread.

And dude, I quoted only a small part but pointed you to the whole discussion, which I thought interesting but didn't want to post the whole thing here. I posted the link twice because I thought it was a good in depth discussion on the issue.

Tex

 

[Tex]

the spin,.. Tex finds a 6 year old article, spins it,

blames everyone and forgets the line..


two pages arguing over a tax credit that died in the eighties..

the irony.. Tex started by calling conservatives racists, and lamenting how Trump lost credibility by hitching his team to the birther issue..

well Tex, how much credibility do you lose by bringing up a six year old blog post on a tax credit that was eliminated in the 80's... ????

or should I say well Tex, how much credibility do you lose by bringing up "selected parts" of a six year old blog post on a tax credit that was eliminated in the 80's. just because it supported your agenda"?

Steve, you weren't supposed to hit him so hard on your first post in the thread. let him dig for a bit. :lol:

sorry, I seem to have lost patience with the people who use "race" and "racist" as an opening statement...

beyond that, I am really not a fan of this deduction.. if an item has value and the value depreciates through use it is a legitimate cost..

and I am referring to things like tractors, ect. , even a horse, or bull losses value and eventually is used up..

if you can claim the entire cost in the purchase year, then there is no legitimate reason to be able to depreciate the value, but on most big ticket purchases we are able to depreciate the used value over the items lifetime.

while I am not a tax expert, The kicker is if we sell the item and we used accelerated depreciation, we may end up having to pay back some of the write off or tax credit we received.

so how can a mineral owner get a depreciation credit "based" on the part they sell?

the credit is a crock..

example... if I build my herd to 1000 head, and sell 250, can I write off the profit I didn't make off their calves for the next 6 years?

can I write off the lost value to my herd? surely a 1000 head herd is worth more then a 750 head herd..

and what about the feed I didn't have to buy after selling them.. can I get a credit for not buying that as well...


we need to fix our tax code... we need to make it fair. and equatable..

and we need to make it lucrative for a business to operate here..

but we do not need to be stupid and give unneeded credits just to up their bottom line..


sadly, had Tex not opened with calling conservatives racist, and posting part of a six year old irrelevant article, I might have even agreed with him on this issue..

Well, you can't agree with me first because I agree with you first now.

I don't know if this is the way the oil field taxes are calculated, I just posted an article that said it worked that way and I am looking for answers here.

There never has been as much controversy over the birthing issue and I think John Roberts had a duty to make sure this issue was moot before he swore Obama in. If he didn't, it shows about how competent the Supreme Court is. Before that it was the responsibility of the elections commission to make sure of eligibility before the candidate is put on the ballot.

Tex