WWTBAM Bored

Stuff I learnt today

Plants do not release oxygen from CO2
Plants split water into hydrogen and oxygen and then covert the hydrogen and CO2 into carbohydrates and release the O2
http://www.howplantswork.com/2009/02/16 ... 2-into-o2/

Also the Great Rusting or the Oxygen Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

Why should I believe anything in that article?

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

Steyer has already played a role in opposing Trump's nominees, running advertisements criticizing his choice for secretary of State, former Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson

The Senate on Wednesday confirmed Rex Tillerson as secretary of State, as part of a fast-paced day for majority Republicans who also pushed past Democratic resistance to advance three other President Trump Cabinet picks to a final vote.

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-poli ... mbination/

Dr Bates’s essay on the Climate Etc. website (and David Rose’s story in The Mail on Sunday) documents allegations of scientific misconduct as serious as that of the anti-vaccine campaign of Andrew Wakefield. Dr Bates’s boss, Tom Karl, a close ally of President Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, published a paper in 2015, deliberately timed to influence the Paris climate jamboree. The paper was widely hailed in the media as disproving the politically inconvenient 18-year pause in global warming, whose existence had been conceded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) two years earlier.

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

This reminds me that a while back, Jimmy Kimmel was talking about Global Warming and how 97% of scientists believe it is real and caused by humans. He said that the information is on the NASA site, to go read it there.

I did. What it says is that of all the scientific papers published by climate scientists (whose incomes depend on GW being true, by the way), 97% of those papers say it is caused by humans. Isn't that a far cry from 97% of the entire scientific community?

_________________
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

I'm not sure what evidence you have for: whose incomes depend on GW being true, by the way

Why would climate scientists need human caused global warming or climate change to be a requisite for them doing their work and getting grants? Whether or not there are human causes or even if there is no major climate change occurring, there is still a tremendous amount of value in trying to understand the climate and make accurate models and forecasts. Agriculture, manufacturing, shipping, land use, population projections and countless other areas would benefit greatly from having more accurate predictions of what the climate (global and regional) will be and would benefit by funding such research. It's annoying that there is the meme out there used to smear scientists and their conclusions. If any research should be suspect, it is the ones back by the deniers and funded by groups that have a vested interest in protecting their industries from being restricted due to their activities actually contributing to the problem.

if any of these scientists discovered that there was a different way to interpret the data that actually demonstrated that there was no global warming or that it wasn't driven by human activity, I doubt it would put them out of a job or cancel any of their funding.

Basic funding of climate change science has remained roughly flat over the last 20 years although spending on technology to mitigate the effects of climate change has increased (http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_c ... ue_summary) - so science and the scientists aren't raking in more and more money because of their research. They are doing the work, seeing the results and because the results predict major consequences, sounding the alarm. What evidence do you have that their funding depends on sounding alarms and without that their funding would cease?

This is Merchants of Doubt 101. Teach the controversy. This has long since ceased being a subject of serious scientific debate, in the same way that evolution and relativity have been. This is nothing more or less than a political debate, so they are willing to ignore the rules of scientific discourse.

We've had yet another record warmest year in 2016. Climate change is visible and is starting to have undeniable (and irreversible) effects. Once big ice shelves fall of Antarctica, there's no way to put them back. It's obvious that there's no amount of evidence that would convince them we have a problem and need to get cracking to solve it. Particularly if that solution means cutting back on the use of (tax-subsidized) carbon-based fuels. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

What do you mean by that? Please explain. Please use a proper definition of "subsidized" while explaining.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

Companies paying the most taxes
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/per ... s/1991313/

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

The depletion allowance (oil that's been in the ground for hundreds of millions of years is not a capital good that depreciates), the foreign tax credit (to the extent it's used to deduct royalties rather than income taxes), and the allowance for capital drilling costs (oil companies get a unique ability to write these costs off in the first year rather than amortizing them over a period of years). --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Note to self: Never ask an intellectual property attorney the difference between depletion and depreciation.


If something is deducted in the year the cost is incurred, it is not a capital cost. That said, there is an option to deduct CERTAIN current costs as period costs, or elect to capitalize and then depreciate over 60 months. There are other industries that can use similar methods (software, pharmaceutical, etc.). However, legal firms who invest money into long term cases get to expense all costs as current costs. So I guess by your standards and definitions, the government subsidizes much of the legal work you do. Even if the government is the target of that legal work. Talk about working the system!

And why would deducting foreign taxes from royalties (vs. directly against taxes) bother you?

And the big question....how is any of this subsidizing?

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

Keeping a little bit more of your money is not a subsidy. A depreciation schedule is not a subsidy. A tax subsidy is not a subsidy. Using the force of government to require customers to buy from you is a subsidy.

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

Well, to be honest, I think a tax subsidy is a subsidy (though I've never seen one) , but a tax deduction, even if the deductions are taxes from revenue (or taxes from taxes), is not a subsidy.

O.K. I take that back. The earned income tax credit is a subsidy to the extent a tax "payer" gets more back in credits than they would have paid otherwise.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

Every law firm I've ever known about pays taxes on a cash, not accrual basis. And to the extent you're talking about contingency fee cases, the expenses we're talking about are cash expenses.

The depletion allowance simply lets oil companies subtract 9% off the income derived from extracted oil for no reason that I can discern. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean its not real or that it doesn't make economic sense.

The percentage depletion allowance is only for independent producers and royalty owners...so Big Oil must use cost depletion which is based on the investment they've made.

You, or your firm, get to deduct "cash expenses"? What do you think other companies are deducting? They can't deduct their "cash expenses" this year as you get to. They have to wait until they recover those expenses by producing revenue (the purpose of a business). So others have to wait while lawyers get to deduct as they go. Which do you think is preferential treatment?

And again, WHY do you think allowing someone to deduct expenses, as you and your firm do, is a subsidy?

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

Right. So these producers get to deduct 15% of their income every year no matter how much, or how little, they've spent to generate that income.

In contrast, ordinary W-2 employees don't get to deduct unreimbursed employee expenses at all until those expenses, combined with other "miscellaneous" itemized deductions, exceed 2% of their adjusted gross income. So actual people don't get to deduct their expenses unless they itemize, and even then those expenses are subject to a haircut, whereas oil and gas producers get to subtract 15% of income as a depletion deduction whether they've spent it or not. Sure looks like a subsidy to me. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Based on that logic 98% of Americans are subsidized because they are in a lower tax bracket than the top 2%. Most get a standard deduction, regardless of their living expenses. Thank goodness the government gives them some of its money to live on.


You do not understand, you do not try to understand. All you see is someone getting money you are not and you envy them and then must say stuff like they are subsidized.

Not that is matters, but depletion deductions are subject to annual limits regardless of sunk costs, and when looked at from an economic value, depletion is the "cost of goods sold". Yes, some people where "lucky" and their grandparents bought some land that ended up having natural resources beneath it and they don't really have a "cost", other than money spent to develop the wells. But they shouldn't get to deduct that, should they?.

And others bought the mineral rights or pay royalties and have other development costs that are not otherwise deductible. Plus the deduction is a fixed % of gross revenues regardless of selling price. So when oil is $40 they deduct less than when it is $70. If you purchased the mineral rights at $70, you get screwed when it is at $40.

Tell me Bob. Do you get the standard mileage reimbursement from work? Most W-2 workers do. The employers get to deduct the standard mileage from their income when reimbursed to you. That standard is excessive for most car owners. Do you view that as a subsidy? What about when you get lunch bought for you?

Quit being envious of others and be satisfied with what you have. Or, buy an oil well if you think it is such a great deal. Honestly, you are like a child whose sibling is getting presents for their birthday and you complain your parents are playing favorites because they are getting presents (completely disregarding you got some last birthday and will get some next birthday).

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

Actually, no. I don't get mileage reimbursed at all. For me, that's one of those unreimbursed employee expenses that I have no chance of ever deducting. I just have to swallow it.

But you've missed my broader point. These subsidies distort the market for energy. When some forms of energy are getting subsidies that others are not getting, that distorts the market. It would be one thing if oil and gas were a relatively new form of energy that requires public investment in R&D, but that's obviously not the case. And if oil and gas had a broader social value when compared to, say, renewable energy, then a public policy case could be made for this market distortion, but that's obviously not true either. What's going on here is nothing more or less than the petroleum industry's raw exercise of political power to retain an advantage that is not a public benefit. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

I won't argue the "broader social value" of real energy vs. most forms of renewable energy. Not with you anyway.

But, in the end, there is no subsidy. There are different tax rules for determining taxable earnings and at the end of the day something is paid based on those rules. There is no broad single rule for determining taxable earnings for any business. Each business has its unique sets of circumstances, unique requirements for generating revenues and profits. To say that one deduction is a subsidy is to say all deductions are subsidies. And they are not. No deduction is a subsidy. Depletion is a true reduction in value, thus a cost of doing business. If no revenue is generated from the extraction of resources, then the owner is in a worse position, thus there was a cost. The depletion allowance is a concept that acknowledges that cost while simplifying the calculation, just like the standard mileage rate, or the standard deduction for personal taxpayers.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

Debating the tax code is like piecing together a shredded document. We need the Fair Tax or some kind of a consumption tax and we need to get rid of the IRS.

I'm not a consumption tax guy. I think taxes should be paid based on the ability to pay and that is only determinable on the income side, not the spend side.

I could get behind a flat tax with an appropriate and inflationary adjusted exclusion. There would still need to be an extensive code to define where taxable income is determined and taxes due to fight off the lawyers who create new and creative entity types to avoid or delay measurement.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

And there would still be deductions defined to determine taxable income. You will never be able to just tax revenue as each business has different cost structures.

And you will always have Bobs that complain because someone got a subsidy for being able to deduct their car expenses when he can't.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

On Sunday, February 11, Altus, Oklahoma, recorded a high temperature of 97 degrees Fahrenheit. That seems to me unexpectedly warm for Oklahoma in February. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

BIF with a smile

_________________
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.