Support our online development, and advance our onground research initiatives in free market economics, as we seek to showcase the brightest Next-Gen minds.
THE ME-P DISCLAIMER: Posts, comments and opinions do not necessarily represent iMBA, Inc., but become our property after submission. Copyright © 2006 to-date. iMBA, Inc allows colleges, universities, medical and financial professionals and related clinics, hospitals and non-profit healthcare organizations to distribute our proprietary essays, photos, videos, audios and other documents; etc. However, please review copyright and usage information for each individual asset before submission to us, and/or placement on your publication or web site. Attestation references, citations and/or back-links are required. All other assets are property of the individual copyright holder.
Reducing Tax Incentives?
By Children’s Home Society of Florida Foundation
In his address to the nation last week, President Obama indicated that he favors a reduction in the tax incentives for oil and gas companies. He noted that gas in some communities is now over $4.00 a gallon and oil companies had $25 billion in profits during the early months of 2011.
While he does not have “a problem with any company or industry being rewarded for their success,” the President suggests that it would be appropriate to reduce tax incentives for the oil and gas industry.
The Response
House Ways and Means Committee Democrats responded with a letter to Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI). They noted that a specific Sec. 199 Domestic Manufacturing Deduction saved the oil companies approximately $1 billion last year in taxes. Democratic Members of the House Ways and Means Committee recommend that this benefit be eliminated for the oil companies.
Assessment
The energy industry responded to the proposals. American Petroleum Institute (API) President Jack Gerard suggested, “We need to stay focused on energy policy, not demonizing industries.” The energy industry notes that there are 9.2 million Americans who are engaged in the domestic oil and gas industry. Oil and gas represents 7.7% of GDP. If the incentives were reduced, there could be lower employment and higher costs due to greater imports of foreign oil.
Editor’s Note: Sen. Max Baucus has indicated that he will introduce legislation to reduce the oil and gas tax incentives within the next two weeks. He plans to spend the revenue gained through changes in oil and gas tax rules on new incentives for clean energy.
Conclusion
And so, your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.
Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos
Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com
Our Other Print Books and Related Information Sources:
Health Dictionary Series: http://www.springerpub.com/Search/marcinko
Practice Management: http://www.springerpub.com/product/9780826105752
Physician Financial Planning: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/0763745790
Medical Risk Management: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421
Healthcare Organizations: www.HealthcareFinancials.com
Physician Advisors: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.com
Subscribe Now: Did you like this Medical Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest ME-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.
Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos
Sponsors Welcomed: And, credible sponsors and like-minded advertisers are always welcomed.
Link: https://healthcarefinancials.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/advertise
Share this:
Filed under: Taxation | Tagged: American Petroleum Institute, Children's Home Society of Florida Foundation, David Camp, House Ways and Means Committee, Jack Gerard, Oil and Gas Tax Breaks, Sec. 199 Domestic Manufacturing Deduction |
The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants 
NAT GAS Tax Incentives
[H.R. 1380 for 2011]
Source: Children’s Home Society of Florida Foundation
A coalition of representatives from many of the states with natural gas production have co-sponsored the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions (NAT GAS) Act of 2011 (H.R. 1380). This bill is designed to encourage the development of natural gas vehicles in America.
Three Sections
The bill has three principal sections. The first two sections include incentives for manufacturers to develop natural gas automobiles, trucks and commercial vehicles. The third section includes incentives for large energy companies to build natural gas service stations. The combination of natural gas vehicles and service stations could enable a substantial number of Americans to change to natural gas cars.
Matheson Speaks
The House Blue Dog Coalition are Democratic members who are politically moderate and frequently come from states with energy resources. The Blue Dog Coalition on Energy spoke very positively about the NAT GAS act of 2011.
Chair of the Blue Dog Energy Task Force Jim Matheson (D-UT) stated, “Promoting natural-gas-fueled vehicles is a win-win-win; consumers will have less pain at the pump, America will become less dependent on foreign oil and we will see more energy jobs and a cleaner environment.”
Altmire Speaks
Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) pointed out that there have been major new gas discoveries such as the Marcellus Shale in his state. These new resources provide the energy that could be used by millions of Americans in their vehicles for transportation.
Ross Speaks
Blue Dog Co-Chair Mike Ross (D-AR) suggests that the natural gas vehicles will help “keep these dollars here at home in a way that helps our environment, creates jobs and lowers the price of fuel for all Americans.”
Editor’s Note: The NAT GAS Act has widespread support among the representatives because there have been large discoveries of natural gas in many areas of the nation. However, building new service stations, pipelines and other infrastructure necessary to convert to natural gas vehicles on a large scale is a very large project. The sponsors of NAT GAS 2011 hope that tax incentives will accelerate this process.
LikeLike
Close Big Oil Loopholes Tax Act
The Close Big Oil Loopholes Tax Act has been introduced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). Sen. Menendez stated, “At a time when families are feeling the pain at the pump and our deficit keeps growing at an alarming rate, we simply can’t afford to keep giving away billions in taxpayer handouts to oil companies that are doing nothing to help lower prices.” He believes that the tax bill will be helpful in raising revenue that can be used to reduce the deficit.
Sen. Max Baucus supported the provisions in the bill that would reduce tax benefits for oil companies. He stated, “With high deficits and debt, we have to make tough choices, but it isn’t a tough decision to end taxpayer subsidies for oil and gas companies making $35 billion in the first quarter alone.” Sen. Baucus predicted that the high price of gasoline, which is now approaching $4 per gallon in many parts of the nation, will not be increased if the tax incentives are removed. He suggests that “with the US producing 10% of the world oil, the oil companies will find it nearly impossible to pass on to consumers the cost of cutting oil and gas subsides.”
The ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee is Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT). At the hearing convened by Sen. Baucus, Hatch agreed that “everybody is angry about high gas prices.” However, he continued that, “Families and businesses are being hit by high gas prices. This demands an energy policy but all this hearing is about is providing a justification for tax increases.”
The oil executives that appeared before the Senate Finance Committee emphasized that the tax provisions were applicable to many American industrial corporations. These tax breaks were passed to increase job creation in America and reduce the number of jobs sent overseas. In their view, raising taxes on the five largest oil companies was a specific and unfair attack on these organizations. The oil executives claimed that their actual tax rates were substantially higher than those of most other industries in the nation.
Editors Note: The Senate is expected to vote on the oil tax bill within the next month. It is generally agreed that the bill is not likely to pass this session.
LikeLike
Senate Rejects “Big Oil” Tax Bill
On May 17th, the Senate failed to get the required 60 votes to advance the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act (S.940). The bill would have reduced a number of tax incentives for oil and gas companies. It failed on a 52-48 vote.
Several Democratic Senators from oil-producing states opposed the bill. These included Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska. While some Democratic Senators opposed the bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) indicated that the battle was not yet over. He suggested that there would be further consideration of oil company incentives in the final budget negotiations.
The White House supported the bill and published a press release that stated, “The nation’s outdated tax laws currently provide the oil and gas industry billions of dollars per year in the subsidies, even though oil and gas prices are high and the industry is reporting outsized profits.” In the view of the White House, these tax incentives are “unwarranted subsidies” and not needed for domestic oil production. The White House indicated that it will continue to pursue reform of these incentives in the ongoing budget negotiations led by Vice President Biden.
Senate Republicans were pleased that the bill was defeated. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) stated that repeal of these tax incentives could lead to higher gas prices. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) suggested that the primary result, if the bill passes, is an increase in taxes that will reduce job creation.
Source: Children’s Home Society of Florida Foundation
LikeLike
Exxon Ad Makes Gas Drilling Seem Simpler—and Safer—Than it Really Is
Exxon’s full-page ad illustrates how well pipes are protected with casings of steel and cement. But, the picture may not be as pretty as the company paints it.
http://www.propublica.org/article/exxon-ad-makes-gas-drilling-seem-simpler-and-safer-than-it-really-is
Ann Miller RN MHA
LikeLike
Top 10 Tax Expenditures
Here are the top 10 in order of lost revenue to the government, compiled by Advisor One from a report of the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
All impact on the doctors’ or financial advisors’ tax planning.
Number in parenthesis indicates percentage of all tax expenditures).
1. Employer-Provided Health Insurance. (13%) Premiums paid by employers could be taxable income to employees. But they’re not. This exclusion goes to the heart of health insurance and is cherished by health insurance companies and their agent/advisor representatives because it’s so much easier to collect premiums from employers rather than countless millions of individuals.
2. Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. (9%) Tinkering with this would have incalculable impact on the already shaky housing market.
3. Preferential Rates for Dividends and Capital Gains. (8%) Take this away and the rate on dividends will almost triple and the rate on capital gains will go up by 59% in less than 18 months. Removing this preferential treatment would likely discourage investment in stocks and bonds. The supercommittee could see it as one way to tax “millionaires and billionaires” and placate Obama and liberal Democrats.
4. Exclusion of Medicare Benefits (7%) The major deterrent to touching this will be fear of angering seniors, a large voting block getting larger by the minute with Baby Boomers qualifying for Medicare.
5. Pre-Tax Treatment of Defined Benefit Pension Plan Contributions. (6%) This benefits workers who save for retirement through a traditional pension plan.
6. Earned Income Tax Credit. (5%) This helps low- income people. It’s not likely to be touched.
7. Deduction of State and Local Taxes. (5%) Removing this would hit residents of high-tax states like New York big time. It would drive up the marginal rate of taxpayers who take this deduction by as much as 35%.
8. Pre-Tax Treatment for Contributions to a 401(k). (4%) This is a significant incentive for families and individuals.
9. Exclusion of Capital Gains at Death. (4%) If this goes, death would be taxed twice: first, with an estate tax; then the decedent’s heirs would be subject to a tax on the gain from a sale of an inherited asset.
10. Deductions for Charitable Contributions. (4%) Nobody wants to punish churches and orphans.
Source: http://www.financialadvisorpublications.com/docs/legreg.html
LikeLike