View Full Version : Devon, Chesapeake Among 25 Biggest Recipients of Tax Subsidies



soonerguru
11-05-2011, 10:30 AM
Wow. Devon got over $2.5 Billion in corporate tax subsidies over a three-year period. Chesapeake received more than $2.3 Billion.

I admire and appreciate what these companies have done and are doing for our city, but find it preposterous they receive so much corporate welfare.

Go to page 6 of the linked report.

http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf

MDot
11-05-2011, 10:37 AM
Wow. That's a lot. Lol

ljbab728
11-05-2011, 10:52 PM
Wow. Devon got over $2.5 Billion in corporate tax subsidies over a three-year period. Chesapeake received more than $2.3 Billion.

I admire and appreciate what these companies have done and are doing for our city, but find it preposterous they receive so much corporate welfare.

Go to page 6 of the linked report.

http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf

soonerguru, are you blaming them for that?

soonerguru
11-05-2011, 11:09 PM
soonerguru, are you blaming them for that?

Why would I blame them? They're just hiring lobbyists to buy politicians to give them tax breaks. That's just the way the game is played. I guess you could say I admire their chutzpah.

That said, this is one of the many things that is completely dysfunctional about the way our system works.

The Occupy people are correct. Our politicians are bought.

ljbab728
11-05-2011, 11:18 PM
Why would I blame them? They're just hiring lobbyists to buy politicians to give them tax breaks. That's just the way the game is played. I guess you could say I admire their chutzpah.

That said, this is one of the many things that is completely dysfunctional about the way our system works.

The Occupy people are correct. Our politicians are bought.

Whatever.

Easy180
11-06-2011, 07:36 AM
Guru you just don't get it...We are only supposed to get angry when it's done by non Okie companies silly

soonerguru
11-06-2011, 05:08 PM
Whatever.

Great insight into the situation.

MikeOKC
11-06-2011, 06:50 PM
Whatever.

Does that mean you disagree with what soonerguru said? Who could possibly be honest and brush that off?

ljbab728
11-06-2011, 10:29 PM
Great insight into the situation.

Yes, and it was all of the insight that was needed.

ljbab728
11-06-2011, 10:32 PM
Does that mean you disagree with what soonerguru said? Who could possibly be honest and brush that off?

Mike, I'm certainly not going to get into another Chesapeake discussion with someone who criticizes which side of the bed Aubrey gets up from.

MikeOKC
11-06-2011, 10:41 PM
Mike, I'm certainly not going to get into another Chesapeake discussion with someone who criticizes which side of the bed Aubrey gets up from.

That's unfair and completely out of line! My criticisms of Aubrey McClendon have all been legitimate complaints from a serious point-of-view; many now documented and publicized all over the country and even recently on the cover of Forbes. I don't mind disagreements, but I despise someone saying my views are not grounded in conviction and intellectual honesty. Besides, the news story was about two local companies and huge government handouts in the form of tax credits - not Aubrey personally.

soonerguru
11-06-2011, 10:51 PM
I'll take it that ljbab doesn't have a serious rebuttal to the charges. That, or he thinks government handouts to multi-billion dollar corporations are fine and swiss when politicians are discussing cutting people's Medicare, Social Security and pension benefits. To each his own.

ljbab728
11-06-2011, 11:00 PM
I'll take it that ljbab doesn't have a serious rebuttal to the charges. That, or he thinks government handouts to multi-billion dollar corporations are fine and swiss when politicians are discussing cutting people's Medicare, Social Security and pension benefits. To each his own.

When you have serious charges that might happen. The companys are simply following the rules for what's allowed but when you accuse them of "buying politicians" you are the one who needs to have some serious information. If you want the rules change, fine. I have no problem with that and you can feel free to work towards that.

Bellaboo
11-07-2011, 10:05 AM
Bring all of the giant or even not so giant corporations in our country down and what do we have ?

Like he said, if you don't like the rules, then work to change them. GE hasn't payed any corporate tax in years, that'd be a good place to start
don't you think ?

dankrutka
11-07-2011, 11:10 AM
You guys keep suggesting that we "change the rules." How do you think the rules get changed? The problem is that it's difficult to change the rules when corporate lobbyists wield such influence. Corporations are practically writing the rules to benefit themselves.

I've heard so many people complain about federal debt out of one side of their mouth, but defend companies that don't pay their fair share of taxes out of the other side.

MikeOKC
11-07-2011, 04:45 PM
You guys keep suggesting that we "change the rules." How do you think the rules get changed? The problem is that it's difficult to change the rules when corporate lobbyists wield such influence. Corporations are practically writing the rules to benefit themselves.

I've heard so many people complain about federal debt out of one side of their mouth, but defend companies that don't pay their fair share of taxes out of the other side.

That's exactly right. All of it.

ljbab728 uses that phrase a lot but fails to understand that part of changing anything is to first make people aware of what we perceive to be wrong. That would include posting to community forums like OKCTalk. It's like we shouldn't be posting about things until we've "changed" what it is we see as wrong. Very simple minded and an easy out when backed into a corner - or - just wasn't have to admit something is possibly wrong/unethical/whatever until whatever has been "changed". In other words, bass ackwards.

ljbab728
11-07-2011, 09:51 PM
That's exactly right. All of it.

ljbab728 uses that phrase a lot but fails to understand that part of changing anything is to first make people aware of what we perceive to be wrong. That would include posting to community forums like OKCTalk. It's like we shouldn't be posting about things until we've "changed" what it is we see as wrong. Very simple minded and an easy out when backed into a corner - or - just wasn't have to admit something is possibly wrong/unethical/whatever until whatever has been "changed". In other words, bass ackwards.

No, Mike, I understand that completely. My problem is with blaming the companies who are following the rules instead of blaming the rules. And again, I'm not going to get into a Chesapeake debate on any subject with someone who is so blatantly closed minded against them.

MikeOKC
11-07-2011, 10:07 PM
No, Mike, I understand that completely. My problem is with blaming the companies who are following the rules instead of blaming the rules. And again, I'm not going to get into a Chesapeake debate on any subject with someone who is so blatantly closed minded against them.

There you go again. (Sorry, Ronald).

"...blatantly close minded against them." You're just wrong. I have posted when they have done things that were positive. I wrote a post about why I care about the misgovernance at CHK (widely documented in the financial press) here at OKCTalk:
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=26031&p=466416#post466416 That post sums it up. It's nothing personal.

Saying you won't discuss CHK with me because of my being "close minded" against them is like my saying I won't talk to you about OU football, because to you, the administration at OU can do no wrong - especially the football program. That's certainly how you feel, but a response like that from me would be ridiculous.

I have written that I was wrong about this or that many times. I have NEVER seen a post from you saying anything close to that. You are always right and the case is closed. That's not discussion - it's lecturing. (What I'm doing now and shouldn't be - but it just really irks me).

ljbab728
11-07-2011, 10:17 PM
There you go again. (Sorry, Ronald).

"...blatantly close minded against them." You're just wrong. I have posted when they have done things that were positive. I wrote a post about why I care about the misgovernance at CHK (widely documented in the financial press) here at OKCTalk:
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=26031&p=466416#post466416 That post sums it up. It's nothing personal.

Saying you won't discuss CHK with me because of my being "close minded" against them is like my saying I won't talk to you about OU football, because to you, the administration at OU can do no wrong - especially the football program. That's certainly how you feel, but a response like that from me would be ridiculous.

I have written that I was wrong about this or that many times. I have NEVER seen a post from you saying anything close to that. You are always right and the case is closed. That's not discussion - it's lecturing. (What I'm doing now and shouldn't be - but it just really irks me).

I glad you understand and agree now, Mike.

MikeOKC
11-08-2011, 04:12 PM
I glad you understand and agree now, Mike.

In your dreams, my friend.

Just the facts
11-08-2011, 07:50 PM
If $5 billion in tax cuts over three years can produce the the 4,000 jobs these companies plan to add then that is wayyyyyyyy better than the stimulus plan passed 2 years ago. If this is any indication of the benefits of tax reduction imagine how roaring the economy would be with $1 trillion in tax cuts every year.

dankrutka
11-08-2011, 08:24 PM
If $5 billion in tax cuts over three years can produce the the 4,000 jobs these companies plan to add then that is wayyyyyyyy better than the stimulus plan passed 2 years ago. If this is any indication of the benefits of tax reduction imagine how roaring the economy would be with $1 trillion in tax cuts every year.

Do you have any evidence that tax cuts actually produced that number of jobs? Correlation and causation are not the same thing.

Midtowner
11-09-2011, 08:26 AM
Do you have any evidence that tax cuts actually produced that number of jobs? Correlation and causation are not the same thing.

Sure. I'm sure these tax cuts have created jobs in the accounting department so that they can keep up with the information needed to apply for the tax cuts. Besides that, does anyone think that these companies would quit pursuing profitable behavior if it stopped being heavily subsidized by the government?

Soho
11-09-2011, 11:55 AM
I am probably going to regret wading in here, but here goes...

First, if you don't know the difference between a tax deduction and a tax subsidy, you probably don't have enough business sense to be accusing Devon and others of unethical behavior.

"ljbab728 uses that phrase a lot but fails to understand that part of changing anything is to first make people aware of what we perceive to be wrong. That would include posting to community forums like OKCTalk. It's like we shouldn't be posting about things until we've "changed" what it is we see as wrong. Very simple minded and an easy out when backed into a corner - or - just wasn't have to admit something is possibly wrong/unethical/whatever until whatever has been "changed". In other words, bass ackwards. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_deduction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_deduction

Subsidies are handed out industries that can't turn a profit on their own, such as wind power, solar (Solyndra), ethanol, etc. I have limited the examples to energy, as that is the topic here. These industries are the darlings of the politically correct, and politicians trying to get elected, or bring home the pork. Where is the anger toward our tax dollars being frittered away to the cronies of politicians on these boondoggles.

Next, do any of you who rail against our local "Golden Geese" employers, not take all allowable deductions on your personal and/or business taxes? Just remember, if it weren't for the largess of big bad corporations, you would not have a park to live in while you protest whatever it is you are protesting.

Rant off

MikeOKC
11-09-2011, 02:27 PM
I am probably going to regret wading in here, but here goes...

First, if you don't know the difference between a tax deduction and a tax subsidy, you probably don't have enough business sense to be accusing Devon and others of unethical behavior.

"ljbab728 uses that phrase a lot but fails to understand that part of changing anything is to first make people aware of what we perceive to be wrong. That would include posting to community forums like OKCTalk. It's like we shouldn't be posting about things until we've "changed" what it is we see as wrong. Very simple minded and an easy out when backed into a corner - or - just wasn't have to admit something is possibly wrong/unethical/whatever until whatever has been "changed". In other words, bass ackwards. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_deduction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_deduction

Subsidies are handed out industries that can't turn a profit on their own, such as wind power, solar (Solyndra), ethanol, etc. I have limited the examples to energy, as that is the topic here. These industries are the darlings of the politically correct, and politicians trying to get elected, or bring home the pork. Where is the anger toward our tax dollars being frittered away to the cronies of politicians on these boondoggles.

Next, do any of you who rail against our local "Golden Geese" employers, not take all allowable deductions on your personal and/or business taxes? Just remember, if it weren't for the largess of big bad corporations, you would not have a park to live in while you protest whatever it is you are protesting.

Rant off

Soho,

As a matter of fact, what the fine print of the IRS code and the terms we use are sometimes apples & oranges, I'll give you that. However, we are - in fact - talking about giveaways by way of deferments, stock option shenanigans, etc. The "ethics" in this case is something being discussed in the larger sense of paying enormous lobbying fees in order to have our politicians write laws that benefit particular corporations, or more often - specific industries. So, yes, they are following the laws they have bought.

To resort to the legal terms of "subsidy" and "deduction" is a good political move on your part as it makes it sound less shady. However, again, whether subsidies, deductions, deferments, name-your-giveaway, it's all money not going to fund our national government. A "subsidy" is a giveaway on the front-end. A "deduction" is a giveaway on the back-end. In the end, you have corporations paying, in many cases, ZERO income tax - while many moan and groan about the earned-income tax credit for low income individuals.

Soho, you obviously believe the corporate-speak that we owe all our quality of life to big business. Yeah, we may have this and that from corporations (deductible, of course), but all over the country there's just fewer people to enjoy them because these same companies have sent their jobs to China.

At any rate, read the linked document in the original post from soonerguru. It's obvious from your post you did not. Handouts to corporate America (by way of relieving them of the "burden" of paying taxes), have resulted in not jobs - but larger salaries for the richest, a consolidation of money into the wealthiest tiny percentages and have turned America into what we only saw in places like South America not that many years ago.

As for the locals, I only need point you to the ridiculous and embarrassing compensations given to Aubrey McClendon by his hand-picked board of directors, and ask yourself if you really think any company paying their CEOs money like that deserve additional tax breaks (by way of subsidy, deduction, whatever) in any way whatsoever.

Bellaboo
11-09-2011, 06:44 PM
Mike,

Lobbying fees.............Union dues......... dang near the same if you're big enough to fess up to it.....?

MikeOKC
11-09-2011, 07:27 PM
Mike,

Lobbying fees.............Union dues......... dang near the same if you're big enough to fess up to it.....?

Im sorry. I don't follow your point at all. Union members (actually very few working Americans these days) pay union dues. Corporations pay huge fees to lobbying groups. What's the connection?

Unions have nothing to do with corporations lobbying for huge tax breaks.

I guess I don't see your point.

Lobbying fees and union dues are not analogous at all. It's not a matter of "fessing up" because no educated person would say the two have any connection in the context of the original post and all the responses. Nothing.

Bellaboo
11-09-2011, 08:50 PM
Both entities are paying for some kind of influence........ same thing.

worthy cook
11-10-2011, 07:53 AM
I'd rather see CHK and Devon get paid in some tax subsidies for having a fairly good business model than the gov't bailing them out (lets say GM) while letting them continue bad business practices. Now with the gov't as part owner us taxpayers have to pay for a percenrage of the union workers retirement and pension funds. Not to mention the sweetheart healthcare deals they got.

soonerguru
11-10-2011, 10:32 PM
If $5 billion in tax cuts over three years can produce the the 4,000 jobs these companies plan to add then that is wayyyyyyyy better than the stimulus plan passed 2 years ago. If this is any indication of the benefits of tax reduction imagine how roaring the economy would be with $1 trillion in tax cuts every year.

60 percent of the stimulus you decry came in the form of tax cuts.