Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dem proposes blocking tax deduction bailout for BP

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 05:09 PM
Original message
Dem proposes blocking tax deduction bailout for BP
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/30/888999/-Dem-proposes-blocking-tax-deduction-bailout-for-BP?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29&utm_content=Twitter

It was not exactly a surprise to learn that BP believes thinks it is entitled to a $9.9 billion tax benefit, including refunds on taxes paid in previous years, to pay for the cost of cleaning up its own oil spill.

That's right: despite earning $80 billion over the past four years, despite saying that it will pay for the expense of recovery in the Gulf, BP now wants a $10 billion bailout from taxpayers.

Makes you want to scream out loud, eh? Of all companies in the world that do not deserve a bailout, BP might just be the leading example. (Though, to be fair, Goldman does give it stiff competition.)

It's a horrible idea, and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) agrees. Today he announced plans to block the taxpayer bailout of BP, promising to introduce legislation that would block BP taking advantage of the deduction and any associated tax credits or refunds.

Aside from being the right thing, Engel's idea is political gold: imagine the difficult position it would put Republicans in. Do they support Democratic efforts to make sure BP doesn't profit from its oil spill, or do they believe in bailouts for BP? If Joe Barton's apology is any guide, the results could be a political disaster for the GOP...and another big win for Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Go, Eliot!
:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. lawyers will make a ton arguing this for the next decade or so
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Probably just as well if it did last a decade.
Edited on Fri Jul-30-10 05:27 PM by dipsydoodle
If it was shorter than a year BP would simply deduct it from the escrow total same as they would any punitive damages awarded against them. They would still expect the refunds from earlier years in the meanwhile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC