Submitted by avogadros_number t3_zm476u in science
Study: Following the money: trade associations, political activity and climate change
>Abstract
>The political activities of industries associated with the production and consumption of fossil fuels have thwarted state efforts to advance climate policy. Yet research on the role of trade associations that firms use to coordinate their activities remains sparse. Studies of business political activity are generally focussed on the firm level with trade associations typically considered only as part of wider advocacy coalitions. Scholars are still to examine the full range of political activities of trade associations. Using an original dataset built from trade associations’ IRS filings, we find that trade associations engaged on climate change spent $3.4 billion in 10 years on political activities, with the largest expenditure on advertising and promotion, followed by lobbying, grants and political contributions. Our data challenges the prevailing assumptions about the primary political activities of business actors. To explain the variation in spending, we present the findings from a regression analysis and semi-structured interviews. We argue that scholars have for too long failed to account for the political activities of trade associations, which are also one of the most important opponents of climate policies.
They wouldn't spend so much on PR if they weren't so much worse than they want you to believe.
[removed]
And should we really wonder why gas and petrol prices in general are so outrageous?
To me it seems like such a weird thing to spend billions on marketing for.
Do you as a consumer have much choice? What kind of energy alternative would not be from the US? Oil, gas, petrol, renewable energy, nuclear energy etc. It would all be from the US and a domestic product.
It’s marketing for a spot in your brain to say “oil&gas=good”
Profits... this marketing budget is nothing compared to that.
Its because marketing and advertising are 100% tax deductible.
Thats right.
The 350 billion spent on advertising in the US this year is actually 350 billion in uncollected taxes.
Edit: I be dumb this isn't correct
Theoretically, it’s, at worst, the marginal tax rate (say 35%) times $350M. But it’s also taxable to the people who this was paid out to (e.g. if you paid a marketing firm that paid employees, that money gets taxed as income).
Companies do NOT spend money to just avoid taxes because you lose more money that way. There either needs to be another purpose or a different mechanism for sheltering/hiding assets
Why wouldnt it be? Its a operating cost.
However I assume you have some employee tax in the US? Or if its external marketing that there is some VAT or similar tax.
That money is paid to some other company who reports it as income, so OP's entire point is moot. It doesn't result in "uncollected taxes" it just moves who pays the tax from one company to another.
This might be one of the most uninformed posts I've ever read on Reddit.
Correct, I misunderstood the nature of tax deduction
AutoModerator t1_j08wlv3 wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.