Posted on 08/31/2008 2:12:48 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Republicans in Congress this June united to defeat a proposed windfall tax on oil companies, deriding it as a bad idea that would discourage investment in U.S. oil exploration. Things worked out far differently in the GOP stronghold of Alaska, a state whose economic fate is closely tied to the oil industry. Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
Nowhere in the article does the word 'severance' appear, despite the fact that these are severance taxes.
If you'll notice, this hit piece was put out before her veep pick, but her name has been out there for weeks.
Also, if you'll notice, the drive bys are consumed with 'she raised taxes, she raised taxes' and they're all out there panting like puppies.
This is the anatomy of a drive by hit.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/29/palin-uninspiring-tax-policy-record/
This appears to be a more balanced, and is clearly more honest, critique of the tax plan.
Can you explain what is meant by a severance tax?
Well, whatever. The point is, Republican Gov. Palin did what the Republican Party opposed. I am sure this will not be the last epiphany.
It's basically a royalty payment to the state.
Thanks.
it is something I honestly don’t get.
a tax is a tax. even increasing fees, which are somewhat voluntary, shows that you’re just not creative enough about reducing the size of govt.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/severance+tax
-—————A tax imposed by a state on the extraction of natural resources, such as oil, coal, or gas, that will be used in other states.——————
If you wanted to get down to technicality, this is a “real” tax, as opposed to something like cap and trade or the death tax which is nothing but government overstepping it’s bounds.
She may have gone against the party.(So what?)
But I don’t see how that gives the media a wild card to lie.
She doesn’t support the windfall profits tax. And she did not support one in her own state. That is media reality.
What do you mean?
She may have gone against the party.(So what?)
it’s going against conservative principles. Even though Mccain didn’t agree with every tax cut Bush proposed, he still never supported any tax increase.
she raised taxes 1.5 billion. And that hurt companies. Not exactly the pro-growth policy we need.
A royalty is not exactly a tax; this sounds more like the gov has the land and lets the corporation drill and extract in exchange for a cut.
My wife and three boys got these Permanent Dividend Fund checks for the five years we lived in Alaska. I was ineligible because I was in the Army. We were in Alaska from 1982 (The year senior point guard, Sarah "Barracuda" Heath lead her high school basketball team to the state championship) until 1987. Angel needs to get with the program and maybe do a little research and leg work on his own instead of just relying on DNC talking points to fill out his articles.
what does this mean?
She has DONE what part of obamas platform proposes.
Whether perceived or done, this will shift business perception but greater this will shift voters.
It now casts Mccain and his choice into a different spotlight.
Mainly her though. Squashes the pro obama on job experience, capability, skill, knowledge, and whats good for the people.
SHE has DONE what they are talking about...which will open a lot of votes both sides.
“Windfall profits taxes alone prevent additional investment in domestic production. Without new supplies from American reserves, our dependency and addiction to foreign sources of oil will continue,” Governor Palin said.
^^^^^^^it’s going against conservative principles.^^^^^^^^^
Severance taxes to my knowledge is/are one of the few types of taxes which are capitalistic in nature.
^^^^^^^^^^^Even though Mccain didn’t agree with every tax cut Bush proposed, he still never supported any tax increase.^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is factually incorrect. He supports cap and trade and has blatantly said that if elected, he will enact a cap and trade system.
That is pure socialism.
Agreed. The increased tax stopped production of a new diesel refinery.
There’s no denying the reality. My main point is to show you how the media plan to attack her.
As usual, they arm themselves with dishonesty.
Yeah, that’s the basis for severance taxes being more capitalist in nature. However, it doesn’t matter. Jack those taxes up too high and it becomes ‘more of the same’.
But with all that said, take note of at least one way the media plan to attack SP.
You got it.
This is the exact kind of article that earned the media all of it’s labels. Be it ‘drive by’ or ‘liberal’ or any others.
lowering taxes is capitalistic, not raising them.
^^^^^^^^^what does this mean?
She has DONE what part of obamas platform proposes.^^^^^^^^
No, no such thing has happened. Your post is *exactly* why I posted this. This is a blatant media attack which has a 100% basis in false reality.
Palin did *NOT* put in place a windfall profits tax.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^Whether perceived or done, this will shift business perception but greater this will shift voters.^^^^^^^^^^^
It doesn’t have to if you don’t let it. Instead of accepting the left wing media’s line, take a short minute or three to familiarize yourself with ‘severance tax’.
^^^^^^^^^It now casts Mccain and his choice into a different spotlight.^^^^^^^^^^^
No it does not. This article should carry zero weight with anybody who is familiar with the media’s political goals.
I’m aware of all of that.
But ACES is not a windfall profit tax. It’s part of the state’s severance tax policy.
Palin has been and still is against the windfall profits tax. And this drive by media attack piece does not change her actual record. It just diminishes the media.
Well, yes. For the most part.
You do have to have taxes of some kind. You can’t have a stateless society, you need law and order. Capitalism can’t exist in anarchy.
Palin set the tax rate for this at 25%. I personally find that to be way too high. However, increased or decreased or left unchanged, severance taxes are more of a realistic form of tax, they’re not like cap and trade or the income tax.
Start a running list. This is just one of the first hit pieces Sarah Palin will have to endure.
Democrats are going ballistic once again.
well when it comes to cutting spending and less restriction on drilling and knocking all the global warming stuff, she is a winner. If you are a balance budget conservative, she’s great.
But I’m a supply sider and would rather have low taxes even if it results in a small deficit because what we need is growth growth growth
saving for later
hmmmn,
Who paid the tax, and who got the benefit of the tax?
There is the odd mix with Palin. She did raise the tax, but the final bill was crafted by the legislators. And she did sign it.
She is for opening ANWR and has taken on the federal government in the lawsuit on Polar Bears.
She cut the budget and saved money for a rainy day.
She has an appeal on many fronts and will no doubt have valid criticism cast her way.
The Democrats can’t say she is in the back pocket of big oil. And that makes her dangerous.
I didn’t see anywhere in the article where gas is up to $10 a gallon in some of the remote parts of Alaska, as a caller who lives there said the other day on the radio. The oil that is extracted is the property of Alaskans, and some of the tax went into their pockets, which is fine by me, as the oil companies are using that state’s resources to make money. The article does go into what happens when profits are taxed, which is the oil companies taking their business elsewhere. This is not much of a winning “hit” for the Democrats, as it points out what happens when Congress gets greedy.
I don’t think Gov. Palin is at all stupid or unable to learn from mistakes. Perhaps McCain can reinforce an obvious lesson as to why taxing profits can make things worse. And she can educate him on the science and practicality of opening up ANWR for oil and natural gas production. After all, what lesson isn’t best learned when taught from a clearcut, inarguable example?
Yeah, I’m sure you’re right. The media will attempt many ways to smear her.
Heck, they pulled a false affair out of thin air. The NYT still hasn’t printed a retraction for that AFAIK.
You and I are in agreement.
I just find the media’s political stance when they claim no political stance to be maddening.
^^^^^^^Who paid the tax, and who got the benefit of the tax?^^^^^^^^
Oil companies paid it, to the benefit of not just the alaskan state govt, but the alaskan tax payers.
But that really doesn’t matter. When our nation was founded, taxes were minimal. But you still had to have those taxes.
Back in those days, companies paid those taxes, and government benefitted. That is *why* it doesn’t matter. Like I said, you can’t have anarchy otherwise you can’t have capitalism.
I’m with you, that taxes are bad if they’re excessively high.
But I’m not going to sit by and let the media get smears on without challenging it. She did not put in place a windfall profits tax. This is a severance tax. Windfall profits taxes are inherently anti capitalistic, as they are nothing more than an attack on industry, the market(s), and etc. Severance taxes are not.
Words mean things, that’s all I’m trying to get across.
^^^^^^^^^^^^6The article does go into what happens when profits are taxed, which is the oil companies taking their business elsewhere. This is not much of a winning “hit†for the Democrats, as it points out what happens when Congress gets greedy.^^^^^^^^^^
It seems to me that the article is aimed at us conservatives. It’s a wedge article, IMO.
We conservatives despise windfall profits taxes. And also, Palin is on record as being against them. So this article also serves as an ‘Ah HAH!’ piece. “See! She’s so hypocritical!” leaps out at me from the article.
We conservatives don’t like windfall profits taxes, and we do like palin. Unlike McCain. The media haven’t gotten much traction trying to wedge us away from McCain, we’re already not that tied to him anyways. So this is the new angle.
Personally, I think she’s up to defending herself. There’s a video of Sarah Palin gently commenting on Hillary, and saying ‘quit whining’ it doesn’t help. My guess is she will fire back at anyone who seriously pulls stunts on her.
precisely, to the public its very vague and undefined. They do not know the difference. The media is not that much different, worst part is they shape public opinion on something they know nothing about.
but either way it was tax and taken from the big bad oil co which is a dream target for obama and his supporters.
I agree.
The federal government or state already does that. You pay a tax automatically upon receipt of a royalty payment. That does not included taxes you pay every April.
Alaska and its people own the oil. Would any other state just "give away" their oil? Or their timber? Gravel? Water? Coal?
Maybe another country will "give away" their oil. Russia? Nope. Iran? No. Venezuela? No.
Apparently, Alaskan oil is a good bargain.
So what does the name have to do with it, a tax on all Americans so Alaskans get a 2500 dollar check is socialism.
^^^^^^^^^Personally, I think she’s up to defending herself.^^^^^^^^^
Considering the corruption she’s already taken on, it’s a good bet. But the media’s corruption is unlike any other. They hide behind a cloak and garb of objectivity when they have none.
^^^^^^^^^^My guess is she will fire back at anyone who seriously pulls stunts on her.^^^^^^^^^^
Most conservatives running for office never fire back at the drive bys. I’ll be delighted if she does, but I don’t expect it.
The tax payers of this country bought Alaska off of Russia, the state of Alaska was formed years after that they don't own squat.
^^^^^^^to the public its very vague and undefined.^^^^^^^^
Which is kind of what I’m trying to do here.
This is a severance tax. For the media to call it a windfall tax knowing the political ramifications of such a thing is nothing more than a below the belt smear.
Deep down, I think you know that. But it appears you’re more interested in discussing the merits of the argument than discussing the smear itself. Which is fine, I mean, the discussion has merits. But so does discussing the smear.
No it’s not. These resources belong to the state; arguably to the people.
Socialism is when one person gets stolen from by another person; via government.
There is nobody being stolen from here. They are severance taxes upon the natural resources of the state.
I’ll agree that 25% is excessive, but it isn’t socialism.
Please don’t buy into the media’s line.
The smear continues. I’ve seen all I need to see. This is our first official smear on her from the drive bys as far as I’m concerned.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2071727/posts?page=1
First, you saw her being compared to Carter. Now, you’ll see her being compared to Barack Obama.
Sarah Palin does seem to hold her own in a debate.
http://palintology.com/2006/08/08/decision-2006-republican-candidate-round-table/
On private land, neither the state nor the feds collect the royalty
Obviously, the state of Alaskazeula gets the royalty from minerals(in this case oil & gas) produced from state land. Also from state waters.
As for the royalties on federal lands, the feds share the royalty with the state in which the federal land is located. These are complex arrangements but as a generality, the royalty in split 50-50, except in Alaskazeula, where the state gets 90% and the feds get 10%.
In federal waters off of Alaskazeula, the feds get 100% of the royalty.
A royalty is not a severance tax. A severance tax is a tax on the oil and gas that leaves the state.
If ANWR were to be developed, Alaskazuela would get 90% of the royalty. After ANWR gets developed and the storage and transportation infrastructure is in place, then the state waters 3 miles out from the shore could be drilled and produced, and Alakazuela gets 100% of that royalty.
BPT’s 10Q has information about the taxes imposed by Alaska on the North Slope producers.
The property where the oil is belongs to the people of the united states not Alaska. The fact is that the people of Alaska do not want to pay for their government. They want someone else to do it. There is no income are sales tax in Alaska. And the people running the oil trust fund ran it into the ground and it is broke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.