Posted on 06/10/2016 8:37:23 AM PDT by PROCON
The Obama administration's proposed $10.25 tax on each barrel of crude oil produced in the United States would be one of the biggest tax increases on gasoline in history, a report released Thursday showed.
Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released a Congressional Research Service report showing historical increases in the federal gasoline tax in an attempt to put the oil tax in perspective. While the tax would be levied on oil companies, economists assume that oil companies would pass on the tax to consumers.
The tax could add between 20-25 cents per gallon, and the report shows that one-time increase would be the largest increase in the gas tax since it was passed in 1932.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Fortunately he can't pass this tax on his own, right?
Right?
I’m sure Ryan and Mitch will cuck it too him just as fast as they possibly can.
They just slobber all over 0buttbongo..
Yeah, more bad news for Hillary.
The dumb, anti-American bastard should instead place a $25 per bbl tariff on imported oil.
With oil trading for around $50 per barrel this morning, that’s a 20% increase.
I can’t wait until this demagogue tyrant vacates the POTUS.
It looks, to me, that the Saudi’s or possibly the Iranian’s are desperate to hurt America’s oil industry even more so as to save their butts. The fact that America can now export it’s own oil must really tick them right off.
Unfortunately, this is a uniparty initiative.
why not trade gas tax for tax reform? eliminate payroll taxes & the corporate income tax for a 17.5% VAT, and eliminate the income tax for the bottom 99%.
Have a 25% tax bracket that starts at $500,000, a 30% tax bracket starting at $1million, a 35% tax bracket starting at $5 million, and a 40% tax bracket starting at $10million, a 45% tax bracket starting at $50million and a 50% tax bracket starting at $100million. Tax dividends and capital gains as regular income, indexing cap gains for inflation....perhaps apply a sales tax (deductible) agains the purchase of stocks on stock markets....(since there’s no cap gains tax on cap gains under $500,000 yearly income. If GOP gave a little on tax policy, perhaps they wouldn’t feel the need to pander for the Latino vote over immigration which is doing so much damage to the country.
Making the tax code less S-T-E-E-P is more important for both the supply side & demand side than what the top tax rate is.
Reagan had a top tax rate of 50% in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986...falling to 38.5% in 1987 and to 28% only in his last year of 1988, followed by recession and Savings & Loan crisis and bailouts. Now of course it was the Fed overtightening that caused the recession like it always does-—but in the mind of Democrats, the press and independent voters...they think Reagan cut the top rate to 28%, the economy “overheated”, the Fed adjusted...and we had a crash BECAUSE of Reagan cutting taxes for the rich, same as they believe W Bush’s low top tax rate and low tax on investment income led to rampant speculation, followed by a crash.
That’s why Democrats are able to persuade people and Republicans just shouting “faster growth/tax cuts” doesn’t work and why we lost 2 straight presidential elections fighting for the insipid, incoherent, pandering W Bush tax code that cost us dearly & wasn’t worth fighting for, but was worth replacing by a better idea and real reform.
Just as the brakes are NOT the cooling system of a car, the Fed is not the cooling system for the economy. Competition from lower taxes is why we don’t have double digit inflation now, like we had in the 1970s. Few people face the honest truth about Carter and Reagan periods. Yes, we had a top tax rate of 70%...but we had that in the early 1970s, too....and we had low unemployment. But after we got off the gold standard, by the late 1970s, lack of competition is what led to double digit inflation because not only were rates too high at the top....but MOSTLY because the code was too steep. Having a 70% tax bracket at $200 MILLION wouldn’t harm the economy....but having a 70% tax bracket at $280,000 would kill the economy, causing the Fed to try to juice it with more money to get it growing..which only caused inflation to rise to 13.5% by 1980...even as the unemployment rate was 7.5% and rising before Reagan got elected.
And in 1980, we had a 40% tax bracket that began at just $105,000.
Even Reagan’s tax reform was way too steep. Reagan’s tax reform code was not good for the middle class, but Republicans refuse to admit it. Reagan had 2 tax rates-—15% bracket until $85,000, then 28% tax bracket beginning at just $85,000. He got rid of middle class tax deductions and had a low standard exemption. The 15% phased out at right about the point where the payroll tax phased out with the cap, meaning that the middle class paid a 15% income tax rate combined with a 16% total payroll tax rate. (Reagan raised the Social Security tax so high on the middle class it ran a tax revenue surplus until after Obama got elected....a 30 year surplus from 1st dollar/regressive tax on the middle class to pay for welfare benefits like disability and child survivor benefits)......while the rich paid just the 28% rate and had their payroll tax phase out on most of their earnings. Thus did Reagan make middle class people pay near 30% to get the richest of the rich under 30%. There are BETTER ways to do something like that....like my idea above to make the tax code less steep and rely on consumption taxes from the middle class, while exempting the middle class from all income taxes.
In 1913 when the income tax was created, WE, the People were told it “only ever will be a tax ON THE RICH, never higher than 10%”. Spending needs make those days over.....but exempting the first $500K of income from all sources while getting more from the ultra rich is the best compromise for revenue plus growth without being unfair & regressive.
Competition from lower taxes is why we don’t have skyrocketing prices right now, even though the Fed has frightened some people by being so accomodating at 4.7% unemployment. Keynesians believe that fast growth and low unemployment rates CAUSE inflation, but in the Roaring 1920s we had low unemployment and no inflation and budget surpluses. The Fed does NOT have to kill economic growth and labor demand! We can increase the supply of labor in many ways...including letting the price of labor rise and immigration only at low unemployment rates.
According to Democrats and their plants in the media, the faster the economy grows and faster and lower the unemployment rate falls, the sooner and harder the Fed tightens and the higher they raise interest rates. That’s why some smart people think that Obama’s economics still is superior to what Bush did. They think slow growth from higher taxes makes the boom last longer......but Bill Clinton hit a balanced budget before hitting 5% unemployment rate, whereas Obama has a 4.7% unemployment rate & his budget deficit is over $400BILLION and set to rise. This is an abomination, but GOP won’t exploit the Obama deficit because they too believe that deficits don’t matter and lost credibility on deficits............but deficits DO matter when you made promises to retiring Boomers. People still haven’t forgotten that we went from paying down the national debt BEFORE the Boomers retired, to running the debt to $20 TRILLION just when crunch time hits.........and GOP is going to have a hard time selling entitlement spending cuts to voters who think it’s all their fault there’s no money now..........
Blame a complacent public that only responds to media slant on fiscal policy.
Example: sequester or government shutdown forced by Republicans. Rather than cast as hero’s trying to preserve American sovereignty, they are cast as heartless, soulless, and racist.
The public goes along and the sequester ends without effect.
In California, in 2005 the Governor tries to reign in public sector unions. Same process as above.
The public should be able to see through this, but they don’t.
Perhaps universal suffrage is a bad idea?
So this is just on domestic production and not imported oil? So how many billions will this benefit the Iranians and Saudis? And since the Dems will probably use static analysis they will assume that domestic production won’t plummet and spend all the money they “should” get thus making us both poorer and more in debt.
And who would pay the most? The people in flyover country who travel the greatest distances.
This would place additional cost burdens on domestic production that would render it even more uncompetitive with foreign production than it already is. The only way this proposal makes sense is if one views it through the prism of making alternative fuels more cost-competitive than they are at present, which I suspect is the actual intent here.
Impossible. It’s only a tax on greedy rich oil companies.
the taxes will prolly be more than the profit and of course passed along to the taxpayers
If you’re going to tax oil, tax IMPORTED oil, thus maintaining the viability of the domestic fracking industry, and lowering our vulnerability to perpetual Middle-Eastern insanity.
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.