Posted on 03/18/2011 1:12:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Redistributionist BS.
At the same time, I must admit that I am not at all familiar with the details of the issue and must therefore rely on this story to explain it.
It has failed to do so.
It tells us that someone proposes lowering the taxes --- something celebrated by conservatives and libertarians. And yet, in this particular case, it is not only wrong, but is supposed to be obviously wrong. The author admits that the present surplus is due to sky-high oil prices that has never been observed before. (S)he offers not a singles argument why lowering taxes would be bad.
What’s with all the Palin news lately (this week)? They’re scared of something...
On the pipeline, I thought the Times simply pointed out that it was no longer commercially viable, which is probably true. There’s a glut of natural gas in the lower 48. Maybe an LNG terminal for global export would have been a better idea.
Any questions about Gov. Palin’s policies and her activities, just read her first book. She admits making a few mistakes, but quickly corrects them.
Virtually everything she did as Gov., was for the best interests of her constituancy, and not pandering to special interests, no matter which party or group.
Beats the s**t out of what BHO has shown...
It’s nothing new:
Palin Eclipses Obama in Google Hits
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2671276/posts
I was referring to the statement that government spending shortcuts a recession.
With oil prices so high, the tax in Alaska is too high. Who cares who set it so high, conservatives are generally supportive of lowering high taxes when they are fueling a huge tax surplus.
Just because Palin is the one who put this together years ago shouldn’t mean we have to fight against changes now.
Charging corporations a percentage for taking natural resources out of the ground to sell and using that money for the benefit of the citizens and to balance the state budget is anti-conservative?
I have not said that, have I? The issue is not whether to tax but by how much to tax. The Governor suggests that the tax is too high and proposes to reduce it. Reduction (not elimination) of taxes is generally championed by conservatives, so on its face value it is not wrong. The Governor may or may not be right --- the devil is in the details. But the article claims he is wrong without saying a word on why that is so.
Waatch your step there you heretic. ;)
At the same time, I must admit that I am not at all familiar with the details of the issue and must therefore rely on this story to explain it.
It has failed to do so.
_______________________________________________________
I’ll try since I lived through the issue (and basically supported it then), and my business is feeling its effects now.
ACES is a progressive tax based on the price of oil. The higher the price of oil, the higher the tax. It starts in the 20% range and goes all the way to the 90% range including a 12.5% state royalty. Meanwhile the Trans Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) is running at about 1/3 capacity and losing 6% a year; so future exploration is necessary or the TAPS may reach a point where it’s no longer economically feasible to run (estimated to occur in 5-7 years without additional production). Once it’s shut down the original act from the 70’s requires the pipeline and its infrastructure to be removed and the environment restored to its original state. Therefore, it is in Alaska’s best interest to somehow spur new exploration on state land especially in light of North Dakotas flat 12% tax on oil production. It’s a matter of staying competitive since the Feds won’t allow exploration on the 67% of Alaska they control. When ACES was passed a highly charged “Anti-Oil Corruption” political atmosphere existed.........and remaining competitive with other states was not necessarily fully considered. Now major exploration investment has since ostenibly left for more profitable grounds, while the major oil companies simply maintain what they have knowing full well the final circumstances of no new production to the State’s economy. It’s called being over a barrel.
At the same time, I must admit that I am not at all familiar with the details of the issue and must therefore rely on this story to explain it.
It has failed to do so.
_______________________________________________________
I’ll try since I lived through the issue (and basically supported it then), and my business is feeling its effects now.
ACES is a progressive tax based on the price of oil. The higher the price of oil, the higher the tax. It starts in the 20% range and goes all the way to the 90% range including a 12.5% state royalty. Meanwhile the Trans Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) is running at about 1/3 capacity and losing 6% a year; so future exploration is necessary or the TAPS may reach a point where it’s no longer economically feasible to run (estimated to occur in 5-7 years without additional production). Once it’s shut down the original act from the 70’s requires the pipeline and its infrastructure to be removed and the environment restored to its original state. Therefore, it is in Alaska’s best interest to somehow spur new exploration on state land especially in light of North Dakotas flat 12% tax on oil production. It’s a matter of staying competitive since the Feds won’t allow exploration on the 67% of Alaska they control. When ACES was passed a highly charged “Anti-Oil Corruption” political atmosphere existed.........and remaining competitive with other states was not necessarily fully considered. Now major exploration investment has since ostenibly left for more profitable grounds, while the major oil companies simply maintain what they have knowing full well the final circumstances of no new production to the State’s economy. It’s called being over a barrel.
That is true , however they make it sound as if she was wrong to do such a thing in the first place. Which is simply not true.
I did not speak up because I had not facts, but I did suspect that the tax was populist --- simply because I remember that, during Palin's governorship, the sentiment was strongly against the oil companies that were supposedly "gouging" us, poor folks.
And, regardless of motives, any (i) progressive tax or (ii) linear tax that rises to 90% is plain stupid: it screams, "Don't do more work, don't explore, don't invest..." The only similar stupidity that I recall was during the New Deal of FDR when Congress passed a tax law with a maximum income tax of... 100% (together with state tax, it made it greater than 100%). In his infinite wisdom FDR, probably under influence of Morgenthau, reduced it to 90%. Socialist insanity at its worst. It really pains me to hear that the same is happening as we speak.
I am truly sorry to hear that you are on the receiving end of this, and your business is adversely affected. I very much hope that sanity will prevail -- for your sake, for the sake of people you employ, and for the sake of the rest of the country.
Thank you again for educating me on this issue. It's not the information that is easy to acquire.
If you would have clicked on the highlighted portions of the article, you would have gotten the explanation you requested. BTW - first post on FR
Welcome, Bam. Stick around.
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.