Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: redhead
No, that is the royalty planand it was already in place.

This additional tax was SP's baby and was layered on top of the royalties and other existing fees. It was an aggressive progressive tax on net profits.

According to industry officials it brought Alaska's share of revenue (revenue - not profits) up to 75%.

Part of the revenue derived from this additional tax did go to Alaskans in the form of a check. But, and this is key, this was not an agreed upon quid pro quo driven royalty...it was a levied tax and as with any tax those entities paying had no say in the matter.

To take it a step further, it was a tax (confiscation) of corporate revenues for the purpose of re-distribution.

106 posted on 03/27/2011 1:26:36 PM PDT by wtc911 ("How you gonna get down that hill?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]


To: wtc911
No, that is the royalty planand it was already in place. This additional tax was SP's baby and was layered on top of the royalties and other existing fees.

You are posting false information. There was already Petroleum Production Tax.

110 posted on 03/27/2011 1:45:27 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson