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

To: Rational Thought
I have been down this argument before. Here is how financial the industry defines it:

"tax on profits that result from a sudden windfall to a particular company or industry."

Okay, now explain to me howa tax structure that graduates based on progressive oil income revenues does not meet this criteria?

246 posted on 08/06/2011 7:08:51 AM PDT by catfish1957 (Hey algore...You'll have to pry the steering wheel of my 317 HP V8 truck from my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies ]


To: catfish1957
Try this:

An Introduction to Sarah Palin-omics

Former state Representatives Pete Kott and Vic Kohring have been convicted taking bribes from oil company executives in Alaska. Using the oil profits tax passed in 2006, these politicians literally used their offices to steal money from the citizens of Alaska. Governor Sarah Palin would have none of it, and set to work to correct the problem and return that money to Alaskan residents...

Governor Palin did what any conservative worth their own soul would have done. She gave tax dollars that were literally stolen from Alaskan taxpayers right back to them and appropriately reversed corrupt tax policy. Not only did she bring ethics back to the tax policy in regards to the oil industry in Alaska, she improved the policy itself in her proposal.

The tax raises when oil prices are high, and falls when oil prices are low. This gives amazing incentive for the oil companies to produce more oil, which increases supply, and lowers prices for everyone including the taxes they themselves pay the state. When oil prices are low the tax moves to a 10 percent tax on the gross, instead of the net tax of 25% when prices are high. Instead of, not in addition to. The oil companies in Alaska with the Palin proposal pay the state minus their operating expenses along with pipeline and tanker charges. In this way, the oil companies are not taxed for the cost of doing business.

253 posted on 08/06/2011 7:20:29 AM PDT by MestaMachine (Guns don't kill people, the obama administration does. (Gunwalker Ping List))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: catfish1957
It's a matter of understanding the structure of how Alaska acquires it's revenues as they have no state income or sales tax.

Your definition of a “Windfall Profits Tax” is mainly accurate, but carries with it a negative connotation from the screwed up policy of the Carter years, as you well know. The Palin structure was indeed based on a graduated scale on profits over $52.00 a barrel. Additionally, the Palin plan did increase the dividend checks received by Alaskans by $1200.00 per person.

Did you prefer the Murkowski plan instead? Perhaps Alaska should have gone to a sales tax like Texas?

269 posted on 08/06/2011 8:10:56 AM PDT by Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]

To: catfish1957; MestaMachine
Okay, now explain to me howa tax structure that graduates based on progressive oil income revenues does not meet this criteria?

False premise when you describe it as based on oil income revenues. It considers potential income, or would that be revenues? -- or would that be income revnues? -- as per the going price of oil.

The liberal MSM doesn't like Palin any more than you do, which is probably why MSM sources like Seattle Post refer to it as a "windfall profits tax" when it isn't on profits (though it is calculated to work via adjusting to the changing profit margin that is necessarily linked to the market price of oil) or on windfalls.

359 posted on 08/06/2011 7:50:32 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | 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