[thackney]

I am sorry you are incapable of understanding the difference between taxes and royalties. Owners of mineral rights are permitted to sell those minerals. They should not be required to give them away for free.

What if New York charged royalties for every stock transaction at the NYSE?

There is a big difference in taxing a transaction that happens in your jurisdictions, and selling a resource.

But I'd be willing to bet that the average oil company didn't pay 12.5% in federal taxes.

Don't bet too much of on that.

ExxonMobil income tax rate alone was 40.7% in 2010.

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/news_pubs_fo_2010.pdf
Summary Statement of Income, Page 22.

In Kansas any royalties for mineral rights go to the owner of the property and not the state.

No, not the owners of the property (surface) but the owners of the mineral rights, same as almost everywhere.

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Oil/primer11.html

In Kansas, you can sell the property and retain the mineral rights. Which is what the state of Alaska has done for the State land, they have retained the mineral rights. The natives retained their mineral rights and the feds retained their mineral rights.

When I owned property in Alaska, the state still owned the mineral rights. Just as in Texas, the property I own was once part of a larger ranch, that family retained the mineral rights when the subdivision was created.

Oil that is produced in Alaska from Native Lands or on Federal does NOT contribute to the dollars that go to the permanent fund. It is only the oil produced from the state owned mineral rights that contributes, not all oil produced in the state.

[SoJoCo]

A tax by any other name is still a tax. And taking money from business and giving it to anyone living in the state is still wealth distribution, regardless of what you want to call it.