Printable View
Employment, cheap cost of living. Not live off daddy right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
If fiscal conservatism is to cry to get their own social programs like this gas card program through oil revenue, while having the rest of the country pay for their Alaska's services, there's still dependency. Alaska is getting subsidized by other states tax revenue. Alaska is the beneficiary of socialism. Republicans and democrats are no different other than how they want to allocate the funds.
You missed the point. Not only does Alaska tax the shit out of the oil companies, but they receive billions of federal aid dollars from Washington. The federal government already is "playing daddy." And Alaska is part of the US, so the oil should benefit the rest of the country too, not just Alaska.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
P4B, here's what you had to say about Obama's plan to add a temporary windfall tax on oil profits (something I don't support either):
Sarah Palin's new tax charges 75% on every dollar over $25. Man she is WAY WORSE than either Chavez or Obama! Hell, if Obama is a leftist, then Palin must be Marx, Mao, and Castro all rolled into one!Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
Chavez tax hits only foreign oil companies and charges a 50% rate for the cost of a barrel of oil above $70. Palin hits domestic companies for 75% over $25. She's a freaking communist!
And after sucking us dry by taxing the hell out of oil, she still has tha gall to suck at the Federqal teat by collecting 75% more from the Federal government than her state pays in income taxes!
She doesn't USE the money for anything, just gives it away to Alaskans for the mere fact that they live in Alaska!
That is freakin' pinko commie redistribution of wealth!
McCain picked a communist for VP!
That's change alright! Get out your Mao books!
Here's another quote relating to the Obama Windfall tax idea:
That is exactly right. The oil companies pass tha tax on to YOU, and Palin uses it to give her state citizens $2000 cash every year, a special bonus check of $1200 this year, and $100 FREE GAS EVERY MONTH!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by killerweed420
Bend over lower 48! Palin's gonna give it to ya Moose Style!
Here is another one about the Obama windfall tax idea:
Seems like people understand very well how this works. The oil comapny passes it on to you, and Palin gives it away as cash bonuses to her constituency.Quote:
Originally Posted by THClord
I'd love to see a real fiscal conservative back me up on this.
I am a fiscal conservative myself but I vote Democratic mostly because of my environmental beliefs. People always want to label me as a "liberal" but I give conservatives respect for the areas where I agree with them. And I also say when I disagree with my party on certain things too. I have not supported Obama's call for a windfall profits tax, and I did not support the bipartisan "stimulus" fiasco in which we borrowed money to give away to people.
Are there any real fiscal conservative who agree that it is wrong to have a tax that is passed on to everyone in order to give away free cash and free gas to citizens of a single state for no better reason than that they live there?
That is PURE redistribution of wealth without even trying to hide behind the idea that the money is for something or serves a social purpose.
I guess I am confused dragon. I want to hear you out though. This is what I don't understand.
From the article you posted above, it says that Alaska's tax revenue has gone up tremendously due to the inflated cost of oil. It didn't say that she increased the taxes did it?
This is also in the context of, Alaska is producing this resource right? They are then selling it right? The tax is on the sale right? So if the cost of oil skyrockets, then the revenues from taxes on it also go up right? So what am I missing? I didn't see where she raised the taxes on energy production in Alaska, just that the revenues went up. I know that I must be completely missing something here. Throw me a polar bear bone here1:D
I think what I am confused on is the tax on sales, as opposed to the tax on profits?
More wisdom about taxing oil profits:
Damn straight, Daihashi! And if the only reason for taxing that oil and raising the prices on EVERYONE is so that you can give away FREE CASH and FREE GAS to a SELECT FEW who live in one state, then that is socailist redistribution of wealth!Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Keep this communist from being one heartbeat away from the presidency! It's a plot!
There are so many posts about this topic!:
Just like Carter! Palin is keeping production LOW, so prices stay HIGH! Which just means that much more profit for her to tax! Mo' money! Mo' money! Mo' money!Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
To bad none of us will see any of that, she's just going to give it away to Alaskans! And ask for more cash from the Feds!
Bong30 has an interesting take on taxing oil company profits:
Hey, Bong30! Look out! Palin is raping your 401k too! Palin is driving down the value of YOUR RETIREMENT fund, so she can give free gas to Alaskans! You better plan on retiring to Alaska! Of course, by that time this socialist scheme will probably be exposed and the jig will be up!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bong30
It is a combination of an increase in the tax rate that Palin approved, and the increase in profit. It's actually a progressive tax, so that the higher the profit margin, the higher the rate is in terms of percentage. With the increase in prices that we all pay, it has made for astronomical revenues for Alaska, which Palin is now proposing to give away to Alaskans.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
Here is a good article:
Local News | Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil | Seattle Times Newspaper
Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil
While Congress and the presidential candidates debate the wisdom of a windfall tax on oil companies, Alaska has already imposed one, hauling in billions of dollars in new revenue for the state treasury.
By Ángel González and Hal Bernton
Seattle Times staff reporters
Republicans in Congress this June united to defeat a proposed windfall tax on oil companies, deriding it as a bad idea that would discourage investment in U.S. oil exploration.
Things worked out far differently in the GOP stronghold of Alaska, a state whose economic fate is closely tied to the oil industry.
Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry ?? a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.
At a time when Americans are feeling the pinch at the gasoline pump and oil companies are racking up record profits, Alaska's choice foreshadows one of the sharpest debates in the upcoming presidential election.
Democrat Barack Obama supports a national windfall-profits tax, while Republican John McCain opposes it.
Alaska collected an estimated $6 billion from the new tax during the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. That helped push the state's total oil revenue ?? from new and existing taxes, as well as royalties ?? to more than $10 billion, double the amount received last year.
While many other states are confronting big budget deficits because of the troubled economy, Alaska officials are in the enviable position of exploring new ways to spend the state's multibillion-dollar budget surplus.
Some of that new cash will end up in the wallets of Alaska's residents.
Palin's administration last week gained legislative approval for a special $1,200 payment to every Alaskan to help cope with gas prices, which are among the highest in the country.
That check will come on top of the annual dividend of about $2,000 that each resident could receive this year from an oil-wealth savings account.
State Sen. Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat who supported the windfall tax, said the oil companies " ... were literally printing money on the North Slope. We decided to strike the balance a little bit more on our side."
The industry, however, warns new taxes are already discouraging future exploration and development in newer, more expensive projects needed to boost waning production in Alaska's oil patches.
"Clearly, from the investor standpoint, Alaska has become a less attractive place to invest exploration and production dollars," said Marilyn Crockett, executive director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association.
Tax imposed by Carter
The oil industry has long fought windfall-profits taxes. Officials cite a congressional study that indicated a windfall-profits tax imposed by President Carter ?? and later repealed in the 1980s ?? appeared to discourage U.S. oil-field development.
"It was a bad idea in the 1980s, and it is an even worse idea today," says an American Petroleum Institute statement on windfall taxes.
The industry's arguments held sway in the U.S. Senate in June, where Republicans defeated a Democratic proposal for a windfall-profits tax that would have raised an estimated $10 billion to $12 billion.
The debate has spilled into the presidential campaign.
Obama supports a federal windfall-profits tax, with the proceeds used to provide rebates of $500 or $1,000 to taxpayers. "Increased domestic oil exploration certainly has its place," Obama said last Monday in Michigan. "But it's not the solution" to America's energy problems, he added.
McCain has blasted the idea, saying it would "increase our dependence on foreign oil and hinder exactly the same kind of domestic exploration and production we need."
In Alaska, the willingness of Republicans to tax the oil industry reflects unusual political developments.
Last year, as part of a major federal corruption investigation, an oil-services executive ?? former VECO Chairman Bill Allen ?? pleaded guilty to bribing some state legislators as he sought to limit the size of an oil-tax increase approved in 2006.
In the fall primary of 2006, Palin upset Republican incumbent Gov. Frank Murkowski, whom she criticized for giving too much of a break to the oil industry.
Then last year, Palin introduced a graduated tax pegged to increased oil prices. The state Legislature modified her proposal to increase the state's take even further.
Production falling
The bill's proponents ?? a coalition of Democrats and maverick Republicans ?? argued that oil production was declining in Alaska, and that the lower tax rate under previous governors had done little to spur additional investment in the state's oil industry.
Critics say the companies, who have lobbied to open the federal Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration, have lagged badly in developing already available fields on state lands. Some estimates indicate those fields may contain billions of barrels of oil, mostly heavy crude that's difficult to extract.
They argue that the state ?? which owns most of the land around Prudhoe Bay, North America's largest oil field ?? needs to grab its fair share of proceeds from the declining output there.
"You don't get to grow another oil barrel," said French, the Anchorage lawmaker. "You sell that barrel once, and it's gone forever."
The Alaska tax is imposed on the net profit earned on each barrel of oil pumped from state-owned land, after deducting costs for production and transportation, which are currently estimated at just under $25 a barrel.
The tax is set at its highest rate in Prudhoe Bay, where the state takes 25 percent of the net profit of a barrel when its price is at or below $52.
The percentage then escalates as oil prices rise over that benchmark. Alaska gets about $49 of a $120 barrel, not counting other fees.
ConocoPhillips said that in total, once royalty payments and other taxes are added in, the state captures about 75 percent of the value of a barrel.
An accounting benefit eases the sting for oil companies. They get a huge deduction on their state taxes when calculating their federal taxes.
Companies pull back
Still, oil-industry officials contend the tax already has affected investment decisions.
BP Alaska, which runs Prudhoe Bay, said earlier this year that it had delayed the development in the western region of the North Slope as a result of the tax. ConocoPhillips cited the same reason for scrapping a $300 million refinery project.
"What the tax has done is take away all the upside," said Doug Suttles, president of BP Alaska. The U.K.-based oil company paid more than $500 million in taxes to Alaska last quarter ?? far more than it earned in profits from Alaskan oil, according to Suttles.
Investment dollars are flowing instead to places that have a better return, like the massive deep-water projects offshore in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, where ConocoPhillips said the government take equals less than 50 percent of the barrel.
In July, BP announced it would begin developing the Liberty oil field, a $1.5 billion project expected to yield 100 million barrels of oil, located on federal lands in Alaska. If the project had been located in state lands on the North Slope, "I don't think we'd have been able to make that investment," Suttles said.
Alaska state officials say they still do plenty to court the oil industry, such as giving small, independent producers breaks on royalty payments. And the state tax bill includes a generous provision for deducting investments in new fields or other capital costs.
"We think that, hopefully, [the new tax system] will encourage firms to get on the Slope and produce more oil and gas," said state petroleum economist Cherie Nienhuis.
Prices spur global trend
Alaska's decision to raise taxes is part of a global trend. Emboldened by high energy prices and the industry's difficulty in finding giant new oil fields, oil-rich nations from Venezuela to Russia have been raising taxes and royalty payments in recent years.
Even the market-friendly United Kingdom, home to oil giants BP and Royal Dutch Shell, recently has sought to capture a bigger share of revenue from companies operating in the North Sea.
Despite the oil companies' complaints, many say that as they vie for access to new oil and gas deposits, they have little choice but to accept deals they once might have spurned.
Many Alaskans are happy to have newfound leverage over oil companies in what they see as the state's last big boom. But others see it as a tricky issue for the state.
Although Alaska's huge resources and relative political stability make it affordable for oil firms to pay huge taxes there, "you don't want take so much that you discourage activity," said Kenneth Medlock, a petroleum economist at Rice University in Houston. "You want to strike that fine balance."
Wow, that sucks.
Doesn't seem like a good idea, unless you live in Alaska. Which she was the govenor of, and the oil was taken out of state owned land. Still the same, doesn't seem like a great idea, if what the article says is true. You can't really lay the blame solely on her however, there was the state legislature that obviously was apart of this. In the short term I can see how someone could make an argument for doing just this, if you are serving the people of Alaska, however, doesn't seem to be a super duper great idea at all.:wtf:
That being said, it should be a plus for all the whiney liberal wackos that believe it IS a good idea!
And oh yeah, she is still fucking hot, I would still do her until I broke it off, and I will still vote for McCain. Just chalk that up to yet another point that I don't agree with within my party. The list grows, but it's no where near the length of the list for the democrats. I can at least find issues that I do actually agree with the GOP on. Haven't found that yet on the other side, don't really expect to.
Did I mention she is facking hauwwt!:D
Good point though, so she is in agreement with the left on this issue, doesn't make me happy, but isn't exactly something that I see swaying any conservatives away either. Because the alternative is far worse on a broader range of issues, at least for me.
Thanks for fucking up my night, DICK!:S4: (I say that jokingly of course....(muttering under my breath, Dragon is a DICKFARM grumble grumble scowl, sneer!);)
I'm glad you can see past pure partisanship (and pure hotness) and recognize a bad idea when you see one. She may be hot, but she is no fiscal conservative!Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
Did you just call me a dickfarm? You're lucky I don't take these kinds of things personally! For that I will leave you with this final image: There you are banging away at the lovely Sarah Palin. Your dream has finally come true! It's better than you ever could have imagined! But just as you explode in ecstacy, she suddenly she morphs into Hugo Chavez! Hugo is pregnant with your misbegotten love child! And he is keeping the baby! You must raise your child with the ugliest man on the whole planet, and the only one more commie than Palin!Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
Have a great night, Kush!
Perfect! Feel free to go ahead and start buying me some viagra now!:mad::D;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
lol, lovely.