hugo

It comes down to one question, boys and girls. Who was right on the windfall profits tax? Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. My vote is with Ronnie, a true conservative. Not a commie pretending to be conservative like TJ.

Info for people that can read: Monday, August 11, 2008 Lessons from Alaska?s Windfall Profits Tax Just because someone else does something stupid, doesn?t mean you should do it as well. Most parents, at some point in time, have told their children something along these lines. I heard it from my mother and father, and I?ve said it to my children as well. The same lesson applies to public policy. The August 10 Seattle Times ran a piece ? titled ?Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil? by Angel Gonzalez and Hal Bernton ? worth reading about the state of Alaska?s tax on oil companies. Alaska politicians love the tax ? in fact, they recently hiked the levy ? but does it make any sense in terms of sound energy policy? The article explained: ?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.? This point is mistaken. Taxes do not generate wealth. Instead, by sucking resources away from the private sector, taxes discourage new wealth creation. Instead, taxes can generate more revenues for politicians to spend. How does the tax work? The article explained: ?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.? But a tax deduction is not a tax credit, for example. The companies only recapture a portion of the state tax on their federal tax returns. And since taxes paid in other states also are deductible, Alaska?s tax burden is still massive. What?s been the impact on the Alaska budget? ?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.? Sounds great, right? Well, as is always the case when taxes are increased, there are costs. It was reported: ?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.? Is this just talk? Consider the following: ?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 politicians can try to justify this formidable tax in all kinds of ways, but the economic realities of high taxes on energy production cannot be wished away. It?s straightforward: Higher taxes on energy production serve as a restraint on and disincentive to energy production. Federal elected officials, as well as state lawmakers in energy rich states like Alaska, should be focused on how they can remove governmental barriers to energy production, such as reducing tax and regulatory burdens. Federal and state taxes ? especially a tax as exorbitant as Alaska?s oil tax ? should be targeted for reduction. The lesson from Alaska is not that the federal government can impose a windfall profits tax with impunity. Instead, the lesson is, like mom and dad said, when others do something stupid, don?t do the same thing. Raymond J. Keating Chief Economist Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Only if you are a dictator. Capitalism favors individuals owning land, not the state. The Great Bimbo speaks: Share the wealth, collective ownership of resources. Hugo Chavez would be proud. Never did get an answer to my question: A, B or C?

I understand the socialist concept Alaska uses. That is why they have the highest rate of illegal drug use. Hugo Chavez is proud of Alaskans. Do ya understand the concept of "Don't work, Don't eat."? I understand socialism quite well, TJ don't. In TJ's mind it is only socialism when Democrats propose it. It is idiots like him that are responsible for our massive national debt. He is a typical Floridan who voted for Obama. Ronald Reagan spits at him from his grave. His mother is currently explaining to St. Peter how she is not at fault for raising a phuckin commie.

Still no answer. It comes down to responsibility, you don't pay people who don't phucking work. Let us see what "free" money has gotten Alaskans: You give money to people that don't work that is what happens. It ain't no coincidence the most socialist state in the union has the highest rate of illicit drug use. There is a high cost to "free" money. This is what Alaskans get from the Permanent Fund: Less jobs, more drug use. Ain't that great! God Bless You, Ronnie!

Does she weigh more than a duck? I say we all go crap on Casey's grave.

Of course, don't forget Sarah, pushed through a windfall profit tax on top of the Permanent fund. If ya can read check this out. Local News | Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil | Seattle Times Newspaper Destroying jobs in order to provide welfare checks ain't conservative. Basic law in economics, that all true conservatives acknowledge, is if you tax something you get less of it. Taxes on oil means less drilling and fewer jobs, plain and simple. Sad that I have to explain this to conservatives. Sad I have to explain Sarah's unconservative actions. Jimmy Carter imposed a windfall tax and so did Sarah Palin, two peas in a pod. Ronald Reagan ended a windfall profits tax; Sarah Palin initiated one. I hope she dies and sucks s in hell along with her fellow commie Nancy Pelosi.

Err...we have debated about her taxing corporations to give every Alaskan a welfare check. That ain't conservative. A true conservative would start selling all them state owned lands. Two people form a government. One pays a $1000 a year in taxes, the other $5000 a year. At the end of the year there is a $3000 surplus to be split between them. What do you do? A) The proportional method, give both 50% of what they paid back. The guy who paid $5000 gets $2500 the guy who paid a $1000 gets $500. B) The pure capitalist method; give the guy who paid $5000 all $3000 C) The Permanent fund commie method, give them both $1500. Y'all, and Sarah, prefer the commie method. I don't call that conservative. What is your answer A, B or C? He won't answer.

He avoided the author's point again folks. The state owns the oil. They are using it for welfare checks instead of tax rebates. Pure socialism. We got two main socialist parties. I don't belong to either one of them. It is people who love socialism, as long as Republicans are pushing it who have got us in the mess we are today. Now y'all wish to elect GW in a skirt so she send out more money for people wh don't work. Y'all a bunch of socialists. (sorry, I go to the site RO went to when I want to debate issues without childish name-calling). Of course, if ya ain't a socialist you would have problems with the state owning so much land in the first place. I ain't got time to explain the concept that resources tend to be better used when owned in private. It is a capitalist viewpoint socialists would not understand.

They can do what they want. I just don't want their Marxism to spread in case their former Governor seeks higher office. Some idiot cannot figure out that when government gives back some of the money stolen from you it is not free money. I think the same idiot who believes in creationism and that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Forgot to add: Y'all a bunch of socialist Obama voters. Now let us actually read what the author's main point was (I use quotes a lot because it saves time, it ain't like y'all can comprehend the written word anyways, I am not a salesman ,or a government employee, working for a living takes time.): If you are not a socialist you favor lowering taxes for those who pay them. Not giving everyone a check whether they pay taxes or not. Of course, ya socialist Obama voters would fail to understand this.

emkay seems like a nutjob to me. I believe she snuck across the border and voted for Obama.

There is a reason certain standards of conduct are referred to as middle class values. The free market punishes those who do not behave responsibly, unless you are so poor you do not have anything to lose or so rich you don't have to worry about bringing home a paycheck. Of course, you can always lose your life. People that disagree with me are socialist Obama voters. Canadians stink!

I happily voted Republican in 1980 and 1984.

Keep sipping the Kool-Aid.

From a true conservative: It's time to end the Permanent Fund dividend check in Alaska -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted on 06 January 2010 7:44am By Dan Fagan Publisher The Alaska Standard The idea of paying every man, woman, and child a dividend check each year from the average earnings of the Alaska Permanent Fund is the possibly one of the worst public policies since the inception of this country’s great republic. (And yes smart-ass, I do deposit my check every year. If you can’t get past the idea of me arguing against a policy while at the same time benefitting from it then you better stop reading now.) Now ultra left wing pandering Democrats Hollis French and Harry Crawford want to enshrine this wealth redistribution program in the Alaska constitution. You say Dan, you believe the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend program is wealth redistribution? If French and Crawford have their way it will be. The reality of the situation in Alaska is our current governor and members of the Alaska legislature lack the political courage to open our state up for business again. Our current high taxes will prematurely end the life of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline meaning we will have to find a new way to fund state government. The 34 billion dollar permanent fund comes to mind. This is of course what the founders of the fund envisioned. When oil revenue dropped off, the fund would help pick up the slack. French and Crawford have a different idea. They say drawing money from the dividend should be dead last on the list for how to balance the budget. Even if that list includes an income tax. Here comes the wealth redistribution part. If French and Crawford have their way, we will see a day in Alaska when the government will demand a portion of your salary in the form of an income tax so it can then give free checks to every man woman and child in the state. Keep in mind only half of Americans pay income tax and the same would be true with a state income tax. So while the Alaska government comes in and takes a portion of our income from half of us, it then uses that same money to redistribute (there’s that word) to every man woman and child. Karl Marx, and Barack Obama would be proud. Mr. Crawford seems to have no problem with this idea seeing he’s a socialist. He says if we don’t enshrine the dividend check poor people will suffer. "That's the most regressive tax we could come up with, to take money from the PFD. Because it hits people at the bottom so much harder than it hits the people at the top. ... There are thousands of Alaskans that are going to be cold and hungry if we were to take away the PFD." Crawford said. Cold and hungry? Yeah there are no programs in place other than the dividend check to help the cold and hungry in Alaska? Crawford’s statement is so silly, absurd, and outrageous he insults the intelligence of the general public. Some will argue the money from the permanent fund belongs to us because it’s our oil and we should receive the benefits from the oil, not state government. I agree. So let’s use some of the fund to rebate taxpayers in the state. For example, if you pay property taxes, let’s take a portion of the fund to rebate the money you paid in property taxes. After all you earned the money you paid in property taxes and if the government can afford it, it should refund the money you earned. The problem with the French, Crawford plan is it ignores the value of earning. It promotes wealth redistribution. When Sarah Palin handed out almost one billion dollars in free cash to Alaskans a couple of years ago I knew then and there she had no concept of the value of earning and the destructive nature of free money. Her fundamental understanding of conservative thought was weak and misguided. Tax rebate? Yes, all day, anytime, anyplace, anywhere. Free money? Only if it is used to help the truly helpless. It’s time we end the notion in Alaska there is a free lunch. There isn’t. Or least there shouldn’t be. Every dime you receive, someone at some point earned it. If you didn’t earn it, then someone else did. And that means the money you get that you didn’t earn doesn’t belong to you unless it was given to you directly and voluntarily by the person who earned it. If the government forcefully took it from someone and gave it to you, it doesn't belong to you.

Of course the commie fund was not for Ms Marx-Palin, a bit of info:

My prayers are with you and your family.

Socialism at the state level is still socialism. I don't see government ownership of resources as capitalism, I am glad Alaska has found that Marxist ideology works. Unlike you all I did not vote for a socialist for President in 2000,2004 and 2008, nor will I in 2012. There are some legitimate Republican candidates, nominate one of them. People with principles don't vote for commies just because they happen to be Republican. I see ya all would probably strongly support a Chavez/ Palin ticket. [attach=full]2671[/attach] I like the permanent fund

When there is a big difference in charisma in every election in the television age Mr Charisma has won.

It is quite sad when "conservatives" argue in favor of raising taxes on corporations so individuals can get a welfare check. People should not be paid for sitting on their ass at the cost of job creation. I thought I only had to explain this to liberals.

Most of our taxes come from sales and property taxes. We sure don't get no checks every year.

Was there free beer?

I'll second that.

Just started playing. Is 14,867 a good score?

[attach=full]2670[/attach]Venezuela belongs to all Venezuelans.