Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (82510)	9/6/2008 5:38:17 AM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541746

>>Interestingly, much of this money comes from a windfall tax imposed on the oil companies.<< The $2,069 comes from investment gains in the Permanent Fund. This fund gets annual new injections of oil revenue, but that original principle is kept in the fund and bolstered by inflation proofing. The $1,200 comes directly from current oil revenue.

To: Cogito who wrote (82510)	9/6/2008 6:40:24 AM
From: Stan J. Czernel	Respond to of 541746

Interestingly, much of this money comes from a windfall tax imposed on the oil companies. It was in pushing that tax through that Celebrity Governor Palin earned her "standing up to the oil companies" credit This is no more 'standing up to the oil companies' than a junkie buying drugs from a pusher is 'standing up to the drug cartels'. But you have to admit, the recipients of such oily largess are understandably going to fight a candidate who advocates energy alternatives tooth and nail.

To: Cogito who wrote (82510)	9/6/2008 10:06:08 AM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541746

Allen; She also raised sales taxes while Mayor of Wasilla, just for the record. Interestingly, much of this money comes from a windfall tax imposed on the oil companies The news organizations are slow to catch on to this. It is but another example of conservatives saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. The same thing happened under Reagan and Bush and the deficit exploded. But isn't a windfall tax on the oil companies a Democratic idea The kind of question she will have trouble answering - and why they want to keep her away from the press. steve

To: Cogito who wrote (82510)	9/6/2008 12:46:13 PM
From: bluezuu	Respond to of 541746

But isn't a windfall tax on the oil companies a Democratic idea, and something that Republicans oppose? Why yes it is, in Washington, DC. In Alaska, Celebrity Governor Palin proposed the tax, and called a special legislative session to push it through. Bascially, Gov Murkowski signed a new tax deal for the oil producers in late 2006 shortly before leaving office. The article below will differ, but I thought I saw a higher tax at a certain threshold. Anyway, how profits were accounted was another issue (what a surprise). So, Alaska was getting less revs than expected. Palin called a special session to change the law in 2007. I was looking through docs on the Alaska web site, but I just saw this article and it is not bad. Excerpt and link below. ----------------------- In 2006, then Gov. Frank Murkowski, a Republican, proposed changing the state's tax on oil from a gross-revenue to a net-revenue basis. Instead of creaming 10% off the top -- which was how the mature oil fields were taxed -- Mr. Murkowski pushed to tax oil companies on their profits only, at a rate of 22.5%. The change in tax regime was meant to encourage investment in and development of new fields. In effect, the state would become the oil companies' development partner. It would participate in the upside of oil and gas exploration, but only after the companies had recovered the enormous upfront costs of drilling new wells. These costs are considerable. In Alaska, the locations are remote, the climate is extreme, the infrastructure mostly nonexistent, the environmental rules the strictest in the world, and there is only a short work season of three or four months a year. The costs make any project very risky. Mr. Murkowski's plan turned into a disaster. It depended much on trust, but it lacked the transparency and predictability needed to win public confidence. One year after it went into effect, the Petroleum Profits Tax brought in far less revenue than expected and the state suffered a revenue crunch. Somehow, the legislature had never properly defined accounting procedures and permissible deductions -- and the deductions came in much higher than expected. Meanwhile, as the shortfall appeared, a number of state legislators were on trial, under indictment, or under investigation for bribery by the FBI. These included some who should have done due diligence for the taxpayer on the proposal they enacted. As a new governor in 2007, Mrs. Palin stepped in to address the fiscal crisis and restore accountability. Working with Democrats and Republicans alike, she chose a 25% profits tax. But in lean years the state reverts to a 10% gross revenue tax on legacy fields that do not require massive continuing inputs of new capital. online.wsj.com