Question:
Gino: " palm boy: what taxes did she raise that turned you off on her? if its what i'm thinking, it wasnt really an increase in taxes as reported in the media."
Answer:
The CATO institute has a good, albeit short, look at her tax record.
"Palin supported and signed into law a $1.5 billion tax increase on oil companies in the form of higher severance taxes."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
cato is operating from a false premise.
according to the alaska constitution, the oil belongs to the citizens of alaska, and not the govt of AK.
the role of the state is to manage the resources to recieve the greatest return to the citizen.
every year, every resident gets a check, like a dividend, for their share of oil revenues. it numbers in the thousands of dollars.
when oil spiked to incredible hights, sarah renegotiated the contract with the oil companies, that whenever wholesale oil prices went above a certain threshold, a greater share of the revenues would be returned to the owners of the oil.
it wasnt a windfall profits tax as has been reported. it was actually more of a commision.
profits were not taxed any more than previously.
what if somebody contracted with you to harvest the trees in your yard, paying you 'x' per tree.
suddenly, the tree prices quintupled. wouldnt you think that 'hey, i want an extra dollar or two per tree,now'
what we have in AK is a per barrel fee. whenever the wholesale price of a barrel exceeds a threshold, the fee per barrel is higher.
the moeny goes to the citizens of AK. as per the state constitution.
therefore, it is not a tax in the true sense of the word that we understand a tax to be, it is actually a dividend paid to the owners of the oil.
this is too complicated to be reported in a soundbite. and it was easier to just label it a 'windfall profits tax', and use it to damage her in the eyes of the anti-tax GOP base.
it looks like the tactic worked, because you bought into it, as well.
Did some googling on this, and you are correct.
I seem to have been shemdoggled into a pivotal belief that was not accurate.
Well explained, by the way.
the contracts with the oil drillers were not up for renewal, so there was no reason for them to voluntarily come back to the table when called by the sarah.
i suspect she used her powers to convince them it was in their best interest to sweeten the deal. maybe they wanted approval of some projects, and she used that as her leverage. i'm not sure.
i do know that they werent exactly thrilled with the idea, and retaliated as the piece from cato tells.
this tells me sarah is not to be taken lightly, and will play hardball when necessary. its the mark of a politician who is effective.
so, what was passed off in the media as a tax hike, a bad mark on sarah, was actually a plus for the citizens, and a plus for her effectiveness and political skills.
there is a reason why the 'tax hike' was immediatly 'reported on' the same day she was announced, but never honestly reported on in any real sense, unless you saw her interview, post election, with greta van susteren.
as per cato, not all 'think tanks' are intellectually honest,
as their piece illustrates.
"Shemdoggled." I learn something new every day.
Post a Comment