Interesting blog article on taxing big oil and raising sales taxes by the Governor. Very successful in increasing tax revenue by $2B.

 

I got the impression from her speeches and pundits talking about her level of conservatisim that she would be against such tax increases.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/08/sarah_palin_and_taxes.html

 

While its not mentioned I'm pretty sure she did reduce the gas tax by 8 cents.

 

She also has balanced a budget which is going to be a challenge no matter if she as Sen. McCain's or Sen. Obama's VP.

 

I know Aces posted something in another thread explaining how the $1200 one-time payment to the citizens was different than Sen. Obama's plan of $1,000 but I can't find it.

 

I'm curious to hear thoughts on this. Is it different? Does it have the same potential negative effect ie the tax paid by the oil companies being passed on?

 

Blog from the Cato Institute:

 

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/29/palin-uninspiring-tax-policy-record/

Wrong forum. Can a mod move this to P&R?

I wonder what AcesFull thinks of Palin's Alaskan taxes on big oil. Here are some of his quotes from previous threads:

 

"Raising taxes or reducing incentives for exploration will result in higher prices at the pump. Of course, Democrats can then blame Bush for the high cost because of his failure to get a good energy bill passed."

 

Hey, maybe Republicans should blame Sarah Palin's tax increases for $4 gas! :lol:

 

 

This one's a classic:

 

The petroleaum industry is among the most heavily taxed in this country. Oil companies typically pay three times as much in total taxes as they make in profits. Federal and state governments could sharply reduce gasoline prices if they were not so addicted to the taxes paid by oil companies.

 

 

and...

 

Anybody who believes that raising taxes on a product will reduce its price is no economic wiz. I would like to see a list of economist who believe that a windfall profits tax will lower gasoline prices.

 

 

 

Here's an interesting quote from a recent CNN article:

 

Palin also raised taxes on oil companies after Murkowski's previous tax regime produced falling revenues in 2007, despite skyrocketing oil prices. Alaska now has some of the highest resource taxes in the world. Alaska's oil tax revenues are expected to be about $10 billion in 2008, twice those of previous year. BP says about half its oil revenues now go to taxes, when royalty payments to the state are included. Earlier this week, Palin approved gas tax relief for Alaskans, and paid every resident $1,200 to help ease their fuel-price burden.

 

 

This is kind of funny. According to AcesFull's statements above, Sarah Palin's state tax increases have driven up the price of gasoline for millions of Americans (well, maybe not the ones who live in Alaska!). I suspect it's pretty easy to hit an 80% approval rating when you send big checks to your constituents paid for with de facto subsidies from the lower 48! :laugh:

Aces did have a rebuttal but I don't remember what it was. He did differentiate the two if I remember correctly. I'll let him answer that question.

I wonder what AcesFull thinks of Palin's Alaskan taxes on big oil. Here are some of his quotes from previous threads:

 

Hey, maybe Republicans should blame Sarah Palin's tax increases for $4 gas! :lol:

 

This one's a classic:

 

and...

 

Here's an interesting quote from a recent CNN article:

 

This is kind of funny. According to AcesFull's statements above, Sarah Palin's state tax increases have driven up the price of gasoline for millions of Americans (well, maybe not the ones who live in Alaska!). I suspect it's pretty easy to hit an 80% approval rating when you send big checks to your constituents paid for with de facto subsidies from the lower 48! :laugh:

I have already stated that the fact that Palin increased taxes on the oil industry does not change my opposition to a windfall profits tax. Incidentally, Palin did not institute a windfall profits tax in Alaska. Her predecessor had pushed some sweetheart deals on the state's mineral severance tax and Palin had the code rewritten. Many states, including Kentucky have mineral severance taxes in place.

 

I expect the Obama campaign and his mainstream media supporters will continue to mischaracterize the tax as a "windfall profits tax," which is untrue. I have not seen anybody retract that claim and I am not holding my breath.

 

Unlike some, I will not change my position on an issue to support my "team." Severance taxes are legitimate tools to offset the depletion of non-renewable resources but any rebates should have gone to the oil companies, which would have been political suicide. At least Palin did not use the taxe revenues to grow the government.

I have already stated that the fact that Palin increased taxes on the oil industry does not change my opposition to a windfall profits tax. Incidentally, Palin did not institute a windfall profits tax in Alaska. Her predecessor had pushed some sweetheart deals on the state's mineral severance tax and Palin had the code rewritten. Many states, including Kentucky have mineral severance taxes in place.

 

I expect the Obama campaign and his mainstream media supporters will continue to mischaracterize the tax as a "windfall profits tax," which is untrue. I have not seen anybody retract that claim and I am not holding my breath.

 

Unlike some, I will not change my position on an issue to support my "team." Severance taxes are legitimate tools to offset the depletion of non-renewable resources but any rebates should have gone to the oil companies, which would have been political suicide. At least Palin did not use the taxe revenues to grow the government.

 

 

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying as to not mischaracterize it:

 

There was an increase but it was done in the name of "fairness?"

 

She didn't call it a windfall tax but it was based on the price of the oil, correct? So actually the oil company could technically be losing money but since it was based on revenue and not profit it can't be called a windfall tax?

 

She has shown that she is not willing to lose an election (or votes) to do what in your mind would have been the right thing to do(ie give rebates directly to oil companies) instead choosing to avoid "political suicide?"

 

Close?

Aces, you are like the Bill O'Reilly of BGP.

Aces, you are like the Bill O'Reilly of BGP.

 

Meaning?

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying as to not mischaracterize it:

 

There was an increase but it was done in the name of "fairness?"

Not exactly. Under Murkowski, the severance tax rate had been selectively cut and revenues from production had begun to decline. I have not read the details of the changes that were passed under Palin.

 

She didn't call it a windfall tax but it was based on the price of the oil, correct? So actually the oil company could technically be losing money but since it was based on revenue and not profit it can't be called a windfall tax?

She didn't call it a windfall profits tax because it isn't a windfall profits tax. It is a severance tax, which is based on oil production and sales price. Profits have nothing to do with it.

 

She has shown that she is not willing to lose an election (or votes) to do what in your mind would have been the right thing to do(ie give rebates directly to oil companies) instead choosing to avoid "political suicide?"

I doubt that there is a politician in the country who would have given the rebate to the oil companies and I doubt that the state's legislature would have gone along even if she had proposed such a thing. Under the circumstances, giving the rebates to Alaskan citizens was the right thing to do, IMO.

 

I always prefer to see as much money as possible kept in the hands of citizens instead of the government. A severance tax is not intended to punish success - it's purpose is to prepare a state for the eventional depletion of a valuable resource by using the money to diversify the economy.

Meaning?

 

He's the scapegoat.

 

People wait for him to post so they can jump on it. If he was in the TV business, his ratings would be out of the roof.

Aces, you are like the Bill O'Reilly of BGP.

I will take that as an insult, regardless of the spirit in which it was delivered. :lol:

 

I prefer to think of myself as the forum's Neil Boortz. O'Reilly is too sensitive to criticism.

I have already stated that the fact that Palin increased taxes on the oil industry does not change my opposition to a windfall profits tax. Incidentally, Palin did not institute a windfall profits tax in Alaska. Her predecessor had pushed some sweetheart deals on the state's mineral severance tax and Palin had the code rewritten. Many states, including Kentucky have mineral severance taxes in place.

 

I expect the Obama campaign and his mainstream media supporters will continue to mischaracterize the tax as a "windfall profits tax," which is untrue. I have not seen anybody retract that claim and I am not holding my breath.

 

Unlike some, I will not change my position on an issue to support my "team." Severance taxes are legitimate tools to offset the depletion of non-renewable resources but any rebates should have gone to the oil companies, which would have been political suicide. At least Palin did not use the taxe revenues to grow the government.

 

 

I'm not clear on your opinion of Palin's actions in this case. Are you saying that the tax increase was justified? If the answer to this question is "no", then don't you have to judge her by the effect of her actions (i.e. driving up the cost of gas so that Alaskans can enjoy the largesse afforded them by mineral riches contained in federal lands)? Alaska is swimming in cash due to the runup in the price of oil and the severance increases Sarah Palin instituted. The state derived 64% of its tax revenue from severance taxes in 2007! I think you'd have to work hard not to have an 80% approval rating under those circumstances.

 

Here's another question: With her history of raising taxes on, effectively, the rest of America to provide politically expedient giveaways to her Alaskan constituents, isn't Sarah Palin guilty of the same type of "transfer of wealth" tactics that you criticize Obama for advocating?

I'm not clear on your opinion of Palin's actions in this case. Are you saying that the tax increase was justified? If the answer to this question is "no", then don't you have to judge her by the effect of her actions (i.e. driving up the cost of gas so that Alaskans can enjoy the largesse afforded them by mineral riches contained in federal lands)? Alaska is swimming in cash due to the runup in the price of oil and the severance increases Sarah Palin instituted. The state derived 64% of its tax revenue from severance taxes in 2007! I think you'd have to work hard not to have an 80% approval rating under those circumstances.

 

Here's another question: With her history of raising taxes on, effectively, the rest of America to provide politically expedient giveaways to her Alaskan constituents, isn't Sarah Palin guilty of the same type of "transfer of wealth" tactics that you criticize Obama for advocating?

I think that I was pretty clear in my previous posts as disagreeing with raising taxes on oil. A large part of the increased revenues from the severance tax has been the soaring oil prices. The severance tax has been one of Alaska's top sources of revenue for many years.

 

If after watching Palin's speech and seeing McCain's surge in the polls you think that Palin is only popular because of a rebate check, then nothing I can say is going to help you see her through the eyes of an objective voter.

I think that I was pretty clear in my previous posts as disagreeing with raising taxes on oil. A large part of the increased revenues from the severance tax has been the soaring oil prices. The severance tax has been one of Alaska's top sources of revenue for many years.

 

It was hard for me to stomach Palin's hypocritical assertions last night that Obama will raise taxes on individuals and businesses and hurt the economy when she essentially did the same thing to score political points back home in Alaska. Is that "Country First"?

 

 

 

If after watching Palin's speech and seeing McCain's surge in the polls you think that Palin is only popular because of a rebate check, then nothing I can say is going to help you see her through the eyes of an objective voter.

 

I think Palin is a very likable, empathetic person. However, even though she gives a good speech, I just don't think she's qualified (for a number of reasons) to backup a 72 year old president with a history of skin cancer. I can't be any more objective than to point out what should be obvious to an objective voter.

It was hard for me to stomach Palin's hypocritical assertions last night that Obama will raise taxes on individuals and businesses and hurt the economy when she essentially did the same thing to score political points back home in Alaska. Is that "Country First"?

Wasn't her job to do what is best for Alaska, as governor of Alaska?

 

I don't like the taxes either (although I am surprised that no left-leaning posters have come to her aid, since generally a severance tax on a natural resource is considered to an environmentally-friendly move) but the context in which she implemented that tax makes more sense than the communist-sounding logic of "They made more profits; let's tax the heck out of them."

 

Still, I don't agree with her.