I don't think Palin is qualified to be president and wouldn't vote for her if she were running for President. Oh, that's right she isn't.

 

How is "The One" qualified?

I never brought up Obama. I was comparing governors.

I never brought up Obama. I was comparing governors.

You asked how Palin is qualified to be President. She isn't running for President.

You're against the windfall profit tax as am I. Why? Because we know that any additional tax placed on the industry will ultimately come out of our pocket OR lead to the company seeking an alternative solution.

 

You're hung up on this not being a true windfall profits tax. It seems that based on my summary of your stated beliefs that you are playing a game of semantics. Any additional tax, regarldess if its on the revenue or the profits, is going to have the same result.

You're really picking the fly poop out of the pepper here. Palin raised taxes on the oil companies during a time of sky-high oil production and record oil company profits. The mathematical formula for determining the amount of severance tax may be different than a hypothetical "windfall profits" tax, but the effect is essentially the same--a larger cut of the big oil boom into government coffers. By the way, what is Palin's explanation? Was the task of governing a state that received fully half of its annual budget from oil taxes so hard that she felt the need to increase the ratio to 64%?

There is a difference.

 

One is a tax on profits.

 

One is a tax to keep nonrenewable resources.

 

The government taxing success is absurd and unDemocratic. The government taxing to keep a resource, while still unsupportable to me, at least does not tell people, "IF YOU MAKE MORE MONEY, WE WILL TAKE IT".

 

I don't support either, and I don't assume Aces does either, but if I had to pick a VP candidate who implemented an environmentally friendly tax and gave a rebate, or a Presidential candidate who is of the mindset that large profits should belong to the government, I'll take the former.

^Severance taxes are the most fair way to tax resources like oil, gas, coal, and other minerals. Both the compliance and regulatory costs are much lower than for property taxes. Unlike property taxes on natural resources, severance taxes do not discourage exploration. Unless things have changed in Kentucky, its unmined coal tax is a nightmare to administer for any company owning substantial reserves.

^Severance taxes are the most fair way to tax resources like oil, gas, coal, and other minerals. Both the compliance and regulatory costs are much lower than for property taxes. Unlike property taxes on natural resources, severance taxes do not discourage exploration. Unless things have changed in Kentucky, its unmined coal tax is a nightmare to administer for any company owning substantial reserves.

 

Have we found a tax that you support?

Have we found a tax that you support?

Severance taxes should be a substitute for property tax in the case of natural resources, IMO. When Kentucky first adopted a severance tax, mining companies were assured that it was in lieu of a large property tax on unmined minerals. Unfortunately, years later a judge ruled that the property tax rate on coal was unconstitutionally low, so the industry got stuck with both taxes. (Previously the property tax rates were so low that little money was spent on filing them or by the state on collecting them.)

 

With an unmined mineral tax, proven reserves are taxed at a higher rate than "probable" or "inferred" reserves. Consequently, the more money a company invests to prove its reserves, the bigger its tax bill. If less coal is mined than the estimated recoverable reserves, which is not uncommon, there is no refund for the mining company.

Severance taxes should be a substitute for property tax in the case of natural resources, IMO. When Kentucky first adopted a severance tax, mining companies were assured that it was in lieu of a large property tax on unmined minerals. Unfortunately, years later a judge ruled that the property tax rate on coal was unconstitutionally low, so the industry got stuck with both taxes. (Previously the property tax rates were so low that little money was spent on filing them or by the state on collecting them.)

 

With an unmined mineral tax, proven reserves are taxed at a higher rate than "probable" or "inferred" reserves. Consequently, the more money a company invests to prove its reserves, the bigger its tax bill. If less coal is mined than the estimated recoverable reserves, which is not uncommon, there is no refund for the mining company.

For the record, could you fully explain the tax and how it is implemented? Like what exactly is being taxed? Revenue rather than profits, right? I know the differences, but it does seem similar to windfall taxes. Can anyone else explain it more?