Dems finally getting around to what they do best...Confiscate Wealth

[dude1394]

Taxes, taxes, taxes. Oh they must be so happy....They finally get to do what they've been itching to do for 8 years now. Record revenues and they believe they need to raise taxes. Idiots.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1185...outlooks&apl=y

With a new Democratic majority, the agenda on Capitol Hill has shifted abruptly this year, and no more so than on taxes. For a decade the focus in Congress was which taxes to cut. Now everywhere you look someone running the Congress, or running for President, is proposing to raise taxes on some industry or group of Americans. ...

It's all the more remarkable given that federal tax revenues as a share of GDP are currently above their modern historical level. The latest budget estimate is that fiscal 2007 revenues will reach 18.8% of GDP, compared to the 40-year historical average of 18.3%. Tax revenues this year are rising by nearly 8%, following increases of 11.8% in 2006 and 14.6% in 2005. The budget deficit is down to 1.5% of GDP, and falling. But apparently Democrats still think Americans are undertaxed.

# The Senate will increase tobacco taxes, almost doubling the taxes on a pack of cigarettes and potentially adding as much as $10 to the cost of a cigar

# Higher withholding taxes on subsidiaries of foreign companies

# New taxes on oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico

# A "tax surcharge" of 4.3% for income over $500,000, effectively creating a new top marginal rate of 39.3% -- a level last seen in the Carter administration

[Flacolaco]

# A "tax surcharge" of 4.3% for income over $500,000, effectively creating a new top marginal rate of 39.3% -- a level last seen in the Carter administration

This is phucking ridiculous.

Why???

Someone explain to me HOW this is fair???????

(and no I don't make a 1/10th of that....)

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

This is phucking ridiculous.

Why???

Someone explain to me HOW this is fair???????

(and no I don't make a 1/10th of that....)

Here is my take on it. Right now I believe that about half of the people in the US don't page any income taxes. (Top 50% pay 96.7% of federal income taxes). That means that they are natural democrat constituents. Hey not taxes, more bennies, etc. Dems want to get that number higher, even less paying any taxes.

It's a terrible idea for the long term responsibility of the citizens.

Next the dems will take the income taxes they "soak the rich with" and begin giving more of their constituents tax breaks on the payroll tax.

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Next the dems will take the income taxes they "soak the rich with" and begin giving more of their constituents tax breaks on the payroll tax.

I completely agree with all of your above points dude, save this one... Even when it comes to po folks, trying to imagine the Dems cutting any taxes, in any conceivable fashion, for any conceivable portion of the electorate, is kind of like trying to imagine Rosie o'Donnell leaving an uneaten fried chicken quarter or a pile of pork chops on her plate. It just ain't gonna happen...

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

This is phucking ridiculous.

Why???

Someone explain to me HOW this is fair???????

(and no I don't make a 1/10th of that....)

Shut up, proletariate! Your job is to demand what is yours by right of vote! The motherla- er, Hillar- er, the Democrats-, no, your great nation (we respect the troops) demand constant vigilance! Get back in line or no soup for you!!!!

[Mavdog]

just as your criticism of the "soak the rich" populism is correct, criticism of a few of the tax increases is incorrect.

increasing taxes on cigarettes? go for it! the habit of smoking adds to our country's health costs. in addition an increased cost of tobacco might deter some from taking up the habit.

increased costs to the oil cos for their gulf concessions? have you looked at the profit margins of the oil cos lately? do you know just how little they pay for the right to pull oil out of the public lands? go for it!

the tax on private equity is a bit more difficult, the investors are receiving favorable treatment of their profits relative to the corporate ownership structure, while they aren't taking more risk nor providing more benefits (in fact, if you look at the track record they are producing more layoffs). their returns are much higher and the opportunity to invest is limited to a small group of people rather than open to the public. tough issue...

so some tax increases would be acceptable and some would not.

[Henry_VIII]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

increased costs to the oil cos for their gulf concessions? have you looked at the profit margins of the oil cos lately? do you know just how little they pay for the right to pull oil out of the public lands? go for it!

If you think the money to pay the oil tax will come out of the oil companies profits, it's not going to happen. It's just another tax that you and I will pay in the form of even higher gas prices.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

increasing taxes on cigarettes? go for it! the habit of smoking adds to our country's health costs. in addition an increased cost of tobacco might deter some from taking up the habit.

Same for drinking, Tax it! and junk food, Tax it! and injury causing sports, Tax it! and stress, Tax it! and stress related to higher taxes, Tax it! The motherland will either take care of you or take your money! Be warned!!!

increased costs to the oil cos for their gulf concessions? have you looked at the profit margins of the oil cos lately? do you know just how little they pay for the right to pull oil out of the public lands? go for it!

Same for my neighbor the real estate agent, Tax him! and for global rapist wal-mart, Tax them!!! and for Whole foods market, Tax them! and Apple with their capitalist iPod and iPhone, and huge profits, Tax them! and the Federal Government with their record breaking revenues, Tax them - oh, wait, never mind. More money for the government class!!!

the tax on private equity is a bit more difficult, the investors are receiving favorable treatment of their profits relative to the corporate ownership structure, while they aren't taking more risk nor providing more benefits (in fact, if you look at the track record they are producing more layoffs). their returns are much higher and the opportunity to invest is limited to a small group of people rather than open to the public. tough issue...

but what the hell? TAX THEM! we can figure out what to do with the money later. Its for the kids!

[Flacolaco]

I'm going to start taxing Halloween candy. I'm going to explain to little Timmy that he gets to keep 67% of his candy, but little Johnny only gets to keep 60% of his candy because he, having equal opportunity, managed to get more for himself.

I think that will go over really well.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Evilmav2

I completely agree with all of your above points dude, save this one... Even when it comes to po folks, trying to imagine the Dems cutting any taxes, in any conceivable fashion, for any conceivable portion of the electorate, is kind of like trying to imagine Rosie o'Donnell leaving an uneaten fried chicken quarter or a pile of pork chops on her plate. It just ain't gonna happen...

I think they've already proposed doing it when they were arguing against dubya's tax cuts. It would seem counter-intuitive but if it gives their constituents back dollars, don't discount it.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Here is my take on it. Right now I believe that about half of the people in the US don't page any income taxes. (Top 50% pay 96.7% of federal income taxes). That means that they are natural democrat constituents. Hey not taxes, more bennies, etc. Dems want to get that number higher, even less paying any taxes.

This is the big number that nobody talks about. I don't care what your guiding principles are, if you're more conservative or liberal, one thing we should all be intelligent enough to agree upon is that we need to protect the economic health of the country to continue to improve the standard of living and keep people working.

If we get to a point where less than 50% of the people are paying 100% of the income taxes.. it's over.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Henry_VIII

If you think the money to pay the oil tax will come out of the oil companies profits, it's not going to happen. It's just another tax that you and I will pay in the form of even higher gas prices.

We could think that is the case, but I think the fact that the oil companies manipulate prices anyway will come to an halt. Right now they are getting away with murder on the economy.

Just ask New Orleans how much they are getting for all that oil coming out of that region.

If we want to defend the oil companies, then the truth MUST come out. Start making ALL these oil companies pay their share of taxes, and also give the proper share of the revenues to the local region as well. It is a crying shame on how wealthy New Orleans could be if they got their just do part from that oil.


Now, I bet that wont come out in the public sector about this mess

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Henry_VIII

If you think the money to pay the oil tax will come out of the oil companies profits, it's not going to happen. It's just another tax that you and I will pay in the form of even higher gas prices.

you're confused.
this is a increased cost of the right to explore in public land (some of which is leased for as low as only a $1/yr), this is not an increase in the costs for refining.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Same for drinking, Tax it! and junk food, Tax it! and injury causing sports, Tax it! and stress, Tax it! and stress related to higher taxes, Tax it! The motherland will either take care of you or take your money! Be warned!!!

Same for my neighbor the real estate agent, Tax him! and for global rapist wal-mart, Tax them!!! and for Whole foods market, Tax them! and Apple with their capitalist iPod and iPhone, and huge profits, Tax them! and the Federal Government with their record breaking revenues, Tax them - oh, wait, never mind. More money for the government class!!!

but what the hell? TAX THEM! we can figure out what to do with the money later. Its for the kids!

...so you're sarcasm says don't tax anything??? right.

every single group mentioned above (not the feds of course) do pay taxes in one form or another.

[mcsluggo]

People get so extreme on the concept of taxation-- believing that ANY tax cut is beautiful, and ANY tax increse is satan spawn. In order to for our country to exist as we know it, some sort of taxation needs to happen, the issue becomes to some extent HOW MUCH, but also just HOW --- in the most economically efficient and socially optimal manner.

Yes, the bottom 50% of the population only provide about 3.3% of the fedral income tax receipts, of course the also only receive abut 12% of the income--- I don't think its that unreasonable that the people with very little income actually pay a smaller proportionate share..... furtheremore, that is just FEDERAL INCOME taxes, when you add in payroll taxes (that disappear above something like $90k) and sales taxes (which the poor pay a disporpotianatly HIGH share, because they generally don't have much left over for savings and consume almost all of their income) the bottom 50% pays a higher share (but still les than their % of income).

Efficiency of taxation has two main aspects, in my opinion. First you want to minimize the friction it places on efficient markets (you want to continue to encourage entrepeneurialship) but second you want to increase social mobility. If we truly do have a society that encourages individual achievement (and THAT is where economic growth for ALL comes from), then we should have a society that allows bright industrious people to move up the income chain, and daft lazy people to move down it.

THere is lots of attention these days to the incentive compatability of assistance to the poor-- and there SHOULD be. Assistance is supposed to be a safety net, not a permanent feeding tube to let you sit on your ass doing no good for yourself or anyone else. BUT what about the incentive compatability of wealth maintenance?

Through a series of odd quirks, while not rich myself I live in a very rich area ("GOPtopia, according to the "new republic" http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?...=crowley091106) You meet people who are the 4th generation of the Dow familily, or just the kids of the guy that invented the old styrofoam bigmac holder, and they, well, don't do much. THey are set. Whatever entrepenuerial get-up-and-go ability they potentially had is largely disipated by a lack of need to bother. THere is a cost to this as well. America USED to be the most socially mobile society inthe history of the globe. Now we are less socially mobile that the majority of other OECD countries. THat is a huge loss.

Personally I think the US's tax structureis idiotic.

First, It taxes companies (corporations) WAY too much (both directly, and the implied taxation of exessive regulation and unfunded mandates) and taxes individuals too little--- ESPECIALLY inheritance taxes.

Second, Its also too damn complicated. THere are loopholes for everything. I thnk it should be a straight graduated tax rate (nearly a flat tax, but with gradations, but I think a very low rate for the everyone's first 20k or so is appropriate) with ZERO deductions, except for family (since income is then spread out across more indiciduals). If you want to have incentives (for charitable giving, or home ownership, or whateverthefuck) then make it a direct subsidy, so it has to actually be accounted for on the books... the number of THOSE that people will accept the legislature approving will be much lower. If there were fewer tax-breaks, then you wouldn't NEED much gradation. As it stands the very rich have the incentive to pay tax attorneys to squeeze the most out of all possible deductions and loopholes, but the middle class do not. Also , all the payroll taxes and whatnot should be absorbed into one efficient tax structure. Finally, there should be a much larger inheritance tax.


anyhoo, my rambling lunchtime ideas.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

...so you're sarcasm says don't tax anything??? right.

every single group mentioned above (not the feds of course) do pay taxes in one form or another.

uh, of course they pay taxes. But you aren't arguing for increasing taxes on all of them (or are you?). By your short-sighted logic, we should increase taxes because 1) something is unhealthy and 2) someone (or some company) pays little for some thing relative to how much they sell it for. That includes just about everything.

[mcsluggo]

you don't neccessarily tax something because it is unhealthy... but you DO tax something if the market price of the good fails to capture the total "societal cost" of the good.

Smoking fits this criteria, both through 2nd-hand smoke and because, like it or not, our healthcare system has a large component that is subsidized or downright supplied by the government (medicaire, if nothing else), this means that a portion the COSTS of smoking is not born by the person consuming the good, so economic efficiency is best attained by adding an extra task to the good to force the individual to bear a larger portion of the true cost (and also the revenues from the tax can be used to defray those additional costs).

in the second case: ideally, rather than increase taxes on the gulf oil co.'s, the government should open the bids on the use of the plots to much wider and more transparent bidding (rather than the sweetheart deals that are now doled out). Unfortunately, the govt has already given away many of the concessioons for long term use rights. YOu are right, paying less for something, and then selling it for more is the nature of business, but in most cases the business have created value-added for the the product and THAT is why they are able to sell it for more (either by refining it, or transporting it, or marketing it, or whatever). In the case of the gulf gas firms, they do add value (they get the oil out of the ground, and move it somewhere so it can be refined). However, a LARGE portion of the value of the product was already there, the inherent value of the oil, and it is the property of all of us as owners of the public lands. THe firms usually don't pay the market value for the extraction rights on the public property. As such a "second-best" alternative, in order to capture part of the inherrent value that the concessions have (without the value-added that the firms eventually bring) is to tax them.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

uh, of course they pay taxes. But you aren't arguing for increasing taxes on all of them (or are you?). By your short-sighted logic, we should increase taxes because 1) something is unhealthy

uh, no, it isn't because they are "unhealthy" (do we tax people who eat too much vs people who don't? nope. how about people who don't exerise, no proposal to tax them either...) but rather an added tax on the consumption of a product to offset the increased costs to society from that consumption, as well as a deterrent to those who would begin use of an addictive substance.

which leads to a new tax that we should implement imho, and that is to stop the "war on drugs" against pot and legalize it and tax it. that is a tax I'd endorse, and a cost savings of the government that I'd support. how about you?

and 2) someone (or some company) pays little for some thing relative to how much they sell it for. That includes just about everything.

nope, it has nothing to do with "how much they sell it for", it has to do with a level playing field with corporate entities which the private capital competes with, entities that do assume the same risk/reward as the private capital. so if the private capital groups don't add more benefits to our society, nor take on more risk, why should they get favorable treatment on their gains relative to the corporate entities?

well? get it now?

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

you don't neccessarily tax something because it is unhealthy... but you DO tax something if the market price of the good fails to capture the total "societal cost" of the good.

Smoking fits this criteria, both through 2nd-hand smoke and because, like it or not, our healthcare system has a large component that is subsidized or downright supplied by the government (medicaire, if nothing else), this means that a portion the COSTS of smoking is not born by the person consuming the good, so economic efficiency is best attained by adding an extra task to the good to force the individual to bear a larger portion of the true cost (and also the revenues from the tax can be used to defray those additional costs).

in the second case: ideally, rather than increase taxes on the gulf oil co.'s, the government should open the bids on the use of the plots to much wider and more transparent bidding (rather than the sweetheart deals that are now doled out). Unfortunately, the govt has already given away many of the concessioons for long term use rights. YOu are right, paying less for something, and then selling it for more is the nature of business, but in most cases the business have created value-added for the the product and THAT is why they are able to sell it for more (either by refining it, or transporting it, or marketing it, or whatever). In the case of the gulf gas firms, they do add value (they get the oil out of the ground, and move it somewhere so it can be refined). However, a LARGE portion of the value of the product was already there, the inherent value of the oil, and it is the property of all of us as owners of the public lands. THe firms usually don't pay the market value for the extraction rights on the public property. As such a "second-best" alternative, in order to capture part of the inherrent value that the concessions have (without the value-added that the firms eventually bring) is to tax them.

Or you don't let smokers use Medicaid / Medicare for conditions even remotely related to smoking. Seems easy enough to me. Everybody knows that smoking is bad for you these days. No one can claim ignorance.

If you really want to achieve economic efficiency, you gotta make it extremely hard to get anything free from the government. If you're taxing people with the sole purpose of charging them for what they're getting for "free," then you're just introducing administrative overhead into the mix.

[mcsluggo]

there is not a direct causal relationship between smoking and any disease, just increase in probability. Your solution of denying future benefits is beggiing a litigation wet-dream, and would likely be overturned.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

uh, no, it isn't because they are "unhealthy" (do we tax people who eat too much vs people who don't? nope. how about people who don't exerise, no proposal to tax them either...) but rather an added tax on the consumption of a product to offset the increased costs to society from that consumption, as well as a deterrent to those who would begin use of an addictive substance.

your increased costs are from the unhealthiness. You are talking about costs related to health, right? How else could someone's smoking bother you? People unhealthy for any reason cost society just the same as people unhealthy for smoking reasons. You could easily argue that drinking costs society more. Some people argue that McDonald's costs us more. I'd say domestic violence costs us more. Why not legalize domestic violence and tax it? Your arguments still do not separate smoking from eating bad.

nope, it has nothing to do with "how much they sell it for", it has to do with a level playing field with corporate entities which the private capital competes with, entities that do assume the same risk/reward as the private capital. so if the private capital groups don't add more benefits to our society, nor take on more risk, why should they get favorable treatment on their gains relative to the corporate entities?

Your mumbo-jumbo means nothing to me. I am a simple man, and when you wrote of "profit margins" "how little they pay for the right to pull oil out of the public lands" I interpret that simply as a difference between what someone pays to get something and what they receive when they sell it.

if you want to make a fancy-pants argument with more complexity, please make sense.

As for the deal someone struck to get the oil out of the ground, why is it the federal governments job to come along and tax the crap out of one party or the other in order to make that deal line up with what you think is right?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

you don't neccessarily tax something because it is unhealthy... but you DO tax something if the market price of the good fails to capture the total "societal cost" of the good.

heh. "societal cost" Defining that is a piece of crap. I'd argue alcohol fails moreso. Heck, I'd argue pornography and bad movies fail as well. Sounds like a moral issue to me. We should go ahead and tax Don Nelson and the Golden State Warriors because the anxiety they cause in the Dallas /FW area is a much greater cost than the price of a ticket to the game.

in the second case: ideally, rather than increase taxes on the gulf oil co.'s, the government should open the bids on the use of the plots to much wider and more transparent bidding (rather than the sweetheart deals that are now doled out). Unfortunately, the govt has already given away many of the concessioons for long term use rights. YOu are right, paying less for something, and then selling it for more is the nature of business, but in most cases the business have created value-added for the the product and THAT is why they are able to sell it for more (either by refining it, or transporting it, or marketing it, or whatever). In the case of the gulf gas firms, they do add value (they get the oil out of the ground, and move it somewhere so it can be refined). However, a LARGE portion of the value of the product was already there, the inherent value of the oil, and it is the property of all of us as owners of the public lands. THe firms usually don't pay the market value for the extraction rights on the public property. As such a "second-best" alternative, in order to capture part of the inherrent value that the concessions have (without the value-added that the firms eventually bring) is to tax them.

Thanks for this - more open bidding sounds like a better way. The rest just sounds like legislation by taxation. Is it worth any coporate tax breaks to get a big business into a city? Was it worth it for Round Rock to pay off the tv crews to keep Friday Night Lights in town? Who decided how much value was in the oil while it was in the ground ? If you don't like the deal, then vote out whomever made the deal.

THe argument that the oil is a public good sounds allright, but then, you should tax it coming out of the ground (sell it) at a higher price, not tax after the profit is made by whomever did all the work. The company that did all the work is not a government agent, to share their profits with the rest of us. That profit came from them doing good buying and selling. Why do we have a right to it? If they go bankrupt, are we financially responsible for that, too?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

your increased costs are from the unhealthiness. You are talking about costs related to health, right? How else could someone's smoking bother you? People unhealthy for any reason cost society just the same as people unhealthy for smoking reasons. You could easily argue that drinking costs society more. Some people argue that McDonald's costs us more. I'd say domestic violence costs us more. Why not legalize domestic violence and tax it? Your arguments still do not separate smoking from eating bad.

"unhealthiness"? I guess you need t better define the term.

the costs were explained well by sluggo up above.

people's "cost to society" due to their decisions vary imo. does drinking cost society more? might, but that substance is heavily taxed too, so the precedent exists.

mcd's isn't necessaily "unhealthy", it's those that abuse it that get unhealthy. too much of most anything is unhealthy imo. if one eats mcd's to much, they can exercise to mitigate the affects. that doesn't work for tobacco.

Your mumbo-jumbo means nothing to me. I am a simple man, and when you wrote of "profit margins" "how little they pay for the right to pull oil out of the public lands" I interpret that simply as a difference between what someone pays to get something and what they receive when they sell it.

oh, you're discussing the oil concessions not the private equity? OK.

the oil co. have leases on public lands, and some of those leases are at a few $ a yr. let me repeat that, a few $ per year.. they should pay a fair price for the ability to make millions of dollars from that right. a fair price, not an exorbinant price. that's pretty easy for even a "simple man".

if you want to make a fancy-pants argument with more complexity, please make sense.

As for the deal someone struck to get the oil out of the ground, why is it the federal governments job to come along and tax the crap out of one party or the other in order to make that deal line up with what you think is right?

if you're just a simple man, then everything is "a fancy pants argument", right?

the federal govenment is the steward of the public goods. it IS their job to ensure that the groups provided exclusive right to extract from those public properties pay a fair price for that right. if they are making an abnormal (some would say it's an obscene) profit from paying a ridiculously low amount for that right then it is reasonable to "tax the crap" out of them.

pretty easy concept for anyone, simple person or not...

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

mcd's isn't necessaily "unhealthy", it's those that abuse it that get unhealthy. too much of most anything is unhealthy imo. if one eats mcd's to much, they can exercise to mitigate the affects. that doesn't work for tobacco.

I think the decline in smoking shows that it's already taxed higher than drinking. The "can't be offset" argument isn't very good. Sun tanning is unhealthy and can't be offset. Same for excessive caffeine. If someone invents a pill to offset the hazards of smoking, you'd be all for reducing the taxes? I don't think your liberal bretheren would be with you on that.

oh, you're discussing the oil concessions not the private equity? OK.

the oil co. have leases on public lands, and some of those leases are at a few $ a yr. let me repeat that, a few $ per year.. they should pay a fair price for the ability to make millions of dollars from that right. a fair price, not an exorbinant price. that's pretty easy for even a "simple man".

who set the price, who decides it's fair, and how does taxing someone after they make money make up for the crappy deal we struck with them in the first place?

if you're just a simple man, then everything is "a fancy pants argument", right?

the federal govenment is the steward of the public goods. it IS their job to ensure that the groups provided exclusive right to extract from those public properties pay a fair price for that right. if they are making an abnormal (some would say it's an obscene) profit from paying a ridiculously low amount for that right then it is reasonable to "tax the crap" out of them.

pretty easy concept for anyone, simple person or not...

I'm not that simple. Seems to me the sellers of the pet rock make more money off their investments than the oil companies. Sounds like you just want to turn companies that do a good job into government servants.
It might be a simple enough concept for me if you'd clarify your position. Sometimes you're talking about how much money they are raking in as evil, then you're saying you're not talking about how much they sell it for, and now you're talking just saying you don't like the deal they made some time ago to get the oil out. If you decide ten years from now that the house you sold in the 80's just sold in 2006 for an obscene amount of profit for whomever sold it, and you look back at the rediculously low price you sold it for, should you be able to go get money from whomever it was that did such an awsome job buying and selling? Heck no. The most you should be able to do is do a better job sellling your next house.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I think the decline in smoking shows that it's already taxed higher than drinking. The "can't be offset" argument isn't very good. Sun tanning is unhealthy and can't be offset.

you don't use sunscreen? you should.

Same for excessive caffeine. If someone invents a pill to offset the hazards of smoking, you'd be all for reducing the taxes? I don't think your liberal bretheren would be with you on that.

some studies don't show that caffeine is bad for you.
if the affects of smoking weren't present, there wouldn't be the need for the tax.
can't spek for others btw.

who set the price, who decides it's fair, and how does taxing someone after they make money make up for the crappy deal we struck with them in the first place?

the price was set years ago by a bureaucrat.
we each decide in our own opinion what is fair.
increasing the taxes on their profits does make up for the "crappy deal". that's the whole idea.

I'm not that simple. Seems to me the sellers of the pet rock make more money off their investments than the oil companies. Sounds like you just want to turn companies that do a good job into government servants.

it is that simple.
don't know wht the profit margin is for the pet rock. do you?
did the pet rock manufacturers get their rocks for almost nothing out of public property?
nah. bad analogy on your part.

ht be a simple enough concept for me if you'd clarify your position. Sometimes you're talking about how much money they are raking in as evil, then you're saying you're not talking about how much they sell it for, and now you're talking just saying you don't like the deal they made some time ago to get the oil out. If you decide ten years from now that the house you sold in the 80's just sold in 2006 for an obscene amount of profit for whomever sold it, and you look back at the rediculously low price you sold it for, should you be able to go get money from whomever it was that did such an awsome job buying and selling? Heck no. The most you should be able to do is do a better job sellling your next house.

you have a hard time following this...
it's not the "making money" that's "evil" (your term mind you), it's the fact the producers get to take PUBLIC GOODS and make an extraordinary profit.
is that house a public good?
no.
another poor analogy.
want to try again?

[Henry_VIII]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the federal govenment is the steward of the public goods. it IS their job to ensure that the groups provided exclusive right to extract from those public properties pay a fair price for that right. if they are making an abnormal (some would say it's an obscene) profit from paying a ridiculously low amount for that right then it is reasonable to "tax the crap" out of them.

Here is my issue as defining this as a government entitlement to the oil co. money. I'll describe the scenario as I understand and let you critique it so we have a common framework to talk from.

Oil companies pay for the right to explore for oil, build oil rigs, and pump crude.
Oil companies sell the oil on the NY Mercantile Exchange, as well as other outlets, including futures.
The price on the exchanges and driven by supply and demand, which includes external factors such as OPEC's decisions on how much oil to release to the market.
The difference between the cost that the oil companies are incurring to acquire the oil and the price the market is supporting for them to sell it is huge, resulting in massive profits.
Refineries are the major purchasers of the oil. They mark up the cost according to the cost of refinement.
Distributors purchase the refined oil, also adding their markup.
Retailers purchase the oil from the distributors adding a small markup.
Consumers purchase oil from retailers with state/federal taxes tacked onto the end price.

As I understand it, the govenment is wanting "their share" of the money generated during the sell of the crude oil by the oil company to the refineries.
My problem is this: the oil is now being taxed on yet another level keeping gasoline prices artificially high. The consumers are in fact paying for all of the taxes. (btw they always do). However, if we remove the taxes at the end of the chain, overall revenues could decrease depending on how much of the crude oil is purchased from overseas.

If the oil is going to taxed on the front end, then I would want that oil to be tracked and to not be taxed on the back end.

[Henry_VIII]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it's the fact the producers get to take PUBLIC GOODS and make an extraordinary profit.

Is only oil from public land being taxed?
What about offshore drilling? Is that considered public?
Do you have a problem taxing oil drilled on privately owned land?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Henry_VIII

Is only oil from public land being taxed?

no, there are taxes on the oil at the wellhead, most called "severance tax".

What about offshore drilling? Is that considered public?

offshore drilling is typically in the public land, that's the area of depth the rigs can operate in. "extraterritorial" if I recall, 200 miles from shore (?)

Do you have a problem taxing oil drilled on privately owned land?

we've taxed oil at the wellhead for over a century, and we don't need to add any more taxes on private production.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you don't use sunscreen? you should.

or what, you'll tax my sun consumption? There are negative health consequences to not getting enough sun, also. You wanna control that balance of behavior, to?

some studies don't show that caffeine is bad for you.

you just said too much of anything can be unhealthy. Besides, I'm pretty sure there are studies that show smoking isn't bad for you.

you have a hard time following this...
it's not the "making money" that's "evil" (your term mind you), it's the fact the producers get to take PUBLIC GOODS and make an extraordinary profit.
is that house a public good?
no.
another poor analogy.
want to try again?

I am having a hard time, mostly because you 're not making much sense. They are not taking public goods. The public made a deal through their representatives. The house analogy still seems fine. In the analogy, you made a deal that you now think was bad (based solely on someone else's ability to make a profit, unless you also want to tax the crap out of struggling oil companies), and NOW you want to go back and take some money from the person who profited. Replace "you" with "public" and there is your argument for increased taxation of profits.Personally, I don't think that there should be anything magical about the public (or their gov. reps.) that they should be able to just go take money because they feel slighted or because they want to make up for a previous deal because someone is making some money from it.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

there is not a direct causal relationship between smoking and any disease, just increase in probability. Your solution of denying future benefits is beggiing a litigation wet-dream, and would likely be overturned.

This helps prove my point - if you can't establish a direct causal relationship between A and B, then you aren't justified in confiscating the private assets of an individual based on that assumption.

The prevailing "wisdom" since the at least New Deal is that the federal government has first right of refusal on OUR money. It should be that we tax personal income for only the most necessary infrastructure & services where justification is almost unquestionable.

If the ACLU was *really* concerned with civil liberties, they would be looking at the effect that the scores of tax credits in the federal tax code have on encouraging/discouraging certain individual behaviors & decisions.

[mcsluggo]

No, I don't believe so. THe government has the authority to tax. The justification of a tax level can be fuzzy (and usually is).

In the case of denying benefits, the burden of PROOF lies with the denying agency.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

or what, you'll tax my sun consumption? There are negative health consequences to not getting enough sun, also. You wanna control that balance of behavior, to?

so, what you're saying is that someone is proposing to tax this?
no? nobody proposes to tax this and you're just making crap up?
ok...

you just said too much of anything can be unhealthy. Besides, I'm pretty sure there are studies that show smoking isn't bad for you.

really? there are "studies that show smoking isn't bad for you"? studies that weren't made (some would call it cooked) by the tobacco industry?
please share those if you would.

I am having a hard time, mostly because you 're not making much sense. They are not taking public goods. The public made a deal through their representatives. The house analogy still seems fine.

they "are not taking public goods"??? they are without any ambuguity, without any qualification, taking public goods.
just who is "not making much sense"? yes. I see it is you.

the "house analogy still seems fine" to you because you want it to. that however doesn't mean it makes sense, nor does it mean it is applicable.

In the analogy, you made a deal that you now think was bad (based solely on someone else's ability to make a profit, unless you also want to tax the crap out of struggling oil companies), and NOW you want to go back and take some money from the person who profited. Replace "you" with "public" and there is your argument for increased taxation of profits.

oh. I see what you're saying, change the wording and replace the players and it is a fair analolgy.....wow, that makes a ton of sense

Personally, I don't think that there should be anything magical about the public (or their gov. reps.) that they should be able to just go take money because they feel slighted or because they want to make up for a previous deal because someone is making some money from it.

fine, you can think whatever you wish.

me, I believe that a fair price should be paid for being given the right to extract from our property (yes, it is OUR property) and there are leases that do not pay a fair price for that right.

if someone came to you and offered $1 per year for the mineral rights on a hundred acres you own, would you take it? I doubt it...

the interesting point that you apparently fail to grasp is it is a tax on the PROFITS. the producers still make a return on their investment, they just share a part of that return with the public (that's you and me, and every citizen btw) and it is the public who owns the oil in the first place.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so, what you're saying is that someone is proposing to tax this?
no? nobody proposes to tax this and you're just making crap up?
ok...

I'm wondering why you are not. It is after all, costing the public so much in the way of cancer treatment for too much sun, and in the way of treatment for depression for too little.

really? there are "studies that show smoking isn't bad for you"? studies that weren't made (some would call it cooked) by the tobacco industry?

Thanks for making my point. Just because someone runs a study saying coffee is not unhealthy doesn't mean its true. (and why would you argue this point, since you already conceded that too much of anything is unhealthy???

they "are not taking public goods"???

no, they made a deal to exchange for the goods. You don't like the fact that they are only exchanging a few dollars, but that's different than just taking.

oh. I see what you're saying, change the wording and replace the players and it is a fair analolgy.....wow, that makes a ton of sense

that's the nature of an analogy. If you don't change anything, it's not an analogy, its the original example.

if someone came to you and offered $1 per year for the mineral rights on a hundred acres you own, would you take it? I doubt it...

uh, thanks for the analogy. If I did make that deal, should I be able to go to the person years from now, and demand a share of their profits if they are making a bunch of money off of it?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I'm wondering why you are not. It is after all, costing the public so much in the way of cancer treatment for too much sun, and in the way of treatment for depression for too little.

it would be interesting if you can actually show these "costs"...
doubt if they exist tho.

Thanks for making my point. Just because someone runs a study saying coffee is not unhealthy doesn't mean its true. (and why would you argue this point, since you already conceded that too much of anything is unhealthy???

no, your point remains illogical.
the detrimental health affects of smoking are indisputable, even the tobacco industry acknowledges they exist, and they exist not only for the smoker but also for those exposed to the smoke. not only that but they are an elective choice.
to suggest they don't exist, which you did, is ridiculous.

no, they made a deal to exchange for the goods. You don't like the fact that they are only exchanging a few dollars, but that's different than just taking.

your attempt to put the connotation of "taking" as in emminent domain is clearly not what was the intent. "taking" as in extracting.

uh, thanks for the analogy. If I did make that deal, should I be able to go to the person years from now, and demand a share of their profits if they are making a bunch of money off of it?

you didn't answer my question btw. should I presume the answer is no?

the answer to your question is yes, if there were a way to adjust a bad deal why not utilize that opportunity? anybody given that opportunity would be a fool to not take advantage.

it happens every day in business.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the detrimental health affects of smoking are indisputable, even the tobacco industry acknowledges they exist, and they exist not only for the smoker but also for those exposed to the smoke. not only that but they are an elective choice.
to suggest they don't exist, which you did, is ridiculous.

I never did. I agree with you that smoking is bad (though I understand the disputes pointed out by mc and rhylan as well). That's part of the point I'm making. You have to make an argument for smoking that cannot be made for caffeine, for alcohol, for sunbathing, for hiding from the sun, and for the countless other behaviors that might be considered bad for you. No one has done that.

your attempt to put the connotation of "taking" as in emminent domain is clearly not what was the intent. "taking" as in extracting.

If it was clear, then there wouldn't have been any confusion. And quite telling me what I'm saying. It's a most ham-fisted way of straw-manning someone, and it's annoying.

you didn't answer my question btw. should I presume the answer is no?

because an answer would be meaningless. the deal has already been made.

the answer to your question is yes, if there were a way to adjust a bad deal why not utilize that opportunity? anybody given that opportunity would be a fool to not take advantage.

it happens every day in business.

Well, for one, they are not adjusting the deal, they are capping a new tax on top afterward, without any negotiation. Second, the government does not do business like happens every day in business. Not in the case of taxes. No one in business anywhere can come take money from you under the threat of imprisonment just because they no longer like the deal they made with you. This is what the government does. That is why we should limit the opportunity to do this, not expand it at every opportunity.
If you did try to go adjust a deal in this way, showing up at the door of someones house with guns and take them to prison, or start walking off with their stuff, I'd say the government's job is to stop you.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

....Second, the government does not do business like happens every day in business. Not in the case of taxes. No one in business anywhere can come take money from you under the threat of imprisonment just because they no longer like the deal they made with you. This is what the government does. That is why we should limit the opportunity to do this, not expand it at every opportunity.
If you did try to go adjust a deal in this way, showing up at the door of someones house with guns and take them to prison, or start walking off with their stuff, I'd say the government's job is to stop you.

there's a line of thought....

....it's a crazy, irresponsible, foolish line of thought mind you....

anyhoo....there's a line of thought that believes that governments ought to be beholden to the same moral and ethical standards as any other institutions in a society.

those folks that think this are plainly crazy. But at least, according to this standard, what businesses do every day and what the government does in the case at hand are decidedly two very different things.

cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

You have to make an argument for smoking that cannot be made for caffeine, for alcohol, for sunbathing, for hiding from the sun, and for the countless other behaviors that might be considered bad for you. No one has done that.

drinking too much caffeine, drinking too much alcohol and rotting one's own liver, getting too much sun and causing melanoma, eating too much and causing heart disease...NONE of these have second hand affects. smoking has shown to cause detrimental second hand affects to the innocent people exposed to same.

case closed.

Well, for one, they are not adjusting the deal, they are capping a new tax on top afterward, without any negotiation.

that's just splitting hairs, and there does not have to be a "negotiation" to adjust a bad deal if the leverage to do so exists.

Second, the government does not do business like happens every day in business. Not in the case of taxes. No one in business anywhere can come take money from you under the threat of imprisonment just because they no longer like the deal they made with you. This is what the government does. That is why we should limit the opportunity to do this, not expand it at every opportunity.

again, the idea is to impose a tax on PROFITS of the leaseholders who are not paying a fair, reasonable price for the right to extract from public lands.

If they do not want to pay the tax, don't go and extract the minerals. give the lease back and let a new leaseholder strike a deal. likewise, if the extraction isn't profitable even with the low lease payments, there wouldn't be any additional payments to the government as there wouldn't be any profit.

this isn't an additional tax on the industry, and it isn't a requirement "under threat of imprisonment" to make any additional lease payments.

[dude1394]

Now you can add billions to the consumer and give it to other companies as tax breaks... Make that case. But the last sentence by the bill sponser if pretty rich. Only in Dem land do you raise taxes and then say that it's going to be cheaper for the consumer.

Only a congressman would be two-faced enough to think (and say) that utilities could just switch tommorrow to "lower priced natural gas". And typically he's too moronic to realize that as soon as they "do", natural gas will be going up for everyone. Democrats really need economics lessons.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070805/D8QQNQM00.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Declaring a new direction in energy policy, the House on Saturday approved $16 billion in taxes on oil companies, while providing billions of dollars in tax breaks and incentives for renewable energy and conservation efforts.

Republican opponents said the legislation ignored the need to produce more domestic oil, natural gas and coal. One GOP lawmaker bemoaned "the pure venom ... against the oil and gas industry."

The House passed the tax provisions by a vote of 221-189. Earlier it had approved, 241-172, a companion energy package aimed at boosting energy efficiency and expanding use of biofuels, wind power and other renewable energy sources.

"We are turning to the future," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The two bills, passed at an unusual Saturday session as lawmakers prepared to leave town for their monthlong summer recess, will be merged with legislation passed by the Senate in June.

On one of the most contentious and heavily lobbied issues, the House voted to require investor-owned electric utilities nationwide to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind or biofuels.

The utilities and business interests had argued aggressively against the federal renewables mandate, saying it would raise electricity prices in regions of the country that do not have abundant wind energy. But environmentalists said the requirement will spur investments in renewable fuels and help address global warming as utilities use less coal.

He noted that nearly half the states already have a renewable energy mandate for utilities, and if utilities can't find enough renewable they can meet part of the requirement through power conservation measures.