User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/19/2014 3:57:15 AM EDT
[#1]
Honestly, I'm up in the air on it. I haven't heard much of an argument for or against it. Both have benefits and downsides. Anyone want to enlighten me though?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2014 4:16:22 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Honestly, I'm up in the air on it. I haven't heard much of an argument for or against it. Both have benefits and downsides. Anyone want to enlighten me though? I Am generally disposed to side with producers, but if a scheme benefits the state over multinational oil companies without decreasing employment or tax money I will go for it. Given that Sarah Palin endorses Yes on this and her reforms translated into massive boons for the state when she was governor, I am voting yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2014 12:22:56 PM EDT
[#3]
Going to vote no on this one. The more you feed any government the more it grows, then it "needs" even more.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 3:02:04 PM EDT
[#4]
Just talked with my Senator about this a few days ago. He tells me that Conoco Phillips is the primary oil company in Alaska. 25% of their global business is in Alaska but........75% yes 75% of their world wide profits are from ALASKA!!
He say the Gov. gave away too much and we are losing money by letting our oil go too cheap. They don't get the same deal everywhere else but it hasn't stopped them from drilling there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2014 8:53:43 PM EDT
[#5]
I will be a yes vote
I think that the governor and the legislature gave away the farm on this |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 1:44:29 PM EDT
[#6]
If you vote no get ready for an income tax and the PFD will go away as well as state and local services. Follow the money everyone in support of voting no has ties to the oil industry.
Pat |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 1:44:47 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will be a yes vote I think that the governor and the legislature gave away the farm on this Agreed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 1:46:00 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Going to vote no on this one. The more you feed any government the more it grows, then it "needs" even more. Big business is far more of a problem than big government. And in Alaska we do not have big government. Pat |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 4:31:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you vote no get ready for an income tax and the PFD will go away as well as state and local services. Follow the money everyone in support of voting no has ties to the oil industry. Pat that's going to happen regardless unless the people we send to Juneau quit spending money. when ACES passed did exploration and production go up or down? since SB21 passed has tax revenue gone up or down and with current oil price trends will the tax revenue be higher or lower. I find it interesting that people in favor of a flat personal income tax would prefer a progressive tax towards a corporation. Is there something I am missing? The extent of my ties to the oil industry are living in Alaska, getting a pfd, and I did a 3 day job in Prudhoe last week installing flooring. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 4:37:04 PM EDT
[#10]
Alaska employment is 24% government employees. What is Big Government? Please tell me, because that sounds like a lot of government to me.
Oil production has gone down. ACES never put more oil in the pipeline. I don't like many individual items in the changed tax structure, and yes some is a giveaway (as it has no requirements to produce more oil). But continuing doing what we were doing (ACES/less oil) without any concrete plan or actions to produce more oil is moronic. At best. Is the current tax structure perfect? No, far from it. And it should be changed to require more production for tax breaks, and maintenance dollars should not count towards exploration or production credits. However, as we know ACES is not the answer. So I will be voting No on 1. If you want to avoid having a income tax again (along with other taxes) then find a way to get more oil in the pipeline. That is the only long term solution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 5:09:39 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that's going to happen regardless unless the people we send to Juneau quit spending money. when ACES passed did exploration and production go up or down? since SB21 passed has tax revenue gone up or down and with current oil price trends will the tax revenue be higher or lower. I find it interesting that people in favor of a flat personal income tax would prefer a progressive tax towards a corporation. Is there something I am missing? The extent of my ties to the oil industry are living in Alaska, getting a pfd, and I did a 3 day job in Prudhoe last week installing flooring. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you vote no get ready for an income tax and the PFD will go away as well as state and local services. Follow the money everyone in support of voting no has ties to the oil industry. Pat that's going to happen regardless unless the people we send to Juneau quit spending money. when ACES passed did exploration and production go up or down? since SB21 passed has tax revenue gone up or down and with current oil price trends will the tax revenue be higher or lower. I find it interesting that people in favor of a flat personal income tax would prefer a progressive tax towards a corporation. Is there something I am missing? The extent of my ties to the oil industry are living in Alaska, getting a pfd, and I did a 3 day job in Prudhoe last week installing flooring. Oil production has gone down since the great giveaway. Every one supporting the giveaway has direct ties to the oil industry. Pat |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 5:17:50 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Alaska employment is 24% government employees. What is Big Government? Please tell me, because that sounds like a lot of government to me. Oil production has gone down. ACES never put more oil in the pipeline. I don't like many individual items in the changed tax structure, and yes some is a giveaway (as it has no requirements to produce more oil). But continuing doing what we were doing (ACES/less oil) without any concrete plan or actions to produce more oil is moronic. At best. Is the current tax structure perfect? No, far from it. And it should be changed to require more production for tax breaks, and maintenance dollars should not count towards exploration or production credits. However, as we know ACES is not the answer. So I will be voting No on 1. If you want to avoid having a income tax again (along with other taxes) then find a way to get more oil in the pipeline. That is the only long term solution. Well you take out the active duty soldiers and airmen stationed in Alaska that number of government employees goes down drastically. Nice red herring. Pat |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 7:22:44 PM EDT
[#13]
BZZZZZTT!!!! Wrong answer. Note that the federal numbers specify that uniformed military is not included in the count.
Beyond the numbers presented in that report however, why would you 'take out' people doing a job and getting paid? They live here, they work here, they spend money here. Are they non-entities, economic zombies? As far as declining production and your "great giveaway", I fail to see any link. Per the DNR link production has gone down every year but two since 1988. So how is the "great giveaway" relevant? If you honestly believe that there is a spigot that the oil companies can simply open wider to instantly increase production, well then I guess you won't ever understand budgeting, exploration, production facilities construction, feeder pipelines, and balancing all those investment choices against other opportunities elsewhere in the US and the world. Since we know you're not an idiot, what do you have against more oil in the pipeline and more royalties to the state? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 9:02:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Alaska employment is 24% government employees. What is Big Government? Please tell me, because that sounds like a lot of government to me. Oil production has gone down. ACES never put more oil in the pipeline. I don't like many individual items in the changed tax structure, and yes some is a giveaway (as it has no requirements to produce more oil). But continuing doing what we were doing (ACES/less oil) without any concrete plan or actions to produce more oil is moronic. At best. Is the current tax structure perfect? No, far from it. And it should be changed to require more production for tax breaks, and maintenance dollars should not count towards exploration or production credits. However, as we know ACES is not the answer. So I will be voting No on 1. If you want to avoid having a income tax again (along with other taxes) then find a way to get more oil in the pipeline. That is the only long term solution. Fairbanks is over 60% between local, state and federal Ive been told |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 9:03:46 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Big business is far more of a problem than big government. And in Alaska we do not have big government. Pat Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Going to vote no on this one. The more you feed any government the more it grows, then it "needs" even more. Big business is far more of a problem than big government. And in Alaska we do not have big government. Pat We have a big, dysfunctional government in Alaska When spending is nearly $20,000 for every man, woman and child, there is a problem |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 9:23:58 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have a big, dysfunctional government in Alaska When spending is nearly $20,000 for every man, woman and child, there is a problem Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Going to vote no on this one. The more you feed any government the more it grows, then it "needs" even more. Big business is far more of a problem than big government. And in Alaska we do not have big government. Pat We have a big, dysfunctional government in Alaska When spending is nearly $20,000 for every man, woman and child, there is a problem All governments are like undisciplined teenagers when it comes to money. Giving them more money makes the problem worse. They could easily spend 100k per person and claim they need twice that...for the children. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2014 6:49:47 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have a big, dysfunctional government in Alaska When spending is nearly $20,000 for every man, woman and child, there is a problem Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Going to vote no on this one. The more you feed any government the more it grows, then it "needs" even more. Big business is far more of a problem than big government. And in Alaska we do not have big government. Pat We have a big, dysfunctional government in Alaska When spending is nearly $20,000 for every man, woman and child, there is a problem I disagree as one who works for a local government where money is tight and we are being made to do more with less and less each year. Pat |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2014 10:54:36 PM EDT
[#18]
As vital as law enforcement is, it does not produce wealth in an economy. If an economy is missing or crushes an economic foundation, like oil, government spending cannot be maintained. We saw an inkling of this in 1987, when just pulling back on oil company spending crushed Alaska's economy. The things that rescued it was the Exxon Valdez and money pouring in that saw a bargain.
There has to be a wealth generating economic base. Even under the best conditions, government spending is a wash, economically. Government, especially a state government, does not have a penny it did not take at gunpoint from its citizens earnings, taking a haircut on that money, and then distributing it to those who can produce votes or pay off those who can distribute the money. $20,000 of spending per citizen is only maintained when the state government is able to tax wealth generated by a fluke of nature. It is NOT sustainable once oil is gone or declines in its present way, and NO income tax can support that level of spending.. Why is that so hard to see? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 12:39:34 AM EDT
[#19]
I know how close the economy is tied Oil, I know how many of my friends are now working out of state in the oil fields. I don't need a study or some one telling me how it good for xyz. We (Alaska) used to be a player in the US oil market we are now #4 vs #2 with CA and ND overtaking AK and guess were the jobs are going? It our oil... sure and we made it unprofitable to operate in AK so our oil sits in the ground we are losing jobs and heck even one of the last large(100k +BPD) refinery built in the US.So yea lets tax tax tax the job creators maybe we can higher more politicians, more regulators to make up for it. And don't threaten me with a sales tax or income tax I'm good with both as long as it drop the cost of energy in this state.... Government and money got the same relationship as an Crack Addict and Crack. Either can get enough
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 2:07:08 AM EDT
[#20]
Here it comes.... Wait for it.....
But, but, but, the oil companies are STILL PROFITABLE RIGHT NOW IN ALASKA SO WE SHOULD TAX THEM MORE!!!!! Except that every oil company's future investment, future exploration, future drilling, future jobs, future production, future oil flowing through the pipeline, and most importantly future state dollars all depend not on what companies are producing NOW, but where they are investing in for the future. The simple and irrefutable fact is that Alaska is nowhere near the most profitable place to invest dollars for the future. All those that want to Vote Yes on 1 NEVER address this. They say that oil companies are profitable now so we should suck them dry now. So why Why WHY would oil companies put any investment dollars into a place that is hostile to those companies? Should the law be changed so that tax breaks are tied to increased barrels in the pipeline? Abso-freakin-lutely! But going back to ACES is a nail in our investment coffin, not our future. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 8:04:19 PM EDT
[#21]
Ive thought alot about this , especially after the last " who will you vote for " poll ....I think it garbage to ask someone how they will vote
It's their personal voice at the ballot box..One that I served and defended this country for 10 years so they DONT HAVE TO TELL anyone who they vote for. Thats just me but I'm tired of the constant political ads and questions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 11:26:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ive thought alot about this , especially after the last " who will you vote for " poll ....I think it garbage to ask someone how they will vote It's their personal voice at the ballot box..One that I served and defended this country for 10 years so they DONT HAVE TO TELL anyone who they vote for. Thats just me but I'm tired of the constant political ads and questions.  or just don't answer/post in them and your problem is solved.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2014 11:50:26 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ive thought alot about this , especially after the last " who will you vote for " poll ....I think it garbage to ask someone how they will vote It's their personal voice at the ballot box..One that I served and defended this country for 10 years so they DONT HAVE TO TELL anyone who they vote for. Thats just me but I'm tired of the constant political ads and questions. If they dealt with us straight and weren't exploitative and corrupting in the past, I wouldn't think this way now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2014 12:04:19 AM EDT
[#24]
It's nice that you want to punish oil companies for past misdeeds, but how does that put oil in the pipeline?
No matter what they did or how we feel about that, Alaska, our state, is funded by oil in the pipeline. We can't tax ourselves enough to pay for the government we have. We need oil. Production goes down every year without more investment in new production. Personally my choice is simple. If it doesn't produce oil it is wrong for the state. I'm happy to change my mind if you can explain where 8+ BILLION dollars a year are going to come from. I'll be waiting..... ETA: I don't work for an oil company or oil services company, not does anyone in my family. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2014 12:10:57 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's nice that you want to punish oil companies for past misdeeds, but how does that put oil in the pipeline? No matter what they did or how we feel about that, Alaska, our state, is funded by oil in the pipeline. We can't tax ourselves enough to pay for the government we have. We need oil. Production goes down every year without more investment in new production. Personally my choice is simple. If it doesn't produce oil it is wrong for the state. I'm happy to change my mind if you can explain where 8+ BILLION dollars a year are going to come from. I'll be waiting..... Just kidding. If the field is exhausted like you say shouldn't we get the maximum amount of revenue we can while it is in operation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2014 1:21:28 AM EDT
[#26]
I never said it was exhausted. Production declines over time. Generally how it works in oil production. If there was no more oil to be developed, then yes we should maximize our dollars with what is left. But that's not the case. There's plenty of oil, just maybe not a big monster easy to produce field like Prudhoe Bay. The fields since Prudhoe Bay have been smaller and cost more to produce. That's generally how oil works too.
Our (Alaska's) big problem is that we have plenty of oil to produce but that requires investment in new exploration and production facilities. We are competing with other places all over the world that also have oil, and lower costs to the oil companies (whether that is production costs, transportation costs, taxes, or a combination of costs); the end result is higher profits in other places so that is where the investments go. We have how many years experience that ACES didn't put more oil in the pipeline. Production declines means the state will make less money. Higher taxes cannot offset that production decline forever. We know long term we need more oil in the pipeline, or we need revenue to replace billions and billions of dollars a year. Billions of dollars, every year. No one for ACES/higher taxes has any answer. If they could produce miracles they would have implemented those miracles and we wouldn't be having this conversation. This isn't rocket science, and I'm not saying the present tax structure is the best one for Alaska. I'm saying that basic math is simple, and that production is going down and ACES didn't change that. Tell me how to put more oil in the pipeline, or where to get $8,000,000,000 a year for the foreseeable future. Ask the people -for- more taxes how long the math works for Alaska, and where they intend to pull those billions from every year. Or how they intend to cut $7 billion a year from the state budget, if you want to watch their eyes bug out and spittle fly from their mouths. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 5:36:35 PM EDT
[#27]
All I can say is if prop 1 passes, I'm selling my houses and moving back to the lower 48. It's amazing how much increased activity there has been on the North Slope since SB21 passed and it will all go away if you vote yes. It's sad how the Alaska based and owned company I work for has 80% of our revenue from ND, but it's changing.
You'll also never have a chance for an AK LNG pipeline as well. The producers can only make that project pencil out if they assume that the gas uplift cost is zero. They are counting on having a healthy oil industry to support the gas activities. Not including all of the above, as a conservative I'm against giving government more money, plain ans simple. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 7:12:25 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All I can say is if prop 1 passes, I'm selling my houses and moving back to the lower 48. It's amazing how much increased activity there has been on the North Slope since SB21 passed and it will all go away if you vote yes. It's sad how the Alaska based and owned company I work for has 80% of our revenue from ND, but it's changing. You'll also never have a chance for an AK LNG pipeline as well. The producers can only make that project pencil out if they assume that the gas uplift cost is zero. They are counting on having a healthy oil industry to support the gas activities. Not including all of the above, as a conservative I'm against giving government more money, plain ans simple. If it does not pass the police and fire department will not be able to respond when you call them as there will be no money to fund them. This is about greed on the part of the oil companies no more no less. I am against giving big multinational oil corporations a free ride. Pat |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 7:35:42 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it does not pass the police and fire department will not be able to respond when you call them as there will be no money to fund them. This is about greed on the part of the oil companies no more no less. I am against giving big multinational oil corporations a free ride. Pat Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All I can say is if prop 1 passes, I'm selling my houses and moving back to the lower 48. It's amazing how much increased activity there has been on the North Slope since SB21 passed and it will all go away if you vote yes. It's sad how the Alaska based and owned company I work for has 80% of our revenue from ND, but it's changing. You'll also never have a chance for an AK LNG pipeline as well. The producers can only make that project pencil out if they assume that the gas uplift cost is zero. They are counting on having a healthy oil industry to support the gas activities. Not including all of the above, as a conservative I'm against giving government more money, plain ans simple. If it does not pass the police and fire department will not be able to respond when you call them as there will be no money to fund them. This is about greed on the part of the oil companies no more no less. I am against giving big multinational oil corporations a free ride. Pat Under ACES, the oil companies pay 25% and higher for higher prices of their production in taxes. Oil company profits are less than the state's take on production. How is that a 'free ride?" From the Juneau Empire, "The state’s gain was at the expense of the oil producers, who were largely cut out of the benefits of higher prices. For example, in 2007 when crude oil prices were about $70 per barrel, ConocoPhillips, which reports income for Alaska operations, earned net revenues of about $22 per barrel on its production that year. Meanwhile, the state earned about $27 per barrel (state taxes and royalty combined) on ConocoPhillips’ production. In 2011, oil prices were about $106 per barrel. ConocoPhillips earned about $27 per barrel, $2 per barrel higher, but the state earned $51 per barrel. A good and short read from: http://juneauempire.com/state/2014-07-13/evolution-alaskas-oil-taxes#.U9WLRjhOXEY |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2014 9:17:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it does not pass the police and fire department will not be able to respond when you call them as there will be no money to fund them. This is about greed on the part of the oil companies no more no less. I am against giving big multinational oil corporations a free ride. Pat Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All I can say is if prop 1 passes, I'm selling my houses and moving back to the lower 48. It's amazing how much increased activity there has been on the North Slope since SB21 passed and it will all go away if you vote yes. It's sad how the Alaska based and owned company I work for has 80% of our revenue from ND, but it's changing. You'll also never have a chance for an AK LNG pipeline as well. The producers can only make that project pencil out if they assume that the gas uplift cost is zero. They are counting on having a healthy oil industry to support the gas activities. Not including all of the above, as a conservative I'm against giving government more money, plain ans simple. If it does not pass the police and fire department will not be able to respond when you call them as there will be no money to fund them. This is about greed on the part of the oil companies no more no less. I am against giving big multinational oil corporations a free ride. Pat Fear monger much? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 12:22:14 AM EDT
[#31]
I love Alaska and I'm sad to say that I will be leaving within the next 8 months after retirement... With that said, I'm voting NO since this State needs those good paying jobs for her people... "I" believe that if the YES vote wins, Alaska will loose more jobs to the oil production fields in the Dakotas and not just the jobs in the oil production field, but all the jobs that support them as well.
I'm not going to say that I know everything, but I do now that when the "Corporations" are making money, they tend to hire more people in order "TO" make more money, which means that people HAVE money to spend, which creates more jobs. And to me, I'm fine with that and "I" really don't care how much the corporation officers and shareholder are making or receiving, but in this picture, the important thing to me is that our people have a chance at the slice of the American pie and a strong shot at the American dream., which is quickly fading away if "WE," the American people don't change gears. Yes, I'm a Capitalist and very proud of it!! To be honest, "I" never saw myself being rich since I came from a "professional" working class family, which I followed in and have earned a comfortable living for what I do. "I" lived the American dream and only hope that my kids... All American kids, will at least have a change at this dream. As for all the fear and BS coming from both the Left and Right on this issue, that's simply a smoke screen and a diversionary act for the "low to no" information voters to confuse them even more than they are... Screw the emotions and BS, just give me the facts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 12:24:59 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it does not pass the police and fire department will not be able to respond when you call them as there will be no money to fund them  . This is about greed on the part of the oil companies no more no less. I am against giving big multinational oil corporations a free ride.
Pat Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All I can say is if prop 1 passes, I'm selling my houses and moving back to the lower 48. It's amazing how much increased activity there has been on the North Slope since SB21 passed and it will all go away if you vote yes. It's sad how the Alaska based and owned company I work for has 80% of our revenue from ND, but it's changing. You'll also never have a chance for an AK LNG pipeline as well. The producers can only make that project pencil out if they assume that the gas uplift cost is zero. They are counting on having a healthy oil industry to support the gas activities. Not including all of the above, as a conservative I'm against giving government more money, plain ans simple. If it does not pass the police and fire department will not be able to respond when you call them as there will be no money to fund them . This is about greed on the part of the oil companies no more no less. I am against giving big multinational oil corporations a free ride.
Pat Giving big multinational oil corporations a free ride? A free ride?
This decision is an easy one for me. If I am in the business of making money, which oil companies are, then why would I waste more money in a state that costs more to operate in? Are they going to shut down production if it passes? Definitely not. But you still have to ask the question. Why should 'big oil' invest money in future development and expansion in Alaska, when it's cheaper to do so in other states? The old saying, never bite the hand that feeds you, comes to mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 5:11:34 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it does not pass the police and fire department will not be able to respond when you call them as there will be no money to fund them. This is about greed on the part of the oil companies no more no less. I am against giving big multinational oil corporations a free ride. Pat Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All I can say is if prop 1 passes, I'm selling my houses and moving back to the lower 48. It's amazing how much increased activity there has been on the North Slope since SB21 passed and it will all go away if you vote yes. It's sad how the Alaska based and owned company I work for has 80% of our revenue from ND, but it's changing. You'll also never have a chance for an AK LNG pipeline as well. The producers can only make that project pencil out if they assume that the gas uplift cost is zero. They are counting on having a healthy oil industry to support the gas activities. Not including all of the above, as a conservative I'm against giving government more money, plain ans simple. If it does not pass the police and fire department will not be able to respond when you call them as there will be no money to fund them. This is about greed on the part of the oil companies no more no less. I am against giving big multinational oil corporations a free ride. Pat Pat The problem isnt a revenue problem, its an appropriation problem Go through the budget and look at how much bullshit is inserted into it to buy future votes |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2014 9:47:54 PM EDT
[#34]
I seriously doubt it will be the end of the world if it passes or not. Just seems to me the biggest supporters are the same people that want to take my guns, take my money, and abort my grandkids. I'd vote no even if I disagreed just to make those people spend more trying to push it through.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:52:49 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just seems to me the biggest supporters are the same people that want to take my guns, take my money, and abort my grandkids. I'd vote no even if I disagreed just to make those people spend more trying to push it through. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 4:16:25 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I seriously doubt it will be the end of the world if it passes or not. Just seems to me the biggest supporters are the same people that want to take my guns, take my money, and abort my grandkids. I'd vote no even if I disagreed just to make those people spend more trying to push it through. The biggest supporters of vote no are the oil companies and the people who work for them. This is about greed pure and simple. Pat |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 12:46:08 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The biggest supporters of vote no are the oil companies and the people who work for them. This is about greed pure and simple. Pat Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I seriously doubt it will be the end of the world if it passes or not. Just seems to me the biggest supporters are the same people that want to take my guns, take my money, and abort my grandkids. I'd vote no even if I disagreed just to make those people spend more trying to push it through. The biggest supporters of vote no are the oil companies and the people who work for them. This is about greed pure and simple. Pat "Greed" is a sophomoric insult best left to 30 second political ads. What is an appropriate tax rate for oil companies? What level of taxation will maximize state revenues and ensure the oil companies will continue to invest in Alaska and develop new fields? This is not an easy question to answer, but it is the question at the heart of the matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:11:06 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The biggest supporters of vote no are the oil companies and the people who work for them. This is about greed pure and simple. Pat Do you realize that at least a third of Alaska's jobs are directly oil and gas related? Many more indirectly. I, as a freedom loving patriot, refuse to vilify a person, company, or industry for wanting to be taxed less. Especially an industry who already operates in the state with the highest tax rate in the country for that industry. Do I feel sorry for oil companies? Hell no. Those guys are making money hand over fist. But at the same time, who the hell am I to say they should be taxed more when their tax dollars already account for over 80% of the state's unrestricted revenue (and that number is conservative). I've seen the "Yes on 1! It's OUR oil!" signs around town. Yes, it is definitely our oil. The thing is, I don't know about you, but I personally don't have the means to get it out of the ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 1:58:21 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The biggest supporters of vote no are the oil companies and the people who work for them. This is about greed pure and simple. Pat Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I seriously doubt it will be the end of the world if it passes or not. Just seems to me the biggest supporters are the same people that want to take my guns, take my money, and abort my grandkids. I'd vote no even if I disagreed just to make those people spend more trying to push it through. The biggest supporters of vote no are the oil companies and the people who work for them. This is about greed pure and simple. Pat <Lets error on the side of the COC please> |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 3:01:10 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you realize that at least a third of Alaska's jobs are directly oil and gas related? Many more indirectly. I, as a freedom loving patriot, refuse to vilify a person, company, or industry for wanting to be taxed less. Especially an industry who already operates in the state with the highest tax rate in the country for that industry. Do I feel sorry for oil companies? Hell no. Those guys are making money hand over fist. But at the same time, who the hell am I to say they should be taxed more when their tax dollars already account for over 80% of the state's unrestricted revenue (and that number is conservative). I've seen the "Yes on 1! It's OUR oil!" signs around town. Yes, it is definitely our oil. The thing is, I don't know about you, but I personally don't have the means to get it out of the ground. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The biggest supporters of vote no are the oil companies and the people who work for them. This is about greed pure and simple. Pat Do you realize that at least a third of Alaska's jobs are directly oil and gas related? Many more indirectly. I, as a freedom loving patriot, refuse to vilify a person, company, or industry for wanting to be taxed less. Especially an industry who already operates in the state with the highest tax rate in the country for that industry. Do I feel sorry for oil companies? Hell no. Those guys are making money hand over fist. But at the same time, who the hell am I to say they should be taxed more when their tax dollars already account for over 80% of the state's unrestricted revenue (and that number is conservative). I've seen the "Yes on 1! It's OUR oil!" signs around town. Yes, it is definitely our oil. The thing is, I don't know about you, but I personally don't have the means to get it out of the ground. Not vilifying them but they should have to pay their fair share of taxes and not get a free ride. Pat |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 3:01:40 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are derp personified. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I seriously doubt it will be the end of the world if it passes or not. Just seems to me the biggest supporters are the same people that want to take my guns, take my money, and abort my grandkids. I'd vote no even if I disagreed just to make those people spend more trying to push it through. The biggest supporters of vote no are the oil companies and the people who work for them. This is about greed pure and simple. Pat You are derp personified. I see you can not follow forum rules and have to resort to personal attacks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 3:08:45 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The biggest supporters of vote no are the oil companies and the people who work for them. This is about greed pure and simple. Pat Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I seriously doubt it will be the end of the world if it passes or not. Just seems to me the biggest supporters are the same people that want to take my guns, take my money, and abort my grandkids. I'd vote no even if I disagreed just to make those people spend more trying to push it through. The biggest supporters of vote no are the oil companies and the people who work for them. This is about greed pure and simple. Pat I don't know if I would use greed there Is it greed when the unions are negotiating a new contract? The oil companies have a duty to their share holders to be as profitable as they can With that being said, I still am a yes vote |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 5:59:33 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know if I would use greed there Is it greed when the unions are negotiating a new contract? The oil companies have a duty to their share holders to be as profitable as they can With that being said, I still am a yes vote Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I seriously doubt it will be the end of the world if it passes or not. Just seems to me the biggest supporters are the same people that want to take my guns, take my money, and abort my grandkids. I'd vote no even if I disagreed just to make those people spend more trying to push it through. The biggest supporters of vote no are the oil companies and the people who work for them. This is about greed pure and simple. Pat I don't know if I would use greed there Is it greed when the unions are negotiating a new contract? The oil companies have a duty to their share holders to be as profitable as they can With that being said, I still am a yes vote Greed makes the world go around but my point is taxing the oil companies less is not going to help us out it will help them out. Pat |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 6:01:55 PM EDT
[#44]
Interestingly, I just learned that Mead supports the FairTax proposal (or at least "principles found in the FairTax"). One problem I have is that there is a s core component of the FairTax called a "Prebate" that is given to every person every month at an amount equivalent to a poverty level spending 'FairTax rebate' (thus prebate). I understand that if you are poor you would welcome not paying any taxes (as would I, as would rich people I would guess) but that seems to be part of how we got to where we are now: people want free stuff. If you pay no taxes (effectively, via either a Prebate or our current systems of taxes, credits, entitlements, programs, etc.) then you don't care how the free stuff is made available, you just want it. Everyone should pay something so that everyone cares how it is spent.
I doubt that the FairTax will be passed, but you may want to read about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:25:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Greed makes the world go around but my point is taxing the oil companies less is not going to help us out it will help them out. Pat Quote HistoryQuoted:
Greed makes the world go around but my point is taxing the oil companies less is not going to help us out it will help them out. Pat ACES won't help. Didn't from 2007 to 2013. ACES = less percentage profit for the oil companies than other places = less investment in new North Slope oil production = continued decline in North Slope oil production = less revenue for the state of Alaska, forevermore. SB21 has been in effect for almost 7 whole months, so let's call it a failure and drive a stake through it. It would help out Alaska if current tax law is changed to tie tax incentives directly to new North Slope oil production. SB21 may not be perfect, but we already had bad. How is that unclear to anyone?
To bring everyone back to some earlier facts about how ACES made new oil production investment less attractive to the big bad evil oil companies: Quoted:
Under ACES, the oil companies pay 25% and higher for higher prices of their production in taxes. Oil company profits are less than the state's take on production. How is that a 'free ride?" From the Juneau Empire, "The state’s gain was at the expense of the oil producers, who were largely cut out of the benefits of higher prices. For example, in 2007 when crude oil prices were about $70 per barrel, ConocoPhillips, which reports income for Alaska operations, earned net revenues of about $22 per barrel on its production that year. Meanwhile, the state earned about $27 per barrel (state taxes and royalty combined) on ConocoPhillips’ production. In 2011, oil prices were about $106 per barrel. ConocoPhillips earned about $27 per barrel, $2 per barrel higher, but the state earned $51 per barrel. A good and short read from: http://juneauempire.com/state/2014-07-13/evolution-alaskas-oil-taxes#.U9WLRjhOXEY So I can only ask (again): How are you going to put more and new North Slope oil in the pipeline? Because nothing else funds state government at the levels that spending has grown to. Nothing. But. Oil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2014 8:58:14 PM EDT
[#46]
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but isn't the royalty what we get for OUR oil?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:39:00 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I love Alaska and I'm sad to say that I will be leaving within the next 8 months after retirement... With that said, I'm voting NO since this State needs those good paying jobs for her people... "I" believe that if the YES vote wins, Alaska will loose more jobs to the oil production fields in the Dakotas and not just the jobs in the oil production field, but all the jobs that support them as well. BP says thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 1:15:10 AM EDT
[#48]
crappy headline, 200 BP employees we're offered jobs with Hillcorp who bought out the fields BP sold the remaining 275 are mostly direct contractors.... Do you really think Hillcorp not going to pick up the contracts or find new contractors... this isn't a major job lose it a "who signs the check change" It happens. The remaining BP employees are offered retirement or a severance package O and this was a done deal back in April. But hey let not worry about any of that. lol
Clint |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 1:34:31 AM EDT
[#49]
Damn Raven, youre learning to spin shit as well as Pat...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 1:36:30 AM EDT
[#50]
I saw this thread was bumped, and I just knew what was waiting. Yep, I was right. And sad, as that meant that someone had read the headline and just had to throw it in the face of SB21 (still ignoring the total failure of ACES to put oil in the pipeline).
And this was after I was sent the headline and link early this morning by a person I greatly admire, who is probably smarter than I. And I had the same response. So here you go: Nice headline. Too bad it's wrong. As the second paragraph notes, of those 475 employees 'cut', 200 have already been offered jobs with Hilcorp. So it is 275 jobs. Except it isn't 275 jobs. Because the work will still have to be done, and there probably isn't 275 jobs worth of free time or space in the current Hilcorp staff, and there probably isn't 275 jobs worth of redundancy or overlap that can be absorbed by current Hilcorp staff or contractors. So some of those 275 will still be actual jobs, either by the current contracting company (as it is with BP) or possibly by Hilcorp adding employees (unlikely). The sale was announced in April. It wasn't hidden. It couldn't be hidden due to all of the banking and stock market/investment regulations. If no one noticed, then they weren't paying attention. Or choose to ignore the sale so there could be a 'SURPRISE' headline about how many jobs BP is cutting. Except that wouldn't be true, exactly. Since I think that it is more likely, and charitable, to consider the ADN staff incompetent rather than having planned a purposeful delayed lie to hurt Governor Zero's campaign, I'll just say that they probably should have done their jobs as journalists and asked questions back in April about the impact of the sale instead of just quoting press releases. Would that be expecting too much from journalists? I doubt that back in April BP said "Hey, we're going to sell 1.5 billion dollars worth of oilfields, and you can't ask any questions or speculate about job changes. And you have to wait 5 months to write anything about this." Because if BP did say that, then that means that those same journalists said "OK." Call me crazy.... :-) |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
