Tax Bill is a loser

[BDKJMU]

They don’t just rely on fossil fuels extraction. Mining, fishing and tourism are very big.

With peak oil production occurring in 1988 and proven reserves in 1973, i'd say they need to diversify. If my state had vast (potentially) untapped resources and oil production had been declining for almost 30 years, then I'd lobby to open those areas to drilling. 90% of Alaska's revenue comes from 1 industry, and that's with falling revenue (perhaps another reason why Big Oil wants ANWR opened up.) They should diversify.

56% (of their total budget) FY 2012
http://www.alaskabudget.com/revenue/

Link to that 1973 figure? If its much more than a year old its no longer valid. There have been 2 massive discoveries in the last year+:

10/5/16:
"Oil and gas exploration firm Caelus has found a massive amount of oil waiting to be drilled up in northern Alaska.

In a press release Tuesday, the company announced its discovery could yield between 6 billion and 10 billion barrels of light oil -- which is recovered from the ground more easily than other types of oil. As perspective, about 79 million barrels of crude oil are produced in the world each day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Caelus estimates it will be able to recover about 30% to 40% of that oil -- making the discovery one of the largest ever in Alaska.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/04/investi ... index.html

3/10/17
"Spanish oil giant Repsol (REPYY) has revealed the largest U.S. onshore oil discovery in 30 years, located in Alaska’s North Slope.

Repsol and joint venture partner Armstrong Energy claim to have found a massive conventional oil play that holds up to 1.2 billion barrels of recoverable light crude. The discovery was confirmed after Repsol drilled two test wells during the 2016-2017 winter season. According to the company, the area was previously considered to be a mature oil basin. Oil is expected to flow beginning in 2021, with a potential rate approaching 120,000 barrels per day..."
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017 ... years.html

[BDKJMU]

The same libtard arguement. The look at this serenghetti pictures the left trots out aren’t of Area 2002. ANWR is GINORMOUS. 2002 is a tiny sliver of it. The pictures you show aren’t in Area 2002. Anything that has mountains in it isn’t Area 2002. 2002 is a flat coastal plain.

**** those animals!

The caribou don't mind an oil well at all. Or the pipeline

[93henfan]

**** those animals!

The caribou don't mind an oil well at all. Or the pipeline

Yeah, they seem to take to it better than if some fat redneck didn’t have gas for his Toyota Tundra and had to walk or ride a bike to Walmart.

[BDKJMU]

The caribou don't mind an oil well at all. Or the pipeline

Yeah, they seem to take to it better than if some fat redneck didn’t have gas for his Toyota Tundra and had to walk or ride a bike to Walmart.

[Chizzang]

The caribou don't mind an oil well at all. Or the pipeline

Yeah, they seem to take to it better than if some fat redneck didn’t have gas for his Toyota Tundra and had to walk or ride a bike to Walmart.

This thread delivers... the giggles

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I know I don't hold a popular view of this, but home costs are artificially and GROSSLY inflated. In the free market sense they are generally in ranged that the market will bear.

But at the end of the day, a pine frame covered in vinyl, sitting on a concrete slab is not worth $500,000, I don't care where it is.

But there's no way to fix it without destroying a significant part of the wealth in the country. It is artificial wealth, but we aren't the only country that accepts it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, this absolutely!

[JohnStOnge]

There's something to that but the point is THEY are making a big deal about saying it won't add to the deficits and telling people it won't.

Otherwise: I do think that, theoretically, there has got to be SOME limit on how much we can rely on increasing the debt to fund things. I mean, if how much we borrow doesn't matter why have taxes at all? I think the answer is that there has to be SOME revenue to create at least SOME assurance that the borrowed money along with the interest will be paid. Otherwise we couldn't borrow. So we know that 0 tax revenue wouldn't work. And you can start going up from there. $1, $2, $10000, $1000000... At some point you'll cross a threshold where there is enough tax revenue to provide the necessary assurance. At what point does the difference between revenue and spending become untenable?

That is one sided thinking.
Taxes are generated when money changes hands. The faster it changes hands, and the more money in the transaction, the more tax revenue is collected.
Explain to me how you can calculate that to determine the "threshold".
Answer: It's anyone's best guess because there is no formula that will tell you what the exact money velocity will be, or the exact amount of that money being moved. The only thing the government can, and should, do is create an environment where, based on historical data, velocity and amount of transactions improve.

I wasn't talking about the issue of the point at which the rate or set of rates results in maximum tax revenue collected. I was talking about the point at which revenue is too low to provide sufficient confidence that debt will be repaid. And no I don't know where that point is.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's the thing: As far as I can tell, every structured quantitative analysis resulted in concluding that the tax plan will increase the annual deficits and the national debt over what they would have been if things had been left as is. "Does it matter?" is another question. But as far as I can tell the Republicans have no quantitative analytical basis for thinking it will be revenue neutral or increase revenue. It's just a kind of qualitative faith.

[kalm]

[quote="JohnStOnge"]Here's the thing: As far as I can tell, every structured quantitative analysis resulted in concluding that the tax plan will increase the annual deficits and the national debt over what they would have been if things had been left as is. "Does it matter?" is another question. But as far as I can tell the Republicans have no quantitative analytical basis for thinking it will be revenue neutral or increase revenue. It's just a kind of qualitative faith.[/quote

Reaganomics...alive and kicking...

[Ibanez]

With peak oil production occurring in 1988 and proven reserves in 1973, i'd say they need to diversify. If my state had vast (potentially) untapped resources and oil production had been declining for almost 30 years, then I'd lobby to open those areas to drilling. 90% of Alaska's revenue comes from 1 industry, and that's with falling revenue (perhaps another reason why Big Oil wants ANWR opened up.) They should diversify.

56% (of their total budget) FY 2012
http://www.alaskabudget.com/revenue/

Link to that 1973 figure? If its much more than a year old its no longer valid. There have been 2 massive discoveries in the last year+:

10/5/16:
"Oil and gas exploration firm Caelus has found a massive amount of oil waiting to be drilled up in northern Alaska.

In a press release Tuesday, the company announced its discovery could yield between 6 billion and 10 billion barrels of light oil -- which is recovered from the ground more easily than other types of oil. As perspective, about 79 million barrels of crude oil are produced in the world each day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Caelus estimates it will be able to recover about 30% to 40% of that oil -- making the discovery one of the largest ever in Alaska.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/04/investi ... index.html

3/10/17
"Spanish oil giant Repsol (REPYY) has revealed the largest U.S. onshore oil discovery in 30 years, located in Alaska’s North Slope.

Repsol and joint venture partner Armstrong Energy claim to have found a massive conventional oil play that holds up to 1.2 billion barrels of recoverable light crude. The discovery was confirmed after Repsol drilled two test wells during the 2016-2017 winter season. According to the company, the area was previously considered to be a mature oil basin. Oil is expected to flow beginning in 2021, with a potential rate approaching 120,000 barrels per day..."
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017 ... years.html

Proven reserves number, IIRC, was from a 2016 article.

https://www.aoga.org/facts-and-figures

That's the Alaska Oil & Gas Association.

Even with falling production, the state estimates 90 percent of its revenue will continue to come from the oil and gas industry.

You're using FY12 to say i'm wrong about their estimate. You are using old data.

Alaska is the only state in the Union that is so dependent on one industry to fund its government services. Since the completion of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline, petroleum revenues to the State of Alaska have averaged over 85 percent.

In the state’s 2013 fiscal year, oil and gas revenues represented 92 percent of Alaska’s unrestricted revenue. Oil tax revenue has a significant effect on the state’s ability to provide services to Alaskans.

:

[CAA Flagship]

House vote is about to begin.

[89Hen]

phpBB [video]

[CAA Flagship]

[93henfan]

Looks like I picked the wrong week not to be a corporation or a billionaire.

Or an Alaskan.

[CAA Flagship]

Looks like I picked the wrong week not to be a corporation or a billionaire.

Or an Alaskan.

And that $900k mortgage of yours is going to screw you into tomorrow.

[kalm]

phpBB [video]

This guy has suddenly reconsidered...


https://www.google.com/amp/www.ibtimes. ... ax%3famp=1

[93henfan]

Oops. Senate rejects the bill as written due to procedural violations. Senate to edit and vote tonight. House will have to revote tomorrow.

My God is our Congress inept.

[BDKJMU]

56% (of their total budget) FY 2012
http://www.alaskabudget.com/revenue/

Link to that 1973 figure? If its much more than a year old its no longer valid. There have been 2 massive discoveries in the last year+:

10/5/16:
"Oil and gas exploration firm Caelus has found a massive amount of oil waiting to be drilled up in northern Alaska.

In a press release Tuesday, the company announced its discovery could yield between 6 billion and 10 billion barrels of light oil -- which is recovered from the ground more easily than other types of oil. As perspective, about 79 million barrels of crude oil are produced in the world each day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Caelus estimates it will be able to recover about 30% to 40% of that oil -- making the discovery one of the largest ever in Alaska.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/04/investi ... index.html

3/10/17
"Spanish oil giant Repsol (REPYY) has revealed the largest U.S. onshore oil discovery in 30 years, located in Alaska’s North Slope.

Repsol and joint venture partner Armstrong Energy claim to have found a massive conventional oil play that holds up to 1.2 billion barrels of recoverable light crude. The discovery was confirmed after Repsol drilled two test wells during the 2016-2017 winter season. According to the company, the area was previously considered to be a mature oil basin. Oil is expected to flow beginning in 2021, with a potential rate approaching 120,000 barrels per day..."
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017 ... years.html

Proven reserves number, IIRC, was from a 2016 article.

https://www.aoga.org/facts-and-figures

That's the Alaska Oil & Gas Association.

Even with falling production, the state estimates 90 percent of its revenue will continue to come from the oil and gas industry.

You're using FY12 to say i'm wrong about their estimate. You are using old data.

Alaska is the only state in the Union that is so dependent on one industry to fund its government services. Since the completion of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline, petroleum revenues to the State of Alaska have averaged over 85 percent.

In the state’s 2013 fiscal year, oil and gas revenues represented 92 percent of Alaska’s unrestricted revenue. Oil tax revenue has a significant effect on the state’s ability to provide services to Alaskans.

:

I used 2012 state of Alaska budget #s that said: "Over half the state’s total budget (56% in FY2012)".. "comes from oil revenue. Oil revenue includes production taxes, petroleum property taxes, corporate income taxes, and royalties generated from the huge oil fields on state-owned land in and around Prudhoe Bay."

Alaska Oil & Gas Association says 92% in 2013.

So unless it jumped from 56% in FY 2012 to 92% in FY 2013 (I would assume highly unlikely), one of those sources is wrong..

[Ibanez]

Proven reserves number, IIRC, was from a 2016 article.

https://www.aoga.org/facts-and-figures

That's the Alaska Oil & Gas Association.


You're using FY12 to say i'm wrong about their estimate. You are using old data.


:

I used 2012 state of Alaska budget #s that said: "Over half the state’s total budget (56% in FY2012)".. "comes from oil revenue. Oil revenue includes production taxes, petroleum property taxes, corporate income taxes, and royalties generated from the huge oil fields on state-owned land in and around Prudhoe Bay."

Alaska Oil & Gas Association says 92% in 2013.

So unless it jumped from 56% in FY 2012 to 92% in FY 2013 (I would assume highly unlikely), one of those sources is wrong..

Perhaps. But you said budget and I referred to revenue. Aren't those 2 different accounting terms? Revenue is earning whereas Budget is what a list of the state's intended expenditures? Maybe we're looking at 2 sides of the same coin. I don't know.

[93henfan]

Hahah, they’re still talking about Alaska. One of the best lures I ever sunk right there.

[CAA Flagship]

Hahah, they’re still talking about Alaska. One of the best lures I ever sunk right there.

[BDKJMU]

It passed the Senate and House this morning. Headed to Trumps desk. Happy Tax Cut Christmas!

[Ibanez]

It passed the Senate and House this morning. Headed to Trumps desk. Happy Tax Cut Christmas!

So this brings his legislative victory count to...1?

[GannonFan]

It passed the Senate and House this morning. Headed to Trumps desk. Happy Tax Cut Christmas!

So this brings his legislative victory count to...1?

It's Congress, they have problems counting anything higher than their fingers will allow anyway, so this is still in the ballpark for them.

[CAA Flagship]

With Tax Reform, AT&T Plans to Increase U.S. Capital Spending $1 Billion and Provide $1,000 Special Bonus to more than 200,000 U.S. Employees

Once tax reform is signed into law, AT&T* plans to invest an additional $1 billion in the United States in 2018 and pay a special $1,000 bonus to more than 200,000 AT&T U.S. employees — all union-represented, non-management and front-line managers. If the President signs the bill before Christmas, employees will receive the bonus over the holidays.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... S.-Capital