Proposal aims to raise taxes on oil, gas industry
Ballot measure would give money to universities
Gargi Chakrabarty and Todd Hartman
Friday, March 21, 2008
Matt McClain / The Rocky
Halliburton employee Kevin Trapp gets a cement batch mixer up and running on the Bosque del Oso State Wildlife Area outside Trinidad.
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
Democratic lawmakers are planning a ballot measure that would raise taxes on the oil and gas industry and channel tens of millions of additional dollars to Colorado's universities.
Sens. Abel Tapia and Chris Romer on Thursday revealed the measure, which would increase the severance tax on the industry from 5 percent to 6 percent.
It also would eliminate a property tax credit, further increasing the tax burden on oil and gas producers. But those tax increases would take effect only if the industry keeps operating at a healthy pace.
The lawmakers approached the presidents of the state's two largest universities - oilman Bruce Benson, of the University of Colorado, and Larry Penley, of Colorado State University - and said both were supportive of the concept.
If approved by voters in November, the measure would raise $140 million of additional revenues for the state in the first year, $210 million in the second year and $235 million a year thereafter, according to an analysis by the Legislative Council.
Severance tax
"This proposal ties tax increase to the health of the industry," said Tapia, a Democrat from Pueblo, who plans to float the measure in the coming weeks.
A state analysis last year found that the overall tax burden for oil and gas companies in Colorado was 5.7 percent of production, compared with 11.2 percent in Wyoming and 9.4 percent in New Mexico. Only Utah had a lower rate burden, at 4.5 percent.
Also, drillers in Colorado can credit 87.5 percent of property tax they pay against their severance tax, a benefit found in no other state. The property tax credit is so large that producers in 25 of the state's 30 energy-producing counties paid no severance tax in recent years.
Industry has repeatedly rejected the idea of a severance tax hike, but on Thursday offered a nuanced response.
"We are going to read the letter," Meg Collins, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said Thursday after Romer handed her an outline of the measure. "But we won't talk about a severance tax increase while we have this (rule-making) in front of us."
Indeed, the state's rule-making was the focus of a major protest by the association in Denver. More than 750 protesters, including two dozen lawmakers, stood on the west steps of the Capitol - some holding "Please don't rule us out" placards. They staged similar protests in three other Colorado towns.
Sen Penry to wait, see
Both Tapia and Romer said the Colorado Department of Natural Resources' proposed rules on oil and gas drilling, to be released Monday, would shape the industry's mood for severance tax discussions.
The department is overhauling rules to reduce the impact of drilling on communities, while industry says the changes would slow down investment and force some companies to leave the state.
Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, said he would wait until Monday and see the rules before making a decision on the proposed severance tax measure.
Penry said he was working with Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass, on a bipartisan bill to channel some of the money Colorado gets from oil and gas drilling on federal lands toward higher education.
"The position I have consistently taken is that I don't think we should talk about a substantial tax increase on the oil and gas industry while it's in the midst of a process that will totally rewrite the rules," Penry said.
Romer, a Denver Democrat, said he understands the industry's concerns about the impending rules, but the ballot measure would help form a stronger partnership between the state and the industry.
"We have been having this conversation for four years and have reached a tipping point," Romer said.
Other proposals eye tax
Tapia and Romer had dinner with Benson Tuesday to discuss the ballot measure and also have talked to Penley. Both were receptive to the idea, Romer said.
Benson did not return calls from the Rocky Mountain News, and CSU officials could not reach Penley, who's traveling.
Romer said the measure would be win-win for all parties, since the additional tax revenues would be spent training students in engineering, geology, math and science - skills required by the industry.
Some of the money would help communities impacted by oil and gas drilling, and also promote Gov. Bill Ritter's vision of a new energy economy based on solar, wind and biofuels production and consumption.
Other efforts to raise the severance tax are also afoot.
Environmental groups are preparing to ask voters in November for a severance tax hike that would raise $200 million to $300 million in additional funds per year to preserve open space and fund clean-energy initiatives.
Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, is also working on a severance tax bill in the legislature.
Additionally, another ballot measure would eradicate the property tax credit for oil and gas, channeling another $200 million toward higher education and communities affected by drilling.
That measure was filed this month by Tony Lewis, director of the Donnell-Kay Foundation, which works on education issues, and Randy Udall, former director of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency, a Western Slope group that promotes renewables.
chakrabartyg@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2976
Highlights of ballot proposal
* Raise severance tax on oil and gas production by 1 percent, to 6 percent from 5 percent
* Eliminate property tax credit over three years; currently, the tax credit allows producers to take 87.5 percent of their property tax and deduct it from what they pay in severance tax
50 percent is what the credit would be cut to in the first year
25 percent in the second year and eliminated in the following years
* Elimination of the property tax credit would be in place only if the state approves 5,000 or more drilling permits each year.
PERMITS ISSUED 2007 6,369
2006 5,904
Comments
Posted by windbourne on March 21, 2008 at 3:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BS. Raise to 9. Wyoming is 11 and NM is 9. It is obvious that it is helping both of those states. We will still be less than the other 2. But this is a tax that once the oil/gas is gone will no longer be available to us. So, now is the time to get the money and use it WISELY. While I do like seeing money go to the universities, I would also like to see some of this money go to Alternative Energy (AE) as well as our water issues.
If we push a bit more money into AE, we could be supplying all of our energy for free AND exporting electricity down the road. Other states are focused on solar and wind. While I like that we have attracted some here, we also need to diversify into geo-thermal. Why? Because we have LOADS of old oil wells that have heat at the bottom. If we check these, we will find a number of these have temps in the range of 140-160F. All that is needed is to bump it up a bit. So what can do that? Solar during the daytime, and Gas at night. This would allow us to use AE as baseload power, as opposed to just when it is available. Heck, if done right, our universities will pursue research AND patent the above idea. That would enable us to have loads of money coming into the state for a long time.
Finally, Water is STILL a big issue for us. We are currently building loads of shallow reservoirs on the plains. Based on Global warming models, we will experience a future where the temps rise and evaporation increases a great deal. To get around this, we need to look at either building deep, low surface reservoirs, or re-inject the water back in the ground. Probably the smartest approach is to do both. Finally, the big straw made sense, AS LONG as it went both ways. I am sure that west slope folks do not mind shipping the water to denver as long as they know that they can tap water within the state when needed. A good example would be the ability to draw water from the south to the north. But the aquifer recharge makes the most sense. The problem is that it induces geo instabilities. We could use some of the money to determine where are good locations to inject water and then to spend some money doing so. During our good years, start banking this water for the future. If we are going to have 10 year long droughts, then we need to prepare for it. BTW, even if you do not believe in GW, then put it in this perspective: If you have lived here for any length of time, how can you NOT be concerned about our water?
Hopefully the dems will re-think things through.
Posted by Earl on March 21, 2008 at 6:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
just so all the people in favor of this wonderful 'lets tax the bad oil companies' idea, this is a tax increase that you will pay. corporations dont pay taxes, what ever they are charged by anyone is passed on to the consumer meaning you.
so liberal minded people like windblown above, his is all a twitter about paying more for the products the of the oil and gas companies. I bet he will be one of the first to scream when the cost goes up and yet he is in favor of raising the cost.
Posted by Froward69 on March 21, 2008 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
With Exxon/Mobil's Record breaking Profits Year after Year...
With the Republican corporate welfare state aiding in those ultra high profits. Coupled with the squashing of true renewable sources of energy. (geothermal/solar/wind)
It is high time corporate OIL paid their fare share.
Posted by jmkratt on March 21, 2008 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps Froward - but like it's already been stated Oil wont' pay WE will...
Posted by Theoldguy on March 21, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I said it before and I'll say it again....Wyoming taxes the coal and oil that leaves the state and there is NO state income tax. The Colorado schools, like CU, are like Humpty Dumpty, all the kings men and all the king horses couldn't put Humpty together again. So let's give the citizens a break..........for once.
Posted by landman70 on March 21, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Regardless of all the rhetoric in this paper, from politicians, and other hydrocarbon hating entities & individuals the little guy will pay for all of Ritter’s energy legislation. Ritter’s energy policies will drive small business (energy companies and others) out of the state, lower state and local tax revenues, further drive private property rights out of the state, and kill the economy in Colorado. Do they not know the energy business is what is floating Colorado? Do they not know energy is Colorado’s largest industry and largest tax payer?
Ritter is attempting to choke the industry with rules and then slap it with tax hikes to make up for the revenue short fall due to the new rules...business doesn’t work that way Governor Ritter! If you really care about the working class and want to reasonably move to renewable energy sources I’m all for it...but what our state government needs to realize is there is a no short term alternative to hydrocarbons; we all heat our homes, drive our cars, buy food transported in diesel trucks…the list goes on and on.
As a energy professional myself of course I see the need for change; however change in an industry like energy does not happen over night the way Ritter is attempting to force. Again this force will only lead to higher energy costs and lower tax revenues that will hurt local program and the working class THE MOST!
What everyone who hates the energy industry doesn’t see is the fact that energy touches every facet of our lives from the food we eat to the cloths on our backs. The more you increase the cost of energy the more you increase the cost of EVERYTHING! We have no viable alternative to support our energy needs in the short term...just look at the history of the energy industry...it tells the true story. There is no magic bullet for transportation or for our electrical needs……..it baffles me more people can’t see the truth and take a practical approach to the changing times. Most energy companies see this and are working towards the goal themselves.
AND BY THE WAY ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS…TAXES ON PROSDUCED OIL AND GAS IS CLOSER TO 9% IN COLORADO…I SHOULD NOW BECAUSE I PAY THEM. FOR EVERY DOLLAR I SPEND IN COLORADO ON DEVELOPING HYDROCARBONS I ONLY SEE .50 CENTS OF PROFITS AFTER SEVERENCE, AD VOLERUM, CONSERVATION, AND STATE & FEDERAL INCOME TAXS…………….ANS WE DON’T PAY ENOUGH TAXES ALREADY?
Posted by Acemon on March 21, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rather than tax the oil companies to subsidize higher education (a bigger football stadium for CU?), we should tax the oil companies to reduce the general tax burden on the citizens.
Posted by SASQUATCH on March 21, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about a little "conservation" at the university level? How about eleminating Ethnic Studies, Women's Studies, Black Studies and other redundant and illegitimate "feel-good" programs and replace these phony academic interlopers with what they replaced--legitimate academic pursuits like sociology and anthropology, etc. Eleminate the costly redundancy. And then how about those expensive "affirmative action" fandangos like CU's new race czarina and her costly race-based department? Lose that too.
Now is not the time to look at the suppliers of much needed and costly energy as a source of revenues--unless you love higher prices and inflation. If you want less of something, then tax it. If you want more of something, then cut its taxes. How's that for Econ 101 that also seems to be missing from the curriculum?
Posted by masondav2004 on March 21, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Landman, if you're making profits on 50 cents on every dollar, then you have no room to complain about the state wanting its pound of flesh- that's a pretty good profit margin that a 1% increase in severance will not markedly impact. If this proposal goes through, what, you're only looking at 45 cents? Most Americans would die for that type of commercial success, but you oil and gas guys love playing the victim, don't you, even when you're making a killing. So spare us the trumped-up indigation, please.
And Sasquatch, anthropology and sociology are not only alive and well in academia, they are two of the disciplines that helped spawn the ethnic studies programs you dislike so strongly.
I think these proposals are reasonable, as some said above, because once the minerals are gone, there's no more tax revenue for Colorado. As a corollary, once the prices dip below a certain level, production will decline and tax revenues will, too. High energy prices are here to stay for the foreseeable future, though, and our state government displaying the intestinal fortitude to claim an extra couple hundred million in tax revenue will not "cripple the industry" or harm rural communities dependent on that industry. First of all, with prices and profits as high as they are, you could raise the tax to 10% and operators would still be lining up around the block for permits, so the entire "they're gonna pack up and leave" argument is plain old hooey; second, this proposal, if adopted in whole, will increase local tax revenues by allowing communities to collect on that 85% of property taxes currently waived for payers of the severance tax. Third, putting that money into higher education ideally serves a goal of developing affordable renewal generation sources- NG-based and otherwise- which will lead to a cleaner future for our children and their children.
It never ceases to amaze me how reflexively anti-government and anti-tax a lot of Coloradans are, especially considering this state's historic dependence on state and federal dollars raised by taxation. Like your water projects, anyone? How about I-70? How about functioning schools, wildlife and natural resource protection, or the transportation grid that makes all this energy development possible in the first place? None of this happens because the oil and gas industry decides to pay for it- they don't buy any of this crap, the government taxes them and spends the money on vital services. This is basic government from Civics class, not some communist conspiracy. Not that the freepers around here know the difference...
This proposal makes sense and is something most states- the ones without a sizeable minority of John Birch crazies- would've done a long time ago. But don't take my word for it, just ask those big government radicals up there in Wyoming, with their outrageous severance taxes and their love for socialism... Puh-leeze.
Posted by Diff on March 21, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Acemon - Right on!
A lot of the development will bring jobs and other revenue to Colo. But seeing that much of the oil/gas and other energy resource are going to be shipped out of state - We should tax it even more heavily than being proposed. Alaska does it to the extent that they not only do not have State income tax or State sales tax - Residents in Alaska get a dividend check each year - I don't think we need to go that far but a significant tax on energy production DOES work and with out hampering it either.
I say we take a pound flesh back from the Big Oil companies who screw us every time we fill up!
If you have any doubt about that, just look at their soaring RECORD profits!
Posted by Diff on March 21, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
landman70 says - "FOR EVERY DOLLAR I SPEND IN COLORADO ON DEVELOPING HYDROCARBONS I ONLY SEE .50 CENTS OF PROFITS"
50% profit?
That seems darn good to me!
I'll take some of that and the state can even take another 5 or 10% form mine!
See just how greedy the oil business is ....
Posted by glowrock on March 21, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No way that a small increase in the severance tax is going to drive oil and gas production out of Colorado. If the oil and gas is located IN Colorado, it will be produced IN Colorado. Natural resources aren't like basic manufacturing or service industries which can be located anywhere. You can only produce where the product is geographically located, therefore the tax won't affect production in the least bit.
Besides, why should Colorado tax production at a far less percentage as Wyoming, New Mexico, and other adjacent states?
Posted by greenleaf on March 21, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is addressed to all of you who oppose taxing the fat cats in the oil industry: So, Colorado taxpayers, alone of the states impacted by the physical manifestations of the oil boom, must provide free infrastructure support to the oil industry ? So... the companies are allowed to take their profits back to their head-quarter's states leaving Colorado with the out of OUR pocket expenses?
You say that the oil prices will be passed to the consumer? That's averaged over ALL of the nation's consumers! Colorado is one of a handful of states carrying the load in energy production for the majority of states that produce little if any oil themselves. Yet you say we have to maintain our highways and bridges and watch our wild lands be turned into polluted industrial zones while the oil companies and these other states get a free ride ? The Colorado taxpayer deserves something for the massive impacts we are experiencing in this state!
I, too, might want the money to go to something that seems more logical such as road and bridge repair or giving money back to taxpayers who insulate their houses or who buy high gas mileage cars. We should get some consideration for this raid on our resources that is boom today but that will just as surely be bust tomorrow when the oil runs out. Then we will be left with the clean up and aftermath as always when the oilmen leave town. Better get some revenue while we can boys, it won't be here forever. I guarantee it!
Posted by Diff on March 21, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One more and then I'll be gone - -
I don't think the revenue should all go to higher education. What about the the rest of the state? Maybe 50% or so for education with a percent of that to help kids to pay for college that otherwise could not afford it. and a percentage to our School districts to prepare kids to GET to College in the first place
Why should the elitest academic crowd get it all - ( to fund their fine and upstanding athletic students?)
The rest - half or more should be going to the general fund - as it stands now I would vote against it because of it all going to higher education.
Out - happy Friday all!
Posted by Darwin on March 21, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah yes, the proverbial solution to better education, throw more money at it. We spend more per student on education than most industrialized countries yet we are no where near the top on results. CU needs more money to pay suspended "professors" such as Ward Churchill $100,000+ while investigating his lies. As previously mentioned, use the money to give some relief to the beleaguered taxpayers. BTW, anyone notice that more and more corporations are moving their headquarters from the U.S. to other countries? The legislature sure likes the idea of "taxing us to prosperity". I'm sure the corporations would never pass this added expense on to the consumers. In effect, our taxes are being raised - again.
Posted by LatkaGravitz on March 21, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hold the Phone!
Didn't we just read (a couple of weeks ago in this same beacon of liberty) that the State Legislators kept raiding the severance tax funds for pet projects "at will"?
Shouldn't we fix the way the state handles the revenues from severance taxes before we throw more gasoline in that fire?
Posted by Fred on March 21, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TAX Tax tax.....
This same story is told day in and day out.
The same old same old is discussed on here. Some support taxation and some don’t.
It seems to matter very little who and what is being taxed nor the overall impact of the suggested taxes.
So let me just state for the record, I’m opposed to taking money out of the pocket of one person for redistribution to another. I’m particularly bothered by it when the recipient feels entitled to MY money.
What happened to the enormous amount of money stolen from us for Ref c?
What happened to the money stolen from us when the property taxes were frozen and our values decreased?
I keep hearing “it’s for the kids” or “it’s for higher education” yet all I see coming out of Boulder is embarrassing stories and ignorant, meaningless ordinances and feel good measures. Besides that….new taxation after new taxation has ALREADY been passed to save the roads and education.
Tax revenues from the oil industry are already through the roof.
When does it stop?
It might do you TAX proponents good to watch John Adams.
Revolutions have occurred for less taxation. All state, federal and local taxes combine to erode over 50% of my income. Get it? HALF OVER WHAT I EARN IS ALREADY REDISTRIBUTED TO OTHERS.
I can’t wait until I’m self sufficient enough to get on the gravy train. Once my nest egg is large enough to survive comfortably I’m going to quit contributing. I’m TIRED of supporting the lazy.
I don’t mind taking care of the incapable. I feel a duty to do so. I don’t mind taking care of the elderly and retired. They’ve EARNED it.
I am however tired of carrying the lazy and unproductive.
Posted by Earl on March 21, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
PLEASE TAX OIL AND GAS FAT CATS AS MUCH AS YOU WANT AND EVEN TO THE RATE OF 30%.
when you do this remember the gas and oil companies are going to raise there rates as a cost of doing business.
and once again for the liberal mindless backward96....when the oil companies get 8 cents profit per gallon of gas sold the taxes on that same gallon of gas = 40 cents all for your government social programs. now who is making the big profits off oil?
see adding tax to a product jst raises your cost and it will never stop the profits from being made. also they make a profit because so many people are buying their product. when was the time the government ever made a profit? never they are not producers just consumers or better yet users of our money.
Posted by rickg19611 on March 21, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Diff.... you need to read a little closer....
The comment was that for every dollar he spends, he only sees .50 cents. Notice that .50 is not 50 cents. It's 1/2 of 1 cent. A pretty pathetic return... and downright sleazy for a politician to want to take part of that too.
That could explain why you are acting like a typical Democrat. Giddy with glee at your heroes in government stealing more money and then splitting the loot with their special interest group supporters, who in turn will help see that their co-conspirators stay in power for future paybacks too. Just like the mafia.
Posted by rickg19611 on March 21, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
masondav2004 - you need to read too.
1/2 of 1 cent is not equal to 50 cents as you claimed.
Posted by Bob299 on March 21, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the Republican party hadn't driven Colorado into the ground, then we wouldn't be scrambling for funding.
How many years did the Republican party have to fix the funding mess? How many years did they control the state legislature? How many years was Owens in office?
Welcome to the Republican legacy.
Now, Earl, landman70, and Sasquatch, are whining and complaining about the current legislature trying to pay for the Republican legacy. Obviously, they don't believe in offering a decent education at a public university or providing bridges and roadways that aren't falling down. My guess is that they'd like to privatize the public universities.
I think the bill at a private university is running around $40,000 a year for room, board, and tuition. Now if that isn't a tax on the public, I don't know what is. How many of you have $160,000 just lying around to pay for your kid's college education?
Posted by MarineGrunt on March 21, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah Bob! Got that dig in!!!! Cause oil companies WERE NOT making massive profits before GWB got into office! I see it now...
Continue to run your cum cooler as if you know EVERYTHING! Idiot...
Posted by bookwerm on March 21, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just ANOTHER example of how big business has gotten things STACKED IN THEIR FAVOR!!! And they are upset because the Oil and Gas commission is NO LONGER made up entirely of people they own! Well I guess If I had "Bought" a commission I would be very upset it was taken away also! We should be charging what is the going rate, normalize our taxing structure to be consistent with other states, and any arguments to the contrary are unsupportable.. ARguments made that raising taxes will ALSO raise what we pay are BOGUS!!! That WOULD be true if we were paying for energy based on COSTS!.. but we are NOT! We are paying COMMODITY pricing.. NOT production pricing.. folks who think higher taxes on COMMODITIES do not understand economics.. the pricing is set by the market.. MUCH higher than production in the case of energy! What IS going to get reduced is the PROFIT these drillers and companies MAKE! Since they are making record profits.. sure seems to me they OWE US for the PUBLICLY OWNED goods they take out of Public Land! And for the goods they get out of private land.. they are getting a FREE ride right now, between the property tax breaks AND the low severance tax.. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Posted by bookwerm on March 21, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
After reading the other posts more clearly, I want to highlight UNSUPPORTABLE comments made by many ANTI tax people.
Arguments made that raising taxes will ALSO raise what we pay are BOGUS!!!
That WOULD be true if we were paying for energy based on COSTS!.. but we are NOT! We are paying COMMODITY pricing.. NOT production pricing.. folks who think higher taxes on COMMODITIES do not understand economics.. the pricing is set by the market..
MUCH higher than production in the case of energy! When I reread the forum and see 50% profits claimed, I KNOW something is stinky! That is NOT justifiable.. why should that person get rich while we get poor?
What IS going to get reduced with higher tax is the PROFIT these drillers and companies MAKE! Since they are making record profits.. sure seems to me they OWE US for the PUBLICLY OWNED goods they take out of Public Land! And for the goods they get out of private land and that LEAVES THE STATE... they are getting a FREE ride right now, between the property tax breaks AND the low severance tax.. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
Posted by Diff on March 21, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rickg19611
Not so gone - yet
I see how you one could take it that way - but at .5% return NO one would do it!
50% does seem high tho actually - (thus my comment ... )
But at that rate you could do better by putting you money into CD's at at typical bank rates of 3%. No?
Guess it depends a lot on how quickly that profit return happens -
But at 1/2 of percent who would bother?
you know what they say
-figures don't lie, but leirs sure can figure!
I would guess this in in how you look at it, and if Alaska has a tax on oil and the pipe line high enough to eliminate most state taxes - and oil companies are going after that oil - and spending a lot doing it - I dont think Colorado getting some back from Oil companies is going to stop them here either!
Posted by Diff on March 21, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Now I am gone!
- afternoon off on this beautiful Colorado Spring day - you all have fun and take care!
Posted by OlderWiser1 on March 21, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am sick and tired of America's babyfied anti-tax whiners. Waah, I gotta pay a tax, waah, I want my binky. If we could build and maintain highways on the hot air of tax haters and other such blowhards we wouldn't need a gasoline tax. Until then, if you don't want to pay XX-cents per gallon for gasoline tax then don't drive a car. Those people who want a “free lunch” at the expense of everyone else need to grow up and get real. Good grief.
I thought the SevTax existed to help pay to clean up the mess left behind in Colorado by oil/gas operations which are for the most part conducted by OUT OF STATE corporations. The mess in the old mine at Leadville that's been in the news lately, or the mountain of toxic gold mine tailings in COL SPGS are examples of resource extraction leftovers that can, will, and still haunt this state - for generations.
As for Coloradans paying the increased SevTax when oil/gas firms sell the products, that implies that resources extracted will be sold solely in Colorado. Poor logic. Most of that stuff goes to other states. Major new gas pipelines are being built as we speak to move gas OUT of state. Out of state customers will pay any increased prices. With the money CO collects from the SevTax we can clean up the mess after the robber barons leave.
If some of that money goes into education, fine. If we really want to help education, and police, and other critical services at all levels of Colorado, we need to dump the TABOR crap and get on with running this state like a real state and not a joke - and that goes double for the sick joke who was the author of TABOR. Yuck.
Energy producing states in this region should band together and set up a single body to set the SevTax level at the same rate in all nearby states. This establishes a level playing field for all firms and keeps the extraction industry from playing one state against another. The multi-state body could be named the Organization of Resource Extraction States (ORES).
People around the nation who use our oil, gas and coal should pay a share of the eventual clean up. If our state government does not do this, they are sticking current and future generations of Coloradans with the bill, and major degradation of our incredible, irreplaceable environment.
Posted by mtnrunner2 on March 21, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That's just what we need: more taxes on the energy industry when energy costs are rising. ??
I realize Ouray, CO was the inspriation for Galt's Gulch in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, but do we really need to re-enact the novel at a state level by deliberately targeting producers who keep industry and the economy running? It's shameful.
Posted by OlderWiser1 on March 21, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, it sure is. What is shameful here is for out of state interests to extract Colorado's resources, ruin Colorado's environment, walk away when they're done and stick us with the clean up bill.
Posted by Fred on March 21, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oldwiser1,
I, being one of the accused anti-tax whiners happen to understand that some taxes are needed for infrastructure, defense and education among other things.
My problem is with the fact that the percentage of overall taxes KEEP rising.
Taxes built the roads, schools and military.
Those things that are public funded should be forced to budget within the already over burdensome tax level.
Get it?
If 5% (fictional number) paid for the roads to be built and maintained then it should stay at 5% and the greedy politicians should be forced to keep their grubby little hands off that money.
Tax revenues increase year after year and adjust for inflation because it’s based on PERCENTAGE.
Politicians will find a way to spend the money no matter what percentage we’re paying.
Some understand how to budget…some don’t.
Those that don’t understand how to budget want to get into MY pocket. You included.
Stop with all the new social programs and get back to funding the infrastructure.
Posted by greenleaf on March 21, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mtnrunner,
You condemn taxing the oil companies but why should we pay for increased wear and tear on our infrastructure and the industrialization of our wildlands when non-producing states get the benefits of the energy produced here without the negative impacts? I agree tax costs will be passed on, but as an average to all the states; we won't pay more just because we are taxing the oil companies. I think that is fair.
The only way to make it more fair would be to place a higher tax on foreign oil, and I would be behind that as well!
Posted by mtnrunner2 on March 21, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
>I am sick and tired of America's babyfied anti-tax whiners. Waah, I gotta pay a tax, waah, I want my binky. If we could build and maintain highways on the hot air of tax haters and other such blowhards we wouldn't need a gasoline tax
Well, I'm sick and tired of being expected to make myself into a sacrificial lamb for the sake of untold numbers of public projects. And I'm sick and tired of the most productive members of society being harnessed to provide for others against their will.
Those who are against taxes are often those who are *most* in favor of paying for what you get, precisely because we don't like paying for things we *don't* get. Paying for projects out of the tax kitty is like someone robbing my home, then buying me some groceries with 1/10th of my money and expecting me to say "thank you".
Public projects will always be prone to this abuse. The answer is to not have them in the first place, and let things be accomplished by fully private means. If something cannot be accomplished by the entirely un-coerced actions of private citizens, then it *should not be accomplished*. The notion of making up for budget shortfalls after the fact, by means of taxation, is abusive of individual rights and justice in any legitimate sense of the word.
And if the oil or gas industries have harmed someone, sue them and prove it in a court of law.
Posted by me2 on March 21, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Taxes are just like a families living expenses. But every now and then, a look at the budget, and some trimming is necessary. However, the natural resources are here and the jobs can`t be outsourced.
Colorado is hydrocarbon rich, let`s see if we can`t all benefit from them.
Posted by mtnrunner2 on March 21, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
greenleaf said:
>You condemn taxing the oil companies but why should we pay for increased wear and tear on our infrastructure and the industrialization of our wildlands when non-producing states get the benefits of the energy produced here without the negative impacts?
Paying for these things should be like paying for anything else: whoever owns it decides how much you pay to use it. I advocate full privatization of infrastructure.
And if all property were privately owned, you would have the opportunity to bid on any available wetlands to preserve them like anyone else, a la Nature Conservancy.
Anything that cannot be accomplished by the voluntary agreement of all involved should not be done.
(General principles as per Ayn Rand, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal")
Posted by OlderWiser1 on March 21, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fred, I got it, I always have. You should get that the article is about the SevTax, not about those people who you consider to be lazy bums or Ref C money or some cherry-picked example of silliness in the Republic of Boulder, all of which you injected in your standard-issue Republi-con rant about taxes in general. Those arguments are red herrings and non-starters regarding the SevTax.
On topic, the CO SevTax needs to go up and nearby states need to be on par with one another.
As far as your rant on taxes in general, yes, I agree taxation is an issue that needs to be addressed, nationwide. I'm not happy that we have redundant personnel, processes, and systems at all levels of government setting and collecting taxes. The duplication of effort is massive, considering tons of agencies in the Federal Government, all 50 states, hundreds of city tax agencies and 3100+ counties - all with staffs to set property, sales, use, license, vehicle, gas, and other tax rates and collections. It's a mess that needs a massively simplified method to assess, collect and allocate. Otherwise, democracy as we know it in the USA will remain a very expensive proposition. Just as one-quarter to one-third of health care dollars are needlessly wasted by middlemen and dubious processes in the insurance industry who provide NO medical care to anyone, it is my opinion that taxation processes are equally wasteful due to supporting all the taxation staffs, processes and systems around the nation. We can lower the total tax burden by an easy 25% if we get rid of massive duplication.
Posted by Fred on March 21, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First off, I’m not a republican.
Second, I could careless that you want to narrow the discussion to the sevtax.
Particularly when you are the one calling out TAX whiners and go on to discuss several taxes outside of the SevTax. Try and be consistent.
The fact remains if they raise that tax it will be passed down to you and me. We’ll be taxed indirectly and the benefit of that tax will be wasted.
I’m sick and tired of my tax burden being increased over and over and rarely, if ever, reduced.
I’m sick and tired of having to turn down higher paying jobs because of the tax implications.
I have turned down two offers already this year because the combination of being bumped into a higher tax bracket and the added stress of the new job just don’t make it worth it.
The current tax situation has discouraged me from earning more. There are many more “tax whiners” like me. Isn’t that frightening?
Posted by OlderWiser1 on March 21, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, there you go again.... I didn't say you were a Republi-con, but you sure trotted out all of their lame thinking.
The article is about the SevTax, and it was you who went way off topic with a rant about taxes in general.
It was you with the hateful unfounded stereotypes of "lazy bums" (is that defined as anyone who gets a buck that you're not?) and totally unsubstantiated nonsense that Ref C money was "wasted" and ludicrously poisoned remarks that property tax and Ref C money was "stolen" from the people. Gimme a break.
Have a nice day Fred. If the SevTax is on the ballot this fall, I'll cast my vote to raise it. Seeya at the polls.
Posted by Spider on March 21, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's it! Tax the oil companies more so that we can pay for it at the pumps.
Posted by Earl on March 21, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
olderunwiser1 said
Those people who want a “free lunch” at the expense of everyone else need to grow up and get real. Good grief.
glad to see you are in favor of cutting taxes for social programs too. you must be a very strong conservative to make such statements as this. its nice to see someone who is willing to pay their own way in the world and not expect nor want the government in their back pocket all the time to support the 'free lunch' crowd.
oh wait I dont think you meant it that way did you. you love to pay taxes to get a free lunch and everything.
Posted by theQ on March 21, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just what you should expect out your elected officials, piss off one group to pander to another.
Posted by Bob299 on March 21, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MarineGrunt,
I'll say this slowly. There is a difference between the state and federal government.
We won't know all of the damage causes by GWB for years to come.
The amazing thing about GWB is that he has the average joe believing that he, the average joe, is actually benefiting from all of GWB's tax cuts. Has anyone seen a change in their federal income tax bill over the last eight years? I surely haven't.
All of our federal tax money is going oversees to finance two wars and the "rebuilding" of Afghanistan and Iraq. The best part is that Iraq is so flush with oil money that they don't know what to do with it. However, they don't want to spend it on the "rebuilding" because they are all corrupt. Now I get to watch my tax dollars go oversees to line some corrupt Iraqis pocket, while the bridges on I-25 are falling down.
Posted by huffdiver on March 21, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But, but, but........IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!
Posted by rushrulesbaby on March 21, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay kiddies, wanna go to college? Fund your own education. I don't owe you one dime toward you schooling. I will not benefit from your schooling. You will be the beneficiary of your schooling not me nor any of the taxpayers in colorado.
Posted by windbourne on March 21, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, rushrulesbaby, that is false. In fact, it is not just false, it is ignorant.
Has California and Mass. benefited from having schools like Stanford and MIT, and Harvard around? You bet. Numerous business have been started from these. In the past the jobs remained local (silicon valley, anyone?). Sadly, because more of the students are from out of the nation, they tend to take the tech back to their countries. In fact, when I was in school, my competition was not Americans, but were Indians and Chinese. And to be honest, I was impressed with them. They worked as hard as I did. I did not see them cheating. OTH, I saw several Americans cheating. Big time.
What is needed is to rebuild our schools and make them competitive by pushing to have all the jobs remain here. In particular, for any of the companies that spring from the universities, then all the work should remain here. These are companies that can contribute to our tax base. But of course, you would rather not see businesses be built here in our state. Yes?
Oh, BTW, during the 90's, Colorado built up big in the tech field. Why? Because we had a very good standard of living and great infrastructure for our size. Now, we rating down towards the bottom. Did you notice all the new companies that have move here over the last 3 years? Yeah. Zero. Worse, we are losing companies like Adam Air.
We need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps.
Posted by Quidam on March 21, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I say, TAX THE UNIVERSITIES!
Why not tax those overly endowed Universities to subsidize the purchase of gasoline fill-ups for wealthy SUV owners?
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.