Poll: Voters apt to zap tax break
51% back '58' to get more for mining oil, gas
By Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published October 3, 2008 at 9:19 p.m.
Colorado voters are favoring elimination of a tax break for in-state oil and gas producers, according to a new poll a month away from Election Day.
The poll by Ciruli Associates showed 51 percent of surveyed voters saying they will vote for Amendment 58, and 25 percent against it. Nineteen percent were undecided and the remainder said they intended not to vote on the measure.
It is one of four amendments on the Nov. 4 ballot polling above 50 percent in Ciruli's poll. One of them, however, was pulled off the ballot by its sponsors this week.
Ciruli conducted the poll Sept. 19-23 as part of the third annual citizens survey by the Economic Development Council of Colorado. Thirteen of the 18 statewide ballot issues the group considered to be related to economic development issues were included in the poll.
Also polling above 50 percent were:
* Amendment 52, which earmarks part of the growth in the existing severance tax to highway projects, with 64 percent in favor and 12 percent opposed.
* Amendment 53, which would have made business executives criminally liable for failure to perform duties as required by law. Labor backers of the measure pulled it and three other initiatives off the ballot this week in a deal with business leaders. Ciruli's poll had it ahead with 58 percent in favor and 18 percent opposed.
* Amendment 50, which allows for expanded casino gaming by adding hours, games and higher betting limits, with 55 percent in favor and 28 percent opposed.
Floyd Ciruli cautioned that being above 50 percent with many undecided voters remaining isn't a lock.
"A quarter of the voters aren't on board yet and there's still a month to go," Ciruli said.
One of the most contested initiatives on this year's jammed ballot, Amendment 58 would eliminate a tax credit that oil and gas producers get against their state severance taxes to offset what they pay in property taxes to local governments.
Severance taxes are paid on minerals removed, or "severed," from the ground.
The state estimates that eliminating that tax credit would result in up to $321 million more revenue per year, to be used for college scholarships, wildlife habitat, renewable energy, transportation and water treatment projects.
The energy industry is pumping big bucks - $10 million so far - into the campaign to defeat Amendment 58. Backers, supported by Gov. Bill Ritter, have raised about $3 million.
A Smarter Colorado, the group backing the amendment, greeted the poll as evidence voters can cut through the conflicting messages of the campaigns.
"From the beginning, people understood that it doesn't make sense to give a huge subsidy to the oil and gas industry," said spokesman George Merritt. "You and I don't get to credit our property taxes against our income taxes, so it's heartening to see that voters get that and understand it doesn't make any sense to let oil companies do that."
But Dan Hopkins, spokesman for the campaign against 58, Coloradans for a Stable Economy, said his internal polling has consistently tracked a 10- to 15-point lead for the opposition.
"We've been doing tracking polls for the past several months," Hopkins said. "Ciruli's numbers are swimming upstream compared to other polling, including our own. We have consistently shown this losing by 10 to 15 points and we believe that's what's going to happen."
Ciruli didn't poll on amendments that do away with race- and gender-based affirmative action, define a person as existing from the moment of fertilization, and raise the state sales tax to fund programs for developmentally disabled people.
The biggest losing margin in his poll was Referendum L, which would lower the minimum age for people to serve in the state legislature from 25 to 21. Fifty-five percent of voters in the poll opposed that, with 27 percent in favor.
The poll questioned 501 likely voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 points.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
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.
Featured
-
Denver turns 150
Read about the city's history, look at old photos and see a list of influential Denverites.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's pregame rant on the Raiders.
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
October 3, 2008
11:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
honey writes:
I'm just voting NO on all the amendments because they all seem to favor fat cats.
October 3, 2008
11:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sundog writes:
Oh, sweet! Now we can pay even more for fuel. Who in the h-ll do they think pays those taxes? The oil companies? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
October 3, 2008
11:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Raemid writes:
I'm just voting YES on all the amendments because voting no seems to favor fat cats.
October 3, 2008
11:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
Amendment 58 would eliminate a tax credit that oil and gas producers get against their state severance taxes to offset what they pay in property taxes to local governments.
It might not be too bad....if....the money went to local governments.
Instead...it would go to the State of Colorado.
Then Ritter and the bunch have their own plans for the millions.
It will not go to local governments....
It will be passed on to all Coloradans and we will pay for it!
Vote NO unless you want higher engery costs.
Nuff Said!
October 3, 2008
11:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
Paying taxes is unamerican ~ Secessionist Sarah Phalin
and do not for get the "pass through" the republicans fear.
October 4, 2008
1:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
suburbdweller writes:
I don't buy the argument that eliminating a tax break to energy companies will increase the cost of energy. Sounds like a scare tactic of the opposition.
Like pretty much everything, supply and demand determine the cost of energy: http://www.netmba.com/econ/micro/supp...
October 4, 2008
2:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
If you don't think it will trickle down, look back a few weeks ago and look at the bids on drilling, it brought in much less than the state thought it would. They will band together and low bid these permits. Already affecting the income. get smart, vote it down.
October 4, 2008
5:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
windbourne writes:
suburbdweller/roger44;
sigh. I always have to laugh when ppl say that taxes will not be passed on. OF COURSE, it will be passed on. Has to come from somewhere. But building our roads, dealing with the local impacts from drillers, the water issues, etc. WILL ALSO be passed on; TO US. IOW, this will either be paid one way or another.
58 is VERY likely to pass. I have been against it for some time due to the majority of the money going to tuition help, while the university infrastructure is HURTING. After thinking about it for some time, I think that the right thing IS to pass it, but start another amendment for the next cycle that modifies and pushes ALL THE MONEY INTO INFRASTRUCTURE. It needs to go to water, higher education, and roads. Ideally some money should be used to build small businesses. Ritter is not as bad as owens was (the man was WORTHLESS), but he is being a regular dem. Like Owens, he is ignoring infrastructure. Water NEEDS to jump to #1 on priority. Higher Education also needs to jump up.
October 4, 2008
6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
tiero writes:
Voting yes will cost you. I retired from the energy business and all your energy will cost you more. It will effect everything you buy also as businesses pay for energy.
They are right when they say the biggest tax hike ever.
The schools want tax increases, #51 wants tax increases and fast tracks want tax increases. If you want some spending money, you should consider some NO'S or continue to whine and try figure out how you can make ends meet. Your credit card isn't going to bail you out
October 4, 2008
8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Big oil and gas companies pocket more of your money when they raise the prices. Taxing that profit does not cause the price to go up as they are still bilking you out of billions of dollars and laughing all the way to the bank.
If Amendment 58 fails, YOUR TAXES will GO UP to pay for the extra profits kept by big oil. Big oil is profiting by selling a resource that belongs to everyone. It's time they paid us our share by paying their share of our taxes.
Be smart, vote for Amendment 58.
October 4, 2008
8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
HolierThanThou - companies are not impersonal borgs that seeks to drain humans dry. These companies are publicly owned so revenues after taxes and expenses go to the shareholders, of which many people are through retirement plans. They cannot stay in business working at a loss. Expense gets passsed on or they go out of business.
Percentage wise, comparing revenue and profits to capital investment, the profits of the oil companies are in line with other major corporations. They are not bilking the public. They cannot keep "extra profits" as you claim. There is no record to which you can point to support that populist view.
October 4, 2008
9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
linderkb writes:
My understanding of how the "credit" came into being is that when it was first enacted, there were three counties experiencing most of the activity and impacts: Weld, Moffat and Rio Blanco. In order for areas to get the severance tax dollars on-the-ground, I believe they have to apply to the State; and that can take a good amount of time. In order to get the dollars to the affected communities more quickly, the idea of a credit came up. Although it's called a "property tax," it's still part of the severance tax. That way, the money goes directly to the county and not through the State process. So, I'm assuming that if Amendment 58 is passed, the amount of property taxes for what is actually severance tax that is now paid to counties will be reduced. Of course, the companies will still pay property tax on the land they actually own; but many of their leases are on federal lands and land owned by others.
October 4, 2008
9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
socrates writes:
Amendment 58 should pass - but Amendment 52 needs to fail. If 52 and 58 pass, then the tax break for oil and gas goes away, but the money won't go to what 58 says, it will go to transportation.
Everybody loses if 52 passes.
October 4, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
One thing we agree on, Mikey, is that oil barons are not "impersonal borgs". They're more like drug pushers enticing us to buy their product and then jamming a financial reamer up our collective kazoo after we get hooked.
Are they really so caring about their shareholders?
I recall a company called Enron. Both shareholders and employees lost everything on account of robbers like Ken Lay, who was on Bush's short list to become Secretary of the Treasury. Kenny Boy, as Bush liked to call him, died before he served his sentence in the penitentiary. At least that's what they said in the news. I recall his wife tearfully complaining about having to sell some of their many lovely homes in Aspen.
Impersonal? How about their shareholders and employees who lost their ONLY home and retirement savings having to go live with relatives?
The sympathy fiddle isn't going to work anymore. Poor lil' rich folks! They need to pay their taxes and help the American public to succeed or go to the penitentiary.
If oil companies were "impersonal borgs" that would be a improvement in their moral character. The borgs only want to convert everyone else into another borg. The oil royals want to make murderers out of your kids to line their own pockets. Then after the flag-waving party is over for all the heroes, they dump them out on the street like garbage and call them bums.
The oil companies have had a free ride on Colorado's dime for way too long. It's time they paid more of their fair share for extracting our wealth.
If you don't make them pay their fair share of taxes then YOU WILL BE PAYING MORE IN TAXES to cover for them.
Vote Yes on Amendment 58.
October 4, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sundog writes:
I hope you will vote yes on #50. A lot of revenue for our Community Colleges will be coming from out of state people who visit to gamble here. Those are taxes we won't have to pay. And for those who want to protect us from ourselves, no thanks, enough Nanny State supervision for us, so we'll pass. Yes on 50!
October 4, 2008
1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Well of course the cost of doing business is made part of the price.
We should be taxing imported oil, not domestic oil. Push up our production costs and we continue our drug-like dependency on foreign oil, "extracting our wealth."
October 4, 2008
3:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
Like pretty much everything, supply and demand determine the cost of energy:
The cost to supply the energy...such as $320 million more in taxes will also determine the cost of energy.
So, alll of you supporters....tell us....just who will pay the increase??
If not the consurmer....who??
Waiting for your answer!
October 5, 2008
4:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
tiero writes:
Some people in this blog need some education, HTT or get a reality check. A yes vote will cost you, absolute fact.
October 6, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
I would favor eliminating the tax credit on gas and oil companies IF I had a glimmer of hope that the money no longer being paid to the oil comapnies would be used in an effort to lower MY tax liability.
How much you want to bet that the Politicos will keep taking the same amount (or more) that they have always taken and will just use the oil/gas money on increased Gov't spending?