Gray, Armendariz Speak Out Against Oil-Tax Legislation

» RichardSaunders on 03.19.10 @ 07:32 AM

Gray and Armindariz forget that only 10% of the State of California’s income comes from taxes paid by corporations.

They forgot to mention all the tax loopholes corporations use to avoid paying taxes.  For example, Prop 13 assures that corporations pay virtually nothing in property taxes.

They forgot to mention that lower taxes for corporations means higher taxes for individuals to pay for police and fire protections, prisons, courts, etc.

And what do they think will happen if oil production is taxed? It’s not like the oil industry can ship its jobs to Mexico or China.  The oil is in California and it will be extracted one way or another!

So yes, let’s have an oil extraction tax!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» jmacmillanea on 03.19.10 @ 08:48 AM

Of COURSE The Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association would oppose a severence tax.  In the past at least, the vast majority of their funding has come from “Corporate” members; all of those being oil companies.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» publius on 03.19.10 @ 01:01 PM

Embarrassing, but not surprising, to see Armendariz and Gray speaking against
an oil/gas severance fee.

Joe’s day job gets much of his underwriting from energy industry members.

Joni’s partisanship trumps her ostensible Republican “fiscal conservatism”.

Consider that California is one of only two major American oil-producing states
which does NOT already have a well-head fee.

Such pinko-commie punk-socialist states as Texas, Louisiana, Alaska all have it.

Despite the scare talk about “job killing” this and that, the energy industry in all
those states seems to be thriving.

Anyone notice that Exxon, Chevron and their friends all posted record profits
for most of this decade, until the Bush-Greenspan recession depressed product
use?

So why are all those other states reaping millions in urgently needed revenue
without “killing” oil industry jobs, but California - whose budget is in dire straits
- cannot join them without “destroying the industry”?

Why didn’t Noozhawk’s reporter ask them?

Think what you want about the preening, ambitious Nava. Support Stoker to
replace him if you choose.

But don’t throw out a common-sense solution to help close the State budget
gap, based on a tool most other states have used for years, just because Nava
is co-sponsoring it.

This isn’t a question of a fee that will ruin a local industry. It’s about bending
over for local branches of world-wide corporations, who pay this fee everywhere
else, but are too darned cheap to do the same here in California.

That’s nuts.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.