I'm not sure what you are advocating. Are you wanting to tax all natural resource companies extra so the money can be given to teachers? What moral principle is involved? Should we also demand school teachers be taxed extra and give it to shoe salesmen? If not, why not? What's the moral principle from which you make your claim?
Regarding Teacher Pay
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
I completely agree. Eliminating tax rebates and credits alone from oil and gas and wind results in hundreds of millions of dollars in additional tax revenue.
Yeah, that’s gonna solve our budget deficits, pay for schools, pay for roads and bridges, pay for healthcare, pay for veterans’ care, etc.
You are ignoring the import of the question. Do you know what a mortal principle is? What's the moral principle? No one is arguing about how much O&G is being taxed (except you, of course). Try to use your logic instead of your emotions. Identify the moral principle that allows one entity to use the police power of the state to tax another entity solely for the benefit of the first entity. Can you tell me what it is?
Ahh, collectivism, the thing we never had before Rousseau
You are confusing morality with legitimacy. If enough people vote to force an industry to pay extra taxes, then that taxation is a legitimate function of the state, the morality of which is up to debate.
I'll quote it back to you "Don't think of it as teachers extracting money via police force, instead think of it as companies paying a "rent" for the privilege of operating in the society built and fostered by the state of Oklahoma."
Are you for men and women in masks splitting open people's chests like a watermelon and severing their arteries? See even life saving open heart surgery sounds bad when you use the least charitable language possible to describe it.
Because you can't and that's why you dodge this conversation anytime I bring it up.
Ask your local farmer.
How does the land become yours in a state of nature with out the violation of the NAP?
I already did. The social contract.
You are arguing that two wrongs make a right. If what you are saying about the nefarious tactics of O&G - in collusion with the state (they could not do those things without having the police power of the state force their will on unwilling property owners) - is true (I have no doubt it is true), then the O&G industry is clearly in the wrong. And those practices should be brought to a halt. However, that is a different topic from the question at hand. Tell me your moral principle which allows teachers to use the police power of the state to force O&G - or anybody else, for that matter - be the only industry that is taxed for their benefit, and their benefit only. I'm asking for the principle. All the negative comments about O&G, which are probably deserved, are immaterial to the question. Eliminate your emotional dislike of O&G! Concentrate on answering the question, if you can.
What is the source of the moral principles inherent and necessary in a functioning anarchistic society?
If wind energy companies were actually paying the ad valorem taxes...
http://m.newsok.com/article/5582680/tax-commission-letter-refutes-claims-of-wind-industry
Wind pays ad valorem. O&G pays GPT.
We pay 7% on our production, and have for years. I’m cool with it. Hell tax it at 10%, give the teachers a $15,000 raise and see if test scores improve. I feel certain they won’t. What do we do then?
Wells are not immediately taxed at 7 percent...and aren’t for years (the obviously most critical period of production for said wells).
Claim taxing production at 15% and giving another $15,000 raise will make it happen.
I'm sorry that I don't know how to single out individual sentences or paragraphs before I respond. That makes answering you somewhat difficult.
I was unaware that I had dodged any question you have ever asked. If I failed to answer you in the past please accept my apology.
Now, what is it I have dodged: square property ownership with ownership of natural resources? Is that the request? Easily done: natural resources should be considered property. Ownership means you get to decide what is done with the property. If my deed says I own the land and all that lies below it, then that means I get to decide what is done with the land and all that lies below it. Have I answered your question? If not, please rephrase your question, because that is what I understand that what you are asking.
No, I am not confusing morality with legitimacy. You seem to be misunderstanding the question. I fully recognize the teachers may get the state to extort money from O&G to fill their coffers, and under the condition that the state says so, that makes it legitimate. My question has always been what is the moral principle behind such an action. Is there a moral principle? Is "because the state said so" a moral principle? I'm not asking about legitimacy in the context you seek. I'm specifically asking what is the moral principle.
Oh, sorry, I missed the Rousseau remark. Yes, collectivism has been the guiding principle of humanity for millennia. Until individualism gained any prominence humanity lived in squalor. It was the principled advocacy of individualism that brought us out of that squalor. I, for one, have no desire to return to that lifestyle, a lifestyle that collectivism brings without exception.
I'm totally missing your point as regards heart surgery. If a guy tells me he can put on a mask, rip my chest open and fix my faltering heart, and if I'm willing to have him do it, where's the harm? Certainly the NAP hasn't been violated, has it? Are you just upset that I put your words into a negative light? Sorry, but that negative light is how I see it.
Ask my local farmer what? Are you saying the state can extract a local farmer's dirt off his farm if it so desires? If yes, are you OK with that? If you are against the state taking his dirt, how do you square that with taking O&G's money and giving it to teachers? What's the moral principle involve (the original question)?
gee, answering your last question would take a book length explanation. It involves mixing your labor or capital with the land in question. There are literally dozens of libertarian books that tackle that question. If you're really interested, and not just trying to throw out objections for objections' sake, I'll be happy to put together a list of books you might want to read.
Have I missed anything? I try to answer all questions or objections that are thrown my way.
Existing wells are already taxed at 7%. New wells spudded after July 1 2015 are taxed at 2% for 36 months and then taxed at 7% for the rest of production. This was done to encourage new drilling. 7% of zero dollars is zero. 2% of some dollars is not zero. The price of oil the past few years hasn't provided much in the way of in incentive for the costs of new drilling.
https://www.kansascityfed.org/publications/research/oke/articles/2017/1q-recovery-in-ok-oil-and-gas
I'm not sure why you are attempting to spin readily available info into something it isn't.
Dan, I don't dislike the oil and gas industry. I worked in it as a teenager, I represent production and service companies now and landowners, also. I have oil and gas files on my desk right now.
I've already told you the moral principle, you just don't agree with it. The moral principle is that they soak up the benefits of government, they should kick in some of the upkeep.
On a more particularized level, I'm not in favor of any tax that is for "their benefit only." I've never heard someone advocate a tax just to benefit only one group. The flaw in your reasoning is that teachers getting a raise isn't just for their benefit. It helps me, the oil industry, policemen, utility workers, shoe salesmen, and everyone else that is interested in having a productive, educated populace and an economy. I'm sorry that it's not free, I wish it were. Someone has to pay for it. Taxation sucks, I wish there was a better way to fund government services.
These principles of yours are only defending publicly traded companies -- for whatever reason your pro-property right instincts aren't triggered and you don't start threads about when little guys have their property rights trampled -- you're starting threads about huge, powerful companies' property rights. Why?
Wind credits were put in place to encourage new investment in wind farms in this state. Can’t distinguish the 2...doing so is engaging in spin.
I came upon this idea while driving to work this morning. The voice on the radio said a local representative had initiated a bill to tax the O&G industry and the money would be used to give the teachers a pay raise. That sounded particularly morally wrong, evil even. I could not think of a single moral principle that would allow for such a thing. I knew from other "teacher" threads that many on this board had been calling for just such a thing. I had hoped one of them would be able to alleviate the dilemma. For the most part the responses have been "if the state does it, that's OK with me." Responses of that variety. Even you argue that it is OK because the O&G industry has captured the legislature. Wouldn't it more moral to free the legislature (and therefore the people of our state) of the capture? I guess you are right, we disagree. You seem to be against the legislature being captured, but because it has been, the industry should pay an extra price. I would argue the O&G industry should not have such legislative power, nor should it be required to pay a tax that will be used by another industry. It really seems to me you are wanting two wrongs to equal a right, and it can't. It only makes thing worse. Accepting such a thing from the legislature gives it a precedence to do it again, this time making teachers pay for shoe salesmen's pay raises. Why not? It's the same principle, and by allowing the precedent to be established the people would have no moral standing to object. The legislature could do this over and over again, each time making one industry to pay for the benefit of another. Morally there is no way to stop them, we've ceded the morality of the tactic to them.
Thank you Dan, you are very polite. I am editing this down so that we can keep this to a reasonable length.
How does land and natural resources go from property of the public/commons as all land and natural resources started as, to private property without the use of force or violating the rights of others to that public/commons?
So Rousseau didn't invent collectivism? He was key figure in the the enlightenment which produced individualism. "that lifestyle, a lifestyle that collectivism brings without exception." is unsupported.
Thats the whole crux of the argument. I am pretty familiar with the libertarian literature, but if you think I am missing a compelling argument for private ownership of land and natural resources within a purely libertarian framework, do please enlighten me.
You are correct. And cutting GPT was to encourage new drilling. Your point is what?
My point is that since some of the tax credits given to wind have been eliminated, it’s also time for oil and gas to “step up” too. Agree/disagree?
Both should have no credits and both should pay at the same production rate.
Forgive me for taking so long to reply. I got home from work and the “old ball and chain” (whom I adore) handed me a honey-do list that took awhile. Anyway I’ll try and respond as well as I can.
I dispute your allegation that land started out as public/common property. I imagine a Cave Man declared a cave as his, and protected his claim as he deemed necessary. As humans became more social various bands may have taken control of sections of land, and claimed ownership. Perhaps that is where you get your notion that land began as public/common property. I would imagine that in those early times the bands were led by an alpha who told his minions what was theirs and what was his. That’s speculation, of course. Obviously no one knows.
As regards Rousseau, I hardly claim to be an expert. It has been at least 50 years since I read The Social Contract, and when you get to be my age memory sometimes get a little foggy. My recollection is he thought the third stage of human development would be reached when the state would benignly honor each citizen’s rights, but the citizen was required to obey the benign state.
That is the heart and soul of collectivism, subservience of the individual to the group. It is a utopian notion that disregards human nature, and essentially denies free will. As a member of the Borg (Star Trek reference) your only purpose is to perform as a pawn for the collective. You are not to exercise free will - some collectivist philosophers (Hegel, for instance) virtually denied the existence of free will - and claimed the only use for the individual was to act at the behest of the state, which was the only thing that truly existed. I wouldn’t say Rousseau is responsible for Hegel, that would be idiotic. But there is no doubt that many socialists find solace in Rousseau’s writings. The Social Contract sees a benign state. It misunderstands that the state exists as a coercive force that threatens violence if its dictates are defied.
I’ve rambled too long. Probably aren’t even making any sense. I appreciate your response to my question. It’s the only one that even attempted to show a moral principle. I’ll leave the last word to you.
Taken to its logical conclusion your question invalidates any and all taxation. The question is irrelevant as presented.
As to the morality of taxation - especially when posed as a moral question - take a look at most western religious and ethical traditions which advocate for general social welfare.
As a social construct, taxation is well accepted as means to advancing said society's economic interests. Only in fantasy land would you postulate a modern prosperous nation state without government investment in basic human needs, education, and the like.
I know I gave you the last word, and I still will! But I wanted to leave you with this link from Bleeding Heart Libertarians, a website of “leftist” libertarian thought. It somewhat buttresses your argument. It has given me pause. I will ponder his argument. I am far more interested in discovering universal truth than squashing every philosophical opponent. I thought you might find his argument interesting. I certainly do. (How in Earth did my original question transform into a discussion of Rousseau?)
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/07/rousseaus-challenge-to-libertarianism/
You are misunderstanding the question being asked. Of course I oppose all taxation, what anarchist wouldn’t? But a defense of taxation is not what I’m looking for. I want to know what moral principle allows one segment of a society to use the power of the government to take money from another segment of society and give the money to the first segment only. No one else. As I understood the voice on the radio the government will tax O&G - and ONLY O&G, no one else - and give the proceeds to the public school teachers - and ONLY to the public school teachers, no one else. Can you think of any moral principle that would apply? I can’t. The Social Contract has been offered as a defense, but I’m not seeing its relevance to the question.
My response stands. Once you concede to the moral/societal basis of taxation then who is taxed at what rate and how funds are used are simple political decisions. QED.
So shoe salesmen have a perfectly legitimate claim to insist school teachers be taxed as school teachers with the proceeds going to shoe salesmen? Only school teachers get taxed for this purpose, and only shoe salesmen receive the proceeds. That’s just a political decision. It’s OK if the state decides that what it wants to do? There is no moral turpitude involved? Is that your QED?
QED.
BTW: Shoe salesmen don't have sufficient political support to get such a thing done. That's kinda how our system works.
As Rush Limbaugh puts it I’m demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. The principle remains the same, whether it is school teachers using the state to shake down O&G, or any other industry engaging the same political tactic. I’m surprised at your response. Would you feel the same way if the Oregon legislature singled out Google employees to pay extra taxes so it could give the money to employees of a completely unrelated industry? After all you’ve QED’d it! Really it almost takes my breath away. You are saying the moral principle is the brute force at the government’s disposal. Obedience to the state is required. Do not question the morality of any state action. That’s the ultimate exercise of your response.
Last edited:
Yes, that is exactly what David is saying. And he doesn't care that it takes your breath away.
Just as tax credits given to O&G have been eliminated. Maybe wind should "step up" too. O&G agreed to a higher GPT of 4%. Wind? I'd let you answer but I doubt you'd get it right. They said NO! They balked at a $1 per megawatt production tax. Wind energy doesn't want to actually pay taxes. Not surprising really. The out of state profit mongers don't like to subsidize anything, including education in Oklahoma.
Teachers should get an exemption from the law that says you can’t trade sex for money. They should have a legal monopoly on consensual prostitution.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
Its all good, Dan. It is a message board. Reply at your leisure.
All of which violates the non-aggression principle. If I go into a cave and some other caveman bashes my head in with a club, who is the aggressor?
Now who is being utopian? The anarchist or the person defending one of the basic principles underlying the most successful democracies in the world?
I definitely see what @Ponca Dan is saying here. It isn’t so much the tax proposal on O&G, it is that teachers are demanding we take money from O&G and give it to them. Normally, it isn’t so transparent...
What is the moral principal of giving the oil and gas industry a 71.428% reduction in tax burden after decades, particularly when the leaders of the State's largest oil and gas industry (sans ONE named Continental) openly admit that a drilling CapEx decision would never be made based on the GPT. This is not a moral question as to why there should be a tax increase, it is a moral question of why they were given a huge windfall (at the expense of Education) in the first place.
And don't say the 2% is only for 36 months. That is (in present value terms) 75% of the taxable value based on the decline curves.
Please explain
