Regarding Teacher Pay

[poke2001]

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

While Dan has said he believes in taxes, his issue, I believe, is singling our one industry to increase their taxes to give the money directly to another group. And to make it worse, it is the receiving group demanding that money.

I believe we should increase the GPT, the methods are horrible right now though.

 

[OKSTATE1]

 

[BvillePoker]

I have not read through this whole thread so I might be repeating someone else. My thought here is that the O&G industry is taking natural resources from this state and the lands held in it, provides those resources to consumers OUTSIDE of the state, and does it for profit. Shoe stores (from OP example) ARE taxed for goods and services to pay for teacher salaries. So is every citizen, business, and service in this state. The difference here is that we gave an incentive to the O&G industry to start NEW wells using horizontal drilling techniques that are more expensive to spur growth in the industry and therefor generate more state revenue. But in comparison to what was predicted to happen and what most other industries, services, and citizens are paying the O&G is not paying at a commiserate rate. Any business that operates in the state should be responsible for taxes and fees to the state, we are just trying to roll back the incentives we gave them during boom times at this bust time. We are wanting to do the same thing with the wind industry, it's just a much tougher row to hoe to get them back from the wind supporters.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Thanks for your reply, but it does not address the original question. The O&G/Teacher scenario is just an example. I am looking for the overarching moral principle that says it is OK to tax one individual/company/industry, exempt every other individual/company/industry from the tax, and take the money and give it to another individual/company/industry, and give it only the him/them. On top of which, the receiving individual/company/industry demanded the money in the first place. It so happens that is what is being proposed by some people in Oklahoma as regards O&G and the teachers. But O&G/Teachers are nothing more than an example. Another example, which I used to illustrate the moral absurdity of the proposition would be shoe salesmen demanding teachers be taxed so shoe salesmen could get a pay raise. What moral principle is in play? If the shoe salesmen/teacher example is absurd, why isn't the O&G/teacher example?

 

[BvillePoker]

Thanks for your reply, but it does not address the original question. The O&G/Teacher scenario is just an example. I am looking for the overarching moral principle that says it is OK to tax one individual/company/industry, exempt every other individual/company/industry from the tax, and take the money and give it to another individual/company/industry, and give it only the him/them. On top of which, the receiving individual/company/industry demanded the money in the first place. It so happens that is what is being proposed by some people in Oklahoma as regards O&G and the teachers. But O&G/Teachers are nothing more than an example. Another example, which I used to illustrate the moral absurdity of the proposition would be shoe salesmen demanding teachers be taxed so shoe salesmen could get a pay raise. What moral principle is in play? If the shoe salesmen/teacher example is absurd, why isn't the O&G/teacher example?

Since I cannot use crayons to draw pictures for you here, I will try to say it very simply. We as citizens have given our government the right to levy taxes according to our state constitution. The government spends those tax dollars for the general welfare of the citizens of the state. That is a long held moral value that goes back thousands of years. You examples are ridiculous because the shoe salesman DOES tax teachers for his own gain and increase in income. They charge sales tax, they benefit in sales from tax incentives districts that cities/municipalities institute, teacher's have their salaries taxed in personal income taxes, etc.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

It’s also an extreme stretch to compare the environmental and economic impact of oil and gas industry and shoe sales in Oklahoma. Just a strange argument all around.

 

[AC_Exotic]

I think a lot of shoe salesmen would love to get taxed at only 2%.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Since I cannot use crayons to draw pictures for you here, I will try to say it very simply. We as citizens have given our government the right to levy taxes according to our state constitution. The government spends those tax dollars for the general welfare of the citizens of the state. That is a long held moral value that goes back thousands of years. You examples are ridiculous because the shoe salesman DOES tax teachers for his own gain and increase in income. They charge sales tax, they benefit in sales from tax incentives districts that cities/municipalities institute, teacher's have their salaries taxed in personal income taxes, etc.

I don't think I need a crayon drawing, but I appreciate your willingness to make one. I am not aware of any singular tax on Oklahoma's books that singles out teachers for a special tax to benefit shoe salesmen. That's the point of the question. Taxes are usually general, things like sales taxes are endured by all of us and spread out over a wide swath of government agencies. This tax, as described on the radio, was not such a plan. It was to tax one group only for the benefit of one other group only. That strikes me as unreasonable and unfair. There may be taxes like that on the books, but I don't know of them. And I can think of no moral justification for such a thing. I was hoping you or someone like you who is much smarter than me could direct me to the philosophical moral principle that justifies such a tax. And my assumption is if it's morally justified once it should be morally justified any time for any body, say taxing teachers for the benefit of shoe salesmen.

 

[BvillePoker]

You are trying to draw a line where there is not one. We want to give teachers a pay raise. In order to do that, you must generate more revenue. The revenue package including increased taxes on certain products, services, and sales supply revenue to the general fund. That is one bill. A budget bill directing how those revenues are spent is a completely different bill with a completely different process. The revenues that would be raised from a GPT increase will be spent on many different things like state employee pay raises, education classroom expense funding, healthcare, state universities, teacher pay raises, etc., etc.

 

[Ponca Dan]

You are trying to draw a line where there is not one. We want to give teachers a pay raise. In order to do that, you must generate more revenue. The revenue package including increased taxes on certain products, services, and sales supply revenue to the general fund. That is one bill. A budget bill directing how those revenues are spent is a completely different bill with a completely different process. The revenues that would be raised from a GPT increase will be spent on many different things like state employee pay raises, education classroom expense funding, healthcare, state universities, teacher pay raises, etc., etc.

You may be right, that may be how it eventually works out. That is not what was described on the radio. I was/am addressing what was described on the radio. I said so yesterday, I've said so repeatedly throughout this thread, I'm asking about what was described on the radio. You are not addressing what I'm asking about. You are addressing what you think you are hearing. Like the Paul Simon lyric: "...still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

 

[BvillePoker]

I don't understand your statement "what you think you are hearing." You have to have revenue first. There is a budget shortfall and they have not even passed a 2018-2019 budget without even considering teacher pay raises. The teachers are demanding pay raises in 2018 or they walk. That means there has to be even MORE revenue raised in order to add the teacher pay raises to the budget. First you have to have money, then decide how to spend it. I am telling you THE FACTS. I don't see how you are not getting this. There are some people out there that want to frame this as a GPT for teacher pay raises, but that is only a part of why we need to raise revenue in this state.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I don't understand your statement "what you think you are hearing." You have to have revenue first. There is a budget shortfall and they have not even passed a 2018-2019 budget without even considering teacher pay raises. The teachers are demanding pay raises in 2018 or they walk. That means there has to be even MORE revenue raised in order to add the teacher pay raises to the budget. First you have to have money, then decide how to spend it. I am telling you THE FACTS. I don't see how you are not getting this. There are some people out there that want to frame this as a GPT for teacher pay raises, but that is only a part of why we need to raise revenue in this state.

OK, we’re just talking past each other, not to each other. We’re getting nowhere with this discussion, so I’ll leave you with the last word.

 

[davidallen]

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.

If the State of Oregon decided to impose an ad valorem tax on Data Centers then Google could decide to continue operating Data Centers in Oregon or build their future centers elsewhere and decommission the existing ones. That would be an appropriate analogy. That is how the real world works.

Your equating an individual with an industry is your first misstep, well maybe second. The first is modelling anything on Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Ponca Dan]

If the State of Oregon decided to impose an ad valorem tax on Data Centers then Google could decide to continue operating Data Centers in Oregon or build their future centers elsewhere and decommission the existing ones. That would be an appropriate analogy. That is how the real world works.

Your equating an individual with an industry is your first misstep, well maybe second. The first is modelling anything on Rush Limbaugh.

I thought you’d balk at the Limbaugh reference!

 

[davidallen]

I thought you’d balk at the Limbaugh reference!

For the record, almost always a hoot to debate with you. Thanks for that!

 

[CowboyJD]

I don't think I need a crayon drawing, but I appreciate your willingness to make one. I am not aware of any singular tax on Oklahoma's books that singles out teachers for a special tax to benefit shoe salesmen. That's the point of the question. Taxes are usually general, things like sales taxes are endured by all of us and spread out over a wide swath of government agencies. This tax, as described on the radio, was not such a plan. It was to tax one group only for the benefit of one other group only. That strikes me as unreasonable and unfair. There may be taxes like that on the books, but I don't know of them. And I can think of no moral justification for such a thing. I was hoping you or someone like you who is much smarter than me could direct me to the philosophical moral principle that justifies such a tax. And my assumption is if it's morally justified once it should be morally justified any time for any body, say taxing teachers for the benefit of shoe salesmen.

As a matter of law, the proposed taxes also don’t single out O&G for a special tax to benefit teachers. They are general revenue bills.

So you asking a question that doesn’t reflect reality based upon something you heard on the radio.