Corbett may be tested on shale tax (California, Penn: how much, taxi)

[BrianTH]

Here is the article:

Confrontation looms on gas severance tax

The state legislature seems to be moving toward passing some sort of shale tax as a budget amendment, which would force Corbett to decide whether or not to veto it.

But a lot remains to be done to get to that point, including deciding the exact nature of the tax. One major issue is how much, if any, of the revenues would go to state-level programs as opposed to localities. Although I think you can make a decent case for at least some funding to go to the DEP, otherwise I think it would be good for our region to have most of the revenues remain local--although I would also prefer few strings to be attached, because it is important to use these revenues to diversify the local economies, not just double-down on exploiting shale gas.

[Craziaskowboi]

Even Texas has extraction taxes. You can be business-friendly without being a corporate ass-kisser. This is a good way for Pennsylvania to get some extra revenue, which should all go into infrastructure, by the way.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

Even Texas has extraction taxes. You can be business-friendly without being a corporate ass-kisser. This is a good way for Pennsylvania to get some extra revenue, which should all go into infrastructure, by the way.

Yep, it is simply ridiculous to insist that PA can only be competitive by being the only major oil/gas state without an extraction tax.

Ideally, I'd like to see the revenues go into what is sometimes called a sovereign wealth fund. That is what Norway, and for that matter Alaska, does.

[I_Like_Spam]

The problem I have with the proposed extraction tax is that those who seem most anxious to implement it are those that say they are against the fracking altogether as well. Seems like a backdoor way to just get rid of it- which is fine if it really is too dangerous or otherwise not worthwhile, but its sneaky to do it with taxation.

If they get their druthers, it would seem as if little money will be coming from this anyhow.

This is a relatively new project, extracting gas from the marcellus shale.

The advantage to not taxing it, would be to make Pennsylvania extra-competitive and give the state the advantage as Exxon and others with interest in this field to choose Pennsylvania to initiate gas exploration.

Taxes are levied already on royalty income and wages, so it isn't like the state isn't cashing in from the current arrangements.

[ditchdigger]

I'll say the same thing I've said all along--If, back in 1849, California had put a severence tax on gold, do you think anybody would've turned around and gone home? Marcellus is a cash cow. Milk it.

(And I might feel differently if the gas was all going to stay here in Pa. because then we'd effectively just be taxing our own consumers, but that's not the case, is it?)

[gg]

Give it time. PA is just luring them in and then will hit them where it hurts to pay off some underfunded pension situation, or some other debt that has been going on forever due to the whole state living well above its means.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

I'll say the same thing I've said all along--If, back in 1849, California had put a severence tax on gold, do you think anybody would've turned around and gone home? Marcellus is a cash cow. Milk it.

(And I might feel differently if the gas was all going to stay here in Pa. because then we'd effectively just be taxing our own consumers, but that's not the case, is it?)

Nicely put.

[Faer]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

The problem I have with the proposed extraction tax is that those who seem most anxious to implement it are those that say they are against the fracking altogether as well. Seems like a backdoor way to just get rid of it- which is fine if it really is too dangerous or otherwise not worthwhile, but its sneaky to do it with taxation.

No. As a transplanted "left coast lib", I see natural gas extraction as a potential major boon and support it (though it obviously needs to be done right). Here's the problem: What kind of moronic businessman would give away his products for free? The kind that goes out of business. I don't want PA to go out of business.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Faer

I don't want PA to go out of business.

Not to worry. They will just raise taxes on the dwindling middle class.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

The problem I have with the proposed extraction tax is that those who seem most anxious to implement it are those that say they are against the fracking altogether as well.

I don't think that is accurate. Both shale gas extraction and an extraction tax have majority support in PA, so that means there must be a good number of people who both support extraction and a tax.

The advantage to not taxing it, would be to make Pennsylvania extra-competitive and give the state the advantage as Exxon and others with interest in this field to choose Pennsylvania to initiate gas exploration.

They don't need a tax advantage to come here. The gas is here, and it will be more economic than the alternatives even with a standard extraction tax, and that is all the incentive they need.

Edit: Or see ditchdigger's pithier way of putting that point.