sushimonster13 t1_iu2a522 wrote
Reply to comment by Matt-33-205 in Pa.’s natural gas industry set to get billions in state tax credits - The Allegheny Front by jayjaywalker3
All your analogies make 1 failed assumption - that it's a 1 to 1 exchange that doesn't involve millions of other parties that are impacted in a variety of ways as a result of the existence of the exchange. People can't claim these natural gas credits, only natural gas companies can. How is it a free market if certain behaviors are being incentivized by a 3rd party entity? Your perspective is that everything reconciles and a transaction is always a zero sum game - maybe 150 years ago, you would be correct but the world is much more complicated and intertwined nowadays.
Matt-33-205 t1_iu2h5w7 wrote
Now we're getting somewhere. I see your point about specialized tax credits. I agree with you 100%, specialized tax credits seem inherently unfair, and I suspect a lot of them exist as political favors. A recent example of this was Senator Sinema insisting on a tax break for hedge fund managers in order for the D's to get her vote on a major spending bill.
I will say that not many people realize the gravity of the energy situation we are in as a nation right now. The United States should be doing absolutely everything possible to incentivize domestic energy production and refinement of gasoline and Diesel in this country. There are projections that if this is a very cold winter, there may not be enough heating oil to meet demand. That should absolutely not be the case in a first world country with some of the largest energy reserves in the world.
I'm all for a flat tax, or if there was no federal income as it currently exists, some sort of consumption tax. The absolute best solution for taxation would be to require every taxpayer to write a check and send it to the government for any taxes owed. That would result in real accountability for every tax dollar spent.
sushimonster13 t1_iu2ip78 wrote
The only issue with that is that tax credits do serve a purpose - to encourage behaviors that enhance the lives of everyday people and reward people for being active members of society. I agree that certain tax credits like the ones you mentioned have no place in society as they stifle competition. However, I'm all for things like the EITC and Child care tax credit which enhance the lives of people who work but need a little extra boost and help working class families with kids.
Your plan sounds interesting but how are you going to force tax payers to write a check to the gov? And there's plenty of transparency within the government, hence why things seem to go "slow." Government is only inefficient because people want it to be.
Matt-33-205 t1_iu2kyfm wrote
I think government is inherently inefficient, I don't know too many people who want it to be (I certainly don't). There's no competition at all in government, so the incentive to remain accountable is inherently less. Businesses, even big businesses, have to constantly remain accountable to consumers. The bigger they are, the less efficient they become, but if you think Verizon sucks, you can switch your cell service to AT&T or T-Mobile. There's only one government, and the only time for accountability is on election day. They all regurgitate talking points that they think their constituents want to hear, but I feel like they're all cut from the same cloth (which is why I slid that D Senator Sinema reference in my post above). Very few are genuinely there as selfless public servants.
I know a lot of business owners, they all say the same thing: if everyone had to write quarterly checks to the government for tens of thousands of dollars in taxes owed, there would be a revolution in this country. We are so conditioned to having the money automatically withdrawn from our paychecks, we don't even really miss it. The waste, the fraud, the abuse of government spending will never stop until something changes.
sushimonster13 t1_iu2lus7 wrote
The incentive is that people in government will get voted out if their policies and strategies perform poorly. I agree that a lot of politicians are looking out mainly for their own skin but there's plenty of politics and inefficiency in companies as well, the companies you described being major beneficiaries of the problem that you describe
To your second point, you recoup a lot of your witheld money after filing a tax return so it's not like it's really wasted. Quarterly estimates for everyone would just make taxes too confusing so I agree there.
Matt-33-205 t1_iu2sxae wrote
One thing I've noticed about those on the left, not necessarily saying you, but it doesn't really compute with some that lowering tax rates can actually increase total tax revenue. This fundamental principle is lost on many, in particular when it comes to energy companies.
A simplistic and exaggerated example, 10% of $1 billion dollars is a heck of a lot more tax revenue than 90% of $1 million. Taxation on energy is passed on to the consumer, so if energy prices are low, what incentivizes big energy companies to maintain profit is to produce more and bring more energy to the market.
My point being, there is definitely a point of diminishing returns when it comes to taxing business. If they have incentive to produce more, by allowing them to keep more of their revenue, everybody can win. The goal should be to find that equilibrium tax rate, not just to automatically assume increasing taxes on energy companies will result in more revenue for the government. Energy companies typically pass increased taxation onto the consumer. That's who gets hurt, the consumer.
I've read through numerous economic studies on poverty. There is one overwhelming factor relating to poverty, countries with the highest poverty rates have the least economic freedom. Countries with the lowest poverty rates have the highest economic freedom. Economic freedom being the absence of onerous government regulation and taxation.
sushimonster13 t1_iu6af74 wrote
The one assumption that you're making though is that all that money is going towards operations and not towards stock buy backs and other things that impact short term profitability. With private equity leeching into the private sector, there no longer is an incentive to remain profitable for the duration. Why spend 10 billion on operations when you can spend 3 billion on stock buy backs and somebody will take you private and make you rich.
I agree that you can't over tax businesses because they might just leave or become unsustainable ( china being a good example of government going to far ) but everyday consumers are struggling as well and they're the backbone of the entire economy. They need a break more than some natural gas company that may trickle down some benefits to the common folk.
Matt-33-205 t1_iu6ife4 wrote
I suppose we just fundamentally disagree. It's not an assumption, it's a certainty, if taxes are increased on energy companies, those taxes are passed along to the consumer in higher prices.
Additionally, the current Administration has created an environment that is very unfriendly, bordering on hostile, toward fossil fuel companies. The energy companies are reluctant to invest in expensive infrastructure improvements and expansions, when government can pull the plug at any time on permitting, such as Joe Biden did with the Keystone XL Pipeline his first day in office.
Bottom line, I'm not just giving talking points, this is real life stuff. Most people have no idea just how close we are to an energy catastrophe. Diesel Supply in the United States hasn't been this low in decades, and if those trucks stop moving, all hell will break loose in a few days.
Our government should be fostering an energy friendly business environment, it's cool to support green energy, but the problem is supporting the green movement while demonizing fossil fuels. The transition is going to take generations, it's not going to happen overnight. If everyone in the United States bought an electric car tomorrow, it would crash the electrical grid in this country. We need to be building new oil refineries, encouraging continued safe drilling and hydraulic fracturing with oversight, and do whatever is needed to ensure our own energy independence
[deleted] t1_iu3ckj0 wrote
[deleted]
Matt-33-205 t1_iu3z75m wrote
That's not true at all. Do you understand how a flat tax works? 10% of $50,000 income (5,000) is far less than 10% of $500,000 income (50,000).
Like the current federal income tax system, the first "X" number of dollars should be non-taxable. Throw in an arbitrary number, $30,000 for example. The person making $50,000 a year would only pay $2,000 in income tax, while the person making $500,000 a year would pay $47,000 in income tax.
How is that a "higher tax on the poor"?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments