Then why the hell have Republican state legislators been governing like there is so little money to spare, since the income tax has dropped from 7.25% in the 1990s to 5.25% today? 35,000 state employees haven't had a raise in pay in 6 years. HB 2146 attempted to help do something about it. It would have raised pay for correctional officers from $11.83 to $14.00. But the bill never made it to the full house. On top of that corrections is understaffed. 820 fewer workers are watching over 3000 more inmates when compared to 2001. It would be more responsible governing for legislators to quit sending so many people to prison convicted of victimless crimes. Colorado has a bigger population but sends only around half as many to prison.

Oklahoma highway patrol officers also haven't had a pay raise in 6 years and are operating with 56 fewer troopers than in 2006. At least, the House has approved a pay raise for them. Don't know if it has passed the Senate.

Funding for education still hasn't returned up to 2008 levels where it was $3.82 billion compared to $3.4 billion in 2013. More responsible governing in order to find more funding for education would be to force the smallest school districts to combine together, at least several at a time, to form a bigger school district administered by one school board. No schools would have to be closed unless the newly formed school board sees fit. But I haven't seen any interest in Republicans in trying to advance such a sensible plan.

Now I could understand the state of above, if Oklahoma has been decreasing in population, but it's hasn't. Republicans love to talk of making government smaller. Through income tax cuts it's working by making being a state government employee less desirable. But then I wonder, are legislators allowed to grant their staff members raises?

So to me, it's pretty damned easy to prove why more state income tax CUTS would be stupid, highly irresponsible governing. A growing state needs more money for government not less. More cars and especially trucks on the roads mean yet more money needed to deal with maintenance demands for that. One way to do that without raising taxes is to quit giving out tax deductions for jobs that don't create jobs. But I suppose its safe to assume that Republicans at the State Capitol lack the well to do that.

All very true.

And regarding the bolded part. The state House and Senate were each given $1million dollars more in the budget. They get raises, other state employees get to go on year 8 without a single raise.


are the cops teachers and correctional workers underpaid??

Absolutely. Correctional officers especially. While Im not a fan of our states harsh non-violent criminal sentincing practices, thus overcrowding our prisons, they are certainly underpaid. It could be taken care of with some justice reform but repubs like the expensive tough on crime stance better than effecient, smart on crime.

When you look at the OVERALL tax climate in Oklahoma, it is already low...even compared to Texas. Services don't come free. If we lower or eliminate income, or any other single tax or fee, we have to make up for it with another. Or else, we have to cut services like education, safety, infrastructure. It is very simple...there is no such thing as a free lunch. The question always is, who pays and who gets paid.

Exactly. Oklahoma already enjoys a low overall tax burden. We are ranked 37 of 50 in overall tax burden. I think its time to stop cutting personal income taxes when we are already in the bottom 1/4. Its time to invest in our state and our citizens.

Exactly. Oklahoma already enjoys a low overall tax burden. We are ranked 37 of 50 in overall tax burden. I think its time to stop cutting personal income taxes when we are already in the bottom 1/4. Its time to invest in our state and our citizens.

we should work to move into the bottom 1/4 in total tax burden

Yes because we are already in the bottom 5% for funding education, have the highest percent of unsafe bridges, and without oil and gas income, near the bottom in income. We would be 3rd world status if not for dinosaurs and trees that died millions of years ago. Our legislators know if they keep the people uneducated they can keep getting elected I guess.

we should work to move into the bottom 1/4 in total tax burden

What detailed ideas do you have that would allow that? And please, feel free to post more than one line in your explanation.

Yes because we are already in the bottom 5% for funding education, have the highest percent of unsafe bridges, and without oil and gas income, near the bottom in income. We would be 3rd world status if not for dinosaurs and trees that died millions of years ago. Our legislators know if they keep the people uneducated they can keep getting elected I guess.

Faith. Family. Freedom. All you need to say to get elected. Experience, results, performance, ability be damned.

we should work to move into the bottom 1/4 in total tax burden

We essentially are, unless you are being facetious and are pointing out the hundredth of a decimal point that keeps us from officially being in the bottom 4th. Fact is, our tax burden is already very low, 13th lowest in the union. Thats 36 states that have a higher tax burden.

Absolutely. Correctional officers especially. While Im not a fan of our states harsh non-violent criminal sentincing practices, thus overcrowding our prisons, they are certainly underpaid. It could be taken care of with some justice reform but repubs like the expensive tough on crime stance better than effecient, smart on crime.

But if they did that they wouldn't get money from for profit prisons.

are the cops teachers and correctional workers underpaid??

I'm sure to you they are not. The only people paid what they're worth in your eyes appear to be billionaire energy barons. Then, lots of money is ok. But whatever a teacher is paid is, probably too much?

We essentially are, unless you are being facetious and are pointing out the hundredth of a decimal point that keeps us from officially being in the bottom 4th. Fact is, our tax burden is already very low, 13th lowest in the union. Thats 36 states that have a higher tax burden.

i was being facetious .. sorry doesn't always come across on the interweb

No it hasn’t!



Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/)

In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatton/files/2012/12/Federal-Revenue-Tax-Brackets5-1024x434.png (http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatton/files/2012/10/Federal-Revenue-Tax-Brackets5.png)



The next time you find yourself engaged in this debate and someone tells you that you that taxes must be raised to pay down the debt, you can refer them to this article.

Or this:

Work hours may not respond to changes in tax rates in the way that supply-side economists assume.

This undermines the supply-side story. The effect of a change in tax rates on total tax revenue depends on the relative strength of two opposing effects—how much tax rates decrease (which means the government takes a smaller share of the economic “pie”) and how much the decrease in tax rates causes incomes to increase (causes the economic pie to grow). If a change in tax rate has little effect on work (and investment) decisions and, therefore, does not have much of an effect on GDP (the size of the pie), it is unlikely to increase tax revenue.

Are the supply-siders just mistaken, then, or is there more to it?

There’s more to it.

For people who would favor tax cuts anyway, the Laffer curve offers an appealing argument—we can have a tax (rate) cut, but get increased tax revenue, and so not have to sacrifice any of the things we want from government. (That is, we can have our cake and eat it, too.) If true, this takes away one of the main reasons to oppose tax cuts—that they will require painful sacrifices of needed public programs. This argument, however, runs counter to other reasons people may favor tax cuts.

First, any particular tax cut is likely to benefit some people more than others. If tax cuts result in reduced tax revenue, as they certainly can, they may result in cuts in government programs. The programs cut might have benefited a different group of people. In that case, the combination of tax cuts and spending cuts will have helped one group and harmed another. Some people may just favor tax cuts that benefit themselves and people like them, while coming at the expense of someone else. Critics have argued, for example, that Reagan- and Bush-era tax and spending policies cut taxes mostly for corporations and affluent individuals, while mostly cutting programs that benefit lower-income people.

Second, proponents of “small” government may actually want to reduce government revenue. Some conservative strategists have argued in favor of tax cuts precisely to reduce government revenue and ultimately force spending cuts (to balance the budget). This is sometimes known as the “starve-the-beast” strategy. Notice that this strategy requires that tax (rate) cuts result in lower government revenue, the opposite of the supply-siders’ argument.

If you follow budget debates carefully, you will sometimes hear the same politician, in effect, making opposing arguments. When arguing in favor of tax (rate) cuts, a politician may make the supply-side claim that government revenues will increase as a result. When arguing against new or expanded government programs, however, they may argue that the new spending will require tax (rate) increases.

If they really believe the supply-side story, they should be arguing that increased government programs will require tax cuts, in order to increase tax revenues.

EconoFAQs: Do Lower Tax Rates Really Increase Government Revenue? | Dollars & Sense (http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2011/0611reuss.html)

No it hasn’t!



Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/)

In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatton/files/2012/12/Federal-Revenue-Tax-Brackets5-1024x434.png (http://blogs-images.forbes.com/mikepatton/files/2012/10/Federal-Revenue-Tax-Brackets5.png)



The next time you find yourself engaged in this debate and someone tells you that you that taxes must be raised to pay down the debt, you can refer them to this article.

I missed where anywhere in that story it says that chart is adjusted for inflation.... so is inflation irrelevant to federal tax receipts? Are you really comparing 1960 dollars with 2010 dollars?

So I checked your work and check it out:


http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/u-s-federal-government-revenue-current-inflation-gdp.jpg

This chart shows tax receipts for 1960. Your chart has those at well below $500 billion. Inflation adjusted, though, those numbers are right at $500 billion. And it's giving us federal receipts, not inflation adjusted federal receipts for personal income tax. Your chart is incredibly misleading and you're either attempting to mislead us or you really are that economically illiterate.

Federal tax cuts may work for a while but then always comes the recession as in President Bush's big one.

Do you know why tax cuts always end recessions?

They don't. Confidence always ends recessions. When debt is high, and confidence is low, folks don't spend.

Federal tax cuts may work for a while but then always comes the recession as in President Bush's big one.

Have Bush's tax cuts been repealed yet? Or are they still in place?

we should work to move into the bottom 1/4 in total tax burden

Here's a list of those bottom 1/4 states as of 2010. See any states you would rather live in, such as Texas?

41. South Carolina
42. Nevada
43. Alabama
44. New Hampshire
45. Texas
46. Wyoming
47. Louisiana
48. Tennessee
49. South Dakota
50. Alaska

Do you know why tax cuts always end recessions?

No, not always. I don't recall Reagan's tax cuts doing much to end Oklahoma's oil recession during the 1980s. Some people had to leave the state during that decade. So a number of other things, perhaps more important, go into making a prosperous economy besides tax cuts. Tax cuts surely help the rich the most, since the amounts cut are always bigger.

I tend to agree with Jersey Boss.

Do you know why tax cuts always end recessions?

Debt "ends" recessions. New recessions always have the debt used to "fix" the last recession added to the cost.

You wont find that many modern economist who disagrees with this. The problem comes when you can't grow the economy faster than the debt.

No, not always. I don't recall Reagan's tax cuts doing much to end Oklahoma's oil recession during the 1980s.

That’s because the “oil recession” helped cure the national recession by putting more money in people’s pockets. It gave them more confidence to go out and spend the extra money they had. People also had far more confidence in their leaders than what we see with Obama’s polarization of the nation.

When so much of our oil is still imported this is why it’s basically insane to want high priced gasoline prices like Obama said he wanted…. It only goes to show how low his understand of the economy really is along with virtually all of his partisan supporters who also want high energy prices.

The 80's recession ended when the OPEC oil monopoly went bust. Oil prices correlate really well to the declining economy, and when that bubble popped and they plummeted, the economy improved in lock step. Makes perfect sense too, higher-than-ever oil prices are going to hurt every company, and immediately after a bust, there's going to be a spending bonanza to get it while it's good. Reagan got to take the credit, but his policies most likely had very little to do with it, aside from continuing the previous presidents' energy policies.

The 80's recession ended when the OPEC oil monopoly went bust. Oil prices correlate really well to the declining economy, and when that bubble popped and they plummeted, the economy improved in lock step. Makes perfect sense too, higher-than-ever oil prices are going to hurt every company, and immediately after a bust, there's going to be a spending bonanza to get it while it's good. Reagan got to take the credit, but his policies most likely had very little to do with it, aside from continuing the previous presidents' energy policies.

Regan’s deregulation of oil had a lot to do with its price decline. Regan’s deregulation of crude oil was part of why OPEC’s oil monopoly went bust for a time. That and OPEC’s over production that was designed to punish Iran and the USSR.

Deregulation was originally Carter's policy, and it was set to go into effect in 1981 anyways. Reagan just accelerated it by a couple of months when he entered office. The biggest reason why prices went up during the Carter administration, even with policies, is that the Iran/Iraq war halted much of the oil production. Both Iraq and Iran started producing again in the early-mid 80's, which helped matters. Reagan just happened to be in office to reap the benefits. I mean, I give him credit for recognizing that Carter's policy was needed and not instinctively tossing all their predecessor's ideas like you'd expect, and people definitely responded to Reagan a lot better than they did Carter, but Reagan's economic success was as much being in the right place at the right time as anything else.

And that tends to be how the national economy usually moves.

Deregulation was originally Carter's policy, and it was set to go into effect in 1981 anyways. Reagan just accelerated it by a couple of months when he entered office. The biggest reason why prices went up during the Carter administration, even with policies, is that the Iran/Iraq war halted much of the oil production. Both Iraq and Iran started producing again in the early-mid 80's, which helped matters. Reagan just happened to be in office to reap the benefits. I mean, I give him credit for recognizing that Carter's policy was needed and not instinctively tossing all their predecessor's ideas like you'd expect, and people definitely responded to Reagan a lot better than they did Carter, but Reagan's economic success was as much being in the right place at the right time as anything else.

And that tends to be how the national economy usually moves.

You are correct about the deregulation issue and I stand corrected.
Thank you.

Carters energy decisions had far more common sense than we see today from this White House.

This is a pretty fair look back at some of the Carter energy decisions and more.
American President: Jimmy Carter: Domestic Affairs (http://millercenter.org/president/carter/essays/biography/4)

What would we say is the biggest obstacle then right now getting oil prices down for every day consumers? I would almost have to say it has to be refining capacity being limited. What was it, just this year was the first time an approval was given by the Gov't to build a new refinery in 30 years? Say we are able to start refining product much faster, build up supply domestically, and therefore be less exposed to oversea oil products. If prices drop to where you could fill up paying $1.50/gal - how many would actually support that? Obviously anyone would love to have that again, but I could see major objections coming from oil producing states that haven't diversified their economies enough.

It almost seems more than anything, we just need to get production back up which likely starts with refining capacity.

With a number of industrialists looking at Oklahoma to open up new plants, I would suggest Chamber of Commerces in the state hold a convention to compare notes to find out why industries decide not to come to Oklahoma. It would be interesting to see if the amount of the state income tax being too high is a common complaint. This assuming Chamber of Commerce heads get the inside word on this subject. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if it's mainly rich CEOs already here asking legislators for income tax cuts.

I would imagine that it was those evil rich CEOs who were asking for certain tax cuts so they can decide where they want to relocate or build up company jobs.

Eh. Put in a flat sales tax or something similar...get rid of all income and property tax and call it good. Of course that would essentially eliminate a major incentive communities use to lure businesses from other locations.

What would we say is the biggest obstacle then right now getting oil prices down for every day consumers? I would almost have to say it has to be refining capacity being limited. What was it, just this year was the first time an approval was given by the Gov't to build a new refinery in 30 years? Say we are able to start refining product much faster, build up supply domestically, and therefore be less exposed to oversea oil products. If prices drop to where you could fill up paying $1.50/gal - how many would actually support that? Obviously anyone would love to have that again, but I could see major objections coming from oil producing states that haven't diversified their economies enough.

It almost seems more than anything, we just need to get production back up which likely starts with refining capacity.

What we want is a fair and balanced price.

You don’t want prices so low that exploration for oil & gas activity ends because that only sets us up for large and destructive price spikes a few years later. Obviously you don’t want them to high or they harm the economy.
Speeding up the construction of pipelines helps since they are the safest, cheapest most reliable method to move crude oil along with most of their liquid products. These bottle necks have been creating big price differences in the USA and have hindered the recovery in some locations.

We should and can further minimize our risk to Geo political and WX events where ever possible.
Just a guess but somewhere around $ 3.00 is probably close to a fair price for gasoline in today’s world.

I would imagine that it was those evil rich CEOs who were asking for certain tax cuts so they can decide where they want to relocate or build up company jobs.

CEOs don't care what their employees pay in personal income taxes. That has no bearing on their business, therefore it's not a factor. What does matter is a skilled, educated workforce, a high quality of life, and access to capital.

It's time for Oklahoma to be done with the tax cuts and start investing in ourselves.

CEOs don't care what their employees pay in personal income taxes. That has no bearing on their business, therefore it's not a factor. Yes they do!

You obviously have not had enough exposure corporate CEO’s and how they negotiate when relocating to a different state.
They know that great employees are hard to come by. A CEO’s wants to know exactly what their employee compensation cost are be. They know that low taxes for their employees means they don’t need to pay as much as in a high tax state for their employees to keep the same standard of living. They want to keep there good employees. Employee compensation impacts the corporations bottom line and sometimes the compesation of the CEO no matter where he/she lives and works.
Certainly there are other factors but a state’s tax burden on employees is a factor to be considered.

What would we say is the biggest obstacle then right now getting oil prices down for every day consumers? I would almost have to say it has to be refining capacity being limited. What was it, just this year was the first time an approval was given by the Gov't to build a new refinery in 30 years? Say we are able to start refining product much faster, build up supply domestically, and therefore be less exposed to oversea oil products. If prices drop to where you could fill up paying $1.50/gal - how many would actually support that? Obviously anyone would love to have that again, but I could see major objections coming from oil producing states that haven't diversified their economies enough.

It almost seems more than anything, we just need to get production back up which likely starts with refining capacity.

World petrol prices, gas prices, diesel prices 2013| MyTravelCost.com (http://www.mytravelcost.com/petrol-prices/)

I like cheap fuel too, but why do you feel we don't already pay a fair, low price? Globally, we're very near the cheapest (especially in places you would actually want to live).

Yes they do!

You obviously have not had enough exposure corporate CEO’s and how they negotiate when relocating to a different state.
They know that great employees are hard to come by. A CEO’s wants to know exactly what their employee compensation cost are be. They know that low taxes for their employees means they don’t need to pay as much as in a high tax state for their employees to keep the same standard of living. They want to keep there good employees. Employee compensation impacts the corporations bottom line and sometimes the compesation of the CEO no matter where he/she lives and works.
Certainly there are other factors but a state’s tax burden on employees is a factor to be considered.

Location or relocation decisions are often much more complex than portrayed in this thread. I have been integrally involved in two, including one from Europe. Each company has there own reasons...but the top tax rate for the CEO or other employees hasn't been a concern. Things like overall tax burden for the company is important. Availability and cost of qualified employees, the cost of real estate, the legal environment, the cost of real estate, state and local incentives, possibly state assistance in training, workers comp rates, consumer protection laws, availability and cost of professional services (patent attorneys, technical labs, etc), location of synergistic companies, availability of financial services, airport and other transportation services, strategic logistical issues, and on, and on, and on. Boiling it down to one or two reason driving is is a gross oversimplification and a total lack of understanding. Remember, if you can't make a profit, taxes don't matter.

That said, a privately owned Simple business with one or a few owners and very few other considerations may be driven by their personal taxes. In that case, if that is the driver then they aren't worried about their employees. They are probably low skilled, low pay employees anyway.

Location or relocation decisions are often much more complex than portrayed in this thread. I have been integrally involved in two, including one from Europe. Each company has there own reasons...but the top tax rate for the CEO or other employees hasn't been a concern. Things like overall tax burden for the company is important. Availability and cost of qualified employees, the cost of real estate, the legal environment, the cost of real estate, state and local incentives, possibly state assistance in training, workers comp rates, consumer protection laws, availability and cost of professional services (patent attorneys, technical labs, etc), location of synergistic companies, availability of financial services, airport and other transportation services, strategic logistical issues, and on, and on, and on. Boiling it down to one or two reason driving is is a gross oversimplification and a total lack of understanding. Remember, if you can't make a profit, taxes don't matter.

That said, a privately owned Simple business with one or a few owners and very few other considerations may be driven by their personal taxes. In that case, if that is the driver then they aren't worried about their employees. They are probably low skilled, low pay employees anyway.

The Wall Street Journal and other national publications extensively quoted a person who was integrally involved in recruiting several large corporations to the Dallas area including one that brought at the time the world’s largest corporation to Irving TX from NYC. I’m related to this person and had the opportunity to talk to them for many hours on several occasions about the details of the relocation negations on this deal and others.

Sometimes it was a personal interest of a CEO or of other high ranking employee that won that key person over. No Texas state income tax and a lower overall tax burden compared to NYC was a significant factor and because they were so discussed at the time at recent tax increases in NYC it won a number of key people over. The world largest corporation at the time knew that lower taxes along with a lower cost of living would help their employee’s lives improve and at a lower cost to the company.

As I said, there are other factors, you listed many of those other factors. The DFW airport and its easy cheap flying opportunities was also a significant factor in several Dallas area relocations. (We need to do better with our airport.)

The case I am mostly talking about is very near the top of the food chain when it comes to relocations.
Certainly others would have different requirement and goals.

Yes they do!

You obviously have not had enough exposure corporate CEO’s and how they negotiate when relocating to a different state.
They know that great employees are hard to come by. A CEO’s wants to know exactly what their employee compensation cost are be. They know that low taxes for their employees means they don’t need to pay as much as in a high tax state for their employees to keep the same standard of living. They want to keep there good employees. Employee compensation impacts the corporations bottom line and sometimes the compesation of the CEO no matter where he/she lives and works.
Certainly there are other factors but a state’s tax burden on employees is a factor to be considered.

You are telling me you've been in the room with so many CEO's during there relocation comparisons..? Right. Would certainly be surprising since you cant even see through grossly misleading graphs, like the one you posted.

As Rover said, personal income tax is so far down on the scale of importance. Property and sales tax is much more important. Even more so is educated, healthy employee pool, transportation quality, access to capital, and quality of life. Besides, the tiny amount that personal income taxes might come into play...Oklahoma certainly wont be viewed as negative with our already low income tax rate. We can stop reducing it now and start putting our money to good use.

Or if you want to reduce it so bad ou4a, I wouldnt mind if we stopped giving away hundreds of millions in tax breaks to your beloved oil companies.

Everybody in Oklahoma who is interested in living decent lives in decent comunitys should be interested in the health and welfare of our states oil & natural gas industry. Only a fool wouldn’t be.




The following is according to the May 2012 Oklahoma’s Oil and Natural Gas Industry Economic Impact and Jobs Report

The Oil & NG produced $52 billion in gross state product, or one out of every $3 in GSP.

$28 billion in state personal income, or one out of every $5.

344,503 jobs, representing one out of every six jobs in the state.

a statewide average compensation per job of more than $113,000.

in 2011 set off long run fiscal impacts estimated to be:
Nearly $1 billion in direct gross production tax payments,
including $504 million in oil gross production taxes and another $459 million in natural gas gross production taxes.

o $2.35 billion in Federal Personal Income Tax payments.
o $700 million in State Personal Income Tax payments.
o $563 million in State Sales Tax payments.
o $503 million in Local Sales Tax payments.

OSU raised a billion dollars in several years. Since raising taxes isn't an option, Oklahoma should try doing the same type campaign as a means to raise money to provide better for vital government services. The more money raised this way the more sense it would make to further cut income tax.

Everybody in Oklahoma who is interested in living decent lives in decent comunitys should be interested in the health and welfare of our states oil & natural gas industry. Only a fool wouldn’t be.




The following is according to the May 2012 Oklahoma’s Oil and Natural Gas Industry Economic Impact and Jobs Report

The Oil & NG produced $52 billion in gross state product, or one out of every $3 in GSP.

$28 billion in state personal income, or one out of every $5.

344,503 jobs, representing one out of every six jobs in the state.

a statewide average compensation per job of more than $113,000.

in 2011 set off long run fiscal impacts estimated to be:
Nearly $1 billion in direct gross production tax payments,
including $504 million in oil gross production taxes and another $459 million in natural gas gross production taxes.

o $2.35 billion in Federal Personal Income Tax payments.
o $700 million in State Personal Income Tax payments.
o $563 million in State Sales Tax payments.
o $503 million in Local Sales Tax payments.

No one is arguing how much this state benefits from the oil in the ground but here you are championing personal income tax cuts, this time only for the top 62%, all the while oil companies in our state get gross production tax breaks to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Im just pointing out the facts, not trying to debate how great oil companies are for us.

No one is arguing how much this state benefits from the oil in the ground but here you are championing personal income tax cuts, this time only for the top 62%, all the while oil companies in our state get gross production tax breaks to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Im just pointing out the facts, not trying to debate how great oil companies are for us.

The state incentives mean more drilling, more wells, creating more revenue for the state and the economy, which creates more jobs and keeps people employed.

Since these drilling rigs could easily be used in some other state or shipped to other countries these tax incentives easily pay for them self’s. It’s smart economics by our states leaders that has helped insulate our state from the worst recession since the great depression.

OSU raised a billion dollars in several years. Since raising taxes isn't an option, Oklahoma should try doing the same type campaign as a means to raise money to provide better for vital government services. The more money raised this way the more sense it would make to further cut income tax.


Oklahoma needs a Legacy Fund that is funded by oil & NG tax revenue that would only kick in when prices reach a certain high water mark. For example if crude or NG was at very high prices the state would divert some of this additional state revenue to a Legacy fund that would act much like an endowment. It would stop when prices fell below a set amount adjusted for inflation.. This is one way we could better reinvest in other areas that help our economic situation….like better universities.

If managed well we can make this boom last virtually a life time.
Several states have their version of a legacy fund

The Wall Street Journal and other national publications extensively quoted a person who was integrally involved in recruiting several large corporations to the Dallas area including one that brought at the time the world’s largest corporation to Irving TX from NYC. I’m related to this person and had the opportunity to talk to them for many hours on several occasions about the details of the relocation negations on this deal and others.

Sometimes it was a personal interest of a CEO or of other high ranking employee that won that key person over. No Texas state income tax and a lower overall tax burden compared to NYC was a significant factor and because they were so discussed at the time at recent tax increases in NYC it won a number of key people over. The world largest corporation at the time knew that lower taxes along with a lower cost of living would help their employee’s lives improve and at a lower cost to the company.

As I said, there are other factors, you listed many of those other factors. The DFW airport and its easy cheap flying opportunities was also a significant factor in several Dallas area relocations. (We need to do better with our airport.)

The case I am mostly talking about is very near the top of the food chain when it comes to relocations.
Certainly others would have different requirement and goals.

Look at New York vs. Dallas ranking in overall business taxation environments....look at cost of doing business...look at consumer law issues which impact them. They don't relocate so the CEO can save money.

BTW, take a look at employee cost differential in NYC and OKC and you will see employee income tax rates are totally insignificant. Heck, a company could include ALL that cost and still be below what other cities/states pay for salaries and wages for a significant part of their staff.

The state incentives mean more drilling, more wells, creating more revenue for the state and the economy, which creates more jobs and keeps people employed.

Since these drilling rigs could easily be used in some other state or shipped to other countries these tax incentives easily pay for them self’s. It’s smart economics by our states leaders that has helped insulate our state from the worst recession since the great depression.

The companies and their rigs wont be leaving. Where are they going? Arizona? Oil and gas companies go where the oil is, and that is here. Im not arguing any more about oil and gas though, back to the personal income tax debate. Have any more vague tweets or highly skewed graphs to show us?

Look at New York vs. Dallas ranking in overall business taxation environments....look at cost of doing business...look at consumer law issues which impact them. They don't relocate so the CEO can save money.

BTW, take a look at employee cost differential in NYC and OKC and you will see employee income tax rates are totally insignificant. Heck, a company could include ALL that cost and still be below what other cities/states pay for salaries and wages for a significant part of their staff.

The tax money that can be save when a major CEO exercises their personal stock options can be a very major motivating force to move. It can be the same for other very high ranking employs of a major corporation and in the case I mention is was said by B of D members that it was part of their decision processes. As a shareholder at the time I was particularly interested in this case.

The companies and their rigs wont be leaving. Where are they going? Arizona? Oil and gas companies go where the oil is, and that is here.

Yes they would and in a heartbeat…


There are huge gigantic plays that have a shortage of modern rigs of the type that are receiving the state incentives. Right now it’s more economical to keep them in Oklahoma beacuse of the incentives... That could change if day rates go higher in other areas.

Everybody in Oklahoma who is interested in living decent lives in decent comunitys should be interested in the health and welfare of our states oil & natural gas industry. Only a fool wouldn’t be.




The following is according to the May 2012 Oklahoma’s Oil and Natural Gas Industry Economic Impact and Jobs Report

The Oil & NG produced $52 billion in gross state product, or one out of every $3 in GSP.

$28 billion in state personal income, or one out of every $5.

344,503 jobs, representing one out of every six jobs in the state.

a statewide average compensation per job of more than $113,000.

in 2011 set off long run fiscal impacts estimated to be:
Nearly $1 billion in direct gross production tax payments,
including $504 million in oil gross production taxes and another $459 million in natural gas gross production taxes.

o $2.35 billion in Federal Personal Income Tax payments.
o $700 million in State Personal Income Tax payments.
o $563 million in State Sales Tax payments.
o $503 million in Local Sales Tax payments.

And how exactly would removing the tax breaks cause the oil to leach into Texas? Here is the problem OU48A. When you allow narrow, but very influential groups, to escape the tax burden the rest of us are subject to we lose one of our biggest allies. We, and by we - I mean you - need to stop falling for the divide and conquer trick. Don't you think if Oklahoma's gas and oil industry had to play by the same taxation rules the rest of the companies in Oklahoma have to play by that we might have a better chance of reforming the tax structure?

And how exactly would removing the tax breaks cause the oil to leach into Texas? Here is the problem OU48A. When you allow narrow, but very influential groups, to escape the tax burden the rest of us are subject to we lose one of our biggest allies. We, and by we - I mean you - need to stop falling for the divide and conquer trick. Don't you think if Oklahoma's gas and oil industry had to play by the same taxation rules the rest of the companies in Oklahoma have to play by that we might have a better chance of reforming the tax structure?
What does that information have to do with leaching oil?


Insulating Oklahoma from the worst of the great recession is well worth the cost compared to the destruction that would have been caused…. In fact Oklahoma has made money from these tax incentives.

If there is another industry that could do the same for our state would likely be for it too.

If there is another industry that could do the same for our state would likely be for it too.

Maybe if other companies and industries got the same tax benefits there would be.

Imagine it like this. Me, you, and 4 other people are playing Monopoly. However, we aren't playing by the same rules. I am playing by "house rules" that says if I land on Go I get $400 instead of $200, if land on Income Tax I only play 5%, if I land on Luxury Tax I collect $75, and if I land on Free Parking I get $500 - and you and the other 4 players play by the standard rules. How are you ever going to convince me to give up my "house rules" so that you and other players have a chance of winning, especially if player #3 is arguing that I should keep my "house rules" advantage?

What does that information have to do with leaching oil?


Because apparently you think the oil will crawl up out of the ground and move to Texas if we tax oil companies at the same level all other industries are being taxed at.

Because apparently you think the oil will crawl up out of the ground and move to Texas if we tax oil companies at the same level all other industries are being taxed at.

When it comes to leaching oil I don’t think you have even a remote clue about what you are talking about……….

Crude oil has several leachability factors! Some of these involve the porosity and the gravity weight of the crude
They can make a big difference.
And there have been more than a few law suits about oil migrating undergound and across state boarders.

And how exactly would removing the tax breaks cause the oil to leach into Texas? Here is the problem OU48A. When you allow narrow, but very influential groups, to escape the tax burden the rest of us are subject to we lose one of our biggest allies. We, and by we - I mean you - need to stop falling for the divide and conquer trick. Don't you think if Oklahoma's gas and oil industry had to play by the same taxation rules the rest of the companies in Oklahoma have to play by that we might have a better chance of reforming the tax structure?


Maybe if other companies and industries got the same tax benefits there would be.

Imagine it like this. Me, you, and 4 other people are playing Monopoly. However, we aren't playing by the same rules. I am playing by "house rules" that says if I land on Go I get $400 instead of $200, if land on Income Tax I only play 5%, if I land on Luxury Tax I collect $75, and if I land on Free Parking I get $500 - and you and the other 4 players play by the standard rules. How are you ever going to convince me to give up my "house rules" so that you and other players have a chance of winning, especially if player #3 is arguing that I should keep my "house rules" advantage?


Because apparently you think the oil will crawl up out of the ground and move to Texas if we tax oil companies at the same level all other industries are being taxed at.

Well put sir. :congrats:

Imagine if everyone just played by the same rules when it came to taxes with no incentives or backroom deals. If I make this much, I know I'm going to pay this much...and move on.

Well put sir. :congrats:

Imagine if everyone just played by the same rules when it came to taxes with no incentives or backroom deals. If I make this much, I know I'm going to pay this much...and move on.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLgYAHHkPFs

John Lennon - Imagine - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLgYAHHkPFs)

Hey look, you can link YouTube videos. Congrats I guess?

Anyway. Should we interpret that response to mean you support the divide and conquer approve and the way the current system is setup?

Such a great song.
Yes it’s a great song, if you like to invest your hopes in fairytales.
As I have grown older I have tried to be a little less idealistic and stick with most of the known realities.

Haha, you took the bait.

Oh well, enjoy your "realistic" life.



The hard realities of the world that we will never change can be a tough thing to learn. I’m still learning.
Thank you for your response.

The hard realities of the world that we will never change can be a tough thing to learn. I’m still learning.
Thank you for your response.

The hard realities that oil companies would still prosper even without gross production tax credits? Or that Oklahoma will still be awash in oil and gas even without subsidies..? Either way, how about back to the personal income tax debate.

Imagine if everyone just played by the same rules when it came to taxes with no incentives or backroom deals. If I make this much, I know I'm going to pay this much...and move on.

For the life of me I can't figure out why every single one of us can't agree on this basic premise. I guess we just have too many people playing by the house rules.

This is simply not true and has been thoroughly debunked.

please provide a link

As jersey boss said, it is simply not true that any time taxes are reduced it brings in more money. You only need to look to Kansas at the moment to see how that's working. Last I read they were taking money from early childhood development funds to help pay for the revenue shortage. You can also look at Oklahoma in years 2008-9 to see that it isn't true. Most economists agree.

You know if we didnt have this tax cut and were able to maybe give pay raises to state employees for first since 2006, or maybe give teachers a raise or simply spend it on health services that money is getting out right back into Oklahomans pockets. Just not all to the wealthy, connected political donors. And when you invest that money back to Oklahoma citizens and businesses, you improve the lives of all citizens, which you aren't guaranteed when you cut a small amount of taxes for the top 62%.

Just want to reiterate that 38%, over 1/3 of Oklahomans get no cut from this, just reduced quality of services. Business dont like moving to states with an uneducated and unhealthy workforce.

Yes it is true. Are there exceptions to the rule? Absolutely. Yes revenues did decline in Oklahoma after a tax cut but there was that little thing called the Recession, remember? oklahlma faired much, much better during that than other States and remember when Oklahoma City was named as one of the most recession proof cities in the Country? I guess you keep missing the articles where OKC has consistently ranked as best in unemployment rates etc? Keep reading over the years how state agencies have given employees raise, just not an across-the-board raise for everyone. Teachers HAVE gotten raises, including having their insurance premiums paid for (like many other State employees). I will reiterate that the majority are seeing a tax cut. Of your remaining 38% how many of those folks taxes are going to go up? How many are staying the same? What services are being cut? Are they services that Government is supposed to be involved in anyway? The tax cut hasn't happened yet. Doesn't kick in until 2015.

For the life of me I can't figure out why every single one of us can't agree on this basic premise. I guess we just have too many people playing by the house rules.
The hard realities in life say that life isn’t fair and it’s a dog eat dog world out there.

To hell with playing fair! Other states and nations are not going to stop what they are doing to attract economic development, why should we.
I want our state to be the top dog or at least the best that it can be.

Responsible incentives for job and wealth creating enterprises help lift our people’s standards of living and I don’t really care what industry it comes from as long as it advances that goal while doing it under the laws of our land.

Then why the hell have Republican state legislators been governing like there is so little money to spare, since the income tax has dropped from 7.25% in the 1990s to 5.25% today? ...

Because we are required by the State Constitution to have a balanced budget??? Education still gets roughly 50% of the budget pie. That has been fairly constant. This year they are getting 51% according to a recent article in the Oklahoman. For some, if they got 100% it wouldn't be enough. There was a little thing called the Recession, remember that? Oklahoma wasn't immune from it but fared better than most states. Takes some time to make up the lost ground.