By Matt Artz
Monday, May 17th, 2010 at 6:57 am in Uncategorized.
Another story on the potential economic benefit of a new A’s stadium.
Here’s the story about that door from Afghanistan.
Sacramento Bee gives two cents on Alberto Torrico’s proposed oil tax.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes on the oil tax. Torrico is awesome.
I totally expect Fremont’s Mayor Wasserman, city manager Diaz, and council members to ingnore any stadium economic analysis that does not support their personal agenda for building an A’s stadium in Fremont.
I wish Mr. Omar great success. He has overcome many obstacles and his dream has been realized. I hope the food is good and the community supports his efforts.
Now Martz, which is correct, “intricate wood-carved door” or “intricately carved, wood door?”
Jon, you realize there’s no such thing a corporate tax, right?
I seriously doubt, after corporate taxes, that we’re getting much in taxes on the oil drawn from California. These national and international corporations do amazing jobs of avoiding paying up.
DEFINITION OF A ALBERT TORRICO: Exploiting opportunities with little regard to principle or consequences
Yes, Albert fits this description rather nicely
These national and international corporations do amazing jobs of avoiding paying up.
And that which they do pay gets passed on to the end consumer with a markup. I’m all for funding our public colleges, but revenue from oil taxes should be used to give people alternatives to cars, especially in a region with a relatively dismal public trans system.
The legislature needs to find another way. For example, CA has built a prison every year for the past 23 year while building only one university (UC Merced).
Mr Jon Simon
How do you make sense about applauding oils tax in the post 1 but then say there are no tax to be found in post 5 ? this makes no sense
Y Tram and Marty,
Corporations can and do creative bookkeeping to avoid income taxes. Shell companies, licensing rights from out of state subsidiaries, and other tricks can reduce profits to nothing. However, charging for each barrel gives no wiggle room.
As for the cost getting passed on to the consumer, higher prices would be good because it would reduce demand (theoretically), but oil prices are based on other market forces, not the cost of production. The fees would give California some of the buy instead of none of it. Right now, we’re funding environmental destroyers, terrorists, and totalitarians. We may as well fund public education, too.
higher prices would be good
Easy to say for someone who lives and works in the same neighborhood.
Right now, we’re funding environmental destroyers, terrorists, and totalitarians.
Plan on relying more heavily on those as production in CA wanes.
Jon Simon says – “..higher prices would be good..”
Marty responds – “Easy to say for someone who lives and works in the same neighborhood.”
bbox231 suggests – “Plan on more folks living in closer proximity to their place of work. One good way to do so is to RAISE THE PRICE of energy.”
So that we DONT have to –
“..rely more heavily on “..environmental destroyers, terrorists, and totalitarians..” as production in CA wanes.” – - – OR, as we simply conserve more of what we DO produce.
Then, why no raise the price of health care? Less people will use it.
In the real world, people drive cars to work at places miles from their homes. Higher fuel prices coupled with no public transit options equates to an even further hindered economy. The net effect would be even less net revenue for the state.
If energy prices rise slowly and predictably, the market will just move around it. The unpredictable nature of fuel prices cause the harm. If Congress passed a law that implemented a $10 a gallon tax over the next ten years at a rate of $1 a year, we’d see slow but sure changes without huge upsets. Yes, people would move closer to work.
My gosh, did I just agree with Bbox?
Nothing will calm energy prices better than a US economy-wide tax. We’d see $23 a barrel oil again.
Yes, people would move closer to work.
No they wont. They will lose their ability to earn income. There’s only so many novelty businesses Niles can support, Jon. For example, expect Niles to be decimated since is it close to nothing. Multiply that 10,000 times across the state.
And, did you pick that $23/barrel figure out of thin air or do you have anything to support it?