A more significant portion of our revenue than income taxes or a more significant portion of our revenue than they are now? I don’t really know. I’m looking at figures between 1950 and now, and while the percentage of government revenue that came from corporate income tax has decreased, in 1951, which is the year corporate taxes made up the largest percentage of revenue in the years that I have, corporate taxes made up about 25% of revenue, while individual income taxes made up about 40% of revenue.
I also found this chart, which looks at tax revenue by source from 1934-2010:
It looks here that corporate income taxes exceeded individual income taxes in the years 1936 and 1941-43, and that those were the only years where that was the case. I’m not really sure where I can find pre-1934 data, although I’m sure it’s somewhere, and I’ll try to look when I have more time.
The part where this breaks down is in the environmental damages caused by those extraction processes to property not owned or leased by those companies, and in Corbett’s policy adjustments to make it harder to punish those companies for said damages. It seems to me that once you allow any entity to create negative externalities without paying for them, you have crossed a line into “favoring” them rather than simply “not burdening” them.
I don’t know about that. It just makes you sound like a deluded idealist, considering that every time we give corporations a break these days they quite empirically make the country worse.
The part where the above breaks down is in how you’ve phrased it as if there’s no controversy to it. As if the Governor would say “yep, that’s right, I’ve decided to enact a policy which benefits shale extraction companies and hurts the people of Pennsylvania through polluted drinking water.” The reality of it’s a lot more complicated than that.
Quite empirically, huh? Yeah, “worse” is one of those things capable of objective definition and proof, so I guess I can’t argue with you there. You are too smart for me. I lose, you win.
You might also consider the direct quote from Corbett himself:
Gov. Tom Corbett told a crowd of local-government officials Monday that he would oppose a new state tax on natural gas extraction even if the industry had not contributed nearly $1 million to his election campaign, and he vowed to protect the state’s water supplies from drilling-related degradation.
“I will not let them poison the water,” Corbett said, drawing
“Everywhere I go in the Marcellus region, we’re starting to see development,” he said. “It’s the only industry that’s really growing in Pennsylvania.”
You could certainly argue that the reality is more complicated than that. There are cases every day where the reality is more complicated.
However, in this case, for you to make that argument implies that you think there’s a place and a time where the government is allowed to trample on my own rights to have clean groundwater on my own property.
The question isn’t academic for me or my father, as there’s a hydraulic fracturing type well operating on a deposit that is near enough to some property we own that the process is devastating the pond and spring downhill from our house. Because of the policies Gov. Corbett has enacted, we are running into a brick wall with regard to getting the state to enforce our property rights with regard to the excess water from the process venting into our property. Since we’re doing things the “right” way and going via the State Department of Environmental Protection, who are viciously backlogged right now due to Corbett’s decree that the Secretary HAS to personally review all violations. Now I’m honestly curious here–I cannot come up with a justification that matches your definition of fiscal conservatism for “allowing party A to directly destroy the value of party B’s capital by wastewater contamination without repercussion”. Can you?
Well, for all I know, you may want to turn the US into a desolate, decaying hellhole with pockets of splendor enjoyed only by the few rich. Maybe that’s paradise to you, I don’t know.
Considering that my original argument was that Corbett is lying about being a “fiscal conservative” by Rand’s definition…
I have no reason, living under the results of the policies that he has enacted, to judge his statements about water pollution as anything other than outright lies. When and if some state-level action is taken, I reserve the right to change my position.
Perhaps you could address the actual argument instead of bullshitting around? How else am I to interpret you responding to me saying “It seems to me that once you allow any entity to create negative externalities without paying for them, you have crossed a line into “favoring” them rather than simply “not burdening” them.” with your rejoinder of “It’s complicated”?
Tell me–give me an example of a situation where Party A should be allowed to perform actions that damage my capital investments, and the government’s interest lies in making it difficult for me to seek restitution from Party A. Or explain some other way it could be complicated, even.
Zeriel, I’ve addressed this specific issue as far as it relates to this thread. You and the Governor simply have different policy positions. You think he’s allowing something to happen that will hurt the environment, he doesn’t think that. That’s it.
But you aren’t happy simply having a different policy position than him, you have to frame the debate as if the Governor lurves teh corporations (or, with your corollary, hates everyone other than corporations). That’s the attitude I’m pitting.
Well, in turn–I think the rapidity with which you jump to defend anyone claiming the mantle of “fiscal conservative” in the absence of any evidence that they are acting from fiscal conservative principles rather than selfish motivations, combined with your insistence that the thing over there walking, swimming, and quacking MIGHT WELL be a marmot and not a duck transforms you from a poster with an interesting set of economic/governance theories into just another hooting idiot.
I ask again: what evidence is sufficient to posit that a political figure is actively acting for the benefit of a corporation/corporations who donate to him/her, as opposed to doing what they think is best on a policy basis? It’s not like I’m arguing from a position of no evidence here, or that i’m regularly in the habit of accusing corporations of evil and baby-eating, after all.
That’s not true. The Gov. knows the project is harmful to the environment. But also knows that allowing natural gas extraction is beneficial to Pennsylvania. He is quoted as believing the two issues should be addressed separately: (1) have policies that encourage development and (2) have policies that protect the environment.
He isn’t proposing one at the expense of the other.
As a society we’ve been walking this line since we first started burning stuff.
What makes your well so much more important that (let’s say) a thousand jobs? Why are you allowed to drive a car that pollutes my air?
Your actions have negative consequences on everyone around you, and yet you’re okay with that. The power lines running to your house don’t just float over the trees. The coal burned to give you electricity is making a lot of other people sick.
It seems you have a much for invested position that the Gov. Who’s interests are you actually looking out for?
Right. I’m not “defending” the Governor here, bub. I’ve never even heard of the issue with Marcellus shale and drinking water in PA before today. I’m just showing how you are typifying the attitude I’m pitting.
Well, that’s the rub here. Certain fiscal liberals believe that certain politicians love corporations even though there’s really no way to definitively show that because the policy positions of a fiscal conservative are not readily distinguishable from the policy positions of someone who loves big business. That’s the problem. That’s why I’m pitting the attitude I’m pitting.
Note also that I’m not talking about politicians benefiting one or a small number of corporations. I’m talking about the charge that fiscal conservatives as a whole by virtue only of being a fiscal conservative loves corporations (or serves their corporate masters, or whatever).
In point of fact, I support taxes on negative externalities. In fact, I think making people pay for negative externalities and impact on other people’s lives and property is the most important moral function of government. And I vote that way as much as possible, and pay such taxes and fees willingly and cheerfully. When my former dog shat somewhere, I cleaned it up, too.
If you would like me to do something else, something more, kindly write your suggestions on a piece of stiff cardboard, fold it until it’s all corners, and stuff it in whatever bodily orfice you think is most convenient, you goddamn concern troll.
Well, we’re full circle. My statement that started the whole damn mess was “one specific politician is doing things that benefit one specific consortium, while taking money from said consortium, and claiming to be a fiscal conservative while he’s doing it–that’s why you get pushback on your definition.”
Nothing even close to as generalized as your statement
which I agree is unsupportable. Hell, upthread I called that position idiotic.
It’s true that I asserted later that a vast majority of politicians don’t like paying for things that don’t advance business interests of their supporters. I am not claiming that’s a particular feature of any party or creed, but a feature of politicians in general.
If you think a severance tax is beneficial to the state of Pennsylvania that make your case and back it up with facts and a logical argument.
If instead you find that you need a lot of bullshit rhetoric, and have to accuse Gov Corbett of being paid off by corporations save yourself some time and just compare him to Hitler.
“I heard Hitler supported hydraulic fracturing, you won’t want to be like Hitler do you?!”
See, much easier.
That’s the level this discussion has devolved to. You’re in a position where Gov Corbett was elected on the platform that he would not enact a severance tax. So you need to find a way to belittle him to bolster your argument.
*Obviously he’s not going to put in a severance tax, he’s in the oil company’s pocket. Not like that other guy, he cares about Pennsylvania. *
ETA You might also want to look up the rules before suggesting things be stuck places.