Our Governor.....Incredible!!!!!

englishprof

englishprof

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
549
I've always been fascinated to see how many people vote against their own interests. It's the only explanation for Republicans ever getting elected.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110309_Big_budget_cuts__We_smell_gas.html
 
englishprof wrote:
I've always been fascinated to see how many people vote against their own interests. It's the only explanation for Republicans ever getting elected.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110309_Big_budget_cuts__We_smell_gas.html

just curious…

In your opinion, who should decide what is best for each individual voter?

Not only that, who should decide what each individual’s opinion should be for what is best for the town, county, state and/or nation? In your opinion of course.

One more thing. Why is this on the general forum.

Keep in mind that I don't necessarily disagree with you. Many people vote on emotion rather than reason and then live to regret it.

Then again, I know that I have voted against my own personal best interest before if I felt is was best for the community, state, or country in the long run. ...and I don't recall ever regretting it. Please explain to me why that is bad practice.

P.S. I didn't even bother reading the contents of the link yet. I couldn't get past your editorial without commenting.
 
This topic deals with gas drilling. Since we have a host of threads already active in the Conservation forum on this topic I will be moving this thread to the Conservation forum shortly. Should the thread devolve into a purely political discussion (the ambiguous title and wording may invite this) - it will then move to OT.

Thanks,
Dave W
 
Well, I don't exactly "like" all the cuts, but I don't like the big deficits either, and I recognize that I can't have my cake and eat it too. If we're to balance budgets, there's going to be some pain in the process. We've grown accustomed to getting more from government than we put in and it's unsustainable. I'd rather fix it now than create a problem 10x worse for the next generation. But I am open to raising taxes as at least part of the solution. I'm a cut spending, raise taxes kind of guy, I want our gubments to run surpluses and pay down debt, so that those pesky interest payments shrink and we can eventually get back to getting more from a tax dollar than we do today.

To be quite clear, gas companies DO pay PA taxes, just like any other entity that does business in PA. Our state business taxes are generally quite low, with the state mostly taking the philosophy that it gets most of that money from the employee's income taxes, thus ensuring the revenue stream as well as jobs. That philosophy still fits with gas companies as well, whether or not those employees permanentally reside in PA, they do pay PA taxes if the money was made in PA.

The gas companies do not pay property taxes for leased land, only on land they own, which is a small % of the land they use. Although, again, the actual owner of the property does pay property taxes, and gas wells significantly raise the value of the land, thus increase those taxes, and tracing it back that $ is recovered by the landowner from the gas companies, or else the landowner would have no reason to go forward with it.

What these articles talk about, though, is that gas companies do not have any EXTRA, industry specific taxes added to what a company in other industries would pay.
 
pcray1231 wrote:
Well, I don't exactly "like" all the cuts, but I don't like the big deficits either, and I recognize that I can't have my cake and eat it too. If we're to balance budgets, there's going to be some pain in the process. We've grown accustomed to getting more from government than we put in and it's unsustainable. I'd rather fix it now than create a problem 10x worse for the next generation. But I am open to raising taxes as at least part of the solution. I'm a cut spending, raise taxes kind of guy, I want our gubments to run surpluses and pay down debt, so that those pesky interest payments shrink and we can eventually get back to getting more from a tax dollar than we do today.

To be quite clear, gas companies DO pay PA taxes, just like any other entity that does business in PA. Our state business taxes are generally quite low, with the state mostly taking the philosophy that it gets most of that money from the employee's income taxes, thus ensuring the revenue stream as well as jobs. That philosophy still fits with gas companies as well, whether or not those employees permanentally reside in PA, they do pay PA taxes if the money was made in PA.

The gas companies do not pay property taxes for leased land, only on land they own, which is a small % of the land they use. Although, again, the actual owner of the property does pay property taxes, and gas wells significantly raise the value of the land, thus increase those taxes, and tracing it back that $ is recovered by the landowner from the gas companies, or else the landowner would have no reason to go forward with it.

What these articles talk about, though, is that gas companies do not have any EXTRA, industry specific taxes added to what a company in other industries would pay.

Inherent to natural gas exploration and drilling/operating wells are risks to the environment, risks to property owners (both safety and property values), the added wear and tear on the roads because of the heavy trucks, the upgrades needed in the infrastructure such as water treatment plants, additional inspectors needed for enforcement, etc.; the Nat gas companies should be taxed to pay for these things. Also, if there were a disaster (explosion or spill) it should not be up to the taxpayers to foot the bill for the clean-up.
 
Couldn't have said it better myself!
 
jeff wrote:
Couldn't have said it better myself!

I could.

Afish's comments kind of sounded like he wanted to use taxes as a punishment for one certain industry. However, I will agree he had some good points.

Afish... I'm pretty sure the drilling companies are required to have a huge bond or insurance policy to cover an disasters or damage. If so, doesn't that cover the "risks" that you mentioned in the first part as requiring additional taxes? With any industry there are risks. If those risks are covered by required bonds, or insurance policies why should other special tax be required. They certainly shouldn't have to pay any more taxes than the coal industry IMO.

Still haven’t read the link, but I probably will eventually.

Like I said, I do think you have some points. Wear and tear on the roads: How is all that handed for the coal industry, sand and gravel, concrete, lumber etc. Isn’t it covered just by tax on fuel? However it is handled for those, it should be handled the same for gas drillers. Upgrades to water treatment should definitely be covered by the drilling companies. I'm not sure that it isn't, but it definitely should be. It would be required in other states.

I also think the gas companies should have to pay for depletion (or whatever it was called) tax. their taking resources. There was an attempt to add that last year, but I don't know of a compromise was reached.

As far as voting practices, I'm with pcray. Rendell ran up a 4b deficit. IMO the responsible thing to do about it is vote for someone willing to do something about it.

Cuts in spending and tax increase both hurt, but sometimes are necessary.

And another response to the original... I’m sometimes baffled by people who are fascinated by people who think they are voting responsibly instead of selfishly.
 
Yeah, afish has some points.

However, an additional, automatic, can't escape it tax should only be levied for those impacts which are 100% unavoidable.

Beyond that, you put up tight regulations, monitor and enforce the heck out of them, and issue back breaking fines for non-compliance. A company must have monetary incentive to cause as little damage as possible. i.e., you must have a system where the companies who go the extra mile for the environment are more successful than those who don't.

Our regulations are too lax, our monitoring not sufficient, and our fines too small. I want to make sure gas companies pay for damage, and then some. But I'm against a "sin" tax, because I see most of the worst impacts as avoidable.
 
pcray1231 wrote:
Yeah, afish has some points.

However, an additional, automatic, can't escape it tax should only be levied for those impacts which are 100% unavoidable.

Beyond that, you put up tight regulations, monitor and enforce the heck out of them, and issue back breaking fines for non-compliance. A company must have monetary incentive to cause as little damage as possible. i.e., you must have a system where the companies who go the extra mile for the environment are more successful than those who don't.

Our regulations are too lax, our monitoring not sufficient, and our fines too small. I want to make sure gas companies pay for damage, and then some. But I'm against a "sin" tax, because I see most of the worst impacts as avoidable.

agree 100%
 
FarmerDave wrote:
jeff wrote:
Couldn't have said it better myself!

I could.

Afish's comments kind of sounded like he wanted to use taxes as a punishment for one certain industry. However, I will agree he had some good points.

Afish... I'm pretty sure the drilling companies are required to have a huge bond or insurance policy to cover an disasters or damage. If so, doesn't that cover the "risks" that you mentioned in the first part as requiring additional taxes? With any industry there are risks. If those risks are covered by required bonds, or insurance policies why should other special tax be required. They certainly shouldn't have to pay any more taxes than the coal industry IMO.

Still haven’t read the link, but I probably will eventually.

Like I said, I do think you have some points. Wear and tear on the roads: How is all that handed for the coal industry, sand and gravel, concrete, lumber etc. Isn’t it covered just by tax on fuel? However it is handled for those, it should be handled the same for gas drillers. Upgrades to water treatment should definitely be covered by the drilling companies. I'm not sure that it isn't, but it definitely should be. It would be required in other states.

I also think the gas companies should have to pay for depletion (or whatever it was called) tax. their taking resources. There was an attempt to add that last year, but I don't know of a compromise was reached.

As far as voting practices, I'm with pcray. Rendell ran up a 4b deficit. IMO the responsible thing to do about it is vote for someone willing to do something about it.

Cuts in spending and tax increase both hurt, but sometimes are necessary.

And another response to the original... I’m sometimes baffled by people who are fascinated by people who think they are voting responsibly instead of selfishly.


Oh come on this isn't about punishment it is about the environmental impact that his industry causes. You think they should be taxed the same as the local hardware store or repair shop? Really??? I think this is what Afish was saying. You made some good points about some of things they should be paying for but are currently not. Bottom line is they got a GREAT DEAL in Pa. They are all tripping over each other to run up here. The way things stand now the tax payer will be paying for a lot of the mess they cause.
 
Oh come on this isn't about punishment it is about the environmental impact that his industry causes. You think they should be taxed the same as the local hardware store or repair shop? Really???

Yep, which is the same as the steel mills, coal miners, rock quarriers, etc. are taxed.

Seriously, what do you think taxing them solves? It sends money to the general fund, which will be used not to clean up the mess, but for something non-related deemed more important at the moment. And then, the company rightfully thinks they've already paid for the damage they haven't caused yet, so there's no need to go to any great measures to avoid it, as the cost is the same either way. It's basically a "pollute at will free" card.

So, first, decide what you want out of this? Do you really want to minimize environmental impact? Or are you simply looking to punish an industry and aquire a revenue stream for non-related government programs?

I'm going to assume its the former. In that case, you have to realize this isn't a collective industry we're dealing with. This is a large number of independent companies, some of them good, some of them bad. Reward the good, punish the bad. It's simply not right to make a good company, who did it all right, pay for the mistakes of the bad companies, and its counter to our goals, because it tells those good companies that spending money to go the extra mile was the wrong thing to do.
 
I agree with a lot of what you say. But to not tax this industry because it isn't fair is crap. Also the argument about the tax going to the general fund and not going to improvements is old. If it's not going to the right place then that needs to be fixed. You sure wouldn't say ok guys come on in and screw up all our roads we got you covered! Would you? Or ok guys we will take all your used frac water don't worry about any improvements to our facility we got it covered! THE TAX IS NOT A PUNISHMENT! IT IS THE PRICE EVERY DRILLING COMPANY WILL PAY TO PLAY IN PA!! Just like every other state has implemented. Your argument that somehow this tax will have companies thinking that they are paying in advance for environmental disasters is almost as laughable as the fines levied against them for current infractions.
 
nevermind, Pat covered it.
 
THE TAX IS NOT A PUNISHMENT! IT IS THE PRICE EVERY DRILLING COMPANY WILL PAY TO PLAY IN PA!!

So, what exactly are they paying for, then? If you say anything about environmental impact, then it is indeed a PUNISHMENT for what you expect to happen. But it doesn't have to happen, there's only potential for it to happen. And there's potential in a lot of industries. So why would only the gas companies pay this tax?

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to live in a land where nothing is mined, but thats awfully unrealistic unless we all agree not to heat or power our homes, buy consumer goods, etc. And it's awfully selfish to not allow it here and require that it be done in someone else's backyard. So, if we agree that if we want some of the niceties of a modern society, we have to put up with an equivalent level of the problems. I suppose if we're gonna tax these industries, I want to assign some sort of an impact matrix to the various industries, right? i.e. an industry that causes more damage should pay a higher tax.

For instance, you can look at the gas wells as REPLACING the need to add additional coal mines. We're talking modern coal here, not the devastating historical practices. Nonetheless, I prefer gas wells to coal mines personally, as the likely environmental impacts are still lower. Even road damage, man they run those tri-axle trucks all over our local roads, causing traffic nightmares and road and bridge damage. And the land use? Man, coal uses a lot more land than gas for an equivalent amount of energy, and it leaves it in worse condition upon leaving too. So, shouldn't we tax coal even higher?

What about timber? Heck, they build a lot more mud roads in the backcountry per amount of product than the gas companies do. The erosion has to be far worse from them. They also run a lot more trucks over our little local roads, causing road damage and bridge damage, etc. Why aren't they taxed MORE than the gas companies?

You could literally, run this same argument for every industry. They all have an impact. Even your hardware store. Those products got there by TRUCK. And if you want to trace it back a little ways, they were made at some heavy industrial plant along a river somewhere, which has surely leached some chemicals at some point in history. And going back even further, those raw materials were MINED somewhere.

Sorry, I refuse to play that game. Especially because within each of those industries, every company has different practices. What I want is a system that evaluates the impact of each individual company, and holds them responsible for it, in an effort to convince companies to take higher measures to prevent the impact to begin with.
 
I finally read the aricle.

I am not opposed to the tax that the author was talking about. It was the part about trying to tie it to possible environmental issues that I didn't agree with. That was done here and actually took away from the argument for the tax IMO.

If you are talking about a possible tax revenue source, then i say why not? Most other energy producing states alread have it. Just pick a number in the middle. what the Dems proposed last year didn't make a whole lot of sense. Rendell himself actually had a better idea, but not quite there. why didn't they get that done. the gas industry was actually prepared to pay something. But the dems wanted a huge piece that would have been the largest of any energy producting state, so it died. I'm betting those other states also have it for coal where applicable.

How much of that 350 a gallon that you are paying for gasoline is just tax added at the pump. Taxing the gas extraction based on volume is at least a more valid argument than we need it because sumpin might happen. That is what bonds, insurance, and fines are for.

 

To quote Pcray-What about timber? Heck, they build a lot more mud roads in the backcountry per amount of product than the gas companies do. The erosion has to be far worse from them. They also run a lot more trucks over our little local roads, causing road damage and bridge damage, etc. Why aren't they taxed MORE than the gas companies?

PCray, the gas companies haul a ton more loads across roads than the timber companies and they are much heavier, hence they do more damage. Not to mention the fact that timber haulers are shut down during spring break up, gas is not because they need to keep feeding the drill rigs. Did routes 44 and 144 ever break down from timber hauling in the past the way they did last spring from the gas companies? NO! I live in Tioga County which has a history of timber operations and the locals have seen roads damaged in ways never imaginable in the past over the last few years. Comparing the damage being done by gas companies to roads to that being done by any other industry up here is insane.

As for the roads timber comanies build to get trees out they are used temporarily and retired and seeded to reduce erosion and sedimentation, gas company roads are built and stay there unseeded for the life of the wells with regular pick up traffic. Once again the number of loads being run is not comparable.

As for extraction tax, the companies could pay something comparable to what every other state has in place and still see stiff fines for environmental damage, therefore being rewarded for operating safely by not paying fines and still pay for the huge damage they are doing to the infrastructure of Pennsylvania.
 
Hey Pcray - please run for governor!

He's got my vote. :)
 
PCray, the gas companies haul a ton more loads across roads than the timber companies and they are much heavier, hence they do more damage.

The gas trucks are much more concentrated in time frame, but over the entire life, I don't think what you say is true. To frack a well, they bring in a lot of trucks, but they do it once and done. A given well will have a bunch of water trucks in and out for about 2 weeks to produce 15-20 years worth of gas before it needs to be refracked. I do understand that I'm only talking about the water trucks, there's other heavy equipment as well.

As for the roads timber comanies build to get trees out they are used temporarily and retired and seeded to reduce erosion and sedimentation, gas company roads are built and stay there unseeded for the life of the wells with regular pick up traffic.

Not true, or at least, not always true. Most of the roads I travel in our state and national forests were originally timber roads, and in many cases still are.

While I think the state may be getting enough from the gas companies for the roads (not commenting on whether they use it for the roads, though), I do agree municipalities do not. Much of the road damage is on the small city and township roads that are maintained by the municipality, not the state. The local taxes that the gas companies pay go to the location of wherever the base of operations is, not where the well is. I'm open to looking at that system to change it so that the money goes to the municipality where the actual work is being done, and if that isn't enough, I'm open to adding a LOCAL tax to reimburse the municipalities for road damage.

And on the gas well roads, you say regular pick up traffic. A single pickup comes by maybe every 6 months at the wells near us. And those loads are not heavy at all, it's a pickup truck.
 
Well tenders are at wells much more than every six months, I work with them every day. A light load when the roads are steep and wet causses ruts which leads to accelerated erosion. How many wells are near you in thorndale, I grew up down there and have never seen one. Timber roads being built now are normally gated off, they are the yellow and black gates in Potter, Clinton and Tioga counties on SFL. You continuosly want to use facts from the shallow wells out on the ANF and apply them to Marcellus, they are not the same.

The state does not get money from the gas companies for roads unless the gas companies need a road repaired quickly to stop the drilling or frac work from being impeded which is what is often publicized by them as look at us we are fixing the roads. Once again did 44/144 ever fall apart from logging jobs the way it did last spring? NO. anadarko fixed it so they could continue to work, not out of the kindness of their hearts.

A given well will have a bunch of traffic for a few weeks for a frac job, then repeat that anywhwere from 4-14 times depending on the number of wells on the pad. At some point this will come at a time when the roads cannot handle heavy hauling, ie spring break up, and more damage is done than at other times. Log trucks are not allowed to haul at that time. Additionally, there is the entire rig move which is much heavier loads usually several dozen and all of the additional equipment needed:several trailers for living quarters, rain tanks, the log trucks necessary to remove the timber that was there prior to the well pad, equipment to log (sp?) the drill job, equipment to build the pad, all of the stone trucks to build the pad.

I would like to invite you to Potter county for a day, where I work, and show you the damage done and ask you to show previous damage from any other industry here that rivals it.
 
How many wells are near you in thorndale

Place where I grew up: Leechburg, PA 5 wells in sight of my dad's porch.
Where I went to college: Indiana, PA
Where we have a cabin and spend a lot of time: Tionesta, PA

Since college, have lived in: Coudersport, PA, State College, PA.

You continuosly want to use facts from the shallow wells out on the ANF and apply them to Marcellus, they are not the same.

Process almost identical, just on a smaller scale. I agree the differences require a change in regulations, especially as it pertains to water permits and water treatment, and pressure requirements on all of the seals. And yeah, the # of water trucks is much higher, though they're exactly the same trucks.

The state does not get money from the gas companies for roads unless the gas companies need a road repaired quickly to stop the drilling or frac work from being impeded.

Incorrect. Gas companies pay state taxes, just like every other industry, including those that move heavy equipment around. Gas company employees pay state taxes, whether they reside in state or not.

Once again did 44/144 ever fall apart from logging jobs the way it did last spring?

Nope, but hundreds of other PA roads have.

I would like to invite you to Potter county for a day, where I work, and show you the damage done and ask you to show previous damage from any other industry here that rivals it.

I'll be there in 2 weeks on business (non-gas related), last time I was there was December, though. The timber boom in its heyday was way worse, though neither of us were alive to see it then. Since then, Potter County has had it easy, no major industry at all. You were perfectly happy there when it was someone else mining and burning the coal, and someone else drilling the gas, yet the pipe came to your house and so did the power lines, and you could buy all the stuff that coal produced, as if it all had no impact at all.

NC PA got all the benefits of our fossil fuel driven society for years, without the problems. I understand your shock at seeing it all, but I've seen it all for years, and yes, I see the Marcellus wells too, as well as strip mines, acid rain streams, AMD streams, and even oil wells and oil processing facilities. I'm not saying everything's rosy and just to look the other way, no, quite the opposite, you need to watch it closely and make good decisions. But outrage is the wrong emotion, and its not the end of the world for Potter County. Will there be damage? Yep. But you'll still have hunting and trout fishing and all of that.
 
Back
Top