DOCSLIB.ORG

Research Foundation Regional

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Research Foundation Regional NATIONALASSOCIATIONOF INDUSTRIAL& OFFICE PROPERTIES FINANCING RESEARCH FOUNDATION REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PREPARED BY: Quest Technology, Inc. and Dr. Robert Schmidt, J.D. Ph.D. Regionalism is the hot-topic of debate for those interest groups, state and local governments, and citizen groups that are engaged in the growth management debate. New residential, commercial, and industrial P developments have spread far beyond the established boundaries of central cities and close proximity suburbs. That extended growth has generated additional traffic flows, air pollution, and demands for new infrastructure services and financing. The need for infrastructure planning and financing is frequently linked to the question of regionalism because these components cut across local R government boundaries. This leads, in turn, to local and regional discussions about whether planning, financing and implementation of such infrastructure systems can and should be handled locally. In 2000, the NAIOP Research Foundation approached Dr. Robert Schmidt of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas to conduct a study that would contribute E to the national dialog on regionalism. The purpose of the project was to examine the planning for and the financing of infrastructure systems on a regional basis, using a specific local example as a template. The research conducted for this study included a review of the current literature and data sources, interviews with key members of the development community throughout the United States, informal surveys of numerous F regional and local government agencies across the nation, and research into how the public itself views the topic. The findings are included in the document before you, which cover the following areas of focus: Analysis of Infrastructure Funding Mechanisms; Financing Case Studies; Funding Regional Infrastructure; Provision of Infrastructure and Regional Governance; and Conclusions and Recommendations. A The NAIOP Research Foundation hopes you will find the following informa- tion on infrastructure and regionalism to be enlightening. The purpose of a guidance document is to provide our members with facts and principles that can assist them in understanding the issue of financing regional infrastruc- ture, as well as help them to distinguish the myths from the realities, assess different approaches and techniques to the issue in a local context, and be C inspired to engage with members of their own communities on the topic. The end result: Productive dialogue designed to achieve positive outcomes for not just the real estate community, but for local communities as well. NAIOP Growth Issues Subcommittee E A project this ambitious could not have been accomplished without the help of NAIOP members who volunteered to serve on its evolution. Special thanks to the NAIOP Growth Issues Subcommittee for their offer to serve as a “sound- A ing board” for this document. Those members include Co-Chairs Brian Blaesser and Pete Bolton, of Boston, Massachusetts and Phoenix, Arizona, C respectively; Fred Beebee of Atlanta, Georgia; David Begelfer of Boston, Massachusetts; James Brubaker of Denver, Colorado; Ronnie Duncan of Tampa, Florida; David T. Finger of Raleigh, North Carolina; Eric S. Kassoff K of Washington, DC; Joseph A. Langley of Denver, Colorado; Karen Marcotte of Albuquerque, New Mexico; Robert F. Moody of Denver, Colorado; Charles C. Pfeffer of Maple Grove, Minnesota; Todd Sheaffer of Beaverton, Oregon; N and Robert A. “Tim” Snow of Las Vegas, Nevada. Thanks to all of you for your tireless efforts. O Special recognition clearly goes to Brian Blaesser and Tim Snow for their leadership on this issue. Brian and Tim shepherded this project from concep- W tion to publication. They not only worked with Dr. Schmidt to ensure that the major regionalism issues were analyzed and presented in a clear manner, they also contributed to the review of the several drafts of the document that L became the final product you see before you. NAIOP is indeed fortunate and grateful to have such able and knowledgeable people lead the charge in this E effort. We would also like to acknowledge the outstanding work and efforts of the D staff of NAIOP, who have worked long and hard to produce a document that would truly benefit our members, particularly Assistant Vice President for State and Local Affairs Steve Gallagher, who has been with this project from G the beginning. E There is no “quick fix” for the complex issue of regionalism. This study is not meant to provide answers, but to be used as a sounding board from which to launch further discussion. We hope this study serves as a resource for not only M NAIOP members, but for interested citizens, businesses, and governmental bodies who want to forge solutions built on objective information and sound development principles. E N Ronald L. Rayevich Shirley A. Maloney T Chairman Executive Director NAIOP Research Foundation NAIOP Research Foundation S TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION 12 1.1 PURPOSE 13 1.2 OBJECTIVE 13 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF RESEARCH 14 2.0 REGIONAL GOVERNANCE AND PROVISION OF INFRASTURCTURE 15 2.1 TERMS IN REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTUE DEVELOPMENT 15 2.2 THE ROLE OF REGIONAL GOVERNANCE 19 2.3 REGIONAL PLANNING 22 2.4 TRADITIONAL FINANCING PRACTICES 23 2.5 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 27 3.0 FUNDING REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE 32 3.1 USER CHARGES 32 3.2 BENEFIT CAPTURE METHODS 35 3.3 SUBSIDIES 37 4.0 ANALYSIS OF INFRASTURCTURE FUNDING MECHANISMS 41 4.1 REVENUE GENERATION CRITERIA 41 4.2 USER CHARGES ANALYSIS 46 4.3 BENEFIT CAPTURE METHODS ANALYSIS 52 4.4 SUBSIDIES ANALYSIS 60 5.0 INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING CASE STUDIES 64 5.1 COMPARATIVE REGIONAL EVALUATION 64 5.2 REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCIAL MODEL 66 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 71 6.1 FINDINGS 75 6.2 POLICY CONCLUSIONS 88 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) APPENDIX A – CASE STUDIES 92 A.1 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 92 A.2 SOUTHERN NEVADA (LAS VEGAS) 100 A.3 TWIN CITIES, MINNESOTA 107 A.4 PORTLAND, OREGON 114 APPENDIX B - LITERATURE REVIEW 123 B.1 BACKGROUND 123 B.2 REVIEW 124 B.3 COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES (COCS) STUDIES 126 B.4 GROWTH SUBSIDIES 128 APPENDIX C – INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT FEE MODELS 129 APPENDIX D – REFERENCE DATA 139 BIBLIOGRAPHY 151 This report was prepared for the NAIOP Research Foundation, Inc. by Quest Technology, Inc; its principal author was Dr. Robert Schmidt, J.D., Ph.D. Neither NAIOP nor the NAIOP Research Foundation has verified data set forth in the report, and any interpretation or views expressed are solely those of its author. © 2002 NAIOP Research Foundation 2 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2-1, CHARACTERISTICS OF EXACTIONS, IMPACT FEES AND TAXATION..................... 28 TABLE 2-2, USE OF DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS .................................................................................. 29 TABLE 2-3, LOCAL RULE AND USE OF IMPACT FEES BY STATE.................................................... 30 TABLE 4-1, CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMON LOCAL OPTION TRANSPORTATION TAXES .49 TABLE 4-2, OPTIMAL TRANSPORTATION PRICING STRATEGIES ................................................. 51 TABLE 4-3, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TAXES – LISTED BY RANK PAYABLE 1998 – LARGEST URBAN AREAS........................................................................................................................................ 53 TABLE 4-4, IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT UTILIZATION BY STATE.................................................... 54 TABLE 4-5, IMPACT FEES FOR STATE’S WITH ENABLING LEGISLATION .................................. 56 TABLE 4-6, NATIONAL AVERAGE IMPACT FEES................................................................................. 57 TABLE 4-7, SALES AND USE TAX RATES................................................................................................. 63 TABLE 5-1, PORTLAND, OR AND LAS VEGAS, NV TOTAL IMPACT FEES FOR WATER, SEWER AND STREETS......................................................................................................................................... 69 TABLE 6-1, SOURCES OF INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING................................................................ 72 TABLE A-1, CITY OF PORTLAND SEWER RATE STRUCTURE........................................................ 119 TABLE A-2, CITY OF PORTLAND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 121 TABLE C-1, LAS VEGAS VALLEY IMPACT FEE MODEL – WATER................................................ 130 TABLE C-2, LAS VEGAS VALLEY IMPACT FEE MODEL – SEWER ................................................ 131 TABLE C-3, LAS VEGAS VALLEY IMPACT FEE MODEL – STREETS............................................. 132 TABLE C-4, PORTLAND, OREGON IMPACT FEE MODEL – WATER.............................................. 133 TABLE C-5, PORTLAND, OREGON IMPACT FEE MODEL – SEWER .............................................. 134 TABLE C-6, PORTLAND, OREGON IMPACT FEE MODEL – STREETS........................................... 135 TABLE C-7, INFRASTRUCTURE COMPARISON, IMPACT FEE MODEL – WATER ..................... 136 TABLE C-8, INFRASTRUCTURE COMPARISON, IMPACT FEE MODEL – SEWER...................... 137 TABLE C-9, INFRASTRUCTURE COMPARISON, IMPACT FEE MODEL – STREETS .................. 138 3 LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) TABLE D-1, SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES, REVENUE-TO- EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS............................................................................................ 140 TABLE D-2, STATE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES, 2001.................................................................... 143 TABLE D-3,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Resources Biennial Report - the Montana Department of Revenue
    NATURAL RESOURCES BIENNIAL REPORT - THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Overview of Natural Resource Taxes .................................................... 97 Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas State Tax Comparison ................................ 98 Bentonite Production Tax ....................................................................... 99 Cement and Gypsum Tax ...................................................................... 100 Coal Gross Proceeds ............................................................................ 101 Coal Severance Tax .............................................................................. 103 Coal Severance Tax History .................................................................. 109 Metal Mines Gross Proceeds Tax (Class 2 Property) ........................... 111 Metalliferous Mines License Tax ........................................................... 113 Micaceous Mines License Tax .............................................................. 116 Miscellaneous Mines Net Proceeds Tax (Class 1 Property) ................. 117 Oil and Natural Gas Tax ........................................................................ 119 Resource Indemnity and Ground Water Assessment Tax ..................... 125 U.S. Mineral Royalties ........................................................................... 129 96 revenue.mt.gov TableTable of of Contents Contents Natural Resources Overview of Natural Resource Taxes Historically, Montana has relied on its natural resources as a primary source of
    [Show full text]
  • The State of State (And Local) Tax Policy
    TAX POLICY CENTER BRIEFING BOOK The State of State (and Local) Tax Policy SPECIFIC STATE AND LOCAL TAXES How do state and local severance taxes work? 7/9 Q. How do state and local severance taxes work? A. Thirty-four states levy severance taxes, which are taxes on the extraction of natural resources (including oil and natural gas). The revenue from these taxes is extremely volatile because it rises and falls with the price and production of natural resources. HOW MUCH REVENUE DO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS RAISE FROM SEVERANCE TAXES? State and local governments collected $8 billion from severance taxes in 2016. Nearly all this revenue came from state taxes. Only 12 states allowed local severance taxes in 2016, collecting a combined $225 million that year. Severance taxes accounted for less than 1 percent of national state and local own-source general revenue in 2016, but provided a substantial amount of own-source revenue in a few resource-rich states, such as North Dakota (21 percent) and Wyoming (10 percent) (figure 1). “Own-source” revenue excludes intergovernmental transfers. The states with the next-highest contributions from severance taxes were Alaska, New Mexico, and West Virginia—all collected 4 percent of state and local own-source revenue from severance taxes. Severance taxes in Texas account for 30 percent of national state and local severance tax revenue, but they provide only 1 percent of Texas’s state and local own-source revenue. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia do not levy severance taxes. Alaska typically depends on severance tax revenue more than any other state.
    [Show full text]
  • “Unconventional” Oil Revenue to Local Governments Introduction Colorado Summary
    How Colorado Returns “Unconventional” Oil Revenue to Local Governments Headwaters Economics | Updated January 2014 Introduction This brief shows how Colorado’s local governments receive production tax revenue from unconventional oil extraction. Fiscal policy is important for local communities for several reasons. Mitigating the acute impacts associated with drilling activity and related population growth requires that revenue is available in the amount, time, and location necessary to build and maintain infrastructure and to provide services. In addition, managing volatility over time requires different fiscal strategies, including setting aside a portion of oil revenue in permanent funds.1 The focus on unconventional oil is important because horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies have led a resurgence in oil production in the U.S. Unconventional oil plays require more wells to be drilled on a continuous basis to maintain production than comparable conventional oil fields. This expands potential employment, income, and tax benefits, but also heightens and extends public costs. This brief is part of a larger project by Headwaters Economics that includes detailed fiscal profiles of major oil-producing states—Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming—along with a summary report describing differences between these states. These profiles will be updated regularly. The various approaches to taxing oil make comparisons between states difficult, although not impossible. We apply each state’s fiscal policy, including production taxes and revenue distributions, to a typical unconventional oil well. This allows for a comparison of how states tax oil extracted using unconventional technologies, and how this revenue is distributed to communities. Detailed state profiles and the larger report are available at http://headwaterseconomics.org/energy/state-energy-policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Exceptionalism in Resisting Energy Severance Taxes
    Leaving Money on the Table Pennsylvania Exceptionalism in Resisting Energy Severance Taxes RACHEL L. HAMPTON University of Michigan BARRY G. RABE University of Michigan Nearly all energy- producing states elect to adopt and sustain a tax on the extrac- tion of their oil and gas resources through so- called severance taxes, generating significant revenue for general as well as specialized state funds. Political support for such taxes generally crosses party lines and endures across multiple partisan shifts in the political control of a state. This reflects numerous features that tend to make these taxes quite popular and durable across election cycles. This long- standing pattern, however, faces one major exception: Pennsylvania’s enduring reluctance to follow the path of other major energy- producing states and adopt such a tax. This article explores what it deems “Pennsylvania exceptionalism,” as it seeks to address the issue of why one leading energy- producing state would refrain from tax adoption in contrast to every other such state. It places particu- lar emphasis on the past decade, in which natural gas in shale deposits has trig- gered a dramatic expansion of production in Pennsylvania and ongoing political controversy over whether or not a severance tax should be adopted. nergy production in the United States is not a new phenomenon. Large- scale oil drilling formally began before the Civil War in Penn- Esylvania and expanded to many other states by the turn of the twen- tieth century, alongside extensive extraction of coal and natural gas. By 1902, one oil well in Spindletop, Texas, had produced over 17 million barrels of oil COMMONWEALTH, Volume 19, Issue 1 (2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska's Oil and Gas Fiscal Regime
    Alaska’s Oil and Gas Fiscal Regime – A Closer Look from a Global Perspective A l A s k A D e pA r t m e n t o f r e v e n u e Alaska Department of Revenue – Commissioner’s Office January 2012 STATE OF ALASKA Governor Sean Parnell ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Bryan D. Butcher, Commissioner Cover Photo: Alaska Stock; the Central Gas Facility (CGF), Prudhoe Bay Oilfield This report can be downloaded at: www.dor.alaska.gov/acloserlook.pdf TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................. 1 Establish a peer group for the comparison of Alaska’s fiscal system. Hydrocarbon endowment .......................................................... 3 Compare Alaska’s oil and gas production, reserves, and undiscovered resource with its peer group. Lease sales .................................................................................... 8 Review Alaska’s competitive oil and gas leasing program including a short summary of historical activity. Exploration and development activity ................................... 11 A historical perspective on oil and gas activity and employment in Alaska. Alaska’s oil and gas fiscal system ........................................... 19 Highlights of Alaska’s current fiscal system. Fiscal system comparisons ...................................................... 27 Compare Alaska’s oil and gas production fiscal system with its peer group. Summary .................................................................................... 46 Introduction \\\ For
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Assessment of Oil and Gas Tax Policy in Oklahoma
    RESEARCH FOUNDATION REPORT Economic Assessment of Oil & Gas Tax Policy In Oklahoma January 2014 Economic Assessment of Oil and Gas Tax Policy in Oklahoma RegionTrack, Inc. (regiontrack.com) is an Oklahoma City-based economic research firm specializing in regional economic forecasting and analysis. Principal authors of the report are RegionTrack economists Mark C. Snead, Ph.D. and Amy A. Jones, M.A. 0 | P a g e Economic Assessment of Oil and Gas Tax Policy in Oklahoma Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Introduction – Industry Growth and Tax Policy .......................................................................................... 3 III. What is the economic role of Oklahoma’s tax policy on the oil and gas industry? .................................. 4 Major goals of Oklahoma’s oil and gas tax policy ......................................................................................... 4 IV. Why should Oklahoma tax policy encourage oil and gas drilling activity? ................................................ 7 Drilling triggers a long-lived stream of economic activity ........................................................................... 7 More wells at an increasingly higher cost ....................................................................................................... 7 Drilling costs across Oklahoma formations ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of a Severance Tax Change on Alaskan Oil Ac.Vity
    ACES High or Low? The Impact of a Severance Tax Change on Alaskan Oil Activity Item Type Presentation Authors Tanaka, Audrey; Reimer, Matthew; Guettabi, Mouhcine Publisher Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage Download date 30/09/2021 14:22:44 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/11176 ACES high or low? The impact of a severance tax change on Alaskan oil ac;vity Mahew N. Reimer, Mouhcine Gue>abi, Audrey Tanaka University of Alaska Anchorage, Ins;tute of Social and Economic Research Severance taxes on oil produc;on in Alaska • On April 14th, 2013, the Alaska State 28th Legislature passed Senate Bill 21 – A significant reduc;on in Alaska’s severance tax rate – hoping to s;mulate exploraon, field development, oil produc;on, and job creaon • Fundamental tradeoff: poten;al loss of tax revenue for purported gains in exploraon and produc;on ac;vity – Key ques;on: are severance taxes effec;ve in this regard? – Li>le empirical evidence Severance taxes on oil produc;on in Alaska • Alaska’s severance tax reform was a response to declining oil produc;on from North Slope fields “Declining oil producon is not because [Alaska is] running out of oil, but because [Alaska is] running behind in the compe..on. Alaska’s North Slope has billions of proven barrels of oil, but [Alaska does] not have a tax system designed to aBract new investment for more producon.” Alaska Governor Sean Parnell, January 15, 2013. Severance taxes on oil produc;on in Alaska • Senate Bill 21 was implemented in response to Alaska’s previous highly progressive tax structure (ACES) • Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share • Introduced in 2007 under Gov.
    [Show full text]
  • Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas Production Tax Rates: How Does Oklahoma Compare to Peers?
    Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas Production Tax Rates: How Does Oklahoma Compare to Peers? Prepared by Headwater Economics in Conjunction with Oklahoma Policy Institute, August 2013 This report compares Oklahoma’s oil and natural gas tax policies to other leading oil and natural gas producing states. Oil comparison states are Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. Natural gas comparison states are Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming. Our analysis applies state tax policies to average production data for typical unconventional oil and natural gas wells to determine comparable effective tax rates. Both unconventional oil and natural gas wells typically feature high initial rates of production that decline steeply and quickly, and eventually stabilize at relatively low levels. The respective production profiles for unconventional oil and natural gas wells are consistent enough across shale plays to offer a sound basis for comparing how states tax policies raise revenue from these new resources. The findings are summarized here followed by a detailed discussion of methods, findings, and data sources. Major Findings: Oklahoma currently has a low effective tax rate compared to peer states. Oklahoma’s effective tax rate on unconventional oil production is 3.3 percent, the lowest of seven peer oil- producing states (Figure 1). Oklahoma’s effective tax rate on unconventional natural gas is 2.6 percent, ranking fifth lowest of seven peer natural gas-producing states (Figure 2). Oklahoma’s low effective tax rate results from a four-year production tax “holiday” that reduces the tax rate for newly completed horizontal wells from seven to one percent.
    [Show full text]
  • EOR-Storage and the CCUS Value Chain
    September 21, 2020 Review of Federal, State, and Regional Tax Strategies and Opportunities for CO2- EOR-Storage and the CCUS Value Chain Review of Federal, State, and Regional Tax Strategies and Opportunities for CO2-EOR-Storage and the CCUS Value Chain REVIEW OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND REGIONAL TAX STRATEGIES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CO2-EOR- STORAGE AND THE CCUS VALUE CHAIN PROMOTING DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS ON FOSSIL ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES Prepared for: United States Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy and United States Energy Association Sub-Agreement: USEA/DOE-002415-19-04 Authors: Peter Connors, Orrick Ken Ditzel, FTI Consulting Joshua Emmett, Orrick Fengrong Li, FTI Consulting United States Energy Association 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 550, Mailbox 142 Washington, DC 20004 +1 202 312-1230 (USA) The contents of this report are the responsibility of the United States Energy Association and do not necessarily reflect the views of DOE-FE or the United States Government. Review of Federal, State, and Regional Tax Strategies and Opportunities for CO2-EOR-Storage and the CCUS Value Chain DISCLAIMER The analysis and findings expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of FTI Consulting, Inc. and Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (“Orrick”), their management, their subsidiaries, their affiliates or their other professionals. Review of Federal, State, and Regional Tax Strategies and Opportunities for CO2-EOR-Storage and the CCUS Value Chain PRINCIPAL AUTHORS Peter Connors, a tax partner in the New York office of Orrick, focuses his practice on cross-border transactions. He also has extensive experience in many areas of tax law, including corporate transactions, financial transactions and tax controversy matters.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources
    NATURAL RESOURCES Overview of Natural Resource Taxes ................................................ 97 Coal, Oil and Natural Gas State Tax Comparison ............................. 98 Bentonite Production Tax ................................................................. 100 Cement and Gypsum Tax ................................................................ 101 Coal Gross Proceeds ...................................................................... 102 Coal Gross Proceeds History .......................................................... 103 Coal Severance Tax ........................................................................ 104 Metal Mines Gross Proceeds Tax (Class 2 Property) ...................... 112 Metalliferous Mines License Tax ...................................................... 114 Metalliferous Mines License Tax History ......................................... 116 Micaceous Mines License Tax ......................................................... 117 Miscellaneous Mines Net Proceeds Tax (Class 1 Property) ............ 118 Oil and Natural Gas Tax .................................................................. 120 Resource Indemnity and Ground Water Assessment Tax ............... 126 Resource Indemnity and Ground Water Assessment Tax History ... 128 Resource Indemnity Fund Interest .................................................. 129 U.S. Mineral Royalties ..................................................................... 130 96 revenue.mt.gov Overview of Natural Resource Taxes Historically, Montana
    [Show full text]
  • SEVERANCE TAXES AS an ISSUE of ENERGY SECTIONALISM The
    SEVERANCE TAXES AS AN ISSUE OF ENERGY SECTIONALISM John S. Lowe* The energy crisis that began in the mid-1970s exacerbated a long standing conflict between the energy producing states and the energy consun~ingstates. "Freeze a Yankee" jeered the energy producers! In turn, the inhabitants of the producing states were labeled "blue eyed Arabs" by many consumers. 'The sectionalist conflict itself dates back at least to the enactment of the percentage depletion allowance and the intangible drilling cost deductions for oil and gas wells in the first half of the century.' These tax benefits generally have been supported by both the populations and congressional representatives of producing states as essential elements of a strong oil industry, and a strong oil industry as a key to a strong national economy. On the other hand, the consunling states have tended to view both percentage deple~ionand the intangible drilling cost deduction as unnecessary subsidies to the oil industry that increase the tax burden their citizens must bear. The balance of power betrveen the groups has shifted back and forth over time, and the debate has often been acrimonio~s.~ The historic tension between the producing arid consuming states over energy matters was worsened by the rapid escalation of energy prices in the 1970s and early 1980s. As prices and production soared, the economies of the major producing states b~omed.~In contrast, the major consuming states found themselves mired in 7 *B.;\. wit11 highes! honol-s, Detlison 1963: LL.B., Harvard. 1966. Professor of Law and Associate Director of the National Energy tatv and Polic) Institute, 'I'he University of Tulsa.
    [Show full text]
  • Which States Rely on Which Tax
    Which States Rely on Which Tax As a whole, state governments rely on individual income and general sales taxes for most of their tax revenue, with individual income taxes making up a slightly larger share. This, of course, is not the case across all 50 states. Many states rely significantly more on either sales or income taxes. Some states don't tax general sales; others exempt personal and/or corporate income from taxes. In addition, other taxes such as property taxes, severance taxes, or other taxes on corporations that in national aggregate appear insignificant, make up large shares of tax revenue for some individual state governments. In considering which state tax systems rely more on which taxes, states can be broken down into three main groups: general sales tax states, individual income tax states, and "other" tax states. Throughout this discussion it should be remembered that the comparisons here are focused on the designs of tax systems, not on the overall tax burdens of those systems. General Sales General sales taxes are an important revenue source for many states. Forty-five states currently tax general sales. The five exceptions are Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon.1 On average, states collect a third of their tax revenue from general sales taxes. Some states rely on these taxes for a much higher percentage of their total tax revenue. The degree of that reliance is shown in figure 1 below.2 Figure 1. States with above Average Reliance on General Sales Taxes: Percentage Points above National Average, FY 2007 Rhode Island Delaware 21 points or more, n=4 7 points or more, n=5 Puerto Rico U.S.
    [Show full text]