The Secret of Taxes And Empty Good Intentions

Alan at Idablue complains about an ad placed by Americans for Tax Reform:

The interest group Americans for Tax Reform took out a full page ad in the Statesman, and no doubt in many other places, to stir up resistance to the energy bill recently passed by the House. ATR is calling the energy bill the “Massive Tax Hike of 2007.” ATR alleges the bill has $21 Billion in new taxes, will lead to higher utility bills, and will cost drivers more than $6.71 Bil.

What a crock.

The bill does increases taxes for oil companies, but it’s in the form of taking away subsidies and special tax breaks. Given the record, and windfall, profits oil companies are enjoying, this is reasonable.

Ironically, Alan hits on the answer to the issue in the next line:

Higher utility bill will result only if the oil companies raise their prices even further to make up for the lost tax breaks.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. One of the biggest liberal myths out there is that Corporations pay taxes. They don’t! They collect them.

Every expense a corporation has is passed on to the consumer. A company buys new equipment, the cost is passed on to the consumer. And yes, the cost of taxes are passed onto the consumer, be the product rental property or gasoline. Anyone think the oil companies will just say, “Well, I guess we can just cut dividends to our investors”? I find it funny that liberals think Big Oil are scumbags, but that somehow there’s a possibility that a tax increase on oil companies will not be seen at the pumps.

Alan claims the real reason Americans for Tax Reform doesn’t favor the bill is that it will increase CAFE fuel standards, which one government agency claims will save 14.3 billion gallons of fuel over the lifetime of the vehicles.

Well, of course, those greedy scumbags at ATR simply love high gas prices and want you to spend billions on gas. They couldn’t possibly have a principled reason for opposing this bill. Never mind that ATR opposes all tax increases and any bill that has a tax increase won’t have their support.

First of all, ATR opposes all tax increases at any time, because tax increases represent an attempt of government to take control over your life.

Second, there is a reasonable principled reason to oppose higher fuel standards. Here’s a hint, it’s not the role of government to do this. If higher fuel standards are the answer to the cost of fuel consumption, why not set standards at 90 Miles Per Gallon in the city, and 100 Miles Per Gallon on the highway? That would save a lot more money. Never mind how impractical it is or how much it might cost to change designs.

What we have is, instead of the market dictating what type of cars we get and what type of fuel economy is required, the federal government dictating it. If people want a hybrid, they can buy a hybrid. That’s their choice. If I want to buy a gas guzzling Hummer, that’s also my choice. When you have the government telling car manufacturers how to make their cars, you’ll have additional costs involved, but you also fundamentally have government overstepping the bounds of its proper role, which is not to control every Corporation.

In another story, DFO asks his readers whether they agree with Governor Otter (R-ID) on the state’s pension fund not divesting from companies that do business in Sudan.

I think the genocide in Darfur is awful. My question, fundamentally, is whether Idaho’s divestment would do any good? Last I heard, we have $2 million in companies that do business in the Sudan. You sell $2 million worth of a company’s stock and it will have very little impact on a company’s stock prices because someone will buy the stock. So, overall selling the stocks is a feel-good measure that solves nothing.

What I would like to see is for Idaho to sponsor proposals for the annual shareholders meeting asking that the companies not do business with Darfur until they’ve cleaned up their act on human rights. If such proposal were initiated, it would garner a lot of support from governments and individual investors who don’t want the company doing business in Darfur and would do a lot more good than a one day 1/8 of a point drop in a stock’s price.