The Spark
Spotlight on the arts - take your front-row seat!
Tuesday, December 2
Read more blog entries
New to Panorama
More Topics
Spotlight on the arts - take your front-row seat!
Tuesday, December 2
Read more blog entries
Alternatives to fossil fuel
Thursday, December 4
Giving thanks amid tough economic times
Tuesday, November 25
What should the U.S. do about health care?
Monday, November 24
Subscribe to Panorama
Colorado's Economy and Amendment 58
posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:04 p.m.
Money – it's on everyone's mind, it seems.The ongoing financial crisis has begun to be felt far away from Wall Street or Washington, and with a period of recession all but inevitable, we're wondering how the state of Colorado is likely to fare in the year ahead.
On "Colorado State of Mind" this week, we'll get the views of two well-known economists in our state – Tucker Hart Adams of The Adams Group and Henry Sobanet, former chief economist for Governor Bill Owens.
Wade Buchanan of The Bell Policy Center will also be on our panel, and we'll segue into another economic matter that affects Colorado's fortunes, Amendment 58 on the state ballot.
This is the one that would increase the severance taxes paid by oil and natural gas companies operating in Colorado, by eliminating an existing state tax credit the companies have had.
It's estimated this could bring the state an additional $300 million in tax revenue each year. That money would be specifically earmarked for college scholarships for state residents; preservation of wildlife habitat; renewable and clean energy projects; transportation projects in communities impacted by oil and gas production; and community drinking water and wastewater treatment grants.
You may have seen the television ads being run by both sides of this issue. The people supporting it say the oil and gas industry no longer needs the tax break it has been getting, and the state will use the money for wider benefit.
But opponents say if oil and gas companies can no longer get the tax break on severance taxes, it will eventually result in higher cost to everyone who buys their product, since all businesses factor their costs into the price they charge consumers.
What's your view on Amendment 58? Why do you plan to vote for it or against it?
We hope you'll tune in for "Colorado State of Mind" on Friday night at 7:30, or watch the show online this weekend.
-Cynthia Hessin
Gerald Portugal
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:04 p.m.
I vote for the amendment because the state needs the money more than the oil companies and gas prices have been coming down anyway. Besides, the gas crunch will give people incentive to buy more fuel efficient cars.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:04 p.m.
I vote for the amendment because the state needs the money more than the oil companies and gas prices have been coming down anyway. Besides, the gas crunch will give people incentive to buy more fuel efficient cars.
John G
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:09 p.m.
PBS is a liberal outlet using government funding for most of its existence. It looks like yet another ploy to sway the public to the left. AKA, the 4 liberal moderators for the 4 debates. For Bill Ritter & the left to call it anything but a tax is totally misleading the public. And Bill & the left are dreaming if they don't think the oil & gas companies won't pass it along!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:09 p.m.
PBS is a liberal outlet using government funding for most of its existence. It looks like yet another ploy to sway the public to the left. AKA, the 4 liberal moderators for the 4 debates. For Bill Ritter & the left to call it anything but a tax is totally misleading the public. And Bill & the left are dreaming if they don't think the oil & gas companies won't pass it along!
Charles D
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 6:59 p.m.
Yes, it is a tax - a severance tax to charge companies, in this case oil companies, which extract natural resources owned by the public. Without a tax it is a giveaway. The tax may or may not pass through to us indirectly. If a company sells its product on the competitive market it may not be able to pass the tax along as the market sets the price. Thus the tax may result in lower Colorado based oil company earnings. If earnings go too low they might leave the state- not much of a chance of that. Their statement that they will pass the tax on is a 'scare' tactic not a fact and to think that we as resource buyers will pay the tax one way or the other is incorrect.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 6:59 p.m.
Yes, it is a tax - a severance tax to charge companies, in this case oil companies, which extract natural resources owned by the public. Without a tax it is a giveaway. The tax may or may not pass through to us indirectly. If a company sells its product on the competitive market it may not be able to pass the tax along as the market sets the price. Thus the tax may result in lower Colorado based oil company earnings. If earnings go too low they might leave the state- not much of a chance of that. Their statement that they will pass the tax on is a 'scare' tactic not a fact and to think that we as resource buyers will pay the tax one way or the other is incorrect.
F.S. Di Grappa
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 7:59 p.m.
People, and companies, in the oil business pay a severance tax, advalorem tax, oil levt to run the state oil/gas commission office and income tax. That's enough!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 7:59 p.m.
People, and companies, in the oil business pay a severance tax, advalorem tax, oil levt to run the state oil/gas commission office and income tax. That's enough!
Fred. E.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 8:22 a.m.
This will create real problems for local government if it passes. It will hurt a number of school districts as well as other special districts.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 8:22 a.m.
This will create real problems for local government if it passes. It will hurt a number of school districts as well as other special districts.
Jordan Emmerly
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:03 a.m.
Conservatives like John G prefer to condemn before they see the program, apparently. I'm going to watch because I haven't decided yet about Amendment 58 and because I know I can always learn something new.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:03 a.m.
Conservatives like John G prefer to condemn before they see the program, apparently. I'm going to watch because I haven't decided yet about Amendment 58 and because I know I can always learn something new.
L Efram
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:42 a.m.
People see the word "tax," and automatically think its a tax for THEM. This amendment would mean our Government would STOP paying money to the oil companies, so they would have more money to spend on other programs that actually need the money. If gas prices go up, I suspect it would be a temporary thing, and well worth it.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:42 a.m.
People see the word "tax," and automatically think its a tax for THEM. This amendment would mean our Government would STOP paying money to the oil companies, so they would have more money to spend on other programs that actually need the money. If gas prices go up, I suspect it would be a temporary thing, and well worth it.
Lisa L
Saturday, October 18, 2008 2:34 p.m.
John G
Rocky Mountain PBS only recieves a few pennies ( and I mean a few) from federal money and zero from state. It is a mistake many people make.
Saturday, October 18, 2008 2:34 p.m.
John G
Rocky Mountain PBS only recieves a few pennies ( and I mean a few) from federal money and zero from state. It is a mistake many people make.
Anne Starritt
Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:21 p.m.
$300,000,000 additional revenue sounds to me like an amount too large to dismiss. True, that figure is estimated but worthy of consideration for the earmarked programs. I put my optimism with the people who will benefit with education, necessary water treatment, energy, et al.
Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:21 p.m.
$300,000,000 additional revenue sounds to me like an amount too large to dismiss. True, that figure is estimated but worthy of consideration for the earmarked programs. I put my optimism with the people who will benefit with education, necessary water treatment, energy, et al.
Anne Starritt
Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:33 p.m.
P.S. Did I add too many zeros to that $300,--- ? I find different figures in different places. This is sure to get a comment! I'll stand by my optimism. Additional revenue is an asset.
Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:33 p.m.
P.S. Did I add too many zeros to that $300,--- ? I find different figures in different places. This is sure to get a comment! I'll stand by my optimism. Additional revenue is an asset.
