Eric Proctor (D-Tulsa) calls for action to raise gross production taxes (GPT) on petroleum. He has long held for a negotiated compromise of 5% tax on all petroleum as it comes out of the well, but he says if the Republican legislative leaders refuse to act, then his political allies should begin an initiative petition drive to secure enough signatures to force the issue onto the next general election ballot, scheduled for November of 2018 (when a new governor is elected). Historically the GPT has been 7%, along with another tax on corporate profits annually. State officials justify the GPT as a form of business property tax and equate it to the property tax that a factory pays, along with the corporate income tax. Proctor is serving his final term in the House. State Auditor & gubernatorial candidate, Gary Jones, said that Republicans should rightly be concerned about the possibility of this tax question appearing on the ballot, next year. He says most other states charge 7%. Petroleum industry leader, Mike Cantrell, also calls on the legislature to hike the GPT rate back to where it was for much of the last century.
We recently moved our blog. Our archives are still partially stored at our old site.
David Van Risseghem is the Publisher of SoonerPolitics.org. The resource is committed to informing & mobilizing conservative Oklahomans for civic reform. This endeavor seeks to utilize the efforts of all cooperative facets of the Conservative movement...
SoonerPolitics.org is committed to informing & mobilizing conservative Oklahomans for civic reform & restored liberty. We seeks to utilize the efforts of all cooperative facets of the Conservative movement... Content of the diverse columns are solely at the discretion of the dozens of websites who create the content. David Van Risseghem is the founder of this platform. Sooner Politics News is a platform, not a media site. All our bloggers get their feeds promoted regardless of content. As soon as We suppress or delete even one posting, we become an endorser of whatever We didn't censor..The publisher doesn't (and could not) logically agree with all the content, so we would not expect any rational reader to agree, either. What we do hope, is that readers will think for themselves, and at least be better informed of the issues, events, and values that our citizen journalists work hard to provide for free.. We automate much of the tasks so that our sources' content gets as much exposure as possible. We encourage constructive discussion & debate. The solution is more free speech, not less.