Is a small property tax increase a better alternative than going for a big bond referendum next year to pay for Wake County school construction needs?
As noted in today's article by Thomas Goldsmith, county staff told the Wake County Board of Commissioners on Monday that a 2.7-cent property tax increase would raise $150 million a year for county schools construction. This could be used to delay a school bond issue for three years, paying for $450 million in new schools and renovations.
That $450 million would likely be smaller than what the school board would request in a 2013 bond referendum.
One potential benefit of delaying the school bond is to avoid having voters decide on bond referendums in consecutive years. Commissioners are weighing whether to put a $200 million bond referendum for Wake Technical Community College on this November's ballot.
Wake Tech is ahead of the school system for a bond vote because, among other things, the plan to use the money is already in place. The school board is still in the early stages of drawing up the next construction program.
But commissioners may balk at any school construction plan that raises taxes.
Board chairman Paul Coble said Monday he’d want to know more about schools’ current spending before considering a tax hike. The size of the schools’ rainy day fund concerns Coble.
The 2.7-cent tax increase per $100 of assessed value would cost the owner of a $200,000 house about $54 a year.
If commissioners balk at that 2.7 cent tax hike or a bond issue that raises taxes, there's not much money that will be available to cover K-12 school construction.
Comments
Of course they will
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 19:52 — FSandYOUBecause they know they will not get a bond approved by the public.
So, like the Head, Millberg, Gill, Clark, Dulaney, Burns era, they will mandate and force the public to anne up more on their dwindling properties.
At 'a boys CC's. At least you're doing what Wake County does best, sticking it to its citizens.
Coble...
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 16:24 — Bob_SconceIs it illegal to slap a commissioner? What if they really deserve it?
First of all, most of the schools' rainy day fund is going into next year's budget -- it's not available for school construction. And, even if it was, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed.
Secondly, let's pretend that the district didn't have a rainy-day fund (what Coble and Gurley wanted). That would be a $28M hit to next year's budget. Coble and Gurley have said "You don't need a rainy day fund. We have one and we'll take care of you." Does anybody actually believe that pair of skinflints would have found $28M to give to the school district? I don't think so.
They should consider a 5.4 cent tax increase. That's closer to what will be needed. Of course, nobody in their right mind believes that the commissioners won't abscond some of that for their own purposes.
Better yet....let's
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 18:05 — shearertwBetter yet....let's eliminate the state income tax and go for a 100 cent tax increase....
Bob, you're right
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 17:23 — ScoreOnetax increases go into the general operating fund and potentially become lost monies to the school system. What today is a tax increase for school construction, becomes tomorrow's we need it for other purposes.
Tony and Paul (et.al) have tried for years to: a) get their hands on the rainy day fund, or b) deplete it to the point where they usurp the BOE's budgeting authority. Politically, they can say in the short-term, "hey we voted to raise taxes for schools." In the long-term, it becomes added revenue without a vote.
Here we go. So...since 2008,
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 15:08 — shearertwHere we go.
So...since 2008, my property value has decreased by about 10%. Inflation has been stagnant (for now, we'll make up for it soon thanks to Obama). Now there will be a 2.7% increase in my property taxes which effectly means a much higher tax increase because my property values have decreased. One of the reasons my property values have decreased is because of all the new homes being built in the area at discount prices. Those new homes at discount prices are attracting a lot of people to move here requiring new schools to be built where the new construction is. If new homes weren't being built or at least we're more expensive, perhaps either people would chose to purchase existing homes near current schools or would move here at a slower pace allowing the school district to spread out construction plans. In other words, people currently living here are clearing paying a price for the rapid, unfettered new construction going on all around with thousands of empty existing homes sitting on the market. Now, where I live, there are plans for 100s of apartments to be put in....I'm sure they're asking the developer to help pay some of the school constructions that is going to require.
What are you complaining....
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 12:49 — bpuli9999about? All those poor people in apartments will help devalue your house a bit more, so you can appeal and lower your property taxes. Since that seems to be your primary concern.
Sure...I have a lot of
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 12:50 — shearertwSure...I have a lot of confidence in being able to get my property taxes lowered...
What are you smoking?
Same thing....
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 10:05 — bpuli9999you are.
Move to a cheaper neighborhood since now your school "choice" is guaranteed. And above all stop whining. Deal with it.
Only down 10%
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 21:55 — Solon77Your value is down only 10% and you are complaining. There will be a 5% increase in property taxes (that is 2.7 cents on 54.3 cents) But then again only an idiot would finance long term assets with short term money when interest rates are at historic lows, especially when as you say inflation can only go up.
As far a discounted houses, supply and demand, supply and demand.
Taxes
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 19:01 — starsonoursThe Developer is helping pay for new schools. Its called taxes, the same way you helped pay for schools when you moved here.
Triple post
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 20:00 — starsonoursTriple post
Triple post
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 19:02 — starsonoursTriple post
Why don't you move....
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 17:47 — bpuli9999to some place where you like the tax rates?
And why are you whining about growth and low prices? Market forces, remember.
Because the market forces
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 18:02 — shearertwBecause the market forces are being manipulated by the government. The growth is not paying for itself, existing homeowners are and in a big way that most (likely you included) don't even realize.
I actually liked property tax rates in Texas which were nearly 2.5-fold higher. However, I knew exactly where they were going...my kids neighborhood school which kicks the pants off of any school in WCPSS 10x over. I would love to move back their but job and economics have forced my hand for now. Making the best of it...especially if I can get under your skin every once in while. Of course, in Texas, there is no state income tax because they actually believe in peoples ability to handel their own problems/issues at the local level. I also had to show my picture ID when I voted which in a not so distant way is almost certainly related to this issue too.
Can't find a job...
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 12:45 — bpuli9999or run a business in amazing Texas?
Only one company in all of
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 12:58 — shearertwOnly one company in all of Texas in my industry that's hiring....worked there before, not doing that again.
Run a business, perhaps, but not quite ready yet.
Ahh, loved Texas. If you
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 13:40 — DrActualFactualAhh, loved Texas. If you are over 65 (maybe 60) you could homestead your property and pay only 1/2 the tax amount.....so they didn't gouge senior citizens on fixed incomes either. Lots to like about Texas.
Why are you....
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 10:05 — bpuli9999still here?
Growth not paying for itself
Tue, 05/15/2012 - 21:46 — Solon77Please take a basic finance class at Wake Tech or something. Contrary to your opinion, growth is paying for itself.
Property taxes School funding School debt service
2006 $443m $245m $107m
2012 $638m $314m $175m
Diff +$195m +$69m +$68m Net +$58m
Growth has provided a Net $58m of revenue per year after paying for the school system.
Had a chance to go back over
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 19:54 — shearertwHad a chance to go back over your numbers...Actually, the percent of taxes going to schools is basically unchanged. Of course growth doesn't just require an increase in school funding.....it requires more roads, more police, more firemen, more sewers, more everything that also cost money. Therefore, your tax data you present here is irrelevant. The clear evidence comes from overcrowded schools, mobile classrooms, MYR, and now tax increases which wouldn't be necessary if growth was paying for itself. Don't worry, I wouldn't expect them to teach you that at Wake Tech.
% taxes going to the schools
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 20:59 — Solon77Correct, 70% of the taxes are going to schools, that has remained constant. What you are not considering is that the tax rate should have been increasing at a rate of approx 2.5%-3.0% per year to cover general inflation. The tax rate has been flat. So what does this mean ? it means that tax revenue growth from the newbies have gone to fund inflation of the base budget + the growth of infrastructure. How else do you think you are able to have a lower tax rate today than 2002 ? So how do I explan the over crowded schools, mobile classrooms, parents cleaning schools, parent supply list ballooning, .....ect. it is simple - the county has been relying on revenue from growth to fund the general inflation of the county budget. Had property tax rates gone up a basic 2-2.5% a year since 2008 we would have an additional $60m of revenue per year. Don't you think that would make a difference in available funding for the schools ? Instead we have your side of the aisle saying no increase in revenue. I believe you have a business. What would your environment be with $0 revenue growth over a 4-5 year period. I am with you on the lack of school funding. But the cause is not growth, it is the basic unwillingness of the already existing population to fund the inflationary piece of the budget.
Perhaps that's my
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 12:25 — shearertwPerhaps that's my problem....I took my finance and economics classes at a private institution when I should have just gone to the esteemed Wake Tech program.
So...were's the surplus money going? If growth is funding school construction, then why do we have capacity issues all over the place and a need to raise property taxes and/or float another bond issue to pay for new school construction.
Perhaps what I need to take is a "government" finance course where I learn how to shift money around, count it two or three times or not count it when that's of some benefit to my agenda.
FYI-to your earlier comment, when the government subsidizes something, that artificially depresses the cost of manufacture which increases the supply beyond what the market can tolerate. That, in effect, reduces its value. That's partially what is happening to our home prices in WC, beyond what Obama's crappy economic policies have contributed. It's probably not as significant an effect as Obama's crappy policies but it's still in there...
And you're right....it may be more than a 10% decrease in value....I'm trying to remain optimistic. That's what Obama would want me to do...
Facts
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 13:12 — Solon77I know facts are not something you and your right wing GOP buddies are not use to. So what are you really upset about ? You bought a big house at the height of the market just before the crash. You have lost a boat load of equity and now an apartment complex is going up next to your home which will depress its value further. Somehow this is Obama and the government's fault ? If anything the run up in housing prices was a result of cheap money and the fast and loose no regulation under Bush. Welcome to capitalism at it's best, the man on the top of the pyramid takes it in the shorts. We won't get into the fact the economy was losing 900,000 jobs a month and the stock market was around 6,000 when Obama took office - prosperous times don't you think.
As far as the home prices in WC being down from 2008 due to the so called government subsidies, I would hardly call WC an exception, only to the extent home rpices have not fallen nearly as much as other parts of the country. Are you saying that in New Jersey, San Diego and other parts of the country housing prices declined because the government was subsidizing whatever you say it was subsidizing ?
With regards to your private education, I would be asking for a refund.
Your lack of fact based argument is getting tiresome, you are sounding like Sam.
I love it when you title
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 19:57 — shearertwI love it when you title your post with the word FACTS but there aren't any FACTS in it. Isn't that false advertising or something?
Go argue with Sam, perhaps you can keep up with him.
So...
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 16:10 — Bob_SconceStill too early to assign fault. I think it had to do with a history of government bailouts, starting with Continental Illinois and the Mexican Debt crisis that led bankers to believe that they could take risks on the government's dime. Amazingly, they were largely correct.
Of course, that's just my theory.
BTW, DOW on Jan 20, 2009: 8077.56.
DOW 8,077
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 20:16 — Solon77Appreciate the correction. So the DOW is up 50% under Obama. When Bush took office it was around 10,600, 20% decrease by the end of his term.
Yup...
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 22:32 — Bob_SconceI think we give Presidents too much credit/blame for the overall state of the economy. There's really very little that they can actually do about it.
Per usual, you ignore the
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 15:16 — shearertwPer usual, you ignore the FACT that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were running 2/3 of the government beginning in 2006. Also, the facts are, more regulation was instituted under Bush, not less. Perhaps you wanted more, more and more regulation but that's the facts. You certainly have some points on the cheap money. Checked out those mortgage rates lately, can you say 3%? Perhaps if Obama hadn't spent the stimulus money on "green jobs" like those you might find at Solyndra, then perhaps more people would now be employed and the housing market would have already returned. I'm not complaining about my housing situation, that's the risk you take in owning a home. I'm simply recommending we make wiser decisions in the future.
FYI-the reason housing is even worse in San Diego and NJ is due to ridiculous state and local taxes implemented by Democrats. Perhaps Christie can turn it around in NJ in a few years but California is lost. In FACT, if you want to see the states that have the best economies right now, just look at the most red ones first.
As for my private education....Perhaps they're the ones that should ask for their money back...can you say "scholarship"?
Now that Sam comment was just hurtful...I think you should apologize.
Cheap $
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 21:37 — Solon77It was a combination of cheap $ and loose regualtions. The only reason the housing market has not bounced back quicker is because banks are still lock up tighter than a drim. That is unless you want to trade in derivatives. There seems to be plenty of $ and apetite for risk there.
NJ I am sure is a wondeful place to live. You fit in nicely paying $10,000 + per year in property taxes.
As far as the states with the best economies. Yeah I am sure Idaho, Montans, Wyoming, North and South Dakota will lead the economic revival. Mississippi and Louisiana are doing a stellar job at the bottom of the list.
Sam comment - ok maybe that was below the belt. I apologize.
Why don't you check out
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 10:45 — shearertwWhy don't you check out where Ohio and Wisconsin are now headed since they were wise enough to put a Republican in as Governers?
I'm not surprised, however, that you are taking Bev "I'm Through" Perdue's cue to take a jab at MS. Judging from NC's unemployment rate, I'm not sure why she didn't say we're starting to look like CA?
Just wondering, why do you think CA is the worst state for business and the worst state for employment while TX and other red states continue to top those list year after year?
Does this also....
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 12:41 — bpuli9999apply to the food, steel, auto and oil subsidies? Or just to houses? Just curious.
Yes, absolutely... Of
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 12:56 — shearertwYes, absolutely...
Of course, there is no such thing as an "oil subsidy". There are tax breaks that all companies take advantage of with regard to depreciation of equipment that oil companies also get to take advantage of. That's what Obama calls "oil subsidies", but again, he's a liar. Paying someone to not grow corn or paying someone to build a solar panel are true subsidies.
In fairness, new home construction paying no impact fee is not really a true subsidy either...but it's a lot closer than "oil subsidy".
Impact fee?
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 07:19 — starsonoursSo turning some of lesser value into something of greater value should carry an impact fee? Increasing the Counties tax revenues for the next 60-100 is an burden? Oh that's right it is only a burden for those that arrived after you. You arrival did not impact anything and you should get a free pass. You arrive and there is one seat left in a school your child takes it someone shows up 10 minutes after you and you claim they are the reason their aren't enough seats in schools. Then you claim since you bought an existing house the taxes from it has paid your way. We have the same tax system in affect today that was in place when your house was built so the new home will pay its way the same as your existing home did. Or we should charge an impact fee to everyone.Your arrival has just as much impact as the person who arrives after you whether it is from relocation or from a long time local that reproduces. Everyone has an impact on the County and everyone should pay for that impact.
Every person that lives
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 08:53 — shearertwEvery person that lives here, rather they arrived 10 minutes ago or 100 years ago has the same right to influence the policies we all live under moving forward.
I personally would prefer that we have some policies that begin to hold local municipalities more accountable for the rate of growth. One of the reasons I chose to move to this area was because is doesn't have big city traffic, doesn't have thousands of houses crammed in on 0.12 acres, doesn't have HS's with 3000 kids, etc. Current policies have us on that track which would turn the area into a place in which I would no longer want to live (if we're not almost there already). That's why everyone, from whereever they came, has the same right as you to influence where we go from here. If you don't like having other ideas influence the policies in which we all live, perhaps you should stop building houses....
You have the right to try to
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 12:36 — starsonoursYou have the right to try to change policies. But thoses who take the risk determine what is built. Instead you would pick their pockets so you don't have to pay your share. Someone must like houses crammed on .12 acres or how do explain people buying them? Do you want to alter market forces and build what you like? No demand no sell. Everyone has the opportunity to build anything they like as long as they are paying for it, I would prefer you not try to decide how I risk my money to build a monument to you. I recall when US 1 from the Virginia line to Trawick road was a dark boring drive with just a few gas stations along the way. Times change, don't show up and try to stop the growth that has been going on long before you got here because you want to freeze it and have it remain like it was on the day you arrived.
Hey...while you're at it,
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 15:58 — shearertwHey...while you're at it, why don't you just put a high rise apartment building in downtown Apex? At least then we'll have a reason for mass transit!
??
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 18:16 — starsonoursHey if there is a demand for it someone will build it. If not they will not. Please post your number so if someone does decide to do it they call for your approval.
Forgot to post my
Fri, 05/18/2012 - 07:48 — shearertwForgot to post my number
1-800-UR-NOTAPPROVED
Good luck getting that
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 18:47 — shearertwGood luck getting that approved!
I want you to be able to
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 12:53 — shearertwI want you to be able to take risk and build what you want. However, while we have public funded education, we have to consider the impact on how those kids will be educated and that cost all of us money. Therefore, unfortunately, we all have a stake in how many houses you build per acre. Small homes crammed on small lots are of less value and bring in less tax revenue per child. That's reality. That difference is made up out of my pocket, not yours. If the municipalities in WC had to take one responsibility for building schools to accomodate the construction they allow, things would be a lot different. Right now, in WC, areas of slow/no growth are paying for areas of high growth. That's simply not right in my book. If a city wants high growth and the people in that city want high growth, have at it but don't force other areas that don't want high growth to pay for it. You're not living in reality if you think what you're desribing is "market forces". That fact that others are paying for the growth you're not paying for is distorting those market forces. If those people had to pay the true cost those high density developments have on communities, they wouldn't do it....and I think you know that.
?
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 18:14 — starsonoursBy paying a few thousand dollars a year in property tax does not make you supreme ruler of Wake County. So you should have a voice in how others use their property? Where does your area of concern end? Why not cover the entire State why limit your opinion in what others do to the county border? The taxes you pay does not give you the right to determine how I or others use their property. Those that own the property and take the risk decide, your interest is a tempory interest, heck 25 years ago you were not even here now you feel like you own the place! Your taxes are no more than a rent payment for the time you are here. Not a purchase price for all undeveloped land in the county.
As to small lots, small lots generate more revenue for the municipality than larger lots. I can fit 1 $300k house on an acre or fit 4 $250k houses on an acre, which generates more tax revenue?
I cringe every time I see you ask everyone that arrived after you to pay something you did not pay and saying it is fair. But you have your opinion and have the right to continue to be wrong.
When you live within a
Fri, 05/18/2012 - 07:56 — shearertwWhen you live within a municipality, other people do get to have a voice on what you put on your land. That is because what you put there has an impact on other peoples property and their lives. They're not going to let me bulldoze 10 acres in downtown Raleigh and build a chicken farm for example. Contrary to what you may believe, I'm big on property rights but it does have its limits particularly within city limits. If you want do build something way out in the country that doesn't affect someone else, have at it. Can you please pint me to the 300K house in WC on 1 acre?
Sure, those houses packed together bring in more revenue per acre but they also bring in more people per acre. You might get 3.3X the tax revenue but they'll be 4X the number of people and kids to build schools for...That's my entire point!
And....to make matters worse, those smaller homes on small lots tend to be purchased by younger couples starting their families meaning their may be 6-8X the number of kids per acre vs the 300K house on 1 acre.
So...when you build high density housing, it may be good for your revenue, the realtor's revenue, and the lawyer's revenue....it may even be good for the municipalities revenue (that's a close call) but only because they don't have to pay for school construction. It's NOT, however, good for the other people living and paying property taxes in the county bc they're going to now have build a new ES for you, sit in traffic and send their kids to crowded mobile units for classrooms.
We are not talking about
Fri, 05/18/2012 - 12:21 — starsonoursWe are not talking about building chicken farm we are talking about replacing chicken farms with something of more value. I have dealt with people like you for over 30 years., You are the guy that moves into the neighborhood and then starts send me letters and phone calls trying to dictate what gets built. "I have a vested interest, I now live here!" "You should be building houses that are 500 soft larger than mine" "I don't like the color of the brick on the house next door" "You should build a pool for neighborhood." Yes you have an major interest in the property you own and a non existent interest in what other own.
That same guy is the one who joins the HOA and decides to raise HOA dues to ad playground equipment but decides to only raise the rates on people moving in after they have. Why? Because why should he have to pay for it he has been paying HOA dues for 2 years. Did those old HOA dues cover the cost of the equipment? NO but He doesn't want to have to pay more let the new people pay it. Will he use the equipment? You bet, he will protest screaming it is his right to use it!
The entire point is the new house has no more impact on schools than an existing house, an apartment or a relatives home. As long as people move here we will have an issue with adding schools. If a family with 6 kids move in with a relative in Raleigh are the schools impacted? If that same family buys an existing house are the schools impacted? If they move into a 30 year old apartment are the schools impacted? If someone already living here has a child are the schools impacted? YES to all of those and not a single new home was built. So why focus on new construction? Because it is an easy target, you are not addressing the problem you are just looking for someone else to pay for it. The solution is for everyone to pay for it because everyone contributes to the problem.
You don't know me from Adam
Fri, 05/18/2012 - 13:31 — shearertwYou don't know me from Adam so I suggest you don't make assumptions. I'm not a big fan of HOA's and I've never once complained to or asked anything of one of them
The truth is, which I think you're beginning to see by the math problem YOU started, is that some types of growth does not pay for itself with the way things are set up in WC. People who live in low growth areas are paying for the high growth with no net benefit for them. If a municipality wants to allow high growth, they should be responsible for paying for the consequences. If they want to pass that on to all their citizens that live in that city fine....people get to vote for their city leaders who are behind that and can agree or disagree with it with their vote. New growth cost more because of the initial cost of schools and road construction, etc. I know you know that. You want that cost distributed to everyone because that helps.....you....it doesn't help everyone. If you want to be free to do whatever you want on your land then I recommend you pay for all of it and stop asking us all to "share the cost" unless you're willing to "share" the profits!
Finally, who made you "supreme leader" to decide what is and isn't of greater value? I value low classroom sizes, reasonable traffic, low taxes and a peaceful place to live...
I value
Sun, 05/20/2012 - 22:04 — Solon77Low classroom sizes, reasonable traffic, low taxes and a peaceful place to live
As suspected you expect something for nothing.
And the tax system we have
Sun, 05/20/2012 - 15:37 — starsonoursAnd the tax system we have in place now is the same one that was in place 20, 40, 60 years ago. If the system is broken now it has always been broken so no one has "paid their way" and everyone should pay to correct it. How can you say the system is broken and then claim your home (using the same system) paid its way but future homes will not. If the system doesn't work now it didn't work then and all of us have not paid as we should have!!!
Most people buy a home and finance the cost. Why? Because they can not pay for it out of pocket. They understand that they will be paying for it over many years but fell comfortable that the salary they are making will allow them to make the payments. Municipalities do the same thing. They see that taking a raw piece of land they are collecting pennies will generate more revenue as a developed property. They understand this will "impact" the area but the long term revenue will offset this impact. It is not nor has it ever been a "pay as you go" situation. They take out bonds to pay for the infrastructure and pay for it with the long term revenue that is generated. The municipality is not giving me a cut of future revenues why do I have to give them a cut of my profits?
You seem to say the system work until a few years ago but now a new system is needed so you don't have to share in the cost of living here and want others to shoulder the burden so you don't have to. But the increase in value to your home that these impact fees create is yours and yours only. If a part of my profits are subject to paying for schools why aren't yours?
I do pay for the cost of what I do with my land you are the one asking me to share my profits with you! When you sell your home where you going to share the profit you make with the rest of us? Or does the increase in value to your property that was created by others paying for new schools belong to only you? Why do you deem my profits public property but yours are not?
The cost of school construction has always been the responsibility of the municipality not Builders and Developers. I have pointed out how schools can be impacted without a single new home being built, you choice to ignore that fact and continue to place the blame on the Construction industry. A home does not create a need for a school, but yet you want to tax only the new ones to pay for new schools.
Or bribe....
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 10:08 — bpuli9999politicians to change the law in your favor.
Well...that is how the
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 10:36 — shearertwWell...that is how the policies we current have came to be...
Paying someone
Wed, 05/16/2012 - 21:41 — Solon77Paying someone to build/develop solar panels is a subsidy. Paying someone to drill for oil is not a subsidy. I see the logic.
No...you clearly do not see
Thu, 05/17/2012 - 08:47 — shearertwNo...you clearly do not see the logic. The government is NOT paying anyone to drill for oil. They are simply affording them the SAME EXACT TAX BREAKS every other manufacturer receives. A tax break is not paying someone, that's taking less from them. The solar panel guys ALSO get the same tax break. However, in addition to the tax break, the solar panel guys get free money. The difference is basically the same as taking a mortgage interest rate deduction vs. receiving a welfare check in the mail. Secondly, contrary to the solar panel company, the federal government takes in huge amounts of revenue from the sale of oil in the form of taxes and royalties. I am all for providing tax breaks to industries that generate NET income for the goverment vs funding those that are NET lossers.
FYI-I don't expect you to ever see logic....