[emersonbiggins]

Listening to my daily dose of MSM this morning, I am starting to get the feeling that Bushco & Congress are being pressured to move closer to establishing some sort of windfall profits tax on oil in the U.S. Several voice clips were heard, many in the vein of "...but a barrel only costs 20 dollars to produce, so why are we getting charged $70?!" So, if a WPT is established of, say, 20% off the top, how will this exactly distort the market? Personally, I am for eliminating the tax breaks and subsidies promised to Big Oil established last year (to much praise from the public, I might add - "this will get them to drill here! "). So, what are your thoughts on establishing a WPT?

[Starvid]

The first thing one thinks is NO! because it would discourage new investments, but then I got thinking.

* There is no reason to have a massive wealth transfer from ordinary people to oil companies.

* There must be massive investment in the oil industry.

* WPT discourage investment in the oil industry.

My solution: implement WPT but make new investments in the oil sector tax deductible.

[LadyRuby]

I'm all for it. Especially if the tax can be used to do one or more of the following:

- Reduce the deficit
- Build alternative energy infrastructure
- Build or expand transit service

[RonMN]

I'm against it. Since when is a 50% increase a "windfall"? If microsoft has a 50% increase in profits, are we going to take it away from them?

Also...if you think the little guy (us) are going to see a penney of that money, you're dreaming. The idea is nothing but a political ploy & will result in congresmen lining their pockets while at the same time, seriously damages investment.

I'm all for getting rid of the subsidies...but if this WPT goes thru, don't be surprised when the law is revised to tax YOU every time you get a raise.

[J-Rod]

I am more with Ron on this one. This is simply a political solution to try and appease votes come November. Everyone wants to blame the big guys for making money. Sure, I am jealous as hell of Exxon CEOs and Bill Gates. That doesn't mean I have to hate them and want to pass a law that says "Sorry, you guys were just too successful. You will now have to give back some profits."

It's especially strange coming from the same administration that has been catering to the rich for years now, with huge tax breaks, and sticking it to the middle class. If I thought a WPT could actually be used to do stuff like directly invest in renewables, and attempt to curb a hard crash, I might be for it. But as it stands, I am afraid it's nothing but a scam to avoid the Democrats taking the issue and running with it. IIRC some of the Dem talking points recently were like "We need to make this gas issue our platform." There's just no easy solution to the mess, and WPT just sounds really good to the average joe who is sick of paying too much for his fuel. The affluent voter in this country can afford to pay much much more for fuel without blinking an eye.

[UIUCstudent01]

Basic econ 101 says it will further push the cost up. The government profits!

I might be for them considering that a large portion of our military expenditures are probably protecting oil infrastructure...

[BitterSweetCrude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'T')he first thing one thinks is NO! because it would discourage new investments, but then I got thinking.

* There is no reason to have a massive wealth transfer from ordinary people to oil companies.

* There must be massive investment in the oil industry.

* WPT discourage investment in the oil industry.

My solution: implement WPT but make new investments in the oil sector tax deductible.

[emersonbiggins]

I have no dog in this fight (I don't own oil stock), but if a WPT were initiated, I would hope the money would go towards building a national rail system/renewable energy/nuke buildup instead of being rebated back to the consumer or spent on sour-handling refinery expansion or roads (sheesh!). I think a heavy consumption tax is rather more justifiable to achieve those goals, but that's becoming increasingly impossible, politically speaking, as oil prices keep rising.

The WPT scenario that I've heard so far is to capture profits above a certain amount per barrel. Obviously, $120/barrel oil would have a massive WPT, whereas $50/barrel would probably be exempt. The whole WPT concept, as it would be implemented, is complete BS though. The poster who wrote about Microsoft is right. I don't own a home, but I think a WPT should be slapped on chronic home-flippers seeing double-digit gains on homes every three months. Think I'll get any relief?

[dhfenton]

Remember early in Bush's first term when he held an energy summit that the public was not allowed to have any knowledge of? Remember when Matt Simmons met with the president and laid out peak oil? Today's high energy costs do not shock this administration, they created this situation quite on purpose (that's my opinion). Anyone who beleives that a windfall profits tax is not going to somehow find its way right back in the pockets of the energy companies is probably not being realistic.

One can only hope that the current energy situation will force change in congress, and finally get some representation for the people, instead of corporations. Personally, I have to think the system is so corrupt that there is a better chance of the sun rising in the west tomorrow, than there is of getting real populist representatives in congress. People hate change, even when the lack of change will force the greatest change they've ever known.

[canis_lupus]

This idea is as retarded as hate crime legislation. Isn't crime, crime? Aren't taxes...taxes?

How can anyone want to punish oil companies with more taxes for doing what they do best? Oil companies already pay taxes, if folks want to get together and pressure the government to use some of those taxes--instead of new ones--for light rail, etc.

The annoying thing about this is the way the government applies laws where it chooses to like immigration reform. "Sure, it's illegal, but it's ok." Gas prices go up? "Sure, they pay their taxes and provide jobs for the economy, and prices are run up by speculators and <insert crap here> but they have a lot of money now so we should get it." Is the government going to give it back when oil companies have lean times? Is this what we do, punishing successful companies rather than letting the market reward them for their successes?

The number of socialists on this site freaks me out sometimes.

There are two solutions to the current high prices: lower your consumption or make more money to afford your lifestyle.

On the other hand, maybe it is better to get this charade out of the way now so we don't have to do it when oil is $80 / barrel.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('canis_lupus', 'T')he number of socialists on this site freaks me out sometimes.

[canis_lupus]

<deep breath>


<deep breath>


<deep breath / hold / release >

ok. you are abolutely right, emerson. this issue just brings my color up in a hurry. when things get bad, the easiest thing to do is to look to the government to fix the problem...rather than conserve or change their lifestyle.

I just met with a client who asked why oil companies aren't "doing the right thing" by helping us out at the pump.

I gave him the 5 minute spiel about why oil prices are high and how they will go higher (no capacity, Iran war, attack on oil production, hurricanes, wpt passed on to us at the pump, etc). He got it.

I'm ok now. I'm ok.

<deep breath>

[aflurry]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'I')'m against it. Since when is a 50% increase a "windfall"? If microsoft has a 50% increase in profits, are we going to take it away from them?

Also...if you think the little guy (us) are going to see a penney of that money, you're dreaming. The idea is nothing but a political ploy & will result in congresmen lining their pockets while at the same time, seriously damages investment.

I'm all for getting rid of the subsidies...but if this WPT goes thru, don't be surprised when the law is revised to tax YOU every time you get a raise.

[emersonbiggins]

I absolutely understand what you're thinking about when it comes to the populace clamoring for government intervention. My beef with the government is that it has caused a lot of the problem to begin with by encouraging single-family home ownership and elevation of the auto to cult status above all other forms of transport & the accompanying infrastructure that comes with. I think the American people and their government are getting exactly what they asked for - they just can't afford it anymore. If a solution is to come from this government, it had better come in the form of a cessation of incentives to continue to waste oil - so Americans can look the cold, hard truth straight in the face.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aflurry', ' ')neither the microsoft comparison nor ME getting a raise impinge on other people getting to work and making a living.

[canis_lupus]

emerson, you just crystallized my thoughts for the day. amen!

I suppose if GM is going to get tough love, why can't GWB "America is Addicted to Oil" backstop his words?

This would be the perfect opportunity.

[PrairieMule]

At the very least I'd say we roll back the 12 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies from the Bush's 2005 energy bill. I don't think the oil companies need our tax dollars to encourage them with oil over $70 a barrel.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('canis_lupus', 'e')merson, you just crystallized my thoughts for the day. amen!

I suppose if GM is going to get tough love, why can't GWB "America is Addicted to Oil" backstop his words?

This would be the perfect opportunity.

[BitterSweetCrude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PrairieMule', 'A')t the very least I'd say we roll back the 12 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies from the Bush's 2005 energy bill. I don't think the oil companies need our tax dollars to encourage them with oil over $70 a barrel.

[aflurry]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('canis_lupus', 'T')his idea is as retarded as hate crime legislation. Isn't crime, crime? Aren't taxes...taxes?