PeakOil is You
Windfall Profits Tax - Let's talk about it.
Re: Windfall Profits Tax - Let's talk about it.
by dissimulo » Tue 25 Apr 2006, 13:01:11
If you think the government will institute a windfall profits tax and then use the revenue to pay down the deficit, build mass transit, or invest in alternative energy research, you are living in fantasyland. If you give them more money, you can bet they will continue using it just as they have in the past.
-
dissimulo - Lignite
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Wed 01 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Windfall Profits Tax - Let's talk about it.
by canis_lupus » Tue 25 Apr 2006, 13:06:27
but adding more taxes punishes the oil companies. My point is to refocus the taxes to fund the $300MM rail line so you can get to work. Unless you move closer to work. The consumer would likely pay the additional tax at the pump anyway, raising prices further. Look at the CAFE laws passed in California iin the 90's. THe oil companies simply passed the cost on to the consumer. I believe the same thing would happen with a WPT.
And reductionist implausibility is going to be thrust upon us -- unless you are certain our oil needs will be met and the price of oil will go down significantly. These boards are full of reductionist ideas.
I'm fairly confident that we'll see a rebirth of bus routes as oil climbs higher and taxpayers scream louder. It's the cheapest short term solution.
"socialist" is what we libertarian capitalists call people who won't fix for themselves what they want others to fix for them.
I can't around the sheeple's outrage with prices being as high as they are now...when they are bound to get higher in the short term. Autumn is only five months away!
And reductionist implausibility is going to be thrust upon us -- unless you are certain our oil needs will be met and the price of oil will go down significantly. These boards are full of reductionist ideas.
I'm fairly confident that we'll see a rebirth of bus routes as oil climbs higher and taxpayers scream louder. It's the cheapest short term solution.
"socialist" is what we libertarian capitalists call people who won't fix for themselves what they want others to fix for them.
I can't around the sheeple's outrage with prices being as high as they are now...when they are bound to get higher in the short term. Autumn is only five months away!
- canis_lupus
- Lignite
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Thu 07 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: West of Chicago
Re: Windfall Profits Tax - Let's talk about it.
by PrairieMule » Tue 25 Apr 2006, 13:21:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BitterSweetCrude', '')$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.
subsidies are negative taxes, econ 200. thus, subsidies encourage more investment. it may not feel like it, but there's no way to tell how much subsidies have increased exploration and production, thereby lowering prices. subsidies certainly aren't raising prices, so they either have no or a slight downward impact, most likely a slight downward impact on prices. so in other words perhaps prices would be higher if there werent subsidies and incentives.
I disagree, the subsidies were absolutely unnessesary. In fact many oil execs in Houston think that way too. Perhaps if we lived in 1986 we could justify negative tax breaks to keep the industry going belly up and have some form of exploration still going despite OPEC's 1986 flooding the market. I remember growing up in Houston looking for a job and competing with out of work Geologists and oil industry casualties. I would argue that oil being over $70 a barrel instead of $12 a barrel as it was in 1986 has had heck of a lot more of a impact on the exploration demand. IMHO-Considering the deficits, military spending, and the rebuilding of New Orleans- Bush's gift to the oil industy in the 2005 Energy Bill was no better than writing a hot check this country could ill afford to cash.
If you give a man a fish you will have kept him from hunger for a day. If you teach a man to fish he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.
-
PrairieMule - Expert
- Posts: 2927
- Joined: Fri 02 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: In a Nigerian compound surrounded by mighty dignataries
Re: Windfall Profits Tax - Let's talk about it.
by BitterSweetCrude » Tue 25 Apr 2006, 13:58:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PrairieMule', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('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.
subsidies are negative taxes, econ 200. thus, subsidies encourage more investment. it may not feel like it, but there's no way to tell how much subsidies have increased exploration and production, thereby lowering prices. subsidies certainly aren't raising prices, so they either have no or a slight downward impact, most likely a slight downward impact on prices. so in other words perhaps prices would be higher if there werent subsidies and incentives.
I disagree, the subsidies were absolutely unnessesary. In fact many oil execs in Houston think that way too. Perhaps if we lived in 1986 we could justify negative tax breaks to keep the industry going belly up and have some form of exploration still going despite OPEC's 1986 flooding the market. I remember growing up in Houston looking for a job and competing with out of work Geologists and oil industry casualties. I would argue that oil being over $70 a barrel instead of $12 a barrel as it was in 1986 has had heck of a lot more of a impact on the exploration demand. IMHO-Considering the deficits, military spending, and the rebuilding of New Orleans- Bush's gift to the oil industy in the 2005 Energy Bill was no better than writing a hot check this country could ill afford to cash.
im confused which part you disagree with. i think you're confused on what i'm saying. i never said they are necessary, i even stated later in the post im against subsidies as a principle. my explanation supposed that subsidies over the years have encouraged marginal production that is keeping prices marginally lower than they might otherwise be.
-
BitterSweetCrude - Peat
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Wed 27 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: OHIO, USA
