John Adams Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 He said he'd fund many of his new programs with this windfall profits tax on "big oil." With the price of oil in free fall over the last few months and no end in sight, what does that do to his plan to pay for all his promises. Will he be cutting back on all the big plans? I really haven't heard lately.
mot_the_Hoople Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 didn't palin do the same tax in alaska?
BuffalOhio Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 He said he'd fund many of his new programs with this windfall profits tax on "big oil." With the price of oil in free fall over the last few months and no end in sight, what does that do to his plan to pay for all his promises. Will he be cutting back on all the big plans? I really haven't heard lately. He can say he wants to tax BIG OIL, but we all know who will really pay the tax. The US Taxpayers will in the form of higher oil prices.
IDBillzFan Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 I'm sorry. What does this have to do with Palin's pregnant teenage daughter. Please stay on point.
John Adams Posted September 3, 2008 Author Posted September 3, 2008 didn't palin do the same tax in alaska? Thanks Mr. Relevant.
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 He said he'd fund many of his new programs with this windfall profits tax on "big oil." With the price of oil in free fall over the last few months and no end in sight, what does that do to his plan to pay for all his promises. Will he be cutting back on all the big plans? I really haven't heard lately. I suspect the tax would be designed to be applied retroactively, to past "windfall" profits. I also suspect "windfall" would be defined broadly enough (e.g. "making money by selling to the American consumer" - I'm not even being sarcastic, that's about what I'd expect) that going forward the price of oil would be irrelevent. "You made too much money...hand it over" is all this tax amounts to, with "too much" being entirely at the discretion of the government. I also suspect that this is a campaign promise that will amount to nothing. The "corporate profit bad" rhetoric is a sure campaign strategy...but why should that matter after the election? Much like the "Impeach Bush/Cheney" or "de-authorize the Iraq war" rhetoric: plays well to the hoi polloi, but isn't particularly realistic.
Joe Miner Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 I'd like to understand how Obama will determine what part of an Oil company's profits are normal profits, and what part are the windfall profits he will tax. Global factors that are outside the control of a business's management play a part in almost every industry. Why should we not tax all industries when global factors allow them to make a higher profit than their business would normally? And what the hell is a normal profit anyway? Don't smart business take into account factors that are not directly under their control, and try to plan their strategies around minimizing problems, and perhaps even turning them into profits? Food makers can't control a drought in some part of the world that affects the price of one or more of the ingredients that they use. When these companies appropriately plan around said drought, and end up making a bigger profit than they did in a non-drought year, should they be taxed heavier because they were smart? What about the opposite? When a company is adversely affected by circumstances outside of their control, should the government run in and bail them out? Isn't that fair? It's not fair that they made less money this year than last because of circumstances outside of their control? If you have a problem with gas prices, fix the speculation issues, the refining issues, the drilling issues, and the alternative fuels issues.
Mike in Syracuse Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 He said he'd fund many of his new programs with this windfall profits tax on "big oil." With the price of oil in free fall over the last few months and no end in sight, what does that do to his plan to pay for all his promises. Will he be cutting back on all the big plans? I really haven't heard lately. Free fall? I'm still paying $3.60 a gallon, I'd hardly call that a free fall. The reality is our tax system isn't equitable. Warren Buffet proved that last year yet no one wants to talk about it. The wealthiest 1% are in fact in the highest bracket but because of the way the system is structured the majority don't pay anywhere near their published rate. The Republican's can't seem to stop saying that Obama will "raise your taxes" yet no one ever looks at the actual impact of the candidate proposals. After all, why actually read the reality, it's much easier to go off of talking points and sound bytes. Maybe this chart will help the lesser informed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060900950.html Personally I'd like to see the entire tax system scrapped. It's so broken at this point I'm not sure it can ever be fixed. But by all means, keep cutting taxes while increasing spending at the same time. In a few more years our country will be so broke that we'll be completely owned by China so it won't matter what party you align yourself with anymore. Fiscal idiocy.........
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Free fall? I'm still paying $3.60 a gallon, I'd hardly call that a free fall. I'm paying about $3.45, down from about $4.40 maybe six or eight weeks ago. That's 20-25% in two months. Oil, in the same period, is down from $150ish to $110ish...25-28%. If that's not a free-fall, it's a pretty good imitation. If the Dow fell that much in that time, people'd be jumping off tall buildings (the worst two-month period I can find for the Dow over the past year is this past mid-May to mid-July, which was about a 14% drop and an "Oh my God, we're all gonna die, buy silver!!!" period by many).
Mike in Syracuse Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 I'm paying about $3.45, down from about $4.40 maybe six or eight weeks ago. That's 20-25% in two months. Oil, in the same period, is down from $150ish to $110ish...25-28%. If that's not a free-fall, it's a pretty good imitation. If the Dow fell that much in that time, people'd be jumping off tall buildings (the worst two-month period I can find for the Dow over the past year is this past mid-May to mid-July, which was about a 14% drop and an "Oh my God, we're all gonna die, buy silver!!!" period by many). I don't disagree Tom but we're 1 Cat 5 hurricane in the gulf away from $5 per gallon again.
Chilly Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 I don't disagree Tom but we're 1 Cat 5 hurricane in the gulf away from $5 per gallon again. "Free fall? I'm still paying $3.60 a gallon, I'd hardly call that a free fall. "
John Adams Posted September 3, 2008 Author Posted September 3, 2008 I don't disagree Tom but we're 1 Cat 5 hurricane in the gulf away from $5 per gallon again. Relax chicken little. Or buy some silver--commodities are down 40% in the last 3 months since the boys on this board started buying so maybe you can grab a bargain. If hurricaine season passes uneventfully, oil could drop below $100 dollars again. Gas in NJ was 3.30 last weekend. And falling. That chart has nothing to do with the windfall profits tax. Tom probably had the analysis right on. The Dems/Obama will come up with a definition of windfall profits that taxes almost any profitable corporation except in industries that peddle enough influence to be exceptions.
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 I don't disagree Tom but we're 1 Cat 5 hurricane in the gulf away from $5 per gallon again. And we're one massive tidal wave away from having the East Cost completely destroyed. A rare but possibe future event has nothing to do with defining what things are now.
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 That chart has nothing to do with the windfall profits tax. Tom probably had the analysis right on. The Dems/Obama will come up with a definition of windfall profits that taxes almost any profitable corporation except in industries that peddle enough influence to be exceptions. Or just the "evil" ones that "exploit" consumers. Con-Agra or ADM would be exempt, I'd expect, because their ethanol production is "green" and doesn't "exploit" consumers, even though it drives up the cost of not only fuel but food and arguably causes more environmental damage per joule of energy than petrochemicals. Which would make for some fun in some industries. Imagine insurance companies being socked with extra taxes in benign years, thus not having the excess cash to offset $100B in pay-outs when, say, a cat-5 hurricane rips through Florida. Does the federal government give them a tax credit when their "windfall profits" retroactively become less of a windfall?
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 I'm paying about $3.45, down from about $4.40 maybe six or eight weeks ago. That's 20-25% in two months. Oil, in the same period, is down from $150ish to $110ish...25-28%. If that's not a free-fall, it's a pretty good imitation. If the Dow fell that much in that time, people'd be jumping off tall buildings (the worst two-month period I can find for the Dow over the past year is this past mid-May to mid-July, which was about a 14% drop and an "Oh my God, we're all gonna die, buy silver!!!" period by many). I would call it normalizing. Unless oil drops back down to say about $60 a barrel, I wouldn't call it a free fall. Also when prices at the pump get back down below $2.00, then I would call a free fall. But with GWB or McCain adding a real energy plan, other than drill, drill, drill. Some of that is important but it has to be done with some common sense and environmental sensitivity. Otherwise, we will end up like China. On the AK front, unless oil cos can solve the pipeline leakage problem the 10% of Anwar that is protected should not be drilled on. The problem for those who don't know, it is not the oil, it is hot saltwater they pour through the pipeline to keep the oil moving. It causes corrosion and leaks. The oil can be cleaned up relatively easy from what I understand. The hot saltwater spreads out much further and causes permanent damage. So when folks say only a small amount of oil spilled that is usually true. The problem is that you have to multiply that by at least 10 for the saltwater and consider this type of damage. They solve that problem and with the new non-invasive drilling techniques they use, I have much less of a problem with them drilling there. P.S. All old coal fired plants should be shut down and rebuilt from scratch with the new technology. Because of all the old plants in Ohio, PA, WV, KY and Virginia, the Richmond through to NJ is the worst air quality in the country and isn't because of Elizabeth City, NJ. Drive around near one of those plants at night when they have it running at full capacity. You think there is a lot of fog in the area until you catch a wiff. It is soot. In fact, sometimes the air quality is worse in the evening and night time. And folks wonder why Asthma has increased so much on the East Coast in the last 20 years.
VABills Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 "Free fall? I'm still paying $3.60 a gallon, I'd hardly call that a free fall. " Be nice to see how much of that is because of taxes. Locally gas is under 3.30 and where we buy at Wawa, costco, it's 3.24.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Thanks Mr. Relevant. Why is this not relevant? It didn't specifically answer your question, but it's surely part of this discussion, since it's nearly the same thing she did. She thought they weren't paying enough taxes. She took their money and handed out $1200 (I think) to each Alaskan. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...laskatax07.html
GG Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 P.S. All old coal fired plants should be shut down and rebuilt from scratch with the new technology. Which is what? How much will it cost? Who will pay for it? Who will allow it in their district?
finknottle Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 Maybe this chart will help the lesser informed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060900950.html Personally I'd like to see the entire tax system scrapped. It's so broken at this point I'm not sure it can ever be fixed. This references http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publication...l.cfm?ID=411693 I've read/skimmed the full report, and don't see where the numbers in the chart come from. I can't say it's wrong, but I simply don't see how those making 226k-603k remain steady under the Obama plan as claimed.
Recommended Posts