I think the whole idea of a windfall profits tax is asinine.
The reality: It's not clear how much revenue either candidate's windfall profits tax would raise.
"It depends on how it is structured and what future oil prices are," said Gilbert Metcalf, an economics professor at Tufts University who specializes in taxation, energy and environmental economics. "For what it's worth, the previous windfall profits tax consistently raised less revenue than was predicted," he added.
I think Prof. Metcalf is 100% correct. If there was a windfall profit tax lets say on revenue over $100 billion dollars or other such nonsense. I would be willing to bet her a million dollars that Exxon or whatever company hits that magic number will make exactly $99 billion in revenue by any means necessary including pumping less oil or shuttering refineries. Of course that would make crude prices and gas prices even higher so they will have to keep cutting production to stay under that number.
A tax like this would penalize the company from doing the one thing that the company was built to do. Namely pumping oil and selling it for the highest price that they can. If she really wanted to create a sound policy then she should offer Exxon an incentive to pay a higher dividend. That anemic 1.8% yield is embarrassing for a company that raked in $116 billion last quarter. Of course the Dems won't get to rob Exxon so they can fund some pander bait like the gas tax holiday.
Also if Dems want to encourage a green industry then they should provide tax incentive for a company to put in solar panels to reduce their energy cots or simply invest in green initiatives. Obama's so-called Green Marshall Plan would be a springboard. They could shift the tax incentives that big oil receives (but add them back if oil drops to $20 a barrel again) to the solar, geothermal, fuel cell, biomass, etc. industries. Too bad that doesn't fit the wealth redistribution paradigm that the Dems are so short-sighted about.
No comments:
Post a Comment