Obama’s windfall tax idea = more pain at the pump for YOU!
Politics August 4th, 2008No, no, no. Damn. This guy is already talking tax during the campaign season. I’m afraid we’re in for some serious taxation when Obama is elected. So now he is proposing a windfall tax (because making a profit is wrong) on the gas companies and is going to throw you a bone by giving you a temporary rebate to help your situation at the pump.
B.S.
First of all this didn’t work when Carter did it. “The answer to the second question, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), is that the 1980s windfall profits tax depressed the domestic production and extraction industry and furthered our dependence on foreign sources of oil.”
Secondly, what do you think the gas companies are going to do when their cost goes up courtesy of Mr. Obama? PASS IT ON TO YOU AT THE PUMP. I’ve been told “Yeah but he’s going to use that money to give us a rebate.” Ok, lets assume he gives us all 100% of that tax. Exxon still covers their new cost by raising prices and the bureaucracy eats up a good chunk of the new tax revenue so he gets away looking like the nice guy but really he exacerbates the problem and taxes YOU indirectly.
ARRGGGH. Furious.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:37 am
This is a tough question, but the answer is obvious. Keep politics away from logic and perhaps you will agree. Why do you think there was a moratorium on offshore drilling to begin with? To me it makes sense that the oil companies knew better than anyone that one day in the near future back in 1979 that oil could become very valuable after the world hit peak production. It made very good business sense to buy other countries cheap oil and refine it for huge profits, much more so than costly offshore drilling. The U.S. oil would be better off left where it was and higher prices at the pump could continue. Why do you think president Clinton signed an extension to the moratorium on offshore oil drilling? I don’t think it was for ecological reasons, although if you believe in politics you might think so. I feel the moratorium should continue for a few good reasons. One day when the world is paying $400.00 dollars a barrel (in 20 years) we will have those oil reserves to drill for then. We can use them to fuel our military, heating, trucking, aviation, factory and shipping needs for this country. Alternative and renewable energy sources need to be developed ASAP for public and private transportation as well as the majority of household energy needs. This is important if you want to preserve your standard of living (or what is left of of it). What either presidential candidate says is b.s. It is simple divide and conquer. As long as the country is divided we will never be able to demand a realistic energy policy. The reality of peak oil production in a market of increasing demand with geopolitical issues in the world’s major oil producers is obvious to me. What concerns the oil companies is a decline in prices. In 10 years it is possible to have alternative and renewable energy sources. The other reality is China invading the mid-east when oil prices start to rise so rapidly that they have no other economic choice. Now if that would happen would you be glad you lived in a country that had its own oil reserves? Please think geopolitically and demand of either candidate what makes sense for the long term… a move away from oil dependency can only come about if we move away from oil. It doesn’t matter where it comes from. Here is one last bit of reality. A vote for McCain who I have been a supporter of for many years will mean war in South America. It will be in the countries that border Venezuela. We will still be in the mid-east. I can’t say what a vote for Obama will mean except that perhaps the number of black males age 19 to 24 incarcerated will decline. What do you want for your country?
August 6th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Its not a tough question to answer. Its simple. Windfall tax does nothing but further our dependence on foreign oil and increases our price at the pump.
Punishing companies for earning too much money is bad, bad, bad for our economy. And if one politician can decide that Exxon was too profitable its a slippery slope and there is nothing to stop them from saying you earned too much money last year in your 9-5 job.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Windfall taxes are not very good on a broad level. I agree with the example above. Could oil become nationalized in 20 years? What is the reality for the U.S. oil companies? A windfall tax on the U.S. oil companies is more politics and less of a solution. Is it the beginning of taking the U.S. off the “oil standard”? What happened to this country when Nixon took us off the gold standard? Perhaps it is apples and oranges to compare the two, but it was a solution and not politics and it worked.