Comments on: A “Windfall Profits” tax?

By: Higher Gasoline Taxes?

Higher Gasoline Taxes? — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:40:38 +0000

[...] Many callers talked about how we need to raise the gas taxes, not only to provide funds to repair the highways, but to get people to learn to conserve, and to support alternative fuels. In fact several callers felt we needed a tax “floor” implemented immediately. A “tax floor” would mean that if the price of gas dropped below a threshold (most said $3/gallon) then the price would stay at $3, and the government would scarf up the difference. In that way, the government would reap the “windfall profits” of low prices (instead of the consumer). (see my past discussions regarding windfall profits here.) [...]

By: Should there be a “windfall profit” tax? at Targuman

Should there be a “windfall profit” tax? at Targuman — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:29:58 +0000

[...] it really help? Not if the past implementation of it (under Carter) is any indication. My brother has posted on this and it is worth a read. Gird you loins ladies and gentlemen, the presidential election cycle is [...]

By: Looney

Looney — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:52:52 +0000

I guess that “windfall profits” rhetoric provides more ammunition to the argument that Obama will be the 2nd term of the Carter presidency.

A true nationalist would prefer consumption taxes over corporate taxes. A consumption tax effects all suppliers world wide, but a corporate tax just effects those who are within the jurisdiction of the US. In fact, it would be better to eliminate corporate tax regulations altogether in favor of consumption taxes, as the bureaucratic overhead isn’t helpful for the economy.

By: Steve Swartz

Steve Swartz — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:35:40 +0000

Well said!

My only real input is to add some commentary on three issues:

1. “Alternative Energy Sources” [sic] frequently are no such thing. Hydrogen? Perfect example. Hydrogen is not an alternative *source* of energy, it is simply an alternative supply channel for *storing and distributing* energy. Wind? Yes. Solar? Yes. Nuclear? Yes. All alternative energy sources. Ethanol? Nope. (think about it- is corn really the most efficient way to capture, convert, store, and distribute solar power?) Electric Cars? Not even close.

Frankly, right now the most efficient source of energy we have is far and away petroleum. Well, and Coal. Sorry about that. However, siphoning billions of dollars from “Big Oil” in order to subsidize “Big Ethanol” (a much, much less efficient, and therefore less environmentally friendly [net effects] than oil) form of energy is quite simply Stoo-Pid.

2. If you want less of something, tax it. Already well said by S. Brady in the initial post. Yes, that is exactly the point of the world socialist/communist revolution- we must all be equal in our misery- and it is much easier to tear down the efficient capitalist economies than it is to build up the inefficient socialist systems. If we could only hobble the industrialized world, Everything Would Be So Much More Equal. Years ago the SocComs infiltrated the environmental movement and took over Lock, Stock and smokin Barrel and now we are reaping the results.

3. Anyone know the *true* story behind the Fluorocarbon/Ozone Hole [sic] scam? Dupont (money power) + Sierra Club (political power) = no more Freon.

the other steve