Would you rather pay the oil companies or the gov't for your gas?

[kentuck]

Isn't that basically what you are doing if there is a windfall profits tax? Instead of giving the profits to the oil companies, you are givng the govt the permission to take your money as a "tax".
Which is better or worse? I suppose it depends on your perspective.

For example, if gas is $3 per gallon, who presently gets the profits as opposed to $1.50 per gallon? The Federal tax will remain the same on a gallon of gas, as will the state tax. So guess who gets the profits in the difference in the price? If there is a "windfall profits tax" and the government takes the extra revenue or a major portion of the revenue, then there is less incentive for the oil companies to have higher prices - because they are making nothing from them.

Taking into account that our debt is at record levels and we need revenues to bring the deficits down, this would make sense for that reason alone. Or they could reform the tax laws to require corporations and oil companies that make over $20 billion per year would pay a much higher tax than a company or corporation that might make "only" 20 million. There are different options that our legislators should study to find new ways to get revenue from these types of monopolistic businesses.

[tridim]

1. How about just making the ultra rich pay their taxes?

Instead of giving them massive tax breaks in a "time of war".

[kentuck]

3. and start with the oil companies...

and work down the list until we can get this huge debt under some control

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

2. What Difference Does It Make. If I Give To The Govt They'll Just Give It

back to the oil companies through different legislations anyway no?

[kentuck]

4. If you keep the Republican Congress....

good chance.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. That's Why We Must Make Sure They Are Erradicated In The 06 Elections.

We must take every single vulnerable seat we can.

[aquart]

5. The oil companies will never give any of it back.

So I will gladly take the government, which has a history of reallocation.

[ladjf]

6. If the windfall tax money doesn't go right back into the pockets

of the American gasoline consumer then it's a futile exercise. But, I'd rather see the govt. get the money than to pay the Exxon CEO $190,000 per day. Democracy cannot work in a business structure that allows hundreds of people to become billionaires. There simply isn't enough wealth left for the middle and lower income people to meet basic needs. They can only subsist as slaves.

[Kansas Wyatt]

8. They have merged already.

It is a subsidiary of the Corporate Government Store.

[unblock]

9. i am very much opposed to governments taking over industries

but i have to say i'm almost at that point with the oil industry.

i think they've gone WAY beyond what is acceptable for private companies. they've corrupted politics and our foreign policy in order to line their pockets at the expense of both a sane energy policy and our nation's security (financial and otherwise).

as oil becomes increasingly scarce, the price incentives will only increase for this sort of behavior.


in my calmer moments i realize that a government takeover of the whole industry wouldn't SOLVE the problem, it would merely CHANGE it -- oil would remain scarce, and the nature of the corruption and misallocation of resources would be altered, though not necessarily for the better.

on the other hand, the oil industry foisted both bush and cheney on us, so FUCK 'EM!!!!!

:grr:

[WinkyDink]

10. The government. At least the Feds might spend a dime on services for us.

Oil barons and their profligate offspring just buy bigger yachts.

[Joe Fields]

11. The govt. should pay us for listening to Bush's gas.