On May 12, 9:33=A0am, "Dionysus" <no surren...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> FROM IBD
>
> HEAD: DEMOCRATS' WINDFALL TAX -- ON YOU
>
> In their ongoing war against U.S. oil producers, Senate Democrats say
> they'll slap Big Oil with a windfall profits tax and take away $17
billion=
> in tax breaks, among other punishments. =A0The planned 25 percent tax on
> windfall profits would be imposed on oil company earnings above what the
> Senate's wise members decided was "reasonable." =A0Never mind that
what's
> "reasonable" to one person might be punitive to another, says Investor's
> Business Daily (IBD).
>
> The last time the United States had a windfall profits tax on oil
companie=
s,
> the results were [disastrous]:
> --Over the entire 1980-1986 period, the (windfall profits tax) reduced
> domestic oil production from between 320 million barrels . . . and 1,268
> million barrels according to the Congressional Research Service.
> --Oil companies were hit hard by the tax, and in line with basic
economic
> theory, they produced less oil, not more.
> --The effect of reducing domestic oil production was to increase the
level=
> of im****ted oil, says IBD:
>
> At the time, the United States im****ted about 30 percent of its oil;
today=
,
> we im****t about 60 percent.
>
> In part, that jump in oil dependency was due to the huge tax advantage
we
> gave foreign oil companies in the 1980s -- and to the continuing
advantage=
> we give them today by refusing to let our oil companies produce more
crude=
> from our own reserves.
> Revenues from the windfall tax were far less than expected, because
> producers pumped less and non-taxed im****ts flooded our market.
=A0Compare=
d
> with a forecast of $393 billion in windfall tax revenues from 1980 to
1988=
,
> Congress got a mere $80 billion.
> *********
> Dose dim Dems..."stupid is as stupid does" indeed.
>
> Dionysus
The period you cited was when Raygun was president. That's why it
didn't work!
|
