<p>I'd like to start off by saying that I am a Democrat and support Obama over McCain, but Obama's plan to put a tax on the profits that Exxon and other companies make worries me. Oil companies are not stupid, and here is what will most likely happen</p>
<ul>
<li>Obama imposes a windfall profits tax (lets say 5% for example)</li>
<li>Oil companies will obviously raise the price of oil per barrel 5% to make up for the lost profit.</li>
<li>Gas will become more expensive</li>
</ul>
<p>Big corporations don't pay taxes, they pass them along to the consumer, you and me. Now, can someone who is more well-versed in economics than myself explain to me how you could possibly impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies without actually RAISING the price of oil? Didn't Carter try it in the 70s and wasn't it a complete disaster?</p>
<p>He didn't 'teach' ****. he was a lecturer probably talking about how amazing of a president he would make. that animal gives a bad name to the word 'politician'.</p>
<p>Oil companies have already set the price for petrol that ensures that their profit will be maximized. Consequently, taxing their *profit<a href="as%20opposed%20to,%20say,%20their%20revenue">/I</a> will not alter their level of production or the price they set; that much is elementary economics. Of course, they could raise the price of gas for purely political reasons as retaliation, but they have no economic motive for doing so. If oil companies could have padded their profit margins by raising the price of gas, they would have done so long ago -- however, they cannot.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure the oil companies won't stand by and idly take an additional taxing of their profits. Prices will be raised. I'm not sure why we tax corporations to begin with. The billions paid in taxes by the oil companies are billions added to the cost to the consumer.</p>
<p>CRS also found the windfall profits tax had the effect of decreasing domestic production by 3 percent to 6 percent, thereby increasing American dependence on foreign oil sources by 8 percent to 16 percent. A side effect was declining, not increasing, tax collections. Figure 1 clearly shows that while the tax raised considerable revenue in the initial years following its enactment, those revenues declined to almost nothing as the domestic industry collapsed.</p>
<p>The 1980 windfall profits tax was also found to be highly burdensome for the industry to comply with and for the Internal Revenue Service to administer, especially in years when no revenue was raised. It seems unlikely that a new tax could be designed in a less burdensome fashion. Tax Foundation economists estimate that U.S. companies currently spend nearly $150 billion annually to comply with the federal income tax alone. Enacting a new windfall profits tax would add an additional layer of complexity to the federal tax system.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He didn't 'teach' ****. he was a lecturer probably talking about how amazing of a president he would make. that animal gives a bad name to the word 'politician'.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>iloveagoodbrew is too neurologically mediocre to ever go to UChicago, so he makes do by pretending he knows what classes are like there.</p>