creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
John Stossel
John Stossel
3 Feb 2010
Big Government's Cronies

Many window-making companies struggle because of the recession's effect on home building. But one little … Read More.

27 Jan 2010
A Blow for Free Speech

From the commentary in the mainstream media, I thought there had been a coup d'etat in Washington. The New … Read More.

20 Jan 2010
Who Needs Energy Independence?

When you gas up your car, do you think that you're doing something evil? After all, I'm told that burning … Read More.

Windfall-Profit Nonsense

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to raise the price of oil, as well as most everything else, and lower the value of the pension and mutual funds that union members and retirees depend on.

Of course, they don't describe their plan that way. Instead, they call for a windfall-profits tax on the oil companies.

But it's the same thing.

Taxing a "windfall" sounds appealing, but stock prices are based on expected profits. Throw a new tax on profits, and retirement portfolios of regular people take a hit (http://tinyurl.com/5hk5n2).

"Hillary will impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to temporarily suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax and the 24.4 cent per gallon diesel tax during the upcoming peak summer driving months," says her website (http://tinyurl.com/3jtlfp).

"They sure can afford it," she told an audience in Indianapolis (http://tinyurl.com/5tymvo).

Whom does she think "they" are?

Obama says: "It isn't right that oil companies are making record profits at a time when ordinary Americans are going into debt. ... That's why we'll put a windfall profits tax on oil companies..." (http://tinyurl.com/5b3aor).

Taxing "windfalls" is politically rewarding, but in the final analysis, only people pay taxes. When a corporation is taxed, the burden falls on workers (through smaller raises), consumers (through higher prices) and shareholders (through lower stock prices).

Do Clinton and Obama really want to tax these innocent people just to spite oil executives for high profits?

Anyway, what is a "windfall"? Any answer is arbitrary. Obama says it's the profit made off oil that's priced above $80 a barrel. Why not $70? Or $90? Did he pull that number out of a hat?

At least he's honest enough to call his tax a windfall profits "penalty." But why do the companies deserve to be penalized? Have they behaved badly?

It's not their fault that demand for oil skyrocketed because of booming economies in China and India, and that tensions in the Middle East pushed prices up.

It's not their fault government regulation keeps them from drilling in promising locations like Alaska and offshore, and harasses them when they want to build new refineries or expand old ones. It's not their fault the dollar has deteriorated dramatically (http://tinyurl.com/5o2qgf).

Being in the oil business is profitable, but not as profitable as you may think. Last year, average earnings in the industry (net income divided by sales) were 8.3 percent (http://tinyurl.com/4muefj). (They are lower this year.) Other industries have done better. Beverage and tobacco firms had returns of over 19 percent.

Yes, oil company profits have surged as the price of oil rose, but bigger profits are good for America. The vast majority of the money goes not to the pockets of oil executives, but to exploration for new oil. If you take the money away, who is hurt?

We don't have to speculate because we have experience to draw on. "We tried this windfall profits scheme in 1980," The Wall Street Journal writes. "It backfired. The Congressional Research Service found in a 1990 analysis that the tax reduced domestic oil production by 3 (percent) to 6 (percent) ..." (http://tinyurl.com/6e32no).

Repeating that would not be a good thing for the harried working families Clinton and Obama claim to champion.

Spiking prices and profits encourage investors to take risks to find more oil, develop oil substitutes and increase efficiency. We don't need a "national energy policy" because we already have one. It's called the free market. When oil prices rose a few years ago, old fields with hard-to-reach oil in Oklahoma were suddenly worth operating (http://tinyurl.com/5bqmog).

Economics 101: incentives matter. Now that the price of oil has reached a new high, oil companies and other entrepreneurs have more incentive to find new sources of energy.

Only that — letting the profit-motive work — will bring the price of oil down.

Interfering with markets may be good for politicians, but it's bad for everyone else.

John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity," which is now out in paperback. To find out more about John Stossel and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.



Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment

Mr Stossel, thank you for this hard-hitting article that speaks the truth. Taxing windfall profits is politically popular and seductive, but economically unsound for the reasons you state. I'd add that even if "obscene" profits WERE going into the pockets of a handful of oil executives, so what? Number one, the shareholders who own the company evidently believe they're worth it. Number two, the executives who make millions per year aren't just stashing it all under a mattress - they have personal investments, real estate, and spend lots of cash every year on ordinary goods & services just like the rest of us. All of that is real money flowing into the pockets of smaller business and workers, and state, federal, and local governments tax it every time it changes hands. This all is on top of the fact that it's grossly unfair to single out one industry for "punishment." You'll catch a lot of flack for writing this, but I agree completely - thanks for writing.

Comment: #1
Posted by: Matt
Fri May 30, 2008 11:04 AM

TRUTH - simple, powerful and John Stossel has it in his veins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you Mr. Stossel for this and all the other truths you bring out in your articles.

Comment: #2
Posted by: Agree
Fri May 30, 2008 8:16 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:
Creators.com comments policy
More
John Stossel
Feb. `10
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 9 Feb 2010
Chuck Norris
Chuck NorrisUpdated 9 Feb 2010
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 9 Feb 2010

31 Dec 2008 Caroline Kennedy

14 Mar 2007 Hazardous Safety Regulation

12 Nov 2008 The Road to Serfdom