So, our ingenious House of Representatives has decided to approve an $18 billion tax on the major oil companies. Why? According to this story "The House approved $18 billion in new taxes on the largest oil companies Wednesday as Democrats cited record oil prices and rising gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles."

Question for debate:

With the price of gas where it is today, does adding a massive tax benefit our country?

With the price of gas where it is today, does adding a massive tax benefit our country?

This is NOT a tax. It is the removal of a subsidy.

Subsidies cost taxpayers money. We've been paying the oil companies for years to make us dependent on Hugo Chavez and the Middle East. How smart is that? If the government is going to pass out our money, shouldn't they invest in alternative fuels that can make us energy independent? If it is revenue neutral as it appears to be, this is an ingenious move by the House and I hope that the Senate passes it in short order.

It is revenue neutral (allegedly) from a tax revenue standpoint, but it won't be the next time you fill up your gas tank. We wouldn't have to get oil from overseas if we were allowed to drill what is under out own soil. Pretty much a catch 22. We can't get our own oil because of the environmentalist, we can't get foreign oil because of everyone else.

And by the way, since the removal of the subsidy will require the oil companies to send more money to Washington, it is a tax. Anytime you send money to Washington, no matter what pretty name they put on it, it is a tax.

This is simply not true. We have no direct involvement in drilling or producing oil in the Middle East..those countries use their own oil industries (ARAMCO, for example). Therefore, these subsidies don't apply at all to those areas. They are not there to make us dependent on Chavez or the Middle East...but actually for doing just the opposite.


They are designed to encourage exploration and drilling elsewhere that will help us be less dependent on OPEC.

That aside, given the current price of oil, I don't see these subsidies being necessary, and I am in favor of the places they are planning on putting the money instead. But let's not confuse that with any rhetoric about these subsidies keeping us hooked on OPEC, when in fact they were there to develop other sources of oil.

If you don't like the oil companies' big profits, instead of stealing their money, why not buy stock in them and share in their profits? If you mess with big bus's taxes, big bus moves to other nations. This kind of scheme is foolishness.

The only thing I want to hear our idiot govt do is create a public/private company, owned by the US govt, the US oil cos., the US utility providers, and the US car cos., through which we hire GE to build enough nuclear breeder power plants and nuclear fuel replenishment centers so we can go full electric in 10 years; and then, I want to see us go to full electric cars with LI batts and small on-board engines used solely to generate emergency electricity if cars get stuck between charges. GM already has this technology.

This new company (USA Energy, Inc.) would sell elec at cost plus 2% to all util providers, and by including all of these ownership entities, like oil cos, they can share in the profits to compensate for the loss of oil revenue caused by this new source of electric power.

The nuke plants should be located in the Western plains, in groups, guarded by the army and away from population centers.

We should have done this 30 years ago and we could forget about the Middle East.

You make a more complete point Hobbes and I appreciate it. My point is that by subsidizing oil, we are setting our system up so that we depend on oil because we are giving that form of energy an unfair advantage. That has led to dependence on the Middle East.

Half of these tax subsidies go to Royal Dutch Shell, BP, and other foreign companies too. This is about whether we should be giving oil an unfair advantage that hurts America's national security, increases the trade deficit, and pollutes the environment. And you see as well as I do that the answer is an obvious 'no'.

<sigh> the oil issue again. First off- Scubatim- though I want ANWR to open up, simply because it is a big help to the Alaskan economy- it is NO magic bullet for foriegn oil dependence. Quite frankly, if the oil companies were allowed to drill anywhere and anything they want in the US- it still wouldn't make a dent in our needs.

I too wish it were so, but wishing doesn't make for reality in this case.

Once again- I will harp on the fact that we have plenty of natural gas in alaska to pretty much (well nearly anyway) fuel all of America heat wise.

IT is NOT enviromentalists that are holding this resource up- it is the oil companies. There was a movement to tax the oil companies for NOT exploiting this resource- but of course- big oil killed all that.

You must realize exactly HOW corrupt oil companies are- they had pretty much bought the entire Alaskan delegation, if you follow our lawmakers, both state and federal, in regards to bribery scandals etc. www.adn.com pretty much has about a million stories on oil company corruption.


Last year, we upped thier taxes, and closed the loophole for alot of write offs.

The first thing in an "oil company tax" is to not allow them to write the tax off- it should not be allowed to be passed on to consumers.

Here is another little part of the "oil company profits" equation- Exxon didn't make money drilling for oil- I believe they drilled not a single new well last year- they make thier money buying and selling oil on the world market.

Half the time, oil in the US is not compatable with US needs. You buy sweet crude here, high sulfer crude there- you buy it by the quality and chemical composition, NOT by where it is drilled.

It makes absolutely 0 sense to give a single damned dime to an oil company- EVER.

There is lot's of reform neccesary in the oil industry- but removing subsidies is a good start.

I do appreciate your insight, but the question for debate still remains: Is it a good idea to increase the amount of money required to be sent into Washington by Big Oil a good idea for our country right now, considering our current state of economy?

I believe we are talking about removing a subsidy- and I am against ANY subsidy for a corporation that has over 1000 employees. Very Corporatist actually, a bit fascist.

So what do we do to offset the increased prices at the pump. I know you mentioned making it illegal to pass the taxes on to consumers in Alaska, but that isn't part of the bill here, as far as I can tell. If this bill passes, don't you think that is going to really create a significant jump in prices for the rest of us? I am not necessarily against your principle, but I know that gas prices get much higher, too many people will not be able to afford to fill their cars. Maybe we need that to be reality to force change. I honestly can't answer the question.

Well, as I see it, and there are some big brains up in this state that deal with this stuff day to day- pump prices are a bit divorced from this process, if indeed you have a free market. We are talking about subsidies to American companies- but wait- we get very little of our actual oil from US oil companies- they simply broker the oil.

If the market is truly free- there should be no fluctuation at all, just a slight reduction in profits (if at all- we are talking about a subsidy here!) - because it would make them uncompetitive in the market place, unless the entire global market has some sort of revenue loss.

The main problem with taxing the oil industry- at reasonable tax rate- is thier lobbying power and thier tax loopholes.

For instance- Alaska is suing BP for lost revenue regarding thier negligence on the pipeline, and it's subsequent shutdown last year IIRC, or maybe it is two years now? - so anyway- BP wrote thier losses off for thier own (as it turns out) criminal wrongdoing- costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. So, Alaska, who actually owns the oil- the oil companies lease it from us- is seeking to be made whole, and on top of that- we put into law that an oil company can not write off ANY losses due to negligence. And, if they want to "pass the price on to consumers"- they will quickly find themselves priced out of the market by other suppliers- thier "passing on" of the price will fall flat against, say, oh, Repsol, that can still sell it at the "old" price.

The main problems with the oil companies is this:

1) Too much money, too much influence, little to no accoutability due to both.

2) They act as if they own and are owed this PUBLIC resource- they don't, and goverment's that allow them to think so or write law allowing this are foolish or criminal. These are NOT private lands they are drilling on, and frequently- they have to steal land from the original owners to drill.

Taxes on oil companies, globally, are way, way too low- we should be taxing each and every one of them at a flat rate, based on gross revenues- this gets oil companies all a twitter-pated, as this is not only fair- but still good solid stewardship of a resource, without "nationalizing" a resource.

Alaskan oil companies like to complain that Alaska has the "highest taxes in the land" and say that stops further developement- but yet, when you have a 20billion dollar profit in one year- kinda rings hallow- doesn't it?

The reality is- this removal of a subsidy= NOT A TAX- has no chance in hell of making pump prices go up short of price fixing collusion amongst the companies themselves.