The Atlanta Fed's macroblog provides commentary and analysis on economic topics including monetary policy, macroeconomic developments, inflation, labor economics, and financial issues.

Authors for macroblog are Dave Altig, John Robertson, and other Atlanta Fed economists and researchers.

« Windfall Profits Taxes: Take 2 | Main | All Quiet On The Fed Funds Futures Front »

November 14, 2005

Windfall Profits Taxes: Take 3

In my last post, I cast a skeptical eye toward the prospect of a windfall profit tax levied on oil companies, arguing that rational businesspeople cannot be expected to expect that a one-time charge on profits deemed to be "too high" will really turn out to be "one time."  If the government does it once, everyone will expect that they will do it again when the spirit so moves.  The consequences for investment will likely be negative.

pgl responds with a response from the New Republic, countering that a reasonably designed windfall profit tax need not have this characteristic:   

But as Dorgan explained at a press conference announcing the bill, "this is not your father's windfall profits tax." Instead, the Dood Dorgan plan offers companies an out: Profits invested in oil exploration, refineries, or capacity expansion would be exempt from the tax. "It will be the most significant incentive for them to use those profits to invest in the ground of any incentive I can possibly think of."

Fair enough. Although this runs counter to the goal of using the tax to raise revenues -- which Dodd and Dorgan apparently want to spend on transfers to consumers "who have paid with pain at the pump" in any event --  it does address the bad incentive effects that I previously discussed.  But then my question would be this: If incentives for investment in "oil exploration, refineries, or capacity expansion" are a good thing, why should they be tied to "windfall profits"?  Isn't it likely that such incentives are likely to be least necessary when oil companies are flush and prices are high?

I confess that my gut reaction to these types of proposals is generally negative.  My personal vision of tax-system heaven is something like this:  Forget the economic engineering, give me a tax system with as flat a playing field as possible, leave it be, and watch the private-market garden grow.   The windfall profit tax -- even the thoughtful one that Messrs. Dodd and Dorgan have dreamed up -- just doesn't fit into that scheme.

UPDATE: As reader nate pointed out in a comment to my first post on this subject, Andrew Samwick has a different opinion.

November 14, 2005 in Energy , Taxes | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to blogs that reference Windfall Profits Taxes: Take 3 :

» Windfall profits tax from Econbrowser
Here's a summary of some of the recent discussion about the proposal of a tax on the windfall profits of oil producers. [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 21, 2005 6:12:38 PM


I don't support everything these Democrrats are saying. Imposing a tax on suppliers and then subsidizing consumers strikes me as a very futile exercise. But then isn't that want we used to do with tobacco - just in reverse?

Posted by: pgl | November 14, 2005 at 04:24 PM

pgl -- yep. That one was a bad idea too.

Posted by: Dave Altig | November 14, 2005 at 10:59 PM

If you want the same effect, a progressive corporate tax based on some factor like ROI would be a better idea. At least the definitions of windfall would need be clearly laid out. Of course the whole thing is a horrible idea, the only time windfall profits need be addressed is probably when they occur again, then an investigation into what type of market failure is occurring would be useful...

Posted by: akatsuki | November 15, 2005 at 02:47 AM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

Google Search

Recent Posts



Powered by TypePad