Talk:Windfall tax

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States

Was the 1980 law enacted as a result of the OPEC embargo (1973) or actually the energy crisis that followed (1979)? There is no citation or reference to clarify the actual cause, but it seems more likely that the energy crisis in 1979 led to the 1980 law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdevola (talk • contribs) 03:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Congress nor the President likely acted with a single mind, but almost certainly with multiple motives, the ostensible (debated) motives being explained in the text. Frustration felt whilst idling in a fuel queue and other ultimate sources of constituent pressure, whether arising during energy crises or other events, may always be present. How events shaped the public mood, and how that mood and its swings influenced this law or any other are valid questions, worth researching. Pequeño Aceite (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

does anyone know the date of repeal for this tax? if anyone does this would be good info to add.

I think the general idea is that usually such a tax doesn't need repealing, as it's a one-off temporary response to a given situation. Certainly this was the case with the UK's 1997 utilities windfall profits tax, which was a one-off. Rd232 ^talk 22:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"August of 1988" is the repeal date is given in the CRS report (RL33305) at p. 5, citing §1941(a) of P.L. 100-418, The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. The Library of Congress gives 8/23/1988 as the latest date of major action on P.L 100-418, which presumably was the President's signature.

Pequeño Aceite (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose four changes:

1. To add a footnote to the end of the Article's second paragraph, pointing to the following citation: CRS Report RL33305, The Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax of the 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy, by Salvatore Lazzari.

2. To upload a pdf of CRS Report RL33305 downloaded from the CRS website: the justification being that the document on the CRS website may be dynamic or transient, or both.

3. To correct an inaccuracy in the first sentence of the United States section. The U.S. did not pass "such a tax". The word "such" refers to the definition's text "tax on profits"; whereas, as explained in the CRS report, "Despite its name, the windfall profit tax (WPT) was actually an excise tax, not a profits tax, imposed on the difference between the market price of oil and an adjusted base price." I will describe my last proposed change before suggesting text for this correction.

4. The same sentence says the WPT was passed "because" of profits earned after an oil price spike. First, this assumes that Congress acted with one mind, which is usually unsafe to assume. However, that the legislation was intended to allow the US Treasury to recover profits, is uncontroversial. Secondly, the sentence as written does not account for the historical context: the attempts to decontrol oil prices. I propose to correct the inaccuracy described in my #3 and to clarify the sentence, by converting it to two revised sentences to read as follows:

"In 1980, the United States enacted the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act (P.L. 96-223) as part of a compromise between the Carter Administration and the Congress over the decontrol of crude oil prices. The Act was intended to recover the profits earned by oil producers as a result of the sharp increase in oil prices brought about by the OPEC oil embargo."

Pequeño Aceite (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no dissent, I have made the changes proposed above, plus minor editing. I also deleted the sentence following the one distinguishing excess-profits taxes, as it had become redundant with the changes I made. I regret I was unable to find a more stable source for the CRS report, or to determine how to upload a copy, but I will keep looking.

Pequeño Aceite (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having expanded the enactment-and-repeal history to include a better account of oil price and production during the period of the tax, the debatable characterization of the linked chart became redundant so I revised it.

--Pequeño Aceite (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with windfall tax

I don't think this should be done. The article in question refers to a specific type of tax levied in Australia that has little to do with the one discussed here.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved per common name argument. The old disambiguation page will be moved to Windfall tax (disambiguation) then redirected back to Windfall tax in case the history is ever needed. (non-admin closure) SnowFire (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Windfall profits tax → Windfall tax – Common name but I doubt I will be able to move this myself as there is a disambiguation page already there Chidgk1 (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To where do you proposed the Windfall tax disambiguation page be moved? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose it be deleted as the article has links to all the countries. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Clear common name. The three national variations are all referenced in the article, so no disambiguation page is required. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Necrothesp. The articles listed on the disambiguation page should be moved to "Windfall tax in ______", for consistency with similar articles in Category:Income taxes and elsewhere. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticism section contains nothing but published 'letters to the editor'.

Both of the 'criticisms' discussed here are NOT editorials from IBD or WSJ, both are merely letters to the editor.

So, when the text here says "Investor's Business Daily said...", and "The Wall Street Journal wrote...", both of these statements are utterly false and work to mislead.

Neither of the authors of these letters are Reliable Sources. Moreover, the 'criticism' incorrectly sourced back to IBD was erroneous and subsequently corrected by the original author at his personal blog site at seekingalpha.com. Subsequently this letter was removed from IBD, there is no longer any evidence they actually published it (with or without the corrections).

https://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxons-2007-tax-bill-30-billion

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/all-hail-exxon_b_86918

I'm going to delete the entire section, it's beyond repair. R.Giskard R. (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you are referring to as a "letter to the editor" in at least one case is an editorial. I reverted to an earlier version of the article pre-blanking. Andre🚐 00:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Windfall tax and Excess profits tax refer to same concept, propose merging. HudecEmil (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that they are ALWAYS the same concept. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree HudecEmil (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we maybe explain the difference in the article? I'm having trouble seeing the daylight between the two though am admittedly new to the concept Superb Owl (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that windfalls are the result of EVENTS (war, pandemic, etc.) while "excess profits" are the result of things like monopoly conditions, or like when Amazon didn't need to pay sales tax and WalMart did for shipped purchases. So windfalls are more short term, and Excess profits are more long term.

I think that finding academic sources would help us here, since the average journalist or politician may conflate/confuse these ideas. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 20:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that makes a lot more sense - thanks for explaining Superb Owl (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavia

@Avatar317, I am still a bit confused as to why we should include Sweden and Norway when they do not seem to be taxing excess profits directly...maybe a bit more explanation to tease out the similarities with a windfall tax? It sounds more like a land value tax which, yes, is another way to capture unearned profits but want to make sure it is clear that it fits the scope of this article for first time readers (and myself who is still trying to understand) Superb Owl (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A land value tax taxes the market rate rent value of the LAND, whose value is due to what OTHERS around the landowner did to make it desirable. These electric generators get new profits on the electricity they sell because they generate without CO2 pollution, and since electricity is all identical, the new market price of electricity now includes the equivalent of a pollution tax on CO2 based electricity, those (nuke and hydro) plants now can price their electricity at the same rate but they don't need to pay the pollution tax, so that becomes profit for them. In an ideal market, those high profits would incentive new market entrants to build new nukes, hydro, and other non-CO2 generation but increasing electricity supply isn't as simple as making a motorcycle factory if demand for motorcycles goes way up. (the electricity market is supply constrained) ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get all that and yet don't see land value tax spelled out or the connection to windfall profits tax, which is a distinct though related concept, and so am not sure it belongs here though we can mention and link to it on land value tax if that is what it is. Superb Owl (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is poorly reported, and should be called a "excess profits tax", which is how it is also described in that source. I'd be ok with moving that content to the "excess profits" article. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 20:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]