Even with a revenue neutral combination, there is an argument of a net tax cut to foreign oil companies. If the (excise) tax cut, nominally paid by refiners, goes all the way upstream to owners of the right to extract, some of them are foreign. If you offset the revenue loss by taxing U.S. corporations, they take a net hit. (The consumer gets bupkis.)
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jim Devine > Sent: 12:58 pm > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Hillary morphin' > > me: > > > The expert opinion in question is that of economists (and I see > > > nothing wrong with criticizing economists), but in this case they're > > > right: a gas tax holiday _is_ pandering. The oil industry would be > the > > > main beneficiaries of this "holiday." > > Doug: > > Except that Hillary proposed a windfall tax on the oil co's to > compensate > > for the gas tax holiday. I agree it's a massively stupid idea, though. > > yeah, I knew that. I just think that the holiday is much more likely > to happen than the windfall tax. Also, I'm sure that in the process of > giving $$ to the oil interests and then taxing it away, some of it > would stick to the corporate coffers. > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
