Talk:Windfall tax

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) 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)
 * To where do you proposed the Windfall tax disambiguation page be moved? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I propose it be deleted as the article has links to all the countries. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

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.
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

Windfall profit tax
Kaka 2405:201:5009:B18C:BCD0:B837:A24A:A73E (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)