Stimilus package....debatable. All it is is redistribution of wealth under a different name, but anything that puts more money back in the hands of the people instead of the hands of the government is usually a good thing.

The scary thing is the windfall profits tax. Windfall profits taxes are not a good thing economically.

Since I'm not very smart on these sorts of things (perhaps that's not the right wording - haven't read up on it may be better) - why would this be a "scary" thing?

I'm not a fan of stimulus checks.

Short version, Betty, is that windfall profits taxes basically punish success. The thought is that if a company or industry is doing so well that they should pay extra. What this does is discourage competition within the industry and has the effect of harming consumers.

An example.

Let's say a flood hits an area and there's no food available. Someone risks life and limb and trucks in bread and sells it for $20/loaf, making a "windfall" profit of $18/loaf. Others hear someone is making $18/loaf and therefore decide they should truck bread in and do the same. This does two things - increases the supply of bread and lowers the price due to that increase.

If the government decides it isn't right and takes $17.50 of the $18 in profit, there is no incentive for others to bring in bread, and therefore there is less supply and the loaf still costs $20.

Would it change your mind at all if the individual "risking life and limb" to bring in the bread, was also the one that blew up the levy and caused the flood in the first place?

Generally I oppose the stimulus checks and I oppose windfall taxes.

However, I also oppose the billions in subsidies and tax considerations that the oil industry gets in a time when they are hugely popular.

My idea is that you create stimulus packages (industry) that have the caveat that in future more successful times you will pay back, with a sliding scale based on time taken between sucking at the government teat and showing profit. So you can choose to take help to get over a rough hump but if you eventually soar you give back the help. This also doesn't prevent new competition since they would enter the marketplace without that debt and would encourage industry to think carefully before taking any and all government money available.

In other words, I don't think that the oil companies should be punished for their success now, but they should repay the fact that many of them only still exist because of government assistance in the '80s.

Ummm...that wouldn't be the place for a windfall profits tax, it would be the place for criminal charges. I believe I see where you are going with this, but I don't believe the oil companies have blown up any levies.

Ok, so howzabout Alex's more detailed and accurate assessment?

I believe that government intereference in business is usullay not a good idea - and that is whether we're talking about windfall profits taxes or subsidies.

What Alex is suggesting is basically a government funded loan program with performance benchmarks to determine what, if anything, must be paid back. Not a bad idea in general, but I fear the bureaucracy that would accompany such a thing.

He's not proposing it, he's describing what's already happened. The oil companies got where they are with assistance from our taxes, they owe a portion of that back.