Are the subsidies that were given a loan? That sounds like an ignorant question and it may be. If it was indeed set up as a loan, then by all means they should be paying it back.

Was it specifically set up as a loan? No. But that's why these things are voted on regularly by our representative government and not set in stone. It was a vote from Congress that sent them tax money to bail them out. And while it was not specifically categorized as a loan, if that same representative Congress feels that it's time for that flow of money to change direction to benefit the people, then it makes sense.

I'm with Alex in that I probably wouldn't support either the subsidies or the windfall taxes on their own. But given that the subsidies already happened, windfally taxes would be to the benefit of the body that provided those subsidies.

The profits do benefit the people....it's a publically traded corporation.

What you saying may be the just thing, but the effect of a windfall profits tax is the effect of a windfall profits tax. These subsidies should be set up as a loan so they show on the books as debt for the companies. Without that, all trading that has taken place for stock in that company is based on a faulty bottom line. If they take it on as a loan, which I have no problem with, then it is something that is expected to be paid back. A subsidy really isn't expect to be paid back.

Getting back to Leo’s flood/bread analogy. I would hope, if some jerk tried charging starving disaster victims $20 for a loaf of bread, the authorities would confiscate said bread and throw is profiteering ass in jail!

Why is a subsidy not "expected" to be paid back? Who expected the subsidy in the first place? No one. Our representative government decided to give them a hand-out. That same representative government can, at any time, just as well decide to tax them.

I agree it all should be left alone, no subsidies, no corporate tax loopholes, etc. But he who giveth is also he who can taketh away. Anyone who expects one is an ass not to expect the other.

And tax revenue benfits the people. It's a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

As I've said before, I do not consider oil profits evil or wrong. But neither do I consider revenue for the government evil or wrong. Both are amoral and can be put to good use or destructive use. Blanket statements like "better in the hands of the people than the government" read as kinda nonsensical to me as the government IS the hands of the people. Doesn't mean all money should go there, but pooling a portion of our money together is one way to get more economic bang for the buck. There's a reason that any group of people trying to accomplish something very quickly ends up with a treasurer, some things can just get done more effectively when acting as a body with a pool of money vs. acting as individuals. We can debate for eons on exactly where that benefit begins and ends, but it's absolutely not a black and white "less taxing means better economy". Don't make me pull the graphs out again.

But all of that is beside the point. I think it's absurd to accept subsidies in desperate times and not expect to have to pay for that benefit if it works. It's not a loan because the government is willing to eat the loss if the subsidy fails. But if it works and they're in a position where they're not only succeeding, but succeeding to an overwhelming degree, then I see nothing wrong with insisting that they turn around and support the very body (i.e. our government that represents us) that got them to that point in the first place.

To clarify, I am not suggesting I would support a windfall tax now on the basis that it was seeking recoupment of past subsidies. That would not be fair as the decision to use such subsidies would have been made on deceptive terms and it would not take into account actual use of subsidies by individual companies.

I also would not be advocating anything like a traditional loan. Because not only would that show incorrectly in corporate valuation it would also falsely "boost" the government's accounting.

I'd have to think through the accounting a lot (and I'm doing that way too much in real life for me to do it for my political fantasy baseball team) but essentially it would an agreement to submit to a higher tax rate in the future in return for current assistance.

Total agreement. I know Leo threw in "risking life and limb" but in the end, what is he risking it for? An $18 profit. Boo.

The idea that the gas companies are somehow being unselfish is beyond laughable. We all know that Exxon made more money last year than any company has ever made in any year, ever, right? That is, while we are paying prices for gas that are bankrupting delivery businesses and making some people decide between paying their mortgage and driving to work.

I suppose I disagree with that to an extent. The government is fat and bloated and wasteful and providing the government with more money leads to more of the same.

I would not even be against a higher tax rate in return when the company becaomes profitable after a subsidy - as long as that was a stipulation. Otherwise investors do not know what they are getting into. What happens to the price of a stock should the government just decide that industry A gets taxed at a higher rate because of their profitability?

But still, we can agree that it (meaning business) would be better without either subsidies or windfall profits taxes.

So are the people better off with no food? Or paying $20/loaf?

All items have value. If I were the flood victim, I owuldn't be happy to be paying $20/loaf. But I'd sure be glad that I had something to feed my kid.