Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US government only takes a 12.5% royalty on profits from oil and gas extraction on public land [1]. Norway has a petroleum tax of 27% and a special tax of 51% for a total of 78% [2] in comparison. While we would generate less tax revenue per capita than Norway would, that's not the point. The point is the state should take a much larger share of the profits of extracting natural resources that state owns. [1]: ht…
The royalty rate is on production, not profits. The government takes 12.5% of all produced oil and has the right to the revenues. This is a much more burdensome tax than a tax on profits in that the government gets paid before the oil company, even if the oil company loses money on their investments. That’s why it’s not taxed at standard corporate tax rates.
Federal Reserve raises rates by 0.75%
591–593 of 593 posts
Re: Federal Reserve raises rates by 0.75%
#592Earlier quoted context omitted.
The royalty rate is on production, not profits. The government takes 12.5% of all produced oil and has the right to the revenues. This is a much more burdensome tax than a tax on profits in that the government gets paid before the oil company, even if the oil company loses money on their investments. That’s why it’s not taxed at standard corporate tax rates.
Does the average oil company lose money on their investments?
Re: Federal Reserve raises rates by 0.75%
#593Earlier quoted context omitted.
please show where trickle down economics ever worked, anywhere.
I mean the US economy in the 20th century seems like a pretty good example, right? It “worked” by having the wealthiest realize most gains but also making the US the most powerful economy in the world and still has a large sized middle class with houses, pensions, 401ks, etc.