Comments on: No foolish consistency here: or any other kind

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:34:59 +0000

Whoops — I stripped the link. Click my name for iocaste212′s post.
It’s not clear to me, given what she cites, that this amounts to a retroactive accounting reform. Is the issue that it would require the companies to revalue oil that they already have in their stock? If so, I don’t see what the fundamental problem with that is; it seems akin to homeowners’ property tax bill going up when the house is reassessed. Which is annoying and can cause hardship, but I don’t see why it’s worse when it happens to an oil company. I’m interested in other arguments, though.

By: Jane Galt

Jane Galt — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:49:42 +0000

Perhaps my understanding is flawed, but few accounting reforms are made retroactive.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:43:36 +0000

iocaste212 says part of the alleged windfall tax is just a common-sense accounting reform.

By: Questioning

Questioning — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:24:37 +0000

How exactly is imposing a tax on windfall profits going to bring down gas prices? I don’t think it’s a bad idea, but the effect would be to turn a windfall for the oil industry into a windfall for the government, not to lower prices for consumers.