Econlib Resources
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)RDF (Excerpts) Feedburner (One-click subscriptions) Subscribe by author
Bryan CaplanDavid Henderson Arnold Kling More
FAQ
(Instructions and more options)
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Blogging software: Powered by Movable Type 4.2.1.
Pictures courtesy of the authors. All opinions expressed on EconLog reflect those of the author or individual commenters, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of the Library of Economics and Liberty (Econlib) website or its owner, Liberty Fund, Inc.
The cuneiform inscription in the Liberty Fund logo is the
earliest-known written appearance of the word
"freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It
is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.
|
||||||||
Whether the reduction in their wealth is a major concern hinges greatly on where the oil is produced from. If it mostly derives from Federal lands or open water, the tax largely represents a transfer from the Interior Department to California.
@Hyena,
Good point. I don't know enough to say. One crucial issue, even with Federal land or open water, though, is the royalty formula. If it's a fixed amount or a percent of gross price, the feds lose almost nothing.
You mean, it's bad to take their wealth relative to not taking it, or bad relative to taking it in other ways or from other people?
I ask b/c one interesting thing about taxing nonrenewable resource extraction is that it's possible for such a tax to be completely non-distortionary (which, as Brennan and Buchanan pointed out, you can think of as a bug or a feature)
@Prof. Henderson,
Shouldn't the Feds lose in future lease bids regardless of the pricing scheme, or am I missing an impact of different schemes?
Also: what do you think of resource leases on Federal lands? How should they be priced?