Oil Tax Breaks: Will Obama’s Plan Cause A Price Spike?

Don’t worry you won’t pay at the pump for oil company tax increases (Mike Blake/Reuters)

Gas prices are up. Oil company profits are up. Should the taxes Exxon Mobil, Shell and others be going up as well?

An increasing number of politicians seem to be saying yes. President Obama has proposed eliminating $4 billion in tax subsidies oil companies receive a year. Congress may vote on the plan next week. Yesterday, Republican Paul Ryan said he was for ending corporate welfare, including breaks for oil companies. Earlier in the week, Speaker of the House John Boehner indicated that he would be for cutting tax breaks to the oil companies given the price of gas. But now he seems to be backing off that stance. Here’s what Boehner’s spokesperson had to say about eliminating tax breaks for oil companies  to our sister blog Swampland:

Boehner’s spokesman, Michael Steel, told TIME that “the Speaker is willing to look at any proposal that would actually lower gas prices. Unfortunately, what the White House has proposed at this point would actually increase gas prices.”

Really? I’m not so sure. Here’s why:

Indeed, the recent rise of gas prices seems to be slowing the economy. So raising taxes on oil companies does seem to be a bad move if it will  result in higher gas prices. But is that what would really happen? Probably not.

First of all, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of studies that can connect gas prices to oil company tax subsidies. The main subsidy that we give oil companies is to allow them to write-off nearly all of the value of the investment they make when they are drilling for oil. Usually, companies have to write off their long-term investment costs over time. So allowing the oil companies to take the break immediately lowers the cost of drilling.

In the past year, the American Petroleum Institute, which is funded by the oil and natural gas companies, has done two studies looking at how removing oil company tax breaks would affect the industry. And the conclusion of the API studies was that US production of both oil and gas would drop by about 4%. But since the industry lumps oil and natural gas (the kind that is likely to come out of your stove, not go in your car) together it’s not clear how much of that drop would actually be in oil.

Even that estimate might be too large. That’s because it matters what assumptions you make for the price of oil. The higher the price of oil, the less tax breaks matter. At $10 a barrel, you might care about the size of the government subsidy. At $100, the tax break is just icing. Back when the API did the first of their studies in August of 2010, the price of oil was about $80 a barrel. Now it is around $110. So you would expect the effect on production would have gone down.

And remember we are just talking US production here. Gilbert Metcalf, an economics professor at Tufts who has studied the relationship between oil and gasoline prices, says that when you look at world oil markets, the reduction in supply from removing the U.S. tax subsidies for oil companies will be “imperceptible.” “This will have no affect on the price of oil or gas,” says Metcalf.

Of course, this all might be a different story if the oil companies were hurting. But yesterday, Exxon Mobil announced that it made $10.4 billion in the first three months of the year, or roughly $79,000 a minute. And you could say that just because they do well doesn’t mean they should have to pay more taxes. But isn’t that how our system works, or should.

Related Topics: Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Brendan McDermid / Reuters

    Facebook’s Stock Falls Below $30 for First Time

    (NEW YORK) — Facebook’s stock has fallen below $30 for the first time since its much-awaited public debut this month.

    The Jury Is Out on the EuroSlate

    U.S. consumer prices rose faster than expected in May. (Mario Anzuoni / Reuters)

    Consumer Confidence in the Economy Plunged in May

    NEW YORK — American confidence in the economy suffered the biggest drop in eight months as worries about the weak jobs, housing and stock markets rattled them again. The decline comes after a few months of optimism amid some positive economic news.

  • http://jrgyardley.wordpress.com jrgyardley

    Gandel is dead wrong on the inelasticity of gas prices to production incentives and domestic supply, but so be it.

    Let’s go to the heart of it, have at it on increasing taxes on oil companies. It will be moved through to the price of gasoline. And, what the hell? who can hate this most regressive of taxes which disproportionately falls to the middle class driving public. Pay me now with increased direct gasoline taxes or pay me later by increasing taxes on oil companies which just as assuredly will be passed through to the pump.

  • http://1ajk.wordpress.com 1ajk

    No tax breaks for anyone; burden all biz the same which means dump the subsidy for ethanol. If exploration/drilling costs must be written off over time rather than the year invested, so be it. Just make the rules the same for everyone. If XOM does not earn sufficient return for its investors, then XOM will re-deploy its capital. Please do not encourage Washington pols to tell XOM what to do or how to price their products.

  • Alejandro Dron

    ‘Always Party At The Top’
    http://www.zoharme.com
    Graphic Commentary on US Politics

  • http://fatcatwatch.wordpress.com FatCatWatch

    As the article points out – Oil is an internationally traded commodity. The removal of the USA national subsidy can not be passed on, it is not that simple. And even if were to be passed on, it is inherently and ethically wrong to be subsiding a company that makes $79,000 profit per minute!

    I can’t believe that this is even being discussed.

    The subsidy should be removed and the oil companies should be taxed more with revenues used to create renewable technology to replace the politically unstable oil regime.

  • http://jwpulliam.wordpress.com jwpulliam

    If it is a subsidy, and is taken away, how can that be interpreted as a tax increase.

  • http://tisias.wordpress.com tisias

    I consider it to be a net loss, remember how everyone said that expiring the Bush tax cuts would be raising taxes? Technically, people have been getting a free-market free-ride for too long, companies too.

  • 94134gamesmith

    Gamesmith94134: Oil Tax Breaks: Will Obama’s Plan Cause A Price Spike?
    “? Technically, people have been getting a free-market free-ride for too long, companies too.” I prefer Mr. Tisais saying that we did not even question why should some paid a far higher price on their gas in other countries; and the question mark above was not a copy error. I am sorry to say it was not a question on price spike and it is a fact why they paid millions for accountants. Do the people from Darfur need a better obesity program? If you take a contrast view on the kids of American; we may laugh at. Obesity prevention helps. Why not?
    The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply.[4] In other words, innocent monopoly, or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve his status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. Put another way, it has sometimes been said that the purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors, but rather to protect competition and the competitive landscape. As explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan,
    “ The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.[5] This focus of U.S. competition law, on protection of competition rather than competitors, is not necessarily the only possible focus or purpose of competition law. For example, it has also been said that competition law in the European Union (EU) tends to protect the competitors in the marketplace, even at the expense of market efficiencies and consumers.[6]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
    Cutting subsidies or raising taxes on the oil industries may not hurt their profit margin; it can pass on to its customers; it is because our legislations favored the energy industries that legislators depends on their contribution and profitability based on the developments of the energy issues that we demand and the developers who demand protection on the resources. Many questioned on the price of the crude from $40-$120; we endeavor to put the best foot forward in making our supply to US available and feasible. But, it was the consolidation that merger to protect ourselves from foreigners to internationalization; then, green and gas industries we must carry on to yield control can become excessive and not necessary now. US government must acknowledge the diversification of the energy industry to avoid further monopoly to endorse a fair trade preceding.

    Our oil industries should undertake a mode on competitiveness and focus on the single trade as in oil. In review, we extended our company names spelling like husband and wife, I was awsome. Soon, some will wonder aother name be part of its heritage that includes green, gas, or wind? I once was told the horse trade does not trade cattle, now going to grain (corn) and metal (gold). By time, my retirement comes, CBOT, CME, DCM may not compete with our energy industries and ENERGY is the future of everything—-Why subsidies or tax? If the US will default its debt, we can take over it with our mergers. Why USA? Can’t you quote me the price?
    As in doing thirty years business in oil industry, I present the Sherman Anti-trust Act to the Congressional Committees to review the probabilities on the further cuts on subsidies and tax levies for their yardstick on law. It is time to separate but equal now; and our industry may not support the dual mandates on the cheaper price and more energy. Our Congress must understand the dual mandate failed FED, and it would come on ENERGY too. If we can come through undone the consolidation on our oil industry, I guarantee the price would come down significant with the better financial commitment if only the Congress is willing.
    I only speak “Mea cupla”.
    May the Buddha bless you?

blog comments powered by Disqus