And you ask for a "direct" answer to something you cannot defend in equally direct terms? Of course you can't, because it's complicated and mathematical. Why should I go to the trouble of replicating what others have done? I provided links for FReepers and lurkers to go investigate for themselves, as I had done earlier, for the non-direct argument against your demonstrably non-direct charge. It's too complicated for a direct answer, just as it was too complicated for you to explain simply why it qualifies as a "windfalls profits tax."
FOOD FOR THOUGHT in a non-direct way. FReepers and Lurkers, read this from the frightening Palin-hopeless start all the way to the bottom. Way down -- after the panic has subsided and cooler assessment starts to kick in (pretty far down the discussion thread), a person who appears to have worked on such contracts points out:
1. The profound distinction between royalties and taxes, and that a royalty is not even a tax, let alone a windfall tax.
2. That a private landowner could charge a flat fee, but more likely would opt to participate in the profits in escalating royalties. Points out that at $20 a barrel, would want the royalty/lease fee to be $1 to $4 per barrel, but $12 per barrel at $40 per; this would be standard in a private contract.
3. That oil producers should expect to pay the same type of fees they'd pay in a private contract; if states and fed didn't do this, why would oil companies ever drill on private land?
4. The accounting purpose of describing escalating royalties as taxes as part of the contract would allow the oil companies to use the "taxes" to offset other taxes; speculates that was worded such in Palin's deal for the express purpose of providing those breaks to the oil companies.
Lurkers, fellow FReepers, and you, Catfish who "likes Palin but ..." (and who has regurgitated directly what another FReeper ID'd as Maureen Dowd's "caribou Barbie" Palin insult here on Free Republic), I could (and will, once again) spend HOURS investigating and reading the real depth of this, which AGAIN reveals that Catfish is MISREPRESENTING, and many would say DOWNRIGHT LYING when he characterizes this as a Windfall Profits Tax; one poster even links to this blog that purports to point out that much of the taxation Catfish demonizes with Drama Queen phraseology "Windfalls Profits Tax!!!" isn't even an income tax, but a severance tax.
CATFISH, so far this is a 600+-word post -- because there can be no DIRECT answer to your question; your charge is deceitful by being indirect, and so revealing it as false must be equally "indirect." So Folks, GO DO YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE and relax in the knowledge you'll find by doing so that Catfish and others are misrepresenting Palin here. Then next time you watch in horror as this single "Windfall profits tax!" charge silences and discourages Palin supporters as you see it did on the Hot Air blog, you will know that you are righteous and accurate in calling bullsh*t on it, but that it's damned near impossible to do it directly. Guys like Catfish are banking that you won't go to the trouble. He's deceitful.
1) It provides more revenue to the resource owner (Alaska) as the per-barrel price of oil goes up.
2) It is designed to provide a stable per-barrel profit to the oil companies no matter what the price or how much (or how little) they pump.
3) It is designed to provide NO disincentive to drill regardless of the oil price.
4) It is distinguished from a true windfall profits tax in that there is no attempt to limit oil company profits from drilling in Alaska. Drill more, make more.
Am I missing anything?
BTW, even the good ol' boys in the Alaska legislature (or at least the ones not sent to jail) must have thought it a fair deal because they passed it 59-1.