Cfish, you need to prepare to be smacked harder and better everytime you bring up the false analogy using the scaremongering semantic "windfall profits tax."
Al notes:
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.
On three different blogs where this topic was discussed before Palin was even named by McCain as his VP pick, it was pointed out AGAIN and AGAIN: a "windfall profits tax" is based on the total profits of a company after the fact.
This usage fee is based on units produced independent of total or net profits made by the company, and is graduated based on the selling price of oil rather than a flat fee. The more supply of oil on the market, the lower the price of oil; the more that oil companies produce, the lower the land use fees (or taxes, if you want) they will pay to Alaska.
When the fee was a flat rate, as it was before Palin became Governor, oil companies had incentives to restrict production in order to restrict supply because it would drive up the price of oil. This way, they have incentive to INCREASE production because the lower the price of oil, the less tax they have to pay on what they produce.
It is not a windfall profit tax because it isn't based on the profit a company has realized, it's based on the price of oil per barrel at the time that the company produces the oil on Alaska state-owned land.
And they had incentive to pay off politicians to keep it that way. That incentive is gone thanks to Palin and the legislature, through the enaction of ACES.
Drill baby, drill.
Tools.