Why Can't Canada Be Like Norway on Oil Revenues?
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
Taxes alone do not indicate a more successful economy. Two countries could be very different yet just as successful, albeit in different ways.
Highly taxed economies are more susceptible to economic deviations.
As the cost of living rises, the cost to do business also rises (read: materials and wages) and the cost of the freebies provided by Big Brother also increases... One blip in the economy and the bubble is burst.
California is an excellent example of such
It depends. If taxes are too low, debt increases over time. If spending is too high, likewise. The trick is to keep taxes and revenue higher than government spending.
As for government spending, depending on the role of the government in the society (which can vary from country to country), there is such a thing as excessively low or excessively high spending, as witness the car that fell through the road in Ottawa last month owing to underfunding of Ottawa's infrastructure.
From that point of view, a debt-free high-tax country might be preferable to a debt-ridden low-tax country, depending on various other details of course. But it's not so cut and dry.
That situation is entirely dependent on the spending habits (and the promises) of gvt.
Is the Feds fault that the roads are in poor shape? Doesn't the muni of Ottawa assume any responsibility here?
In the end, if you are using debt to support the spending programs in a nation, then that nation simply can not afford the progarm
True, but in the end, those nations that are dependent on debt do not have the option to go any other route except more debt... More over, it's not just about the taxation levels that determine the debt position - it's the manner of expenditures that are engaged by gvt... There are a lot of low-tax nations that have zero debt and still offer social programs and strong infrastructure. Conversely, many of the high-tax nations have relied on that tax base to pay for the bribes and goodies that they offer society, yet they still can't pay for the raft of necessities like roads (read: Ottawa)
I don't think it is screwing anybody to say these are Canadian resources, they belong to all canadians, and if a foreign corp wants to profit from those resources they are gonna have to share that profit with Canadians. We are watching almost $1trillion a year go to the oil & gas corps. I think they should be quite happy if we let them have half of that and we would be better off with another $500billion in the coffers.
I was referring to government in the general sense, since the same principle applies to a local government. Obviously the city of Ottawa must spend more on infrastructure, so does that mean that it should not raise taxes to do so? I'd prefer tax to debt myself.
You're absolutely correct.
Personally, I'd prefer living in a debt-free country with high taxes than a low-tax country with government debt. That said, of course I'd prefer living in a low-tax debt-free country as long as essential services and other government spending necessities like universal compulsory education do not suffer from it.
I can do some higher taxes IF they are put to good use like healthcare and education, including post secondary, for all Canadians. The first thing to do before raising taxes is cut all the waste and fat. We don't need to be spending millions on teaching immigrants English, let them pay for it and learn BEFORE they get in. We don't need to be putting our MPs in 5 star hotels when they travel. Etc, etc. Once all the non-essential BS is gone then we can look at tax revenue vs spending and make some solid decisions.
Of course the first thing I would do is tell the international banksters to 'go forth and fornicate' because we aren't paying them any more interest and we don't need them to buy our bonds so we can print money. In fact we don't need them at all.
And we could save 2.4 billion dollars here, or at least 1.5 billion as a conservative estimate:
Federal and provincial bilingualism requirements cost Canadian taxpayers $2.4 billion annually; provinces spend $900 million to provide dual-language services | Fraser Institute
Federal and provincial bilingualism requirements cost Canadian taxpayers $2.4 billion annually; provinces spend $900 million to provide dual-language services | Fraser Institute
Canada is one of the few states that hasn't nationalized large parts of its Oil Business. In fact it doesn't even have a presence in the industry since the demise of Petro Canada as a crown corporation. The Harper government has no interest in promoting anything but the interests of the Global Oil conglomerates, in fact it grovels before them.. and they want nothing less than to reduce Canada to colonial status as a provider of raw, unprocessed natural resources.. while charging a pittance of royalties for oil exports.. of the something should be held in trust and owership for the Canadian people.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what the portfolios of CPP and EI contain.. but these minority positions provide no protection or benefit to Canada as whole.. in fact they might put the government in the position of acting against those interests. There is big difference to asserting a national privilege in the resource sector.. and caving into corporate governance for it.
The government in fact should not be stock market player period in ANY capacity. It needs to supervise and regulate markets, not subordinate themselves to the investment industry.
CPP's investments can be found on the Security Exchange Commission's website. Take a look sometime. You'll see that the Govt isn't just dabbling in the oil industry and a plethora of Evil Corporations.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1283718/000114420412044099/v320910_13fhr.txt
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1283718/000114420412044099/v320910_13fhr.txt
I would have thought my original post would have made that clear. However, here is an itemized list of reasons as to why domestic development of resources is superior to foreign investment. .
Development of resources by Canadain firms insures:
1. that most jobs will be carried out by Canadians
2. that Revenues generated by Canadian firms stay in Canada rather than being eported to foreign nations.
3. that technological innovations created by Canadain firms can be exported to other nations and Canada does not have to pay the
cost of importing foreign technology
4. that Canadain firms would be large enough to compete in the international marketplace and take part in the development of
resources in other nations
5. that the political influence of foreign firms in Canada's governments would be diminished.
6. that the refining or natural resources would occur in Canada rather tha in foreign nations thus giving added value to Canadian
products
I probably missed one or two other reasons, but these should do for now.
How would that work - we'll make sure we use Canadian firms to develop and exploit our resources, but by some magic other countries won't do the same? In what world do you think Canadian firms get to work internationally, if we don't allow international firms to work in Canada?
We invested in the petroleum industry long ago. We pull in plenty of profit from the industry, besides hubby's wages. Of course, that required we manage our finances ourselves rather than complaining that the government wasn't doing it for us.
Sounds like a reverse case of NIMBYism. As far as I'm concenred, countries less lucky in the resources they have access to should have the same economic opportunities as Canada.
Then again, I'm a world federalist myself, so I'm sure that affects my views somewhat.
Oh yes, he hadn't thought out that tit-for-tat thingy. And even without that, if our policies weaken other economies, then who will buy our products?
It isn't so much about taking advantage of poorer nations as it is to stop giving the lions share of the available profit to international oil corps. BP makes $28 billion after spending around $45 billion in the gulf, this leads me to believe we could charge them another billion or 2 a year and they would still be very profitable. Multiply that times a few and then add a bunch more for the smaller guys and think of what we could pay for. You want universal healthcare and education (including post-secondary)....there's your funding.
Looking at the revenue generated by Norway and Venuzuela from smaller production we are giving the stuff away far to cheap.
It's called trade. Why are the resources developed in the first place? Obviously someone wants them and doesn't really care what firms supply them. There is little advantage in having US firms sell Canadian resources to Japan or China.
I guess you would have to express that point of view to all the nations that have made sure that their natural resources are controlled by domestic rather than foreign firms. So far as I am concerned Canadain resources belong to Canadians. I can see little point in giving them away for considerably less than other nations receive; Norway being an excellent case in point, as the title of this thread implies.
Oil-Rich Norway Doubles Its Carbon Tax on Oil Companies
Norway to double carbon tax on oil industry | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Norwegian oil companies, while far from perfect, are not Ecuador-decimating, climate change denial-promoting, private corporations with lobbying fleets the size of the navy.
There will be no multimillion dollar campaign to convince the public that climate change is a hoax, and that small fees on their product will bankrupt the economy.
Norway's government is going above and beyond to demonstrate its willingness to be a good global citizen, to do its part to slow the rise climate change.
Norway to double carbon tax on oil industry | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Norwegian oil companies, while far from perfect, are not Ecuador-decimating, climate change denial-promoting, private corporations with lobbying fleets the size of the navy.
There will be no multimillion dollar campaign to convince the public that climate change is a hoax, and that small fees on their product will bankrupt the economy.
Norway's government is going above and beyond to demonstrate its willingness to be a good global citizen, to do its part to slow the rise climate change.