Should we be like Norway?

[Newview01]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/norway+...922/story.html

HELSINKI — Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, the world’s largest of its kind, has hit a milestone value of $1 trillion, beating all expectations since its creation over 20 years ago.
Fund manager Norges Bank Investment Management said the value was recorded early Tuesday. It said the fund has been boosted by a rise in stock markets and a weaker U.S. dollar, which increases the dollar value of its holdings in other currencies.
Norway first deposited oil and gas profits into the fund in 1996 and CEO Yngve Slyngstad said nobody expected it to hit the trillion dollar mark at the time, calling the growth “stunning”.
The fund invests oil and gas proceeds mainly into stocks but also bonds and property worldwide to secure wealth for the Nordic nation’s 5.3 million people.

Not sure I agree with the government controlling money that should rightfully belong to the taxpayer, but at least they appear responsible unlike our own governments.

[rembo]

"We" as in the Provincial Gvt. or the Federal Gvt.? Huge difference.
If AB didn't have to send $$ to the Fed Gvt in transfer payments AB could possibly set up another fund. Keeping governments from raiding the fund to invest in other industries as was done by the AB govt many times, would be the hard part. As far as the Fed Gvt setting up a wealth fund similar to Norway's?...not going to happen. Too many federal politicians would see it as an affront to the environmentalists and oil haters. Can't make these groups unhappy now can we?

Norway has an advantage in that the people there don't enmasse oppose any and all resource development as most are smart enough to realize where a large portion of their governments money comes from. This money is used to fund the social programs and run the country. Not so much in this country.

[Bighorn River]

Originally Posted by rembo

"We" as in the Provincial Gvt. or the Federal Gvt.? Huge difference.
If AB didn't have to send $$ to the Fed Gvt in transfer payments AB could possibly set up another fund. Keeping governments from raiding the fund to invest in other industries as was done by the AB govt many times, would be the hard part. As far as the Fed Gvt setting up a wealth fund similar to Norway's?...not going to happen. Too many federal politicians would see it as an affront to the environmentalists and oil haters. Can't make these groups unhappy now can we?

Norway has an advantage in that the people there don't enmasse oppose any and all resource development as most are smart enough to realize where a large portion of their governments money comes from. This money is used to fund the social programs and run the country. Not so much in this country.

Yes we should have saved over the past 40 years. We screwed up and we did not. The booms are never coming back. Don't blame environmentalists we could have saved billions but we ^%$^ed our kids' share away.

Blaming this on the Feds is silly. 90% of Albertans don't understand how transfer payments work. Alberta does not "send money to Ottawa". Transfer payments come from income taxes paid by individuals, which Canada pools and then tops up have not provinces, because we are a country.

http://thoughtundermined.com/2012/04...isconceptions/

[wags]

Originally Posted by rembo

"We" as in the Provincial Gvt. or the Federal Gvt.? Huge difference.
If AB didn't have to send $$ to the Fed Gvt in transfer payments AB could possibly set up another fund. Keeping governments from raiding the fund to invest in other industries as was done by the AB govt many times, would be the hard part. As far as the Fed Gvt setting up a wealth fund similar to Norway's?...not going to happen. Too many federal politicians would see it as an affront to the environmentalists and oil haters. Can't make these groups unhappy now can we?

Norway has an advantage in that the people there don't enmasse oppose any and all resource development as most are smart enough to realize where a large portion of their governments money comes from. This money is used to fund the social programs and run the country. Not so much in this country.

We did save money. We wasted it. Don't be ****y at anyone other than our former leaders.

[play.soccer]

Sure they have all that money and everyone says "hur dur Norway people are millionaires their country has so much money"


But the only people seeing that money is the government. The regular proles are taxed to death. Over 50% easily.

[dmcbride]

Some people should actually do some research. Alberta is a province, not a country. If Alberta was a country we would have more money.

http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/c...o-ottawa-a-lot

"So just how much money has flowed out of Alberta to Ottawa? A lot. Between 2000 and 2014, on a net basis, Alberta’s individual and corporate taxpayers shipped an estimated $200 billion-plus to the federal government. That’s what left the province, less what the feds reinvested here.

To put that lofty figure in perspective, it’s nearly 12 times the value of the $17.4 billion Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund. No other province — including Ontario, with three times Alberta’s population — even comes close to matching this province’s contribution to the federation."

[DiabeticKripple]

If Alberta actually controlled all our money, we would be like Norway.

But I prefer less taxes so I can spend my own money

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by Bighorn River

Yes we should have saved over the past 40 years. We screwed up and we did not. The booms are never coming back. Don't blame environmentalists we could have saved billions but we ^%$^ed our kids' share away.

Blaming this on the Feds is silly. 90% of Albertans don't understand how transfer payments work. Alberta does not "send money to Ottawa". Transfer payments come from income taxes paid by individuals, which Canada pools and then tops up have not provinces, because we are a country.

http://thoughtundermined.com/2012/04...isconceptions/

Don't understand transfer payments? I've heard that explanation of transfer payments before and its gotta be one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. Alberta does not send money as a whole to the feds but collectively everyone defined as an Albertan sends more to the feds than they get back? What the heck is the difference other than semantics? NONE! Distributions are defined by province and disproportionately doled back out. That is what matters whatever you call it. Now whether you agree with wealth redistribution to help your fellow Canadian or buy votes is one thing...but to say it isn't happening and people just don't understand is just absolutely silly and insulting.

Boom times will come back. There is still a cycle or two left before the non-renewable song ends. We're still burning more gas and more oil than ever and demand is still growing for both regardless of the renewables and electric car hype. And supplies are not limitless. But I expect we will make the same spending mistakes the next time around. C'est la vie.

[Imagehunter]

Originally Posted by play.soccer

But the only people seeing that money is the government. The regular proles are taxed to death. Over 50% easily.

It's not really 50% and still lower than other countries in Europe and one can always argue that "the government" gets the money. But if you compare European countries most of them not only look at Norway with envy to the oil fund, but the quality of their health or education system. Which is where the government puts the money, so "the people" often see more for their money than tax payers in other European countries. Not to mention infrastructure, one of the biggest issues other countries in Europe face right now with crumbling infrastructure, even though they taxed their people more than Norway did.
It's always hard to compare countries for obvious reasons. But I give credit to their past and present governments on how they worked with the money they got from the people. The Scandinavian countries are good at that, the further you move down in Europe, the more ridiculous it gets.

[Gray Wolf]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Should we be like Norway?

With $1 Trillion in hand (and still growing), I would say Yes!
.

[jstubbs]

Drawing comparisons between Norway and Alberta's heritage funds are the biggest waste of time possible. It's not even apples to oranges. It's apples to steel girders.

One is a country, one is a province within a country. The differences in culture, history, land mass, population density, resources + resource extraction, royalty scheme, taxation, community, etc. are massive and makes the two entirely incomparable. Stop talking about it and using it as fuel for debate as to whether Alberta has squandered its resource royalties.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by jstubbs

Drawing comparisons between Norway and Alberta's heritage funds are the biggest waste of time possible. It's not even apples to oranges. It's apples to steel girders.

One is a country, one is a province within a country. The differences in culture, history, land mass, population density, resources + resource extraction, royalty scheme, taxation, community, etc. are massive and makes the two entirely incomparable. Stop talking about it and using it as fuel for debate as to whether Alberta has squandered its resource royalties.

Why should we not desire the same? Maybe Alberta should be a country with similar culture and ideals?

The fact remains that they have a responsible government, and we do not, both on a federal and provincial level. Environmentalists and naysayers are obviously not tolerated, much to the benefit of the taxpayer.

[greendrake]

I'm not so sure there is not an age difference here that is creating a huge gap in understanding. Lougheed started the Heritage savings plan because he was a visionary who saw something like what we are experiencing now. His plan was to make big oil give Albertans their fair share of the resources. This was in the late 70s then came Klien who along with his ministers of greed decided to have a fire sale on all Alberta resources. They also saw the Heritage trust as a personal bank account. Had they followed Lougheeds original plan and looked after us and not big oil we too would have a trillion in the bank or damn close to it. That's a fact Jack! I will also try to simplify how transfers work. Let's say 10 people are living in harmony working toward a comman goal. To accomplish this they need to pool their money for things they all need. So everyone puts in ten dollars but 7 of the ten are just getting by some are really struggling. 3 of them are doing so well they have an overabundance of cash. So more of the ten dollars from those 3 are given to the other 7. This works because the 3 realize that they're paying exactly what the 7 are but not getting as much of the pool because they don't need it. We don't give more our money is just helping our friends and neighbors who need a hand. In 1935 we were the poorest province in Canada but thanks to maritime fisheries, BC timber and Sask wheat we were kept afloat Now we give back and it doesn't matter because we are stronger together and we realize we may fall and bad times again and will be so glad we have a system (transfer) that will help us all. Let the moaning begin!

[Bighorn River]

Weak. Of course they are differences, but they are two jurisdictions that both saw unprecedented revenue generated from oil and gas royalties. One chose to invest and save it, and Alberta chose to squander it. Now they have 1 trillion and we don't.

2 generation of Albertans got to have low taxes by paying the bills with resource revenue that belonged to our kids as much as us.

Federal government didn't steal it etc etc. Feds got income taxes. We spent all the royalties. We chose to liquidate the asset and save nothing for the future.

Environmentalists aren't tolerated? Ha Ha Norway has a popular carbon tax of $70 per tonne, 50% of all new vehicles are electric due to subsidies and gives billions to poor countries to save their rainforests. They've figure out how to make money and be responsible at the same time.

[sewerrat]

Originally Posted by DiabeticKripple

If Alberta actually controlled all our money, we would be like Norway.

But I prefer less taxes so I can spend my own money

We were almost there in the Klein days.

[Imagehunter]

Originally Posted by Newview01

The fact remains that they have a responsible government, and we do not,

This. Never hurts to look at other examples to learn from or avoid doing (the same) mistakes (again). Being from Europe you clearly see differences and in the end it comes down to the point that the government made decisions in favor for and the interest of the people and living in Norway. That shouldn't be limited to countries, provinces or municipalities but common sense. Begs the question how they do it different if you see your own governments burn money like it grows on trees while telling you that you have to tighten the belt for that to continue.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Bighorn River

Environmentalists aren't tolerated? Ha Ha Norway has a popular carbon tax of $70 per tonne, 50% of all new vehicles are electric due to subsidies and gives billions to poor countries to save their rainforests. They've figure out how to make money and be responsible at the same time.

Interesting. I stand corrected. So what are they doing that is working for them and not for us? I think more than 25% of GDP is O&G related.

[Badgerbadger]

Originally Posted by jstubbs

Drawing comparisons between Norway and Alberta's heritage funds are the biggest waste of time possible. It's not even apples to oranges. It's apples to steel girders.

One is a country, one is a province within a country. The differences in culture, history, land mass, population density, resources + resource extraction, royalty scheme, taxation, community, etc. are massive and makes the two entirely incomparable. Stop talking about it and using it as fuel for debate as to whether Alberta has squandered its resource royalties.

No.

Norway modeled their fund off Alberta's HTF. If Alberta had continued to contribute at Lougheed legislated levels, instead of cancelling those contributions under Getty and Klein's austerity and fire-sale philosophy, Alberta would have approacing $500billion in the bank.

While there are differences between Norway and Alberta, as you indicate, analysis can still be done to show where we would have been, if stewardship of our provincial resources had been maintained.

[lmtada]

I am not a socialist. Canada was not a socialist country. Canada is rapidly becoming a socialist country. Taxing small corporations retained interest earnings accounts from 52% to 73%. There Is a Wealth transfer. I am looking at leaving my beloved west. "Socialism is good until you run out of other people's money".
PB43

[greendrake]

Originally Posted by sewerrat

We were almost there in the Klein days.

No we weren't! We lost it all then under the lie that we were debt free. Klien who people proudly proclaim lowered taxes played the old shell game with suckers! As he supposedly lowered taxes he created user fees. Then he deregulated utilities a move that has us paying a shell company 3 billion dollars for nothing! Utilities shot through the roof I was paying $35 dollars for heating one month and $ 350 the next and people bitch aboutva carbon tax. Really? Klien was a traitor and self-serving asshat who looked down on us with a grin as he screwed us royally and out of royalties! I used to vote Tory never again!

[Ken07AOVette]

Yes. You should move there and let us know how it turned out for you. All the Norweigans that come here to farm and settle lately must not know everything you do.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by greendrake

No we weren't! We lost it all then under the lie that we were debt free. Klien who people proudly proclaim lowered taxes played the old shell game with suckers! As he supposedly lowered taxes he created user fees. Then he deregulated utilities a move that has us paying a shell company 3 billion dollars for nothing! Utilities shot through the roof I was paying $35 dollars for heating one month and $ 350 the next and people bitch aboutva carbon tax. Really? Klien was a traitor and self-serving asshat who looked down on us with a grin as he screwed us royally and out of royalties! I used to vote Tory never again!

It was also Klein that made cuts to health care and the closure of clinics and labs that were brutal, some areas still not recovered. Klein will always be known for the azzhole who started the long wait times because of all the cuts and closures to almost everything medical and they have gotten worse ever since.

[couleefolk]

If Alberta now had a huge savings, and Trudeau knew it was there, you can bet that he would use it to cover his spending habits. Better to use it ahead of time before someone walks in and cleans you out for the better of your neighbors.

[lmtada]

Liberals are going divide/conquer. To retain power.

http://www.greaterfool.ca/2017/09/19/the-better-way/


Sent from my iPad

[The Elkster]

It is interesting that everyone bitches about the carbon tax but nobody here bitches about deregulation and the cost affect of that. Remember that collusion of companies that manipulated spot prices through strategic shutdowns...those companies that were suppose to act responsibly if only gov't got out of the way. hmmmm selective memories me thinks

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by lmtada

Liberals are going divide/conquer. To retain power.

http://www.greaterfool.ca/2017/09/19/the-better-way/


Sent from my iPad

Nope just making things fair for everyone. There is no reason business profits need to be subsidized with below average tax rates. No hate as is being spun to try to paint the gov't the villian. Just a return to balance. Of course some are going to feel butt hurt. Nobody wants to pay more than they currently do. But I don't want my taxes subsidizing someone else's lower rate either.

Yes businesses take risks and they are rewarded with no limits on the profits they can make. No need to subsidize.

Yes businesses employ people...not because of charity but because it promises to bring the owner(s) even more net profit. And if it doesn't said employee won't be around long.

Businesses benefit as much from public infrastructure as anyone else. Whether it be education, transportation, healthcare. Nothing wrong with asking them to pay a similar bill as everyone else. Nothing to do with hate.

That's not to say gov't shouldn't tighten up and work to lower EVERYONE's taxes equally! That is a another issue however once everyone is on a level playing field.

[lmtada]

How Tax works, good write up a saw long time ago. Fits this conversation.

“How Taxes Work . . .
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on — it does make you think!!
Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.
That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too … It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”.
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!”

Originally Posted by The Elkster

Nope just making things fair for everyone. There is no reason business profits need to be subsidized with below average tax rates. No hate as is being spun to try to paint the gov't the villian. Just a return to balance. Of course some are going to feel butt hurt. Nobody wants to pay more than they currently do. But I don't want my taxes subsidizing someone else's lower rate either.

Yes businesses take risks and they are rewarded with no limits on the profits they can make. No need to subsidize.

Yes businesses employ people...not because of charity but because it promises to bring the owner(s) even more net profit. And if it doesn't said employee won't be around long.

Businesses benefit as much from public infrastructure as anyone else. Whether it be education, transportation, healthcare. Nothing wrong with asking them to pay a similar bill as everyone else. Nothing to do with hate.

That's not to say gov't shouldn't tighten up and work to lower EVERYONE's taxes equally! That is a another issue however once everyone is on a level playing field.

[greendrake]

Great story and works well to understand how if we were just going for a meal this would be a problem. Were not though were paying for health care to save lives , were paying for education to change lives, and were paying for emergency services to protect lives. Rich or poor we all benefit or someone we know and love benefits. So therefore if the rich man can afford to pay more he is still getting the same services as the poor man and a lot more. In the form of roads to bring customers to his business energy to run his business and possibly subsidies or tax breaks that save him tremendously at bill time!

[lmtada]

Norway.

Great tv series called "Lillehammer".
American gangster has to leave America. He sent to Norway to live. He starts his own little mob in Lillehammer. Hilarious. On Netflix.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO8...YTb4cP0oRpWE0-

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by greendrake

We don't give more our money is just helping our friends and neighbors who need a hand. In 1935 we were the poorest province in Canada but thanks to maritime fisheries, BC timber and Sask wheat we were kept afloat Now we give back and it doesn't matter because we are stronger together and we realize we may fall and bad times again and will be so glad we have a system (transfer) that will help us all. Let the moaning begin!

By the way Alberta has received a total of $50 million in transfer payments for only a few years in the 1950's, even back then then that was a token amount of money. We would have dug ourselves out of that hole whether we got it or not.

I don't think the average Albertan minds helping other provinces when those provinces are also trying to help themselves. But when you have a province like Quebec who is a recipient of our generosity then turns around and says no pipelines in our backyard to transport that dirty Albertan oil that Quebec benefits from in equalization. Or New Brunswick who has natural gas in their cupboard but refuses to develop any of it to better themselves, won't allow fracking but expects Alberta to frack the crap out our gas and oil fields and send them money while they hoard their own resource. Eastern Canada imports billions upon billions of barrels of dirty and bloody oil from dictatorship and terrorist supporting environmentally filthy countries and won't buy or support our own domestic far more environmentally friendly oil.

When other provinces constantly have their hands out begging for huge equalization payments for decade upon decade while at the same time are trying to scuttle the industry that's feeding them something is seriously wrong. The hypocrisy is astounding.