[new_west]

Here's a genereal idea to put out there. I'm not going to right a book like other members since it's mostly a work in progress.

What do you think about Government not collecting any tax? Revenue would come from natural resources companies that would be turned into Crown Corporations (only Canada might pull this off as we have one of the World's most abundant resources).

Business profits and would rise and US and other international companies would set up shop here. Roads, courts, ect would be paid for and we would avoid the Baby Boomer dilemma by increasing productivity and innovation VIA economic immigration.

Here's an everyday example:

GASOLINE TAX - 33% in combined taxes on average on the price of fuel in Canada, and Americans pay about 11%.

With Tax (Last Month Average)

$1.21 per liter (~40 cents to Gov't)

No Tax

81¢ (~81 cents to Gov't)

Can you accept the logic that resources can fund services?

Again, this is just a proposal so please throw in your 2 cents (not taxed of course ).

[Guy_Fawkes]

Im going to guess you haven't thought about this for very long.

[Canadian_Mind]

You're an idiot.

[sandorski]

Guy_Fawkes wrote:

Im going to guess you haven't thought about this for very long.

I'm guessing you're correct.

[Pseudonym]

new_west wrote:

Here's a genereal idea to put out there.

Are you sure you didn't mean venereal?

[Lemmy]

Well, his spelling's better than his economics.

[jeff744]

Canadian_Mind wrote:

You're an idiot.

I am greatly disappointed in the lack of this option in the poll.

[Proculation]

what I don't like about the word "taxes" in english is that it is the same word for the sale taxes and the incomes taxes. in french we have "taxes" for sale taxes and "impôts" for income taxes.

So for the opinion, sale taxes are much better than income taxes. Like my grandpa was saying: "income taxes is robbery !" (l'impôts c'est du vol !)

[Guy_Fawkes]

jeff744 wrote:

Canadian_Mind wrote:

You're an idiot.

I am greatly disappointed in the lack of this option in the poll.

There are so many thing wrong with his 'proposal' that it is not really worth commenting on. He should have said "Hey remember the USSR? Those guys had a wicked economic system! We should copy it, start with gas!" That would have at least given us something to comment on.

[Winnipegger]

You have an idea there, but it has problems. First, not all the price you pay is profit. Here are a couple charts from Petro-Canada:

Caption from Petro-Canada's website wrote:

2007 Canadian Average Pump Price
Data Source: MJ Ervin & Associates
Petro-Canada Refining & Marketing Profit

This means profit is only about 3%, so owning resource companies won't earn as much as you think. Operating expenses will be the same regardless if a private company owns/runs the operation, or a crown corporation. The Canadian federal government used to own Petro-Canada, but it was sold off in order to reduce the debt. Good idea? I don't think so. But buying out Gulf Oil to rapidly expand Petro-Canada was a bad idea as well; we need to reduce American dominance in Canada, so buying out a British firm was counter-productive.

Another problem: If you nationalize all oil companies, Alberta would scream! I don't see how you could get away with it. Some people in Alberta threatened to separate if the federal government tried it.

::Edit:: Hmm, the chart on top assumes the company just refines and sells gasoline retail. They show "Crude costs" as a single item. I wonder how much profit is in crude oil? I'm sure there's still substantial costs involved in exploration and drilling/harvesting.

[Proculation]

wouhou !! I win again !! (I'm in Montreal) Take that Vancouver !!

[Proculation]

Quote:

Another problem: If you nationalize all oil companies, Alberta would scream! I don't see how you could get away with it. Some people in Alberta threatened to separate if the federal government tried it.

The problem is more: where will the government find the money to buy the oil companies that worth tens of billions

[Canadian_Mind]

Winnipegger wrote:

You have an idea there, but it has problems. First, not all the price you pay is profit. Here are a couple charts from Petro-Canada:

Caption from Petro-Canada's website wrote:

2007 Canadian Average Pump Price
Data Source: MJ Ervin & Associates
Petro-Canada Refining & Marketing Profit

This means profit is only about 3%, so owning resource companies won't earn as much as you think. Operating expenses will be the same regardless if a private company owns/runs the operation, or a crown corporation. The Canadian federal government used to own Petro-Canada, but it was sold off in order to reduce the debt. Good idea? I don't think so. But buying out Gulf Oil to rapidly expand Petro-Canada was a bad idea as well; we need to reduce American dominance in Canada, so buying out a British firm was counter-productive.

Another problem: If you nationalize all oil companies, Alberta would scream! I don't see how you could get away with it. Some people in Alberta threatened to separate if the federal government tried it.

::Edit:: Hmm, the chart on top assumes the company just refines and sells gasoline retail. They show "Crude costs" as a single item. I wonder who much profit is in crude oil? I'm sure there's still substantial costs involved in exploration and drilling/harvesting.

I would assume the costs of production being relatively stagnant. Oil companies were profitable at 20 bucks a barrel less than 10 years ago. No way exploration and extraction costs have gone up 5 times.

[Pseudonym]

Proculation wrote:

The problem is more: where will the government find the money to buy the oil companies that worth tens of billions

Since when has a lack of funds stopped government?

[new_west]

Woah...cut a newbie some slack? First post people

Lemmy wrote:

Well, his spelling's better than his economics.

Anyways, another idea online was that to make state revenue from lotteries but I'd say that's an ethical gamble no one should deal with.

Is there any constructive criticism here on the original idea instead repetitive vitriol? By the way, you should attack the policy instead of the individual. I guess next time I'll post a dissertation before being torn to shreds . I'll do some more reading on fellow member "winnipegger" and his or her style of posts.

EDIT: Thank you for your respectful post Winnipegger.

I'm working to determine the aggregate revenue of the entire Canadian natural resource industry. The 2010 Stats Canada numbers haven't been released until the second half of 2011 I believe.

As I did some searching, I couldn't find a separate single category for all resources so I'll have to look around to find what I want. Oil and mining is together though and fishing, agriculture and forestry are under one group.

The first challenge is for me to come up with my own model on the financial benefits of nationalizing the resource sector.

Oh, I also agree that Alberta and other provinces won't give up their rights under Section 92 of the Canadian constitution so easily. In order to move the responsibility of "natural resources and the environment" from the province to the federal government, it would take a historic mandate (a large margin of victory) given to a new government. A electorate craving the abolishment of tax would give the new government the pretext to attempt constitutional amendment.

I'd say only a sacrificial lamb would go against the populist tide. While they are at it, might as well remove the Senate, remake the constitutional amendment formula to be instead a national referendum using the 50+1 rule.

I'd appreciate a healthy and robust discussion