[saturn_656]

Scape Scape:

Norway is taking their oil revenue and investing it into next generation power. That's why its so high because they know they are running out.

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/10/17/ ... -oil-fund/

$1:

All of Norway’s oil and gas revenues are placed in the fund, with only around 4 percent of it pumped into the state budget. The fund was set up with the goal of stashing away much of Norway’s oil and gas revenue for future generations.

Right now we are spending hand to mouth, which is fine if you plan on no tomorrow. We know the oil will be harder and harder to get and at the same time we will have more mouths to feed. We need to invest in sustainable power projects on the scale of a national project like the trans-Canada highway. Petro-Canada meant we own a few pumps but what we need to create is our own means of sustainable energy. IMHO we may be sustaining an economy today at the expense of the future, it's like we are having a reckless party and we need to keep the kegs tapped or no one will come by and think we are cool. We need to start banking our revenue and invest it while we still can the party can't last forever.

I'm all for the government banking the fuel taxes it already takes (which are substantial) and using them for the purpose you suggest. I just don't support an additional "green tax" on a good that is subject to three separate taxes already.

[Scape]

Agreed. I think a carbon tax mechanic is a bogus vehicle. It needs to be nailed down to concrete programs that produce results. Otherwise it just ends up becoming yet another slush fund.

[romanP]

Lemmy Lemmy:

romanP romanP:

It's $0.12, not $2.

$2, I says.

Their platform cites $0.12

[saturn_656]

It's a nonstarter either way.

[romanP]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Gasoline in Norway (and I think Europe in general) is heavily taxed, which is what accounts for the insane price per litre. It's also hard to argue that our fuel is subsidized when one third of what we pay at the pump is tax.

What, in your opinion, is the "real cost" of gas?

It's not at all hard to argue that our gas is subsidised. If you buy gas, you're getting fucked at both ends.. you pay taxes which pay for tax cuts to oil companies, and then you pay again at the pump.

[Lemmy]

romanP romanP:

Their platform cites $0.12

I don't recall you being in the room when the platform was developed.

[romanP]

Lemmy Lemmy:

romanP romanP:

Their platform cites $0.12

I don't recall you being in the room when the platform was developed.

I doubt you were there either. Either way, their platform (which you can read on their website, it's not a state secret) says $0.12.

[saturn_656]

romanP romanP:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Gasoline in Norway (and I think Europe in general) is heavily taxed, which is what accounts for the insane price per litre. It's also hard to argue that our fuel is subsidized when one third of what we pay at the pump is tax.

What, in your opinion, is the "real cost" of gas?

It's not at all hard to argue that our gas is subsidised. If you buy gas, you're getting fucked at both ends.. you pay taxes which pay for tax cuts to oil companies, and then you pay again at the pump.

Tax breaks for big oil companies does not equal subsidized gasoline for us.

[romanP]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

romanP romanP:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Gasoline in Norway (and I think Europe in general) is heavily taxed, which is what accounts for the insane price per litre. It's also hard to argue that our fuel is subsidized when one third of what we pay at the pump is tax.

What, in your opinion, is the "real cost" of gas?

It's not at all hard to argue that our gas is subsidised. If you buy gas, you're getting fucked at both ends.. you pay taxes which pay for tax cuts to oil companies, and then you pay again at the pump.

Tax breaks for big oil companies does not equal subsidized gasoline for us.

It may as well be an unofficial subsidy. We're paying money to oil companies to prop them up, and not making revenue from those cuts, while they pay hardly anything.

[andyt]

Scape Scape:

Agreed. I think a carbon tax mechanic is a bogus vehicle. It needs to be nailed down to concrete programs that produce results. Otherwise it just ends up becoming yet another slush fund.

Put in carbon taxes and lower income taxes an equal amount. Supposedly consumption taxes cause the least harm. That way we reduce our carbon emissions without too much pain.

[saturn_656]

romanP romanP:

It may as well be an unofficial subsidy. We're paying money to oil companies to prop them up, and not making revenue from those cuts, while they pay hardly anything.

I imagine their profit margins are very healthy.

[Lemmy]

romanP romanP:

I doubt you were there either.

Why would you doubt it? Did I not just indicate that I was there, so you're calling me a liar?

romanP romanP:

Either way, their platform (which you can read on their website, it's not a state secret) says $0.12.

And how do you suppose they arrived at that figure? Do you think it was the first figure discussed? Would you care to guess whether the more extremist Greeners that worked on that platform pushed for a figure higher or lower than $0.12? Can you hypotheisize WHY $0.12 came to be? Do you recall what the number was during the last election campaign? How about the campaign before that?

[saturn_656]

andyt andyt:

Scape Scape:

Agreed. I think a carbon tax mechanic is a bogus vehicle. It needs to be nailed down to concrete programs that produce results. Otherwise it just ends up becoming yet another slush fund.

Put in carbon taxes and lower income taxes an equal amount. Supposedly consumption taxes cause the least harm. That way we reduce our carbon emissions without too much pain.

What is revenue neutral for the government is not necessarily revenue neutral for the consumer.

It would be a tax increase on many people. Yours truly included.

[romanP]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

romanP romanP:

It may as well be an unofficial subsidy. We're paying money to oil companies to prop them up, and not making revenue from those cuts, while they pay hardly anything.

I imagine their profit margins are very healthy.

They certainly are. And yet they keep getting tax cuts.

[andyt]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

andyt andyt:

Scape Scape:

Agreed. I think a carbon tax mechanic is a bogus vehicle. It needs to be nailed down to concrete programs that produce results. Otherwise it just ends up becoming yet another slush fund.

Put in carbon taxes and lower income taxes an equal amount. Supposedly consumption taxes cause the least harm. That way we reduce our carbon emissions without too much pain.

What is revenue neutral for the government is not necessarily revenue neutral for the consumer.

It would be a tax increase on many people. Yours truly included.

Why? You're a heavy fuel user for some reason? Anyway, that's the point - carbon taxes are meant to reduce carbon use. And they're coming, one way or another. I rather see carbon taxes than phony cap and trade schemes. I suppose the only thing that would obviate carbon taxes to some degree would be a sharp spike in oil prices with no fall off. Comes to the same thing, except that we would turn to coal use, which is not good.