Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Royalties aren’t the same as taxes. They are payments made for the resources extracted. If the land, and all sub-surface rights were sold outright, the cost wouldn’t be mistaken for a tax.

Kind of true. However, ownership of the oil is socialized. The government owns all the oil, and is collecting royalties on oil production. It is a tax, it's socialism. The government owns the resources and manages them for "the common good".

However in effect, the government can give itself a raise at the expense of cost of economic growth by taking a larger percentage of the profits. The effect of a 20% increase in royalties is exactly the same as adding a 20% tax on the oil.

What is the difference between an income tax and a royalty payment to the government on earnings?

You can change the name but it still has an identical effect as a tax increase, so you're just arguing semantics.

19 posted on 09/24/2007 5:41:18 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: untrained skeptic
To be technical, in Canada the resources are held by the Crown. Or, in the case of the oil sands, the Crown in Right of Alberta. Now, that would be arguing semantics!

Royalties are paid for the franchise to extract resources owned by “the people” (or the Crown, or the Soviet, whatever). They are a cost of doing business for the miner. If a company wants a resource, it pays for it — same as if it needs office space, it pays for that.

We all know what a tax is.

20 posted on 09/24/2007 5:55:19 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson