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

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 ]


To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
How does a 20% increase in royalties differ than a tax on oil that equals the same amount? The money goes to the same people, the government.

Royalties are a cost of doing business, so are taxes.

I'm not saying that Canadians don't deserve to be paid for their oil. However, increasing the percentage of existing royalties is exactly the same as taxing oil production in this instance, and has exactly the same effect.

When the government decides to increase the revenues they receive from business, that is usually called increasing taxes. However, in this case, since their is an existing royalty they can just increase it and say that they didn't raise taxes even though the effect is exactly the same.

In this case, it's just arguing semantics. In either case the government is talking abut taking a larger chunk of revenues.

21 posted on 09/24/2007 7:10:42 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | 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