$107.4 big million...wow! And the interest on that per year would be...?

PG is in debt up to its eyeballs, and still the mayor and his pals take pointless and costly trips all the time.
Spend a million on a clock, that still aint up....nearly a million for a tunnel for the riffraff to hang out in soon...etc...

WASTE WASTE WASTE !

Pay as you go for the roads looks a good idea with these figures out in the open

Healthy, eh????

Here is the Alberta Budget which is in all the Alberta papers today:

Alberta provincial debt service cost = 0.7% of budget
Health = 36.9%
Education = 26.3%
Social Services = 9.5%
Transportation = 7.5%
Economic development = 9.5%
Other = 12.7%

Income = 29% from non renewable resources
Investment income = 7.1%
From commercial operations = 6.7%
The rest (55%) comes from taxes and fees 20.7% from provincial personal income tax with 10.5%from Canada
Corporations pay 8.8%

The $ spent on debt service in Alberta looks very healthy to me.... we all jsut need some oil well in our backyard ....

and some want to subsidize pulling dead trees in from 100's of km away at high transportation costs to subsidize energy creation ....

we get no favouritism from Alberta as a good neighbour 50% discount on oil ....

what is wrong with this picture ???

Owl, I don't think anyone has suggested subsidizing hauling in dead trees from 100's of km away. Some have suggested not taxing certain aspects of the process to make it viable, but that is not necessarily a subsidy, more of a management accounting decision to be made.

If the industry is fully taxed and goes no where; then no taxes are collected, no jobs are created, and no management of the resource takes place. Everyone goes backwards. Your suggestion?

On the other hand, if the government for-go certain taxes to make the enterprise viable; then the resource is managed, jobs are create, and some taxes could be collected (ie employment related taxes). No different than the progressive income tax, but applied to an industrial process in the form of special amortization write downs, or fuel tax credits.

A subsidy would be if the government was to pay money out to an industry in order for it to become viable. ie low income housing, education, health care, airports.

A tax break is when the government realizes it can not collect that level of tax and still have an industrial process become viable on its own, thus a lower level of taxation to enable the free enterprise to work in those specific circumstances. ie stumpage rates, oil and gas royalties, manufacturing equipment amortization rates, farming, and fisheries.

I guess one could argue that Alberta leads by example because they were willing to use their tax code to advantage new business to Alberta creating a larger tax base of business activity, rather than just blanket new industry with taxation that would make Alberta an uneconomical place to do business.

If an industrial plant bases it production on 90,000 widgets (ie 90% similar to CANFOR numbers (production/capacity projection)), but has a capacity of 100,000 widgets. If its hypothetical annual fixed cost is $90,000 dollars than it would need a contribution margin of $1 dollar per widget to cover its fixed annual cost. The normal cost for the widget is the variable cost of production plus the $1 dollar fixed contribution margin. If the industrial plant has commitments for 90,000 units than its fixed costs are already covered and any addition sale only has a marginal cost of the variable cost of production. The company then has a decision to make if it would like to forgo some or all of the $1 dollar contribution margin for fixed costs in order to accept a one time 10,000 unit order over and above its 90,000 unit commitment, but less than its 100,000 unit capacity. The idea is the fixed costs have already been allocated (taxed) for, and therefore further allocation would be excessive taxation on the ability to compete for additional contracts that could be marginally profitable at a rate much lower than the normal cost (hypothetically the plant requires no down time for all of its excess capacity).

With the current pine beetle situation we have production that is far lower than capacity, and when saw mills begin to close we will have a work force resource that is in a production level far lower than its capacity. It only makes sense to utilize those resources if its is marginally profitable in terms of employment, and resource management most importantly, but even tax revenue generation even if that tax revenue comes from employment income and service providers and not directly from the primary extraction service or bio-fuel plant itself.

Owl the wrongness of your picture is that you are asking a private oil industry with operations in Alberta to subsidize your cost of fuel.

In the topic at hand we would be asking our provincial and federal government to adjust its tax policy to facilitate a common good for areas those respective governments hold responsibility namely the environment and the employment of its citizens, as well as energy security ect.

Most of your confussion comes from the mix up in what is a subsidy and what is an investment with marginal returns.

Sorry Chadermando we simply do not have the same understanding of "subsidy".

Here is my understanding of subsidy when it comes to government intervention in a so called free market. A subsidy is government financial assistance, such as a grant, tax break, or trade barrier, in order to encourage the production or purchase of a good generally thought to be in the interest of the country’s population at large.

Here is a simple definition from the net.
http://www.answers.com/topic/subsidy

“A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.”

Here is a definition from the WTO site.
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/wtr06-2b_e.pdf

“Although the term “subsidy” is widely used in economics, it is rarely defined. Often it is used as an antonym to a tax, i.e. a government transfer of money to an entity in the private sector. This seems, for instance, to be the case in the Oxford Online Dictionary where a subsidy is defined as: “a sum of money granted from public funds to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low”. But many would argue that tax concessions are also a form of subsidization. Indeed, for the relevant recipients it may not make much difference whether they are made better off by receiving money or through the reduction of their tax bill.

Both forms of “assistance” also represent financial transfers by the government. Border protection, e.g. tariffs, on the other hand does not result in any such financial transfer from the government, and instead results in fiscal revenue. Yet it could be argued that the imposition of a tariff represents a form of subsidization for the import-competing sectors that are thereby protected from foreign competition. To define subsidies in terms of government transfers or fiscal expenditure is thus not necessarily complete.”

That is my understanding of what a subsidy is.

That is why I say removing or altering a tax, such as stumpage for example, when others have to pay it, is a subsidy to the industry paying no stumpage. Adding duties at the border to incoming goods and services to protect your own industry is a subsidy to your country's industry. Operating a civic government run service at a loss, such as a swimming pool, is a subsidy to those who use it. Charging the same fuel tax to a truck that does 100 times the damage to roads that passenger vehicles do is a subsidy to the transportation industry.

So, until we come to a common understanding of what a subsidy is, it is likely useless to discuss anything else since much revolves around the definition.

“If the industry is fully taxed and goes no where; then no taxes are collected, no jobs are created, and no management of the resource takes place. Everyone goes backwards. Your suggestion?”

We are talking about forestry here. Forests have many values. The commercial value of Fibre is just one of them.

There is no proof that managed forests are better than natural forests. In the Boreal forest we are talking about an 80 year rotation. The fact is that 30% or so of that forest has died. In fact, it can be argued quite competently that it has died because it has been managed. We have managed it for the natural disturbance of fire. One way or another, forests renew themselves, including through natural disturbances. If not one, then the other.

If we can find a commercial use for that wood, then that is great. But not at a net value and financial loss.

Stumpage is one of the taxes which is supposed to go to the reinvestment of the forested landbase. In addition, licensees carry silviculture liabilities on the books for ensuring the forested landbase remains viable.

So, through either our forest management practices, or bad luck of natural disturbances which would have occurred whether we were here or not, we find ourselves in a situation where the infrastructure we have built for the pre-beetle annual allowable cut is overbuilt for the next 50 or so years it will take to recover to the previous level of cut. If I recall correctly, a woodland operation falldown of some 20+% is expected once the initial flurry of activity subsides.

So, our stumpage and our silviculture liabilities on the books and any other taxation related to forestry operations have proven to be insufficient for such a situation. Lloyds of London does not insure the province for such a “natural disaster”. We self insure.

Thus, using the WTO definition of subsidy, I would say we have been subsidizing the forest industry for some time. Which is, of course, what the US has been arguing at the NAFTA table.

So now, you wish to subsidize it even more.