Quote:
Originally Posted by albertGQ
One small thing I've been a fan of is to treat our Heritage Fund the way Alaska treats theirs. The income generated from that fund should be reinvested back into the fund instead of going into general revenues. The real value of that fund is declining on an annual basis. If we followed the Alaska model, we would have approximately $100B in that fund now. With a fund that large, our dependance on natural resource revenues would be vastly lower
|
This final paragraph answers your initial question. The heritage fund was initially setup to create an income producing pool. That's where 30% of the resource revenue was going....until 1987 when Don Getty's government stopped the transfer. It's great that the fund contributes to hundreds of millions each year, but had we kept investing in it, fund income could very well outpace royalty income by now. (and we wouldn't need to talk about "Cut This, Increase That")