Use it to make a minerals deal with Ukraine, in lieu of the US. That would discredit Trump, and allow for a lasting trade relationship long after the war is over.
If there was any time to use it , now would be it.
Honestly Norway could equal Russia's entire military budget for the year without anyone in Norway noticing any changes to their daily lives.
I wish my taxes in the US could be sent straight up to Ukraine since the Orange Moran and the Nazis got rid of every program that our taxes used to benefit us. I don't want a penny going to those monsters.
Slava Ukraine!
Move to Texas or wherever the taxes aren't paid and then just start sending money to Ukraine
edit: sorry i forgot to add /s
You still pay taxes in those states, just not income. Most people will pay more taxes in those states compared to places like California (not the rich, of course). Texas chose a system of sales taxes (state and local), which act like flat-taxes, which put more burden on lower income people.
Sorry, forgot to add /s
Out of curiosity, could you live and work in Texas but do all your shopping outside to pay the absolute bare minimum in taxes?
Yes, but you're gonna want to live in El Paso. Otherwise you're in bumfuck nowhere next to Oklahoma, Louisiana, or Arkansas. New and old Mexicos are much better neighbors
Hmm, I guess theoretically. I bet towns or businesses close to eachother over a state border do something to equalize prices. Or I guess the businesses in the lower taxed state would just raise their prices because they can and still get business.
$170billion have been allocated to assisting Ukraine.
While your own people can't afford treatment and die of treatable illnesses, weird choice of fight.
Socialized healthcare would be cheaper and better tgan the current system, and the surplus that niw goes to people like Brian Thompson could go to Ukraine.
Thanks for pointing out another source of aid dollars.
LOL imagine if the US Republican government would do a single thing that would help reduce the cost of health care, improve disease or health research, or even reduce taxes for anyone not making millions a year.
Your argument is so fake. Just the latest directive from the Kremlin.
While sending billions to Israel for bombing civilians?
Get real.
On this episode of false dichotomy...
Weird dichotomy, when there's more than enough wealth to take care of both, if it were managed sensibly.
The leader of the Greens, who are currently polling at 2.7%, reiterated their proposal that Norway should pledge €85.5 billion to Ukraine.
This is unlikely to go through, but it's very nice to see the green pushing boundaries, that absolutely can be pushed if there's a political will to do it.
That amount is HUGE!! And alone would almost match USA total contribution throughout the war, both civil and militarily.
Norway is among the largest donors to Ukraine. We have so far committed at least NOK 167 billion (€14.7 billion) in support until 2030,
So Norway has already decided to give more than they did in the past.
We currently have a proposal in the Storting to increase support by 100 billion Norwegian kroner this year," Sveinung Rotevatn, deputy chair and responsible for financial policy in the Liberal Party, told Euractiv.
This is equivalent to €8.6 billion, this is a very big donation when seen per capita, although Norway is very rich, Norway is still a relatively small country.
Very nice, exactly the signal The Free World needs now. Now, that the previous leader vanished in a puff of Kreml propaganda.
It's now more than ever at stake wether Ukraine can fend off the invasion (the outcome of which is another signal to autocrats eyeing future invasions, for example Taiwan, Transnistria*). It's a question.
One answer, one possible scenario is that each individual EU country feels overwhelmed to shoulder the additional burden. Or that the Union cannot muster enough support to replace the U.S. This scenario can be self-reinforcing. If it seems likely that the combined response would still be insufficient, a plausible outcome is everybody holding back, which already would favor the Russian aggression.
So this is why I want to highlight how much good news this is, because it's exactly the opposite kind of example. Literally stepping up.
*) Transnistria: Edited thanks to a comment, original wrongly said 'Tasmania'.
(the outcome of which is another signal to autocrats eyeing future invasions, for example Taiwan, Tasmania)
Wait, what? What autocrat is eyeing Tasmania?
End Kiwi expansionism!
Oops, thanks. Meant Transnistria (to which the answer would be Putin, although I guess you would not have asked if I had not made that mistake). Sometimes, the letters in the middle of a word do seem to matter.
Ah, that makes much more sense.
Increasing aid to Ukraine has been heavily debated in EU, and they've come up with ways to increase funding in general from EU countries. And they have already messaged solidarity in increased aid.
The meetings in Paris led by Macron and today in London led by Starmer are obviously about how to help Ukraine more. And apart from European countries, they also Included Canada with Trudeau.
Whether we can compensate completely for the lack of US aid remains to be seen, but it seems clear that there is a very strong political will among Ukrainian allies to do so.
Trump will say, "Thank me! See make them pay for it!" Even though this puts us at greater risk in the future. 🤮
Urgh disgusting. Glad to see the EU and Canada step up now more than ever.
On a personal level I would be pissed if had saved money for decades and had to piss it away by blowing up orcs because the fucks can't stay in Mordor.
On a personal level, I would be pissed if my country was being invaded by a common enemy and all the other nations in the world ignored us and let us die and lose a bunch of territory after pretending they gave a shit for a few years.
Russia is a large country with proven animosity for various countries and global organizations. They will not stop at Ukraine. Do you really believe the Russian justification for this war is true? This is an existential threat to the EU and Norway is not acting like it.
To be perfectly honest, Norway should remember where that money actually comes from (petroleum) and who will help them protect it should it ever be threatened by an entity such as Russia (with whom they share a border).
Comments like this highlight how much some people are getting brainwashed
Right? Imagine referring to an entire people as “orcs” and coming out thinking you’re not completely propagandized
Dehumanization.
As much as I disapprove of Russia's behavior, I have alot in common with the working class in the country. If only we could cast off these parasites we call leaders and find a way towards true ever lasting peace.
Divided we are conquered, together we are free.
Pissed at who, though?
Either way, this sentiment ignores the point in the text about war related profits.
Earmarking the war profits for the war, as well as reconstruction, seems to be quite sensible.
can they legaly extract money from that fund?
You wouldn't have to extract anything if you use the funds as collateral for a loan. Not that I understand anything about how they run their country and this financial institution.
Kind of. The amount that can be spent annually is regulated by law. I don't remember the exact figure, but the budget can not rely on more that N% of these funds. I don't remember how much N is, but it's reasonably low. The reason is twofold:
It is entirely possible to change this number of percent by a majority at the parlament.
Source: Am noggie
EDIT: The percentage that can be used follows the profit, which is estimated at 3-4%
Are you really asking if they legally can spend their own money?
Of course they can, there's an agreed upon principle to only spend 3-4% of it per year, but if they want to, obviously they can change that.
Yes, the rule is up to 4% of annual proceeds can go into the national budget for covering spending. That rule, however, is arbitrary nonsense and only serves to limit the size and scale of investments on the budget.
The actual limiting factor is that the law states that the purpose of the fund is to save for the benefit of future generations. That’s something they will have to navigate. Personally I would like for there to be a mechanism that basically requires a ‘business case’ outlining how any proposed investment/spending will align with that stated aim of the fund. Making such a case here should be pretty straightforward, as allowing one of our neighbouring countries to militarily invade and conquer their neighbours wouldn’t be good for said ‘future generations’.
Yes, the rule is up to 4% of annual proceeds can go into the national budget for covering spending. That rule, however, is arbitrary nonsense and only serves to limit the size and scale of investments on the budget.
The actual limiting factor is that the law states that the purpose of the fund is to save for the benefit of future generations.
It sounds to me like 4% is what they've guesstimated as being the maximum safe amount that can still fulfill that sustainable spending goal. I might call that "arguable," but I wouldn't call it "arbitrary."
It’s arbitrary. The reasoning is based around avoiding inflationary effects, but that’s based on a stupidly simplistic and wrong-headed idea of how inflation works.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/