This is true, on paper. In actual life, in most resource rich countries very little of it benefits the average person. It's even assumed to be a net loss, euphamised as the "oil curse."

Norway's model has worked very well, and they also had lucky timing Vis a Vis capital markets. But, it's a rare success.

Colorado has a population of about 5.6mil and a GDP of ~300bil. Norway is 370bil.

Although better than most other U.S. states, I don't have access to the services that Norwegians do. But my taxes are also very low here. We could have the same kind of services as Norway if we want to pay for it, but taxes would have to go up.

Until Americans stop thinking of the word "tax" as evil, we'll always value it wrong.

"Although better than most other U.S. states, I don't have access to the services that Norwegians do. But my taxes are also very low here."

CO State taxes are (roughly) 5% which puts it right in the middle of US states (between 0% in places like Florida and 10-ish percent at the (non CA/NY) high end).

Then factor in (roughly) 35% federal + local taxes ... let's call it 40%, give or take. Let's just forget property taxes for the sake of this discussion.

Why should I think of 40% as a "low" taxation rate ?

Why shouldn't I expect a high level of government services in return for 40% taxation ?

(FWIW, I live in CA so you can add 5-8 more percentage points for my own tax burden ... same questions apply ...)

Unless you're $300k+, your tax burden is under 40%.

Even at $100k, you're around 31% total. That's for CA.

https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-paycheck-calculator#...

I speak of the highest tax brackets because my parent was implying that tax rates were not high enough - which is in reference to the people whose taxes should be raised.

I don't think the suggestion was that lower income brackets should bear that burden.

Therefore it only makes sense to discuss the highest brackets.

Or you can just look two states over at California which has the highest taxes in the country but is still largely dysfunctional. I think there's more to it than just perception.

IMO it's the other way around. There are other other small oil rich countries; for instance in the Gulf. None of them seem to be going anywhere near as well as Norway. So, empirically, Norway's prosperity as a society is an indication that it's doing some things really well.

Another key factor is a very high level of trust in the country. As citizens put it: “I have to pay a lot of taxes, but I don’t really care, because I know that [the state] gives you so many things at the same time.”

I don't know how Norway scores so low in corruption, and how such a high level of trust among strangers, people and the government has evolved though.

I worked in Norway for a couple of months (They payed me really well as a junior). One of my first impressions was their emphasis on being honest. The first thing the manager told me is that he once hired a person who admitted being "weak" because he appreciated his honesty.

There are many small countries that have experienced similar abundance and not done well. Size has absolutely nothing to do with it at all.

And fishoil. But seriously, I'm on this cruise around Scandinavia right now. All these countries are incredible. And not all of them are so blessed with resources. Then you get African and South American countries with similar resource:population and they're f-u-c-k-*-d. I think it is very much about the culture and that is at the household and governmental level.

Not culture, that's being xenophobic. There's a much easier explanation which is the history of colonialism.

Norway was rich on a global scale before oil.

I think their oil is the one factor that makes them special in Europe. And the fact that they used the oil to benefit the country and not just a few small groups.

Norway's oil boom began in the mid 1980s. In 1973 they essentially had zero oil production.

In the span of seven or eight years from the moment oil production began, their economy tripled in size (from 1973 to 1981). Oil caused that economic miracle.

Norway GDP per capita in 1973, pre oil, was $5,600 or so. Sweden was $7,200. Denmark was $6,100. Finland was $4,200.

Norway's GDP per capita in 1984 as the oil boom was underway was $15,000. Sweden was $13,000. Denmark was $11,500. Finland was near $11,000. Keep in mind these other three are among the best run couple dozen nations on earth.

Today: Norway $75,000; Denmark $56,000; Sweden $53,000; Finland $46,000.

Now show me the extraordinary products that Norway is creating and selling to the world, to generate that stunning $75,000 figure, as opposed to Sweden's remarkable economy that has boomed for a long time and is still lagging far behind Norway.

Norway's GDP per capita went from $38,000 in 2001 with cheap oil prices, to $97,000 by the end of 2008, due to the oil boom. It's very obvious that Norway owes its particular outlier performance to oil.

But they are even better off than Denmark and Sweden which have very similar populations/political models. Their oil wealth has certainly helped them (but they've done a good job of spreading the benefits of their oil wealth across society, unlike many other countries).

Not by European standards

Careful with that statement, you forgot Europe also has Eastern Europe :)