An interesting take on Pebble

[BWALKER77]

Let me throw some facts at you but I doubt it will change much. It didn't for the first 45 years of my career. In Montana about .02% of the land has mineral potential. That land is located in 14 of 56 of the poorist counties. They are almost totally dependent on resourse industries- logging, mining and agriculture. Of 8,600 known mineral properties, something like 20 are in production of some sort. The most I ever saw was 54 and the majority were small family run gold placers. That included cement, talc, and bentonite mines. There is likely more acres disturbed by sewage lagoons than by mining. Large mines have to acquire up to 57 permits and pay millions in bonds plus administration fews to the government. A single medium to large mine will pay the lions share of taxes for the county. Their purchases for goods and services will span the US and beyond. Some items come from the smallest of towns as well as supporting the major towns that have no mineral potential yet fight every permit. The largest concentrated populations of deer and elk I have seen have been at major mine sites. The reclaim provides better forage than the native lands and they have security within the permit boundaries. I believe the elk population at Montana Tunnels when it was running was near 900 head.

The mineral industry pays its share and more. I remember someo of the taxes at Butte in the 90s were something in the range of $4.5 M. When the bonuses were paid the employees bought recreational equipment, businesses, and houses. Not exactly corporate welfare. As I remember in the last mining directory I produced very little of the operations were on public land.

Environmental damages have been linked largely to the early years when technology didn't exist to test for it or remediate it. As proven in the last 30 years the best way clean up our past is by remining the ground under todays rules and technology.

Montana is not pure by any means. Central Montana has levels of selenium that kill non-native cows. It comes from the ocean floor sediments in the Bearpaw shales. Northeastern Montana have zinc levels far exceeding the EPA standards in the massive lignite beds. Nobody is involved it is natural. And of course the largest single pollution source of all - Yellowstone Park which dumps millions of gallons of arsenic rich water into the Madison river which exceeds the EPA standards all the way to Canyon Ferry.

Those of you non-believers, you won't change your mind. Why clutter the airways with the truth. To the rest - I see a user tax in the future for our use of "public" lands. You may own them but you aren't paying your share.

Spot on in all regards.
I would add the Yellowstone river is full arsenic. Yet the EPA and state of Montana go ape shit when the water diacharge from one of the Billings refineries exceeds EPA limits due solely to the fact that water they are taking in is full of arsenic.

 

[BuzzH]

Taxes are not a use fee. Non users, corporations, etc all pay taxes.

Yeah, not nearly as much as you think...corporate tax rate dropped from 35-21%. Then there's all the other loop-holes, deductions, yada yada.

I'm not a tax expert, but I would guess the average effective corporate tax rate, taking the already ridiculouly low 21% and all the sweet-heart deals congress has passed into account, its probably in the single digits.

Meaning, user fees, like NP passes, FS passes, fees collected at campgrounds, PILT, etc, as well as the effective tax rate of the average US working stiff, is likely funding a disproportionate amount of Federal Land Management. Beings that I don't directly profit from extracting logs, grass, or hard rock minerals from my public lands, not sure why you think its unreasonable for the tax payer to expect more from those that are.

Not seeing your "miners are subsidizing" other user groups in regard to public land management...

 

[BWALKER77]

The forest use passes I've purchased are use fees. If you want to argue semantics, feel free. I fully understand there are multiple tax sources. My point is, I am paying for the administration and maintenance on these lands. If you have a breakdown of federal lands spending and revenues, I'd love to see it.

And so are the corporate interests. The use fees you mention are for facilities like campgrounds, boat launches, ETC, which is not what we are talking about.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

And so are the corporate interests. The use fees you mention are for facilities like campgrounds, boat launches, ETC, which is not what we are talking about.

Post up the numbers.

And no, use fee I paid was to use trailheads.

 

[BWALKER77]

Yeah, not nearly as much as you think...corporate tax rate dropped from 35-21%. Then there's all the other loop-holes, deductions, yada yada.

I'm not a tax expert, but I would guess the average effective corporate tax rate, taking the already ridiculouly low 21% an all the sweet-heart deals, is probably in the single digits.

Meaning, user fees, like NP passes, FS passes, fees collected at campgrounds, PILT, etc, as well as the effective tax rate of the average US working stiff, is likely funding a disproportionate amount of Federal Land Management. Beings that I don't directly profit from extracting logs, grass, or hard rock minerals from my public lands, not sure why you think its unreasonable for the tax payer to expect more from those that are.

Not seeing your "miners are subsidizing" other user groups...

Same sort of loopholes apply to individuals and let's not forget the huge number of people that not only pay no federal income tax, but recieve a direct payment in the form of an earned income tax credit.
When hunters pay nothing to use public land and a mining or timber company pays royalties for using the same lands it's not a stretch.

 

[BuzzH]

Same sort of loopholes apply to individuals and let's not forget the huge number of people that not only pay no federal income tax, but recieve a direct payment in the form of an earned income tax credit.

 

[BWALKER77]

Post up the numbers.

And no, use fee I paid was to use trailheads.

Numbers pertaining to what exactly?
I only hunt Montana and have. Ever seen a use fee at any trailhead I have used.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Numbers pertaining to what exactly?
I only hunt Montana and have. Ever seen a use fee at any trailhead I have used.

You said corporate hard rock taxes are subsidizing me. Post up the numbers to show the breakdown of appropriations to the BLM, USFS that show federal income tax vs. corporate tax vs. royalty payments.

If you're going to speak big picture, you should expand your worldview beyond Montana.

 

[BuzzH]

Same sort of loopholes apply to individuals and let's not forget the huge number of people that not only pay no federal income tax, but recieve a direct payment in the form of an earned income tax credit.
When hunters pay nothing to use public land and a mining or timber company pays royalties for using the same lands it's not a stretch.

Hunters don't work and pay taxes?

Huh, better get in touch with the IRS...they apparently didn't get the memo.

 

[BWALKER77]

More than 44% of Americans pay no federal income tax

The Tax Policy Center estimates how many people paid no federal individual income taxes in 2018.

www.marketwatch.com

 

[BWALKER77]

Hunters don't work and pay taxes?

Huh, better get in touch with the IRS...they apparently didn't get the memo.

Sure, just as corporations and non hunters do.

 

[BWALKER77]

You said corporate hard rock taxes are subsidizing me. Post up the numbers to show the breakdown of appropriations to the BLM, USFS that show federal income tax vs. corporate tax vs. royalty payments.

If you're going to speak big picture, you should expand your worldview beyond Montana.

Revenue by Year

This site provides open data about natural resource management on federal lands and waters in the United States, including oil, gas, coal, and other extractive industries.

revenuedata.doi.gov

 

[BWALKER77]

Revenue by Year

This site provides open data about natural resource management on federal lands and waters in the United States, including oil, gas, coal, and other extractive industries.

revenuedata.doi.gov

Now , how about you provide some. Timbers o. How much hunters pay in use fees.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Revenue by Year

This site provides open data about natural resource management on federal lands and waters in the United States, including oil, gas, coal, and other extractive industries.

revenuedata.doi.gov

And how much of these revenues go back to the appropriations budget?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Now , how about you provide some. Timbers o. How much hunters pay in use fees.

Fiscal Policy

Fiscal policy refers to the federal government's spending, budget, and tax policies set by the President and Congress. Here’s how fiscal policy impacts the U.S. economy.

www.thebalance.com

Here's a breakdown of total federal revenues. I wasn't able to dig up percentages, but approximately 2-3% of the federal appropriations budget was allocated to federal lands.

 

[BWALKER77]

And how much of these revenues go back to the appropriations budget?

That matters not what the federal government does with royalty and lease proceeds. They point being they pay for the use of public land via royalties and leases in addition to paying federal taxes like 56% of the population does.

 

[BWALKER77]

Fiscal Policy

Fiscal policy refers to the federal government's spending, budget, and tax policies set by the President and Congress. Here’s how fiscal policy impacts the U.S. economy.

www.thebalance.com

Here's a breakdown of total federal revenues. I wasn't able to dig up percentages, but approximately 2-3% of the federal appropriations budget was allocated to federal lands.

Part of that 2-3% is being paid by corporations and non users. You cant say that the small amount of your federal tax dollars that are allocated for federal lands are a use fee like mineral leases and royalties are.

 

[diamond hitch]

The bottom line is government costs money- beneficial or not. If the corporations aren't paying cause they are not earning, the obligation will trickle down hill. It's been a nice ride but I'm guessing the horse is about dead.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

That matters not.

It doesn't? I'm not making a profit off of public lands. Yet I still pay taxes to support the maintenance and management of said lands.

We'll just agree to disagree here.

 

[BWALKER77]

It doesn't? I'm not making a profit off of public lands. Yet I still pay taxes to support the maintenance and management of said lands.

We'll just agree to disagree here.

Corporations pay for public lands just as you do whether they use them or not. If they do use them they pay additional money's as user fees.
When I say it matters not I am speaking to the fact that what the federal government does from proceeds of public lands really isnt what we are talking about.