BLM, Forest Service and Nevada Ranchers

[shoots-straight]

I was told Obamacare was not a tax, but now it is, so we can argue about what a payment to the Federal Government is.

Everyone does not pay Federal Income Taxes.

Most of us (middle class America) do.

Why would I want to talk about Obamacare on "Hunt Talk"?

 

[BigRack]

Most of us (middle class Ameria) do.

Why would I want to talk about Obamacare on "Hunt Talk"?

You want to talk about what a tax is or isn't. A permit can be considered a tax.

I do question why you wasted my time since I do think ranchers should pay for using our land and never said they shouldn't?

 

[shoots-straight]

You want to talk about what a tax is or isn't. A permit can be considered a tax.

I do question why you wasted my time since I do think ranchers should pay for using our land and never said they shouldn't?

Go back and read all 362 posts and see who wasted who's time asking stupid questions.

I.e. "Obama Care"

 

[spook12]

So the question is can I get out of the fee to see Mt Rushmore If I say I want to hunt on the land?

This is a pretty cool analogy you dug up right here.

Stay with me now. As a non consumptive user it doesn't cost a dime to go to Mt Rushmore,not one cent. If you do go and decide to become a consumer it will cost you some extra ''Fees''. If you chose to use the fancy covered parking structure, or drink a bottle of water or take home a souvenir expect to pay some ''Fees''. What you pay for the privilege of that water or trinket or fancy parking spot is a ''Fee'' It falls on you to cover their entire cost.

See how it works ''Fees'' are acquired by choice, Taxes are compulsory.

 

[BigRack]

This is a pretty cool analogy you dug up right here.

Stay with me now. As a non consumptive user it doesn't cost a dime to go to Mt Rushmore,not one cent. If you do go and decide to become a consumer it will cost you some extra ''Fees''. If you chose to use the fancy covered parking structure, or drink a bottle of water or take home a souvenir expect to pay some ''Fees''. What you pay for the privilege of that water or trinket or fancy parking spot is a ''Fee'' It falls on you to cover their entire cost.

See how it works ''Fees'' are acquired by choice, Taxes are compulsory.

We won't call it double taxation then. We will just say he paid for it twice. See how that works.

 

[spook12]

We won't call it double taxation then. We will just say he paid for it twice. See how that works.

Well actually he didn't . All he actually paid was 1 part out of around 309 million (compulsory). The second time he didn't pay ANYTHING(Fees).

See how that works.

 

[BigRack]

Well actually he didn't . All he actually paid was 1 part out of around 309 million (compulsory). The second time he didn't pay ANYTHING(Fees).

See how that works.

Jose and I weren't discussing the Bundy situation. In fact, I have never discussed him other then to say he needs to pay.

Jose and I were discussing Jose not wanting anyone to use our lands for profit.

See how that works.

 

[spook12]

We won't call it double taxation then. We will just say he paid for it twice. See how that works.

Your words not mine. You seem to be laboring under the illusion that the''He'' in your statement is somehow getting the screws put to him because ''He's'' being forced to pay twice for the consumption of a resources that we all own.

 

[JoseCuervo]

1. Ranchers paying taxes has nothing to do with cattle or bison. That had to to with the double taxation argument.

2. Cattle are a resource.

Can you expand on the nonsense that is your "double taxation argument"?

I need a good laugh today, and I am guessing you will provide it.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I do think ranchers should pay for grazing rights.

Can you read that?

.

Do you think ranchers should pay that fee to the Federal Government if the lands uses are federal lands?


Do you think the amount paid should be competitive with other providers of similar grazing options?

Do you think the amount paid should, at a minimum, cover the costs to administer the grazing permits?

 

[shoots-straight]

I think we are getting double taxed on the "RIGHT" to drive a car.

I think we are getting double taxed on the "RIGHT" to Fly airplanes.

I think we are getting double taxed on the "RIGHT" to run a variety of businesses.

How about the ability to take game animals. Double taxed there again.

We shouldn't have to pay for the "RIGHT" to log every last damn stick on the forests.

We is free, and should only pay the states fees for give me's and such.

 

[BigRack]

Can you expand on the nonsense that is your "double taxation argument"?

I need a good laugh today, and I am guessing you will provide it.

Randy paid twice when he had to buy a filming permit for the use of the Federal land. Once when he paid his Federal Income Taxes and again when he had to pay for the permit. I don't really care what name you call it, he paid twice. It makes no difference if he chose to or not, he still paid twice.

 

[BigRack]

Do you think ranchers should pay that fee to the Federal Government if the lands uses are federal lands?


Do you think the amount paid should be competitive with other providers of similar grazing options?

Do you think the amount paid should, at a minimum, cover the costs to administer the grazing permits?

Yes.

 

[RobG]

Randy paid twice when he had to buy a filming permit for the use of the Federal land. Once when he paid his Federal Income Taxes and again when he had to pay for the permit. I don't really care what name you call it, he paid twice. It makes no difference if he chose to or not, he still paid twice.

He only paid once because the Federal tax does not cover all uses, specifically it doesn't cover a filming permit.

 

[BigRack]

He only paid once because the Federal tax does not cover all uses, specifically it doesn't cover a filming permit.

Federal tax money was used to to administer the permit so yes he did pay twice.

 

[spook12]

BR in post 373 you answered'' yes'' ranchers should pay to use public land. Why then do you bemoan the fact that Randy would have to pay a fee to use the same ground in an effort to make a profit?

 

[RobG]

Federal tax money was used to to administer the permit so yes he did pay twice.

Well if you want to think that way he probably paid 1.01 times. This is complicated. I hope he has a good accountant.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally Posted by JoseCuervo View Post
Do you think ranchers should pay that fee to the Federal Government if the lands uses are federal lands?


Do you think the amount paid should be competitive with other providers of similar grazing options?

Do you think the amount paid should, at a minimum, cover the costs to administer the grazing permits?
Yes.

Yes.

Would you then agree that any Welfare Rancher not paying market rates on grazing lands is being subsidized by the other taxpayers of the US, resulting in the rancher relying on an economic model for his operation that requires subsidies and welfare payments/consideration?

 

[Nemont]

Randy paid twice when he had to buy a filming permit for the use of the Federal land. Once when he paid his Federal Income Taxes and again when he had to pay for the permit. I don't really care what name you call it, he paid twice. It makes no difference if he chose to or not, he still paid twice.

Federal Income taxes do not "pay" for access to Federal Property in any way, shape or form. If that was so the American people would be able to go into any National Park, use any campground maintained by a federal agency and use the military reservations without caring about paying the user fees.

User fees help defray the actual direct cost of utilizing a facility. That isn't the case with your taxes.

If you drive and buy gas you pay a tax on the gasoline to offset the cost of keep our highways in good repair. We are still required to pay our income taxes but people who don't drive or own a vehicle don't contribute to the highway fund but then again they aren't using our highways.

That is like Mr. Bundy, he is using the federal lands for grazing and he was asked to pay a fee for the permit to graze his cattle. At no time was he granted or did he purchase a right to graze those cattle but rather a permit. Since he was utilizing the land, just like the highway users in the above example he was expected to pay.

Now even if he paid the $1 million he still wouldn't have a right to graze any lands because he has forfeited his permit and has not standing in any court because he refused to play by the rules. He is now simply a thief how is stealing grass from the taxpayer at time when cattle are at all time highs.

For anybody to defend him as deserving of grazing this land and calling it a right is stupid at best and completely dishonest at worst.

Nemont

 

[BigRack]

Federal Income taxes do not "pay" for access to Federal Property in any way, shape or form. If that was so the American people would be able to go into any National Park, use any campground maintained by a federal agency and use the military reservations without caring about paying the user fees.

User fees help defray the actual direct cost of utilizing a facility. That isn't the case with your taxes.

If you drive and buy gas you pay a tax on the gasoline to offset the cost of keep our highways in good repair. We are still required to pay our income taxes but people who don't drive or own a vehicle don't contribute to the highway fund but then again they aren't using our highways.

That is like Mr. Bundy, he is using the federal lands for grazing and he was asked to pay a fee for the permit to graze his cattle. At no time was he granted or did he purchase a right to graze those cattle but rather a permit. Since he was utilizing the land, just like the highway users in the above example he was expected to pay.

Now even if he paid the $1 million he still wouldn't have a right to graze any lands because he has forfeited his permit and has not standing in any court because he refused to play by the rules. He is now simply a thief how is stealing grass from the taxpayer at time when cattle are at all time highs.

For anybody to defend him as deserving of grazing this land and calling it a right is stupid at best and completely dishonest at worst.

Nemont

Who is defending Bundy because I sure am not.

Randy is not paying for access to Federal lands and I never said Federal taxes pay for access to Federal land.