WOW WYOMING LAND GRAB

[AvidIndoorsman]

For a boom/bust based revenue (i.e. resource extraction), the dumbest thing a state could do is hand out revenue surpluses instead of planning for an economic downturn. If someone wants to argue the risk of land speculation doesn't outweigh the reward in this case (per @wllm1313 data), I think that's a valid argument. Saying they should give the money back to those they took it from is silly. That was the known cost of doing business when the contract was signed.

Exactly my point.

Should WY do this... question at hand.

Should WY redesign it's entire system taxation and revenue allocation... WTF how is this relevant.

 

[ImBillT]

I guess I'm not understanding how the State should operate more like a business, but then on the other hand should not maintain a healthy cash balance to offset the ups and downs of it's income via taxes on both industry (royalty) and property. Some years you will have higher expenses and lower income do to market forces, would it be beneficial to then raise everyone's taxes to account for that shortfall? I know I want to know my tax burden in advance so that I can plan both my business and personal investments accordingly.

Of course the state should maintain a healthy cash balance. Are they doing that by spending $500M on one of the least liquid assets in existence? Of course as long as they get a good price, I’m sure they could barrow against it...with interest.

 

[VikingsGuy]

For a boom/bust based revenue (i.e. resource extraction), the dumbest thing a state could do is hand out revenue surpluses instead of planning for an economic downturn. If someone wants to argue the risk of land speculation doesn't outweigh the reward in this case (per @wllm1313 data), I think that's a valid argument. Saying they should give the money back to those they took it from is silly. That was the known cost of doing business when the contract was signed.

There are lots of reasons to challenge this deal - the govt. land speculation angle is in fact one of the first and most frequently raised, now it has just devolved into weird, "it's the government's money not the people's", inaccurate characterization of how money/taxes work and a few "get the hell off my lawn" remarks.

Also, the rainy day rational that in the abstract is a good one, makes no sense to invest the rainy day dollars into an asset that will be drowned by the very rainy day you fear.

As for giving money back as "silly" - that is BS. I understand why one may choose not to, but it is hardly silly. Also, please send me a copy of the contract I signed that said I agreed my government could raise more taxes from me than it needed and keep them ad nausea - I don't recall reading that one. A good govt. is a limited govt. You many not agree, but it is hardly a silly premise.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Also, please send me a copy of the contract I signed that said I agreed my government could raise more taxes from me than it needed and keep them ad nausea - I don't recall reading that one.

Are you a mineral extraction corporation in Wyoming? If not, the comment is not directed to you personally. Dude, keep shit in context. It's Friday, go have a beer

 

[SAJ-99]

If the people's asset (the land) generates revenue...

I am sure that a lot of that is on Federal land, so send me my check.

The problem I have with your argument is that you will never be able to acquire more public land (unless it is given to the state - which happens occasionally). And if there is no rainy-day fund, any time there is a budget shortfall the odds of selling a piece of public land go up. I think we agree that Governments should be more fiscally responsible, but that would have to involve an increase in taxes or less payments to retirees. Side Note - The Illinois Supreme Court said the state was legally obligated to pay the promised retirement benefits, setting a precedent for other states to worry about. It is certainly a hot mess.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Also, the rainy day rational that in the abstract is a good one, makes no sense to invest the rainy day dollars into an asset that will be drowned by the very rainy day you fear.

This I 100% agree with... hence my comment's "these minerals suck".

I do like a good conservation buy... but if I had a billion dollars I would spend 995 million of it buying land that I would donate for conservation.

 

[BuzzH]

As for, "it came from land use not a tax so it's not the people's", I don't buy it. If the people's asset (the land) generates revenue, then it's the people money. How the people decide to distribute that money is for the people to decide. Maybe they want to buy more land, maybe they want free college, maybe they want to reduce sales tax, maybe they want to invest in modern tech start-up incubator, maybe they want a refund check. I don't care which they choose (and as Buzz points out regularly, I don't have a vote on it anyway), but I do care that Americans actually understand that it is their money to spend/distribute, not the politicians and bureaucrats. Now of course the people elect the politicians and hire the bureaucrats to do all kinds of things for them, but never lose site of the priniciple (pun not intended) - these resources are the people's first. A sidebar pet peeve is people who think getting an income refund is a good thing - the bigger the better -- for the love of god people, you are giving the government a tax free loan, you aren't "getting" anything.

Right, and the people here have done all those things...Hathaway scholarship, no sales tax on food anymore, we do all kinds of things to attract business in Wyoming...one of the big selling points is the amount of accessible public land we have. It has been pointed out, we also have some of the lowest property and sales taxes in the country.

It also seems to make sense, if you're looking to support the second biggest industry in the State, outdoor recreation, that adding more places for people to engage in that industry might be wise. If we can capitalize on that, and also extract some other resources, even better.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Are you a mineral extraction corporation in Wyoming? If not, the comment is not directed to you personally. Dude, keep shit in context. It's Friday, go have a beer

Dude, the extraction company is completely irrelevant to the issue - don't start pulling a Buzz and throwing around red herrings. As for context - I don't care what WY does, but I do care how our collective society's view of how money and government work or don't work or should work has become so skewed. On this point I will have a beer and offer counterpoints.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Right, and the people here have done all those things...Hathaway scholarship, no sales tax on food anymore, we do all kinds of things to attract business in Wyoming...one of the big selling points is the amount of accessible public land we have. It has been pointed out, we also have some of the lowest property and sales taxes in the country.

It also seems to make sense, if you're looking to support the second biggest industry in the State, outdoor recreation, that adding more places for people to engage in that industry might be wise. If we can capitalize on that, and also extract some other resources, even better.

All good points, but doesn't then make untrue the question of doubling down on your top two cycle dependent industries in your rainy day fund.

 

[BuzzH]

There are lots of reasons to challenge this deal - the govt. land speculation angle is in fact one of the first and most frequently raised, now it has just devolved into weird, "it's the government's money not the people's", inaccurate characterization of how money/taxes work and a few "get the hell off my lawn" remarks.

Also, the rainy day rational that in the abstract is a good one, makes no sense to invest the rainy day dollars into an asset that will be drowned by the very rainy day you fear.

As for giving money back as "silly" - that is BS. I understand why one may choose not to, but it is hardly silly. Also, please send me a copy of the contract I signed that said I agreed my government could raise more taxes from me than it needed and keep them ad nausea - I don't recall reading that one. A good govt. is a limited govt. You many not agree, but it is hardly a silly premise.

There's more funds available for this purchase than just the rainy day funds...we have a lands acquisition account, etc.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Dude, the extraction company is completely irrelevant to the issue - don't start pulling a Buzz and throwing around red herrings. As for context - I don't care what WY does, but I do care how our collective society's view of how money and government work or don't work or should work has become so skewed. On this point I will have a beer and offer counterpoints.

I’m not throwing a red herring. You’re taking a comment completely out of context.

Its extremely arrogant of you to tell me what I meant by my statement, and what’s relevant and what’s not.

 

[BuzzH]

All good points, but doesn't then make untrue the question of doubling down on your top two cycle dependent industries in your rainy day fund.

I suppose, if you're dumb enough to ever believe that outdoor recreation wont bring economic value to Wyoming, or that outdoor recreation will cease to exist.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

For the love of god someone start a music thread

 

[Deleted member 20812]

For the love of god someone start a music thread

What unit in Arizona is worth building elk points?

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am sure that a lot of that is on Federal land, so send me my check.

Not a relevant option with a govt. swimming in debt, but I promise to send you a personal check the day after our federal government is debt free

The problem I have with your argument is that you will never be able to acquire more public land (unless it is given to the state - which happens occasionally). And if there is no rainy-day fund, any time there is a budget shortfall the odds of selling a piece of public land go up. I think we agree that Governments should be more fiscally responsible, but that would have to involve an increase in taxes or less payments to retirees. Side Note - The Illinois Supreme Court said the state was legally obligated to pay the promised retirement benefits, setting a precedent for other states to worry about.

Lots of good points, but at 55% public, how important is it to citizens other than public lands hunters that WY needs to prioritize new acquisitions. But I understand that is sacrilegious to question on this forum.

It is certainly a hot mess.

On this we certainly agree.

 

[TOGIE]

i really wanna take about the likelihood of seeing deer tags shaved off units in 3rd season colorado this year. anybody wanna go fire a up a thread on that with me?

 

[VikingsGuy]

What unit in Arizona is worth building elk points?

Is a RUM enough gun to take an elk?

Or, in honor of TopGun - "stop being a felon by parking on the side of state roads"

 

[VikingsGuy]

I suppose, if you're dumb enough to ever believe that outdoor recreation wont bring economic value to Wyoming, or that outdoor recreation will cease to exist.

'cycle' not 'cease', but I guess they do both start with 'c' so I will give you that. You do have a wonderful "troll" knack of attributing things people don't say to the discussion.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I’m not throwing a red herring. You’re taking a comment completely out of context.

Its extremely arrogant of you to tell me what I meant by my statement, and what’s relevant and what’s not.

I suggest the pot stop calling names. My posts have nothing to do with oil companies over paying and refunding those payments to oil companies and you know it.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

For the love of god someone start a music thread

I'm headed to Douglas in a few hours to watch my son's hockey game. That wont suck.