They want "their" fair share!

Posted by $ Flootus5 7 years ago to Politics
42 comments | Share | Flag

The State of Nevada was born by mining in 1864 with the Comstock Lode. The 5% cap on net proceeds was built into the State Constitution from the get-go. Nevada is the 4th largest gold producing political entity in the world. Now comes the problem with the 21st Century population demographics within the state with Las Vegas and Reno-Carson completely dominating the voting. A large portion of these residents are recent arrivals that have not a clue as to what exists in the rest of the State. They want to kill the Golden Goose by demanding their fare share of the gold miners hard won production. Classic.
SOURCE URL: http://www.mining.com/nevada-residents-to-decide-fate-of-mining-tax-77408/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ rainman0720 7 years ago
    I'm going to run for president on one platform only: Unless you can define it as something other than "more than you're currently paying", the use of the term "fair share" will be a jailable offense.

    I have confronted liberal after liberal, and not one of them can even come close to defining the parameters of "fair share".

    I can never pin one of them down with a number that would be considered "fair" to them, even though whatever number they'd come up with certainly wouldn't be fair to me. (It already isn't fair to me, but that's a different discussion.)

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by airfredd22 7 years ago
      Re: rainman0720,

      Dear Sir, while I agree with your belief that some people just want to keep on raising taxes without the slightest understanding of the effect on the economy of cities, states and the nation, i must ask you to keep in mind the following.

      The "First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America."

      It states the following.

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      I must ask you how as a self proclaimed future candidate for President, and I assume by that you mean, President of the United States, you can make a proposal to deny any citizen the right to use the phrase , "fair share." I ask you this while personally being sick and tired of liberals using that phrase which as you say, they can't define?

      You sir, have about as much understanding of our Constitution as does the present President.

      Fred Speckmann
      commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ rainman0720 7 years ago
        I assumed everyone would know sarcasm when they saw it. I guess I assumed wrong.

        So allow me to amend my earlier mesasage.

        Sarcasm Font ON
        I'm going to run for president on one platform only: Unless you can define it as something other than "more than you're currently paying", the use of the term "fair share" will be a jailable offense.
        Sarcasm Font OFF
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by airfredd22 7 years ago
          Why should anyone assume that you were using sarcasm. other than your screen name there was nothing in your post to indicate that you were using sarcasm. Your complaint was valid, therefore since many people claim to want to run for president I assumed that you were being serious. I at least gave you credit for believing that you had the common sensewe would like to see in a presidential candidate.

          Fred
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RevJay4 7 years ago
      rainman, I have confronted liberals with the question of what is "fair share", and received the same response from them. They haven't a clue. They just want more of whatever the "producers" produce. Moochers will be moochers, and they will continue to be what they are. Never satisfied as long as someone else is perceived as having more than them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 7 years ago
    "fair share" is nothing more than theft. when the states revenues started to diminish they should have started to reduce their spending. that unfortunately never happens. will they ever return money if the price of gold goes to $50.00 an ounce.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years ago
    This bill is in effect, a bill to raise taxes. As such it works the way that all taxation works. It solves the immediate problem of needing money for -- whatever, but in the long run causes less money to the state when businesses fail to expand or leave for happier hunting grounds, which in addition causes loss of jobs, less taxes and more expenditure. It is a fool's game, and we've been electing fools for more than a century.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 7 years ago
    I have lived in both Reno and Las Vegas. Reno by choice, Vegas for the job. They will kill the golden goose. Clark County can out vote the rest of the state. Eastern Nevada doesn't stand a chance against SEIU and the lib/progressives. There is a reason Scary Harry keeps getting re-elected.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Susanne 7 years ago
      Just another sign of the continued Californization of Nevada... the people get fed up with California, move to Nevada, and work their butts off trying to make their new home a clone of the one they just left.

      I remember when I lived in Nevada as a very young adult (went for the work), and we that lived there fought tooth and nail to keep that California Influence out of *our* state (and I was a Californian taking part in said fight). Now, it's as if they're an annexed part of it, to the dismay of the rural Nevadans who, like Cali, have to bow to the wishes of the increasing libtard influence of Reno, LV, and Carson. May as well disband Carson City and move the Capitol to Sacramento - a lot of the new age immigrants to that state would be thrilled.

      Bottom line - when they hear the state motto "The Silver State" all they think about is how to steal some of that silver to line their own pockets...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 7 years ago
        Haha! Being a northeast Nevada denizen (Elko County), I have always had a solution to propose for this dilemma. We would invite and encourage Northern California to secede from the rest of the State (how long have they wanted that?), and join Nevada in seceding from the rest of the nation. We would carve Clark County away from Nevada and provide that to Southern California as remuneration.

        The new sovereign constitutional republic would then have seaports, the water and timber of Northern Cal, the geothermal renewable energy and the mineral resources of the Great Basin. The gold and silver produced in the new entity would be kept and minted into real coin of the realm at the revived Carson City mint.

        And of course it makes way too much sense. The chances are as likely as the mountain of ice in Barstow. !!!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 7 years ago
    "Fair Share" is easy to define. Everyone pays the SAME exact ratio of every dollar.

    If you have 100 billion, and the tax is 10% you pay 10%, if you have 10,000 dollars you pay 10%, no more no less. Whatever the rate is it is equal on every person and every dollar to everyone with no deduction, no exemption.

    Fair a synonym for Equitable, Unbiased, Impartial.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years ago
      Paying an equal percentage of each dollar does not lead to fairness. Does this percentage apply to wealth or to earnings, or both? Does the person paying more receive additional government services equal to his/her contribution? Does a person owning, earning and paying nothing receive no government services? Would an equal tax rate of 100% be "fair"?

      A uniform tax rate is not an automatic recipe for fairness. There are a multitude of other factors to consider.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by woodlema 7 years ago
        Ok, I want you to explain in DETAIL why me paying 10% and you paying 10% is not equitable and totally fair? Even GOD expected only 10% from EVERYONE, regardless of overall income. What is done with the proceeds is up to the government provided they are not just distributing those proceeds in the form of income to others.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years ago
          I already gave several details. And tithing is a religious concept - voluntarily giving 10% to a church or other place of worship is not at all comparable to having 10% forcibly extracted from you by whichever politicians happen to be in power at the time.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CTYankee 7 years ago
      Nonsense! The flat tax is regressive and quite unfair.

      If you are interested in 'fairness' please read "The Fair Tax" by Neal Boortz. I'd love talk more about it...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 7 years ago
        Dang! I just might have to go back and read about that one again...
        The first time I heard about it, I read up on it and discovered that it had about as many, if not more, holes in it than The Flat Tax proposals. There were all kinds of potential 'unfairnesses,' future loopholes and unaccounted-for conditions in the somewhat detailed descriptions of the Fair Tax Proposal.

        I've thought that a Flat Tax of about 7% on ALL EARNED INCOME, with NO deductions for ANYONE for ANY reason could work, but ONLY if the Flat Tax is applied ONLY ABOVE some agreed-upon "income floor."

        You could combine such a Flat Tax with a 'prebate' concept, where actual cash is supplied to folks at some other 'below-poverty-level' of INCOME and see what happens, something like what was proposed in Switzerland but apparently voted down.

        If you don't look for the unintended consequences and 'gee, we forgot about that part..' when such "solutions" are proposed, you're likely to just be uncanning more worms.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by woodlema 7 years ago
        There is NOTHING regressive about a flat tax. I personally would prefer a straight consumption tax, where you are taxed ONLY on what you purchase, provided there are NO other income taxes of any sort.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 7 years ago
        Here's a list of the problems I have with anything other than a flat tax:
        1) disincentives to progression. Our current progressive tax system creates a stepped tax system of traps where people jump up into higher brackets, often being forced to make substantially more just to break even. Why should one be forced to decline a $.50/hr raise because it ends up costing them more money in taxes than the raise is worth? This effect forces people into looking for quantum leaps at certain points instead of steady, measured progression. (The welfare system only exacerbates these problems.)

        2) Everyone uses the roads, EMS, fire, police, and basic government. In my book, everyone should have to contribute towards these ongoing costs in order to avoid getting something for nothing (mooching) or running into the third-party payer problems of cost distortion (see healthcare).

        3) Complexity. Our tax code is currently over one million pages long - precisely because of all the hidden privileges. Get rid of all of them and establish a low flat rate that is simple to understand and tough to cheat.

        4) Disparate economic treatment. I object to the idea that we must punish the successful because of their success with a higher tax rate. Those are the investors and job-creators - the capitalists (owners of capital).

        5) No taxation without representation - and vice-versa. Why should the successful be punished with a higher tax rate when that doesn't get them more voting power? One of the biggest problems with our current system is that the politicians can promise to reward those who make little that they will take from those who make much. And they can get away with it because they outnumber them in voting power. When everyone pays the same rate, this disparity disappears and takes with it much of the opportunity for special treatment.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zero 7 years ago
        Not to be rude, but I expect a proponent to be able to give at least the briefest summary of a written work they value.

        Peak my interest and maybe I'll read another book on the subject.

        Oh, and BTW, it slays me, how flat taxes are regressive and unfair until it's time to raise State and Local Sales Taxes

        Then it's always "just another penny".
        Ha!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Temlakos 7 years ago
    The larger point is that people don't understand the value of property.

    Hank Rearden couldn't afford to build the case for his own rights on the benefit to the rest of us of respecting them. But I can. Or an Ellis Wyatt. I respect their rights because I look forward to trading with them, directly or indirectly.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 7 years ago
    We would be a better country and the people would have much more freedom if there was a cap on the amount of money every level of government was able to take. I hope that the people are smart enough to keep this cap.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 7 years ago
    Gold is in the ground, therefore it's Public Property and Anyone should be able to get their Fair Share of the profit. I don't understand what everyone is so upset about...

    Okay, I've stirred that hornet's nest...now, it's off to my government job.

    P.S. Guys...don't blackball me...I'm just kidding (except about the government job).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by scojohnson 7 years ago
      It's really an extraction tax, most states have one and it's usually something like that. The hilarious thing is that the state doesn't have an income tax, but the "voters" don't consider that option, just the one that sticks it to the faceless miners.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years ago
      Hey, Radio; I do believe you are speaking in jest. But it opens the way for a further exploration of the topic. Indeed the gold and silver is in the ground. Hence, the mining companies cannot just pick up and go to a more amenable area - after all, how much gold (real gold, not black gold) is in the ground in Texas?

      But further, the gold is not public property as the 1872 mining law on federally "administered" public lands provides for the private right of ownership of the mineral value. Despite the gutting of the law that occurred in 1992 where the Congressional jackals put a moratorium on the patenting process of the surface ownership, the private right to the minerals is intact.

      The looters of the world decry this private ownership and the rights to profits after all the hard work and costs of exploration, discovery, development, and production of the mineral value is invested. So they chip away, chip away from every angle and this taxation issue in Nevada is another attempt of the looters/moochers to out vote the producers.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 7 years ago
        I was jesting, though it's probably not a laughing matter, in Nevada.

        As you stated, a mining concern can't just simply move to another state. Like the silver mine in Idaho that wouldn't "bow" to the outrageous union demands. They simply closed their doors and left a large population unemployed, when it could have been so easily avoided with a few concessions from labor.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 7 years ago
        Reminiscent of those ocean-bottom ore nodules that looked economically worthwhile until everyone in the world demanded their "fair share" of that "natural resource"?

        That put a stop to THAT development and mining pretty quickly. The nodules sleep happily on the ocean bottom, still, helping no economy or company or country at all....
        Well done, even back then, by the moochers!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 7 years ago
    "Fair Share" is sorta like "equality" screech we hear all the time about everything the left thinks they should be entitled to.
    I'm okay with both as long as it comes with "fair share" and "equality" of effort, not a theft of someone else's efforts and energy. Which seems to be sadly lacking with the moochers of today, and always has been absent. They just want whatever it is without having to do anything to get it.
    A pox on them and their households. When they get their way and kill the goose, there will be a multitude of "Detroits" across the nation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by sfdi1947 7 years ago
    "Fair Share" and "Social Justice," That is always the standard mantra of the Progressive ilk, "Fair Share" ranks closely with "Social Justice" as an unexplained claim against those who are willing to work, who have worked, and who are now the vaunted One Percent.

    The true reality is that there is no One Percent, only persons who are successful because they are or were willing to work.

    Those persons who legitimately cannot work, or those who are retired, living on social security and their meager pensions, and military pensions, like I am, they have paid their dues.

    The others, the takers, the users, the ne'er do well schemers, are creeping up on the rest of us. Currently I'd estimate them at nearly forty percent of the population. I would change the rules for them. Only twenty-five weeks of unemployment with no extensions would be paid. TANIF lasts for twenty-five weeks before becoming Workfare. Welfare becomes Workfare. This would be governed and enforced far more restrictively than pre Obummer programs, requiring that all employers hire directly from the state unemployment roles for management and non management positions, that veterans have 100 percent preference in all cases, regardless of age, with paid training from the VA if necessary. Filling all other management and non management positions, from these roles being required before being allowed to hire others or from off-shore.

    In order to do this we will have to generate a tremendous number of jobs. Therefore I would direct US Customs to immediately create a mirror acceptance policy, country by country, the regulations of countries shipping items to the US for sale would apply to their shipments to the US. Further I would direct our numerous national intelligence assets to discover every farthing of state aid, subsidy and tax relief paid by foreign governments to their manufacturers to produce products, unless said plants were in the US and goods produced contained at least 60 percent US domestic product.

    Then effective immediately the authority and powers of the Unconstitutional Departments of Interior, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Education, Environmental Protection, Health & Human Services (with CDC being transferred to Department of Homeland Security, and Defense being transferred to State) and Transportation being transferred to the states in accordance with the 9th and 10th Amendments. Further all Federal Agencies, Bureaus and Boards be similarly transferred.

    The vastly reduced governance would allow the immediate closure of the Internal Revenue Service with working Americans paying a flat five percent tax on gross revenue, regardless of the form taken by that revenue, with no allowable adjustments. This would allow rapid settlement of the national debt, i.e. Exxon-Mobile grossed 516.22 billion dollars in 2013; five percent of that would be 25.81 billion in taxes (25.81=516.22 x .05 [Billions of USD]), a hell of a lot more than the 300K they’ll pay under the current rules.

    Once the U-8 Total unemployment is reduced to less than five percent America will truly drive forward dancing a happy dance.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo