Mining tax before Nevada voters
By Sandra Chereb, Las Vegas Review-Journal
CARSON CITY — Nevada voters will decide next month whether to give lawmakers the power to raise mining taxes — a revenue source long decried by critics as an under-tapped funding spigot shielded by the state Constitution.
Whether or not passage of Question 2 will lead to more taxes on gold, silver and other minerals remains to be seen. But if history is any indication, lawmakers will seek to capitalize on the new tool in the budget box, should the measure pass, and again turn their eye toward all that glitters to boost state coffers.
State Sen. Tick Segerblom concedes that raising mining levies is the ultimate goal.
“It’s the first time in 150 years that the Legislature will actually have a chance to raise taxes on mining,” said the Las Vegas Democrat. “That is, in my perspective, incredibly significant.
“We’ve finally gotten rid of that stone around our neck.”
Question 2 is the last step in a process that began three years ago to purge a cap on net mining proceeds from the constitution.
Why do the Dems always think they’re entitled to take the money that other people make by working hard? Seriously, it’s not like the mining companies don’t pay taxes. They already pay taxes on their earnings, their employees, fees, all that stuff.
But it’s NEVER enough for the politicians. They always want more.
Yup dog, just to piss you off…
??
Nothing to say, GF, but you had to say it anyway?
Dog, pretty much all western states (including all of the red ones (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Utah, etc.) levee various fees and taxes on mining operations. I cannot speak precisely to whether or not what is being contemplated for Nevada is suitable or equitable, but the notion of fees specific to resource extraction is not specific to dem or rep and on its surface (no pun intended) is not at all unreasonable. Remember the Tea Party darling (Mama Bear) well she oversaw a pretty big fee/tax on oil and gas extraction (in my view not at all inappropriate). Last time I checked she could never be accused of being a liberal.
see: http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/95642.html
Rick
Well, since all the other states are doing it, I guess we should, too. . .
Whether it’s a Democrat OR a Republican wanting to INCREASE taxes (and it’s usually a D) is really irrelevant. I am NOT a Tea Party person. How many times do I have to say that before you listen?
Your government isn’t entitled to take money simply because it’s there. But nowadays, that seems to be the general trend.
Dog:
Mining extraction has real cost to the environment and can have social cost – health effects for example. Along with substantial profits to the mining companies. I for one (and I make more then most) have no problem paying for the government I want, which includes clean air, water, safety regs (a 6.9 earth quake in the Bay Area 25 years ago resulted in 60 or so deaths and a 7.5 in Mexico City in 1985 killed upwards of 40,000. 2010 7.0 in Haiti Region 31,600 deaths, 2003 6.6 in Southeastern Iran killed over 31,000 and so and so. And the list of services that I and all of us benefit from go on. Life is no longer as simple as living in a hamlet with little infrastructure. We have massive water projects, highway projects, internet, communications (much of it gov sponsored or subsidized), parks, wildlife refuges and so on.
I have no real aversion to the concept of taxes. I simply want to know what I am getting for what I pay. Is gov less than efficient – yes, sometimes and yes sometimes it can be wildly efficient. It has more to do with largeness Many of my friends work for the largest and hip companies in the world – the stories of corporate inefficiency of the most profitable companies would astound you.
Most people who are not that in the know, simply pay for a product and just assume it must be efficient – if they only knew the truth.
Rick