WOW WYOMING LAND GRAB

[ImBillT]

Federal land is public, State land is not.

Think of this as WY State Land Board (public corp) buying from Oxy public corp



Wyoming doesn't have an income tax, this money was "taken" from corporations based in Colorado and Texas when they removed minerals from Wyoming. The person who would be getting the check was not a party to any prior transactions.

WY does have taxes. Whether they tax income, property, sales, etc. is immaterial. Who paid the taxes is also immaterial. The money went to the government of WY, whose job it is to provide services to the people of WY, and instead of lowering the tax rate if the money was more than WY needed, or spending the money where it was needed, they decided to speculate on real estate. It’s legal, it’s how they do things, it has advantages and disadvantages. I’m glad my state doesn’t do that with my tax dollars.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I’m glad my state doesn’t do that with my tax dollars.

And it's best we don't discuss the ways my state (MN) spends its money - nothing to see here just move a long

 

[ImBillT]

Not your pig, not your farm again a Wyoming decision...and since the WY Republican dominated legislature, voted in by Republicans likes how they do things...what's the problem?

What does this have to do with his comment? You’re the best I’ve ever seen at arguing with something that isn’t even there.

 

[ImBillT]

Thank you for trying, but Bill wont get it...

Umm...I asked because I wanted to know the answer. Thanks for the insult.

 

[VikingsGuy]

What does this have to do with his comment? You’re the best I’ve ever seen at arguing with something that isn’t even there.

Just sit back and enjoy the artist at work

 

[Deleted member 28227]

WY does have taxes. Whether they tax income, property, sales, etc. is immaterial. Who paid the taxes is also immaterial. The money went to the government of WY, whose job it is to provide services to the people of WY, and instead of lowering the tax rate if the money was more than WY needed, or spending the money where it was needed, they decided to speculate on real estate. It’s legal, it’s how they do things, it has advantages and disadvantages. I’m glad my state doesn’t do that with my tax dollars.

No. How can you lower taxes past 0? There is no income tax in WY, WY already has among the lowest sales tax and property taxes in the county. Revenues from property taxes go to the county not the general fund. We are talking about separate government agencies, with different pots of money, these are not fungible. It's like saying the federal government is making money, so I should get a refund on my Colorado income tax.

This conversation is about the state land board of Wyoming a state agency that holds lands in trust for Wyoming residents and Wyoming residents alone. That agencies budget comes from excise taxes, generated when minerals are excised (severed from the land).

The companies that pay these taxes are not based in Wyoming, EOG, Devon, Anadarko, Oxy, Northwoods, Rebellion, etc etc etc.

Essentially the WY land board, a for profit government agency is generating money by taxing Non-resident corporations and then wants to use some of this Non-resident tax money to buy more land so that it can generate more money by taxing non-residents.

 

[ImBillT]

A) LOL. If that is true, a lot of people are going to feel like they got fooled into giving me a paycheck for all these years.

B) I'm not sure I understand what argument you are making, but it absolutely would be. As has been pointed out, dollars are fungible. The money in that fund largely came from taxes on oil, gas, and coal, not "taken from citizens". There is no state income tax, however, the citizens of WY agreed to fund basic services through the collection of taxes of some type (sales, land, etc). Nowhere in that agreement does it say the State will give it back if there is too much. If it did, it would be given to the citizens "for nothing". It is in a "rainy day fund", so the question is really whether or not this is worthy of its use and the citizens of WY will decide that. The budget shows a deficit in 5yr or so, so there is an argument that the money should be kept in the fund. Either way you are just delaying the implementation of a state income tax because the coal companies are filing for bankruptcy and the O&G gas revenues will eventually decline with the decline in production in the Powder River. This isn't me making stuff up, it is all in the budget.

If I embrace your argument that the money is that of the citizens of WY, my point was the state could write checks to them all and it isn't going to make any difference in diversifying the state's revenue sources or boost the economy in any way other than maybe for meth and cowboy boots, and only temporarily. If you would like to debate, feel free to PM me, because it is WAY off topic of this thread.

A) Giving back their money would almost certainly boost the economy. It doesn’t matter if they spent it in beer or put it in a savings account. Both have economic benefit. Allowing citizens to choose how they spend their money has boosted the economy more than allow the government to cho pose how to spend it just about every time it’s ever been done. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand economics.

B) You also don’t understand taxes. Unless WY does not tax its citizens in any way shape or form, then a tax cut, or tax refund instead of this purchase, is in fact giving the people BACK money that was already TAKEN from THEM.

 

[SAJ-99]

...Who paid the taxes is also immaterial...
...whose job it is to provide services to the people of WY...

Let me first point out that services are fungible too. Governments at all levels try to bucket things on the expense side to show how it is spending money, but the income doesn't get allocated that way. All we know is that WY has historically had a surplus of funds because there is money in the rainy-day fund.
Keep in mind I can argue both sides of this transaction quite easily, so I do get the various points. My question would be how is this not a service? If we argue that WY is purchasing land with the intent to generate more O&G tax revenues then that seems like a "service" to me because it delays the implementation of a state income tax (again- see latest budget projections). There is risk, but risk can be compensated for in the purchase price.

As a Public land hunter, I LOVE this purchase. Selfish, I know.

 

[ImBillT]

No. How can you lower taxes past 0? There is no income tax in WY, WY already has among the lowest sales tax and property taxes in the county. Revenues from property taxes go to the county not the general fund. We are talking about separate government agencies, with different pots of money, these are not fungible. It's like saying the federal government is making money, so I should get a refund on my Colorado income tax.

This conversation is about the state land board of Wyoming a state agency that holds lands in trust for Wyoming residents and Wyoming residents alone. That agencies budget comes from excise taxes, generated when minerals are excised (severed from the land).

The companies that pay these taxes are not based in Wyoming, EOG, Devon, Anadarko, Oxy, Northwoods, Rebellion, etc etc etc.

Essentially the WY land board, a for profit government agency is generating money by taxing Non-resident corporations and then wants to use some of this Non-resident tax money to buy more land so that it can generate more money by taxing non-residents.

You have a sales tax and a property tax. You can lower either of them without going below zero. You keep touting that WY doesn’t have an income tax as if that means that all other forms of taxes magically fail to take money from people. It’s simple enough to fund your county in different ways. As part of property tax reform in TX we have been shifting portions of school funding to our sales tax, the idea being that eventually we might be able to eliminate our property tax because a sales tax is more fair. It’s not like saying that the feds should give you a refund on your CO tax return, because in this case, the money is in three different piles, but ultimately all the piles are under the control of the state of WY. If you really have a huge excess of money from your school funding procedure, perhaps you need to look at amending something.



WY is not the only state without an income tax. TX and FL both come to mind. I’m sure there are others.

The idea that taxing a non-resident has zero impact on your economy is also flawed.

 

[ImBillT]

Let me first point out that services are fungible too. Governments at all levels try to bucket things on the expense side to show how it is spending money, but the income doesn't get allocated that way. All we know is that WY has historically had a surplus of funds because there is money in the rainy-day fund.
Keep in mind I can argue both sides of this transaction quite easily, so I do get the various points. My question would be how is this not a service? If we argue that WY is purchasing land with the intent to generate more O&G tax revenues then that seems like a "service" to me because it delays the implementation of a state income tax (again- see latest budget projections). There is risk, but risk can be compensated for in the purchase price.

As a Public land hunter, I LOVE this purchase. Selfish, I know.

You know that speculating on real estate with tax dollars is not a government service. You should particularly know that when responding to my use of the word service that my use had context specifically excluding this land deal from government services. To then claim it counts as a service in order to neutralize my argument is a failure of logic.

Having money in the rainy-day fund is immaterial.

I too, as a public land hunter, would like this to go through. I said as much in my first post in this thread.

 

[Irrelevant]

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.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You have a sales tax and a property tax. You can lower either of them without going below zero. You keep touting that WY doesn’t have an income tax as if that means that all other forms of taxes magically fail to take money from people. It’s simple enough to fund your county in different ways. As part of property tax reform in TX we have been shifting portions of school funding to our sales tax, the idea being that eventually we might be able to eliminate our property tax because a sales tax is more fair. It’s not like saying that the feds should give you a refund on your CO tax return, because in this case, the money is in three different piles, but ultimately all the piles are under the control of the state of WY. If you really have a huge excess of money from your school funding procedure, perhaps you need to look at amending something.



WY is not the only state without an income tax. TX and FL both come to mind. I’m sure there are others.

The idea that taxing a non-resident has zero impact on your economy is also flawed.

You and bushman would have fun together.... "Well if you just completely blew up the system and did it my way then it would work the way I'm saying it would work."

In the context of can the State Land Board of Wyoming allocating 500 million to buy land versus, writing checks to everyone and thereby reduce their tax burden. No WY doesn't have an income tax and this money did not originate in the pockets of WY residents. Wyoming also doesn't have a corporate income tax, so Wyoming business weren't paying this tax.

County governments are different from state governments. The state land board is different from the general fund. Sure if you dismantled the entire state government and rebuilt it, then yes you would have a point.

You can't use the reality of where you live to say how something does or should work. I'm not projecting my knowledge of Colorado onto Wyoming, I'm researching how Wyoming works and providing answers in the context of their current system.


This conversation directly parallels folks wanting to have regulations that work for Whitetails in Mississippi on Elk in Colorado.
Different species, different reality, different historical context. You don't have to like it but it is the way it is, you can choose to try to understand the system, but WY is never going to work the way Texas does.

Imagine trying to explain to a resident of Wyoming how and why the Railroad Commission runs Oil and Gas in Texas and having them say, well the State Land Board should do that and you trying to explain, "Well is just doesn't".

 

[JLS]

I know a couple of Dem politicos who point to that comment as the tipping point in 2016. I am not close enough to the numbers to know if that is true but interesting thought anyway.

I think we're referring to different comments. Mine was directed towards cowboy boots and meth.

 

[VikingsGuy]

You and bushman would have fun together.... "Well if you just completely blew up the system and did it my way then it would work the way I'm saying it would work."

In the context of can the State Land Board of Wyoming allocating 500 million to buy land versus, writing checks to everyone and thereby reduce their tax burden. No WY doesn't have an income tax and this money did not originate in the pockets of WY residents. Wyoming also doesn't have a corporate income tax, so Wyoming business weren't paying this tax.

County governments are different from state governments. The state land board is different from the general fund. Sure if you dismantled the entire state government and rebuilt it, then yes you would have a point.

You can't use the reality of where you live to say how something does or should work. I'm not projecting my knowledge of Colorado onto Wyoming, I'm researching how Wyoming works and providing answers in the context of their current system.


This conversation directly parallels folks wanting to have regulations that work for Whitetails in Mississippi on Elk in Colorado.
Different species, different reality, different historical context. You don't have to like it but it is the way it is, you can choose to try to understand the system, but WY is never going to work the way Texas does.

Imagine trying to explain to a resident of Wyoming how and why the Rail Road Commission runs Oil and Gas in Texas and having them say, well the State Land Board should do that and you trying to explain, "Well is just doesn't".

How states fund/tax/structure govt. change all the time. As for state vs. county - all kinds of states have moved away from county based property taxes for education and roads to a state general fund - I don't care if WY does or doesn't but your posts suggest some immutable framework - it is simply an artifact of time that can be change by the legislature/people at will.

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.

 

[JLS]

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.

 

[SAJ-99]

A) Giving back their money would almost certainly boost the economy. It doesn’t matter if they spent it in beer or put it in a savings account. Both have economic benefit. Allowing citizens to choose how they spend their money has boosted the economy more than allow the government to cho pose how to spend it just about every time it’s ever been done. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand economics.

B) You also don’t understand taxes. Unless WY does not tax its citizens in any way shape or form, then a tax cut, or tax refund instead of this purchase, is in fact giving the people BACK money that was already TAKEN from THEM.

A) No. I could explain it, but you don't want to believe so it is pointless. Here is a stat you can chew on, although it doesn't fit your view so it will be ignored. US GDP grew by $850B in 2019. US Debt grew by $1.2T. This is a very bad stat. The reason is primarily the tax cuts. To argue that the tax cuts will be offset by growth was and is simply not true. Money is too cheap and there is no pent up demand. So you give money to people and you get a result where fiscally responsible people save it (cowboys) and irresponsible people spend it on stupid self pleasure (meth heads).

B) No. Please see the previous posts explaining where WY revenue comes from. You appear to be struggling with the Me vs We.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think we're referring to different comments. Mine was directed towards cowboy boots and meth.

Ya, it was kind of a string of references and I just picked one - my bad.

 

[JLS]

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.

This is a philosophy. The reality is how the state land trust is set up to legally manage and allocate those funds. Yes, the people decide through their elected officials and appointed land board members, but I can guarantee you there are strict legal confines within which they have to operate.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

Correct, and there was never an expectation, implied or in contract, that said any surplus would be doled out to the Residents of Wyoming...

 

[ImBillT]

You and bushman would have fun together.... "Well if you just completely blew up the system and did it my way then it would work the way I'm saying it would work."

In the context of can the State Land Board of Wyoming allocating 500 million to buy land versus, writing checks to everyone and thereby reduce their tax burden. No WY doesn't have an income tax and this money did not originate in the pockets of WY residents. Wyoming also doesn't have a corporate income tax, so Wyoming business weren't paying this tax.

County governments are different from state governments. The state land board is different from the general fund. Sure if you dismantled the entire state government and rebuilt it, then yes you would have a point.

You can't use the reality of where you live to say how something does or should work. I'm not projecting my knowledge of Colorado onto Wyoming, I'm researching how Wyoming works and providing answers in the context of their current system.


This conversation directly parallels folks wanting to have regulations that work for Whitetails in Mississippi on Elk in Colorado.
Different species, different reality, different historical context. You don't have to like it but it is the way it is, you can choose to try to understand the system, but WY is never going to work the way Texas does.

Imagine trying to explain to a resident of Wyoming how and why the Rail Road Commission runs Oil and Gas in Texas and having them say, well the State Land Board should do that and you trying to explain, "Well is just doesn't".

A) You don’t have to blow the system up to write an amendment that says, under X circumstances Y% of dollars from he state land board may be transferred to Z state agency. Again, you’d only do this if you found the state land board sitting on considerable excess funds all the time.

B) You don’t have to write anyone a check to lower the sales tax by X%

C) WY’s lack of an income tax is immaterial. Fungibility, by definition, means that every dollar in WY’s pot is the same. It is not possible to spend one dollar differently from another dollar based on its origin. Every dollar is the same. If you spend a dollar, a dollar disappears from the pot. Which dollar is immaterial. They are all the same. That’s what fungibility is. Until $0 of WY’s budget come from WY citizens, then WY has levied a tax burden on WY citizens. With that tax burden WY should serve WY citizens. If that tax burden is not necessary for service, the burden should be eased.

No state, no government, no business, no person does everything exactly the way I think it should be done. Nor do they do it exactly the way anyone else thinks it should be done. I’m perfectly fine with WY doing whatever WY wants to do. I’m still blown away that all this has been in response to a comment that I’d be uneasy if my state purchased that much land with my money.