Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Recommended Posts

As we speak there is a mining company that has done just about everything wrong they can out here in Nevada, between Eureka and Ely  off of hwy.50 First they destroyed miles of historic hwy. 40 by hauling heavy equipment, has anyone ever seen ruts 5 feet deep with dust? They then went to the wrong location to create a pad for drilling they are allowed 1 acre instead they did five acres on sage grouse protected area of course and to top it off they also capped and ruined a well. These oil drillers just destroyed a great hunting area that used to be an old ranch, before moving on. My wife has been out with the drone and with BLM and the county and everyone is just pissed off because these guys are doing it so wrong, permitted for 5 trailers and they bring 15 plus you should see how they widened the roads pretty sure you can see them from space.

I want my royalties, thank you.

another public land owner, Chris 

  • Like 3
  • wow 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Personally, I'd like it if the government quit raising taxes, quit dreaming of ways -- like this royalties scheme -- to milk more money out of Americans and cut about 1/2 of the bureaucrats out of gov

As we speak there is a mining company that has done just about everything wrong they can out here in Nevada, between Eureka and Ely  off of hwy.50 First they destroyed miles of historic hwy. 40 by hau

They pay royalties to extract oil. Why not minerals?  They pay royalties to the State. To private owners. Why not to the people? Public Land belongs to the people. Corporations who intend to

Posted Images

30 minutes ago, Dakota Slim said:

There are some interesting comments here. How much should the royalty be on an ounce of gold? How would the government keep track of all the people who are out there looking for those elusive flakes and nuggets? What would the penalty be for not reporting a find and paying the royalty?

No one is suggesting that prospectors pay royalties Slim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dakota Slim said:

There are some interesting comments here. How much should the royalty be on an ounce of gold? How would the government keep track of all the people who are out there looking for those elusive flakes and nuggets? What would the penalty be for not reporting a find and paying the royalty?

Part of the issue is the tendency to take everything to the extreme.

Nobody wants what you are suggesting, nor would it even be possible.

Companies whose profits are in the millions should be paying something for the minerals.

No one thinks twice about having to buy a tag to hunt deer.  Even when there's no guarantee you'll get drawn or succeed in the hunt.

We can be reasonable.

Non-Democrat, Lincoln Project supporting, Machinist Luke

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dakota Slim said:

There are some interesting comments here. How much should the royalty be on an ounce of gold? How would the government keep track of all the people who are out there looking for those elusive flakes and nuggets? What would the penalty be for not reporting a find and paying the royalty?

No doubt a joke.

  • Like 1
  • Hmmmmmm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Morlock said:

No doubt a joke.

I didn't think of it that way. But now that you mention it, it is funny!

Good one Slim! You had me going there for a minute! :25r30wi:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://ktar.com/story/2080673/freeport-mcmoran-boss-was-top-paid-ceo-in-arizona-in-2017/#:~:text=PHOENIX — The head of a,company Freeport-McMoRan in 2017.

PHOENIX — The head of a Phoenix-based Fortune 500 company was the top-paid CEO in Arizona in 2017, according to an Associated Press analysis.

Richard C. Adkerson was paid $16.2 million to run energy company Freeport-McMoRan in 2017.

Freeport-McMoRan has been in the Fortune 500 for 13 years and has more than 25,000 employees globally.

The company, which mines copper, gold and molybdenum, reported $16.4 billion in revenue in 2017. It is the world’s largest publicly traded copper producer.

 

Even a 1% tax would be $164 million.  That's a 'ton' of money that could be used for disaster cleanup, infrastructure, etc...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LukeJ said:

https://ktar.com/story/2080673/freeport-mcmoran-boss-was-top-paid-ceo-in-arizona-in-2017/#:~:text=PHOENIX — The head of a,company Freeport-McMoRan in 2017.

PHOENIX — The head of a Phoenix-based Fortune 500 company was the top-paid CEO in Arizona in 2017, according to an Associated Press analysis.

Richard C. Adkerson was paid $16.2 million to run energy company Freeport-McMoRan in 2017.

Freeport-McMoRan has been in the Fortune 500 for 13 years and has more than 25,000 employees globally.

The company, which mines copper, gold and molybdenum, reported $16.4 billion in revenue in 2017. It is the world’s largest publicly traded copper producer.

 

Even a 1% tax would be $164 million.  That's a 'ton' of money that could be used for disaster cleanup, infrastructure, etc...

Wouldn't it be great if revenue was profit? 
I didn't read all the gory details. Did the dems indicate what they would spend their proposed royalty on?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Dakota Slim said:

Wouldn't it be great if revenue was profit? 
I didn't read all the gory details. Did the dems indicate what they would spend their proposed royalty on?  

I get your point, that's why I used a low ball number for the tax rate.

Based on the numbers provided yesterday which amounted to a 39.5% profit margin I can adjust my example accordingly.

6.4 Billion profit taxed at 2.6% is 164 million.

The tax rate doesn't have to be huge for the result to be a substantial amount of money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we take domestic mining companies 'off the table'.  Let them get a 'free pass'.

Isn't demanding royalties from foreign mining companies still a good idea?  What right to they have to our minerals?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd like it if the government quit raising taxes, quit dreaming of ways -- like this royalties scheme -- to milk more money out of Americans and cut about 1/2 of the bureaucrats out of government. Imagine if those people were actually producing something (ANYTHING) and paying taxes instead of living off the efforts of those who do produce and pay the taxes.
I think the more we mine and manufacture here in the US the better, provided it is done in an environmentally friendly way.  

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Slim?  I really don't disagree with you.  Middle class and lower tax payers shouldn't have their taxes raised and they should be lowered.

One possible way to do this would be to make companies pay their fair share for the right to do business in America.

In no other country can you have the business opportunities that can be had here.  But it should be pay to play and not use and exploit.

There's got to be a middle ground where the 1% would make slightly less and leave more for the rest of us.  And no, I'm not suggesting socialism.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://nbr.com/2019/12/16/these-91-companies-paid-no-federal-taxes-in-2018/

I mean take a look at this list.  How much tax revenue could be generated by imposing a minimal tax rate?

Are these companies doing us such a huge favor by supplying jobs that it's up to the worker/tax payer to prop up the system so they can do us the favor?

I think anyone who makes 15 million a year would do just fine with 14 million a year.  Wealthy people could still be rich compared to the rest of us.

We don't have to confiscate the wealth in order to make things more equitable.

People could still hang on to their conservative/liberal beliefs while reaching a compromise.

Sorry for daydreaming, but I don't see why any of this isn't possible.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LukeJ said:

You know Slim?  I really don't disagree with you.  Middle class and lower tax payers shouldn't have their taxes raised and they should be lowered.

One possible way to do this would be to make companies pay their fair share for the right to do business in America.

In no other country can you have the business opportunities that can be had here.  But it should be pay to play and not use and exploit.

There's got to be a middle ground where the 1% would make slightly less and leave more for the rest of us.  And no, I'm not suggesting socialism.

Luke. There will ALWAYS be a 1%. I'm not in it and I'm comfortable with the fact that it's none of my business. Are all nuggets the same size or worth the same?
As for middle class and lower tax payers... I won't touch that here. Do some research!

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Dakota Slim said:

Personally, I'd like it if the government quit raising taxes, quit dreaming of ways -- like this royalties scheme -- to milk more money out of Americans and cut about 1/2 of the bureaucrats out of government. Imagine if those people were actually producing something (ANYTHING) and paying taxes instead of living off the efforts of those who do produce and pay the taxes.
I think the more we mine and manufacture here in the US the better, provided it is done in an environmentally friendly way.  

if royalties are unfair to businesses how about tariffs? 

Americans pay more to the government in the form of tariffs under Trump. Much more. And we have already discussed how you feel about that at length.

Why would you support taxing the American consumer more for buying certain products but be against paying the owner of the land royalties for materials extracted?

It seems to be a conundrum Slim. It does not line up with the philosophy you say you embrace.

It appears you are justifying taxation when it is Trump's idea to charge tariffs. And we all know how that is crippling farmers. The Republicans had to approve a huge bailout to offset the damage caused by the tariffs. 

Yet you oppose royalties when a company extracts valuables from public land. It just does not add up.

Are you against oil and gas royalties too? Coal? Potash? Or are you just against royalties on gold and copper? Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

if royalties are unfair to businesses how about tariffs? 

Americans pay more to the government in the form of tariffs. And we have already discussed how you feel about that at length. Why would you support taxing the American consumer more for buying certain products but be against paying the owner of the land royalties for materials extracted?

It seems to be a conundrum Slim. It does not line up with the philosophy you say you embrace.

It appears you are justifying taxation when it is Trump's idea to charge tariffs. And we all know how that is crippling farmers. The Republicans had to approve a huge bailout to offset the damage caused by the tariffs. 

Yet you oppose royalties when a company extracts valuables from public land. 

Are you against oil and gas royalties too? Coal? Potash? Or are you just against royalties on gold and copper?

I don't know Bob. What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dakota Slim said:

Luke. There will ALWAYS be a 1%. I'm not in it and I'm comfortable with the fact that it's none of my business. Are all nuggets the same size or worth the same?
As for middle class and lower tax payers... I won't touch that here. Do some research!

I never said there wouldn't be a 1%.  It's also mathematically impossible for there not to be.

Is it none of your business?  It seems like you have so much to say about everything else.

I find it astonishing that 'people' repeat their programmed responses over and over again, even when there are other possible alternatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dakota Slim said:

I don't know Bob. What do you think?

Well, it seems you are for taxation on individual Americans when Trump dictates it. But against taxation of minerals taken by corporations from land owned by the people when Democrats support it.

That is certainly how it seems. 

It appears you really don't have an overarching philosophy on taxation at all. You instead just defend what Trump does and oppose what Democrats do. Even if it is diametrically opposed to what you say you believe in. 

You started the topic. It only makes sense that you support your position on that topic does it not? At least offer some intelligent discussion on why your views vary so widely and are at odds with your clearly stated philosophy in your very last post.

Can you at least tell me if you oppose royalties on all extracted materials and why? 

Help me understand Slim! It is the conversation you started, so let's have it!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they will want to get royalties, just as those people always have wanted to do.

  • Like 1
  • Hmmmmmm 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Red_desert said:

Of course they will want to get royalties, just as those people always have wanted to do.

"Those people"?

Who are "those people"? The owners of the land that is being exploited? 

I want my royalties.

Public Land Owner Bob

(One of "those people")

  • well done 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedly support the idea of Royalties. All interested parties are cordially invited to go out and dig your own . . .

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 8/28/2020 at 10:36 PM, BMc said:

I wholeheartedly support the idea of Royalties. All interested parties are cordially invited to go out and dig your own . . .

They should "dig their own" on their own property. If they are digging on Public Lands they should pay royalties. Just like oil and gas, just like potash and coal. Metals mining should have to pay their fair share just like the rest of them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

They should "dig their own" on their own property. If they are digging on Public Lands they should pay royalties. Just like oil and gas, just like potash and coal. Metals mining should have to pay their fair share just like the rest of them.

 

When a miner takes the risk and pays the fees for a claim, they "own" the mineral rights. Those claim fees are revenue for the government and they have been getting larger and larger.
In other words, the government gets their cut up front.  
Then, IF the miner decides to risk more his or her capital to obtain the necessary permit and pay the required deposit (if required) in order to actually extract the minerals, the miner can risk more capital to do so.
That's the way capitalism works Bob. Then, IF the miner makes a profit, the miner pays taxes on the income. 
As this post suggests, the Democrats named in the beginning of this thread want miners to pay royalties in addition to all the costs they incur.
I say that makes them "unfriendly" if not blatantly hostile to miners. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I say they should pay royalties on the value of the minerals extracted like every other type of mining and extraction industry. 

Stopping abuse of our public lands isn't anti-mining at all. You can characterize it like that to put a political spin on it but that isn't reality. Reality is that profitable deposits belong to the people and mineral rights just give the owner the right to exploit them.

Opinions may differ. But I support the idea of royalties being paid for valuable metals extracted from public land. Just like any other extraction industry. And just like they would have to pay royalties to any private land owner or on State Trust Land.

I don't think our public lands are a "free for all" for metals mining. We see the social, economic and environmental problems they can create. There has to be some incentive for the owners of the land to allow private interests to operate. 

Oil is a huge driver of my State's economy. Royalties from oil contribute 60% of the State's budget. Oil funds our schools and paves the roads. Coal mining, potash mining, perlite, and a host of other mining pays their fair share to mine here too. It is my beleif that Chevron and Freeport McMoRan should be paying royalties and contributing to the State economy just like the rest of them. 

That is not "anti mining" nor is it a "liberal" idea. It is just common sense and fair play for the rightful owners of the lands being exploited.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

And I say they should pay royalties on the value of the minerals extracted like every other type of mining and extraction industry. 

Stopping abuse of our public lands isn't anti-mining at all. You can characterize it like that to put a political spin on it but that isn't reality. Reality is that profitable deposits belong to the people and mineral rights just give the owner the right to exploit them.

Opinions may differ. But I support the idea of royalties being paid for valuable metals extracted from public land. Just like any other extraction industry. And just like they would have to pay royalties to any private land owner or on State Trust Land.

I don't think our public lands are a "free for all" for metals mining. We see the social, economic and environmental problems they can create. There has to be some incentive for the owners of the land to allow private interests to operate. 

Oil is a huge driver of my State's economy. Royalties from oil contribute 60% of the State's budget. Oil funds our schools and paves the roads. Coal mining, potash mining, perlite, and a host of other mining pays their fair share to mine here too. It is my beleif that Chevron and Freeport McMoRan should be paying royalties and contributing to the State economy just like the rest of them. 

Abuse of public land? I think with today's environmental regulations abuse from miners is small potatoes compared to people who litter and randomly shoot things like cactuses, beer cans and glass bottles without paying a cent in royalties. 
Royalties aside, isn't it great that America is no longer dependent on foreign oil? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the dependence on oil is hurting oil producing States. We depend on it but we don't control the price. The net result has not been good. 

New mexico is rapidly diversifying and investing in renewables. It has paid off well this year because of low oil prices.

It is great that Obama supported domestic production and we became the number one producer under his administration. But completely relying on that domestic production has not panned out so well.

Royalties from metals mining would help offset the drain mining causes on the local economies and would help offset losses from oil. So I support royalties as well as renewables. 

The oil companies should pay more too. The negative impacts from the industry have just about offset the gains in our State for several years. And the fact that they are nearly impossible to regulate just makes things worse. We have a rich history of mining and oil disasters here but have very little to show for it. I think they should be held to the letter of the law and get out of local and regional politics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...