|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,927
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,927 |
What's interesting is that the IRS actually owned and operated the Mustang Ranch back when they seized it from Joe Conforte.
-------------------------------------------------------------
And, they couldn't make that pay for itself either. .gov is definitely the worst bunch of business people around.
The IRS actually lost money selling whisky and women. And they didn't have to pay taxes. Probably because all of the congressmen wanted freebies.
Keep your gun-hand ready and your eyes peeled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,906
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,906 |
Reno and Las Vegas are no where near the booms they were in the 80s and 90s. The housing market is the worst in the country.
The state's biggest legislative goals right now are geared towards developing ways to diversify the economic landscape.
Water, roads...virtually all fed, isn't it?
But if the fed govt is no longer there, the fed infrastructure would belong to the new govt of NV. I would say off-hand, Nevada would survive. Las Vegas and Reno would prosper even more if this were to happen. If the federal govt no longer had their fingers in the pot and meddling with what the casino, brothels and mining industries can and can't do, I would say those industries would prosper even more. Nevada the new country would reap all the taxes previously earmarked for WDC to be distributed in the large cities of America.
Last edited by Tarkio; 04/16/14.
Montana MOFO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,906
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,906 |
I'm not aware of a lot of federal water in the state. There are water rights from the Colorado, which goes to Vegas, but as far as I know, it's our water. Northern Nv water, as far as I know, all comes from NV.
The areas without water just doesn't develop.
The feds own some 86% of the land in the state. that gives them some responsibility for some of the costs in the state. That's land that isn't productive for the residents.
If they paid property taxes at the rate of the residents, that would amount to a pile of money.
As to roads, the Feds fund Interstates in every state, with gas tax money. NV is a very large state, in area, and pretty low in population. A tremendous amount of freight is hauled through NV. Is it NV's problem to pay for highways for all the freight that crosses the state? Pretty hard to get anything to or from CA or Asia without crossing NV.
If NV was a country, we'd be the 3rd largest gold producing country in the world.
I think we would be better off if the feds left. It would put a lot of land to work, and we could charge tolls for freight crossing the state.
I feel like the feds need NV more than we need the feds.
My thoughts exactly.
Montana MOFO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,903
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,903 |
I'm not aware of a lot of federal water in the state. There are water rights from the Colorado, which goes to Vegas, but as far as I know, it's our water. Northern Nv water, as far as I know, all comes from NV.
The areas without water just doesn't develop.
The feds own some 86% of the land in the state. that gives them some responsibility for some of the costs in the state. That's land that isn't productive for the residents.
If they paid property taxes at the rate of the residents, that would amount to a pile of money.
As to roads, the Feds fund Interstates in every state, with gas tax money. NV is a very large state, in area, and pretty low in population. A tremendous amount of freight is hauled through NV. Is it NV's problem to pay for highways for all the freight that crosses the state? Pretty hard to get anything to or from CA or Asia without crossing NV.
If NV was a country, we'd be the 3rd largest gold producing country in the world.
I think we would be better off if the feds left. It would put a lot of land to work, and we could charge tolls for freight crossing the state.
I feel like the feds need NV more than we need the feds.
My thoughts exactly. I think a lot of us in the West feel this way, I do
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 21,317
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 21,317 |
I think most Western states would fair quite well if they gave up their federal $'s and were given their land that is controlled by the Fed government, and they got 100% of the royalties paid on the resources developed in their states.
In general the biggest problem in resource states in fed.gov blocking resource development.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,903
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,903 |
I think most Western states would fair quite well if they gave up their federal $'s and were given their land that is controlled by the Fed government, and they got 100% of the royalties paid on the resources developed in their states.
In general the biggest problem in resource states in fed.gov blocking resource development.
^ this
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,822
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,822 |
I think most Western states would fair quite well if they gave up their federal $'s and were given their land that is controlled by the Fed government, and they got 100% of the royalties paid on the resources developed in their states.
In general the biggest problem in resource states in fed.gov blocking resource development.
Ain't that the truth! Just think what Alaska could be like if good ole Jimmy Carter hadn't pushed the D-2 Land Act.  Ed
"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 18,243
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 18,243 |
I mean no offense by the question but could Nevada actually survive without the assistance of the Federal Government? I'd ask the same question about MD and DC.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,114
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,114 |
Most states get most of their budget from the federal government, with strings attached. So a transition would probably be painful.
But consider that Nevada has no state income tax, and has very low property taxes. When I lived there, the tax on my house was about 1/3 what I've paid elsewhere. Gambling taxes pay for a lot of stuff.
No federal government would mean that Harry Reid would be out of work. A lot of people would consider that a good trade.
Last edited by denton; 04/16/14.
Be not weary in well doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,363
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,363 |
I think most Western states would fair quite well if they gave up their federal $'s and were given their land that is controlled by the Fed government, and they got 100% of the royalties paid on the resources developed in their states.
In general the biggest problem in resource states in fed.gov blocking resource development.
New Mexico would probably be the exception. Los Alamos National Labs Sandia National Lab Kirtland AFB White Sands Missile Range WIPP Melrose Bombing Range Holloman AFB Cannon AFB Just off the top of this feeble mind. Lotsa jobs involved. Mark
I've always been a curmudgeon - now I'm an old curmudgeon.
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,831
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,831 |
I think most Western states would fair quite well if they gave up their federal $'s and were given their land that is controlled by the Fed government, and they got 100% of the royalties paid on the resources developed in their states.
In general the biggest problem in resource states in fed.gov blocking resource development.
New Mexico would probably be the exception. Los Alamos National Labs Sandia National Lab Kirtland AFB White Sands Missile Range WIPP Melrose Bombing Range Holloman AFB Cannon AFB Just off the top of this feeble mind. Lotsa jobs involved. Mark I don't think there's a state in the Union that doesn't have fed jobs and facilities. That doesn't mean they'd have to go away. It just means the land and what to do with it would belong to the state. So maybe the state could lease the property to the feds. Collect taxes even. The fed employees could be subject to state employment rules. The states could decide to make it attractive for the feds to be there or decide they don't want them there at all. Imagine. A state with rights. Hmmm
Last edited by pira114; 04/16/14.
|
|
|
|
|
672 members (12344mag, 1234, 163bc, 06hunter59, 17CalFan, 160user, 67 invisible),
2,394
guests, and
1,243
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,626
Posts18,455,133
Members73,908
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
