hypocritexposer
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:hypocritexposer said:So, what you are saying OT, is that Montana is being Federally subsidized by Federal Taxpayers, from the rest of the Country?
Why couldn't Montana afford to manage the land, that is now federally owned?
Are you guys "Welfare Queens" in Montana?
Sounds like a Socialized system to me?
Aren't you guys in the middle of a BIG oil boom, in Montana?
As a few of the candidates said- Montana gets a lot of income off federal "public" lands- not only in the cattle/timber raised on them but the hunting, fishing, and recreationists tourist monies...
Do you think Montana gets 100% of what the Feds. charge? Or is there a bit lost for the Fed. bureaucracy. What stops Montana from charging the same amount, and reducing costs?
As far as our county- which has a large percentage of federal lands that pay no taxes-- without the federal governments PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) funds- the local and county governments would have a tough time operating.... And if the state took over- that federal money would no longer be coming in- but remember that payment is not only for ranchers/lessee's but the public of the country that come to this area as tourists and folks recreating ...
If they are not Federal lands anymore, would the users be paying federal taxes? "Payment in Lieu of taxes? Think about that one for a bit.
Out here on the prairie- yes I think the state could manage the land.... Like I said- it would probably take a big raise in state grazing rates to cover the lost PILT money's....Over in the national forests- not so sure... One fire year could bankrupt the state...
"In lieu of taxes" again, which means subsidization, by other states, or that the Feds. get use of all, or most of your money and they give a portion back.
Oil boom- yes on the edge of it... Mostly in eastern Montana now- and only now is our Governor talking of allowing some money to trickle down to this part of the state (we would be better off in ND) or if we had local sales taxes like ND... local governments getting both the benefits and the expenses of it right now until the local infrastructure gets built up...
So, what you are saying is that Montana would be better off, if they were combined with ND, so as to take advantage of the "boom", in ND, or if you had a sales tax to pay your own way?
Countries work much better when everyone pays their own way. Do you think the Feds. subsidize cattle ranchers in Alberta?
Is that something to criticize?
How do ranchers gain the opportunity to graze cattle on Provincial/Federal lands, here in Alberta?
We have no sales tax, like Montana, and do not mooch off the province next to us, like you want to do?