In other news, Western rubes still getting hornswoggled

Speaking of making Nevada's gold mining industry pay its fair share of taxes ...

What? Surely somebody somewhere in the state was just speaking of that.

Anyway, the crucial question surrounding the industry as it struggles to safeguard the world's strategic earring supply is whether Nevada will:

a) use a regressive tax structure to force the working class to pay for government while wrapping multinational gold corporation executives in warm cuddly blankeys and serving them lovely cream teas, or

b) change.

In my latest CityLife column I make the case for the latter, mostly by throwing a bunch of numbers around. For instance -- and I can think of no reason that the media shouldn't just report this at least once a week -- there are gold mines in Nevada, and not just little ones either but the biggest of the bunch, which might produce hundreds of millions of dollars of gold over the course of a year yet not pay a single cent in state mining taxes.

That's Nevada all over, ain't it? We're a savvy, world-wise lot who know how to figure the odds and mind the store, and no fancy-pants transnational conglomerates are going to put one over on us, nosireebob.

Anyway, in the unlikely event that everybody in the Legislature didn't already know that in any given year between one-third and one-half of Nevada's gold mines pay no state mining taxes whatsoever, I appear to have prepared a little fact sheet containing that and a few other fun mining tax deduction facts that seem like things people might want to know as they consider just who ought to be paying more taxes 'round here. Warning: There are charts.

(The fact sheet can be viewed in Gleaner page glory or in a buck naked format (pdf) that can be printed so as to slip easily into, say, a legislator's briefcase in the folder marked "to do." The original sources are cited of course so no one will be put in the awkward position of having to mention the lowly and disreputable Gleaner. Thoughtful, no?)

And now for the customary column excerpts:

Whenever someone suggests getting more tax revenue from the gold industry -- one of the few industries in the state that continues to be quite profitable despite (or because of) the global economic collapse -- someone else is always quick to note that the industry's tax rate is lodged in the state's constitution, so raising taxes on gold would require a constitutional amendment.

Well, there should be a constitutional amendment -- not to raise the tax rate on gold but to eliminate any mention of the tax rate on gold. Constitutions are for declaring rights, not listing tax rates.

But in the meantime, deductions that allow the gold mining industry to write off the entire value of production at some of the world's largest gold mines are not enshrined in the constitution. Those deductions are in state statutes. The Legislature can start tinkering with those -- and making the industry begin to pay something a little closer to its fair share of the state's tax burden -- whenever it wants.

By the way, while preparing my little fact sheet I realized I made a -- gasp! -- mistake in the CityLife column. I understated the value of Nevada gold production, yet overstated the amount of money the gold industry pays in state mining taxes. Which is to say the industry is even more coddled than my original calculations indicated.

For the record, from 2000 through 2007, Nevada’s mining industry extracted and sold gold worth $25.5 billion, and paid taxes to the state’s general fund totaling $125.3 million for an effective gross state tax rate of one-half of one percent.

Bastards.

Comments

[Patrick]

I can't believe anyone would even recommend a gross receipts tax. That has to be the sickest tax anyone could ever have thought of. If you ever wanted to put people out of work, that is one hell of a way to do it.

By the way, if government can tax, with no accountability as to how the money is spent, who do you think will get the money?

If you said rich fat cats, you're right.

We don't need more tax dollars we need accountable government.

[dave404]

Hugh,

Well done and timely! I haven't gone through your spread sheets, but in doing some redearch awhile ago, and I think I posted some of the mining info here, the annual reports of these companies (like Newmont and Barrick) indicate that the production cost of gold is about $450/oz....accordingly why isn't the differnce between production costs and market value the "net"? The gold producers list it as "net" in their annual reports. As of today, their "net" is about $350/oz!

Yes, change the statute and change the Constitution Ms. Buckley! I say go to a graduated windfall tax ala Sarah Palin in Alaska and her new oil tax.

Now, with ex-Gov Miller on the Board of Barrick, or is it Newmont, what role will he play come Spring 2009.

Again, well done!

[atdleft]

Ah, if only The Gleaner was in a position to decide Nevada tax policy! It should be a crime for the mining conglomerates to take our resources but not pay us anything for them!

[atdleft]

Wow! Great work, Gleaner! I just took a look at the spreadsheets. If this can't convince The Legislature to include mine tax reform in whatever new budget proposal they send to our dear Governor Sleazy, I don't know what else we can do.

[Dude]

It's all about the deductions. The fact is, the measly 4.5 percent gross proceeds tax is ridiculous. Patrick's friends tax me when I buy milk for the baby at 7.5 percent. But poor, poor pitiful gold multinationals can't pay a half percent on the gold they sell out of state while raping the earth, air and water.
Fortunately for the rapists, they have a powerful couple of lobbyists in Carson. The No. 2 (pun intended) among Senate Republicans, and the governor. Both of whom can be trusted to selling out the present and future of this state to shovel a few more Krugerrands at their patrons.
It's disgusting. It's disgraceful. And it is contributing to a profoundly anti-business (yup, Patrick) and anti-investment atmosphere that scares away the best and most promising industries from our state.

[kickboxermomma]

I'm all for reining in the mining exemptions in addition to having corporate taxes so that business like banks, the RJ and big box stores pay their fair share.

I also believe that drivers licenses or driving privileges need to be extended to undocumented aliens. This should be examined from a fiscal and consumer protection standpoint. The licensing fees would bring in needed tax dollars and lower insurance costs. Insurance can not be extended to someone without a license.

A drivers license does not give an undocumented alien any benefit to remain in the United States but it would help bring need funds into the State and would result in more insured motorists on the road.

The sickest tax is a flat-rate national sales tax, in that it is regressive and does the most harm to the people who least need it.

KBM - Would Mexico give me a license if I entered their country illegally or 'undocumented'? No! No matter how you put the lipstick on a pig it's still a pig, undocumented equals illegal and I for one don't think illegals should be granted driver licenses.

[Libra Dude]

MOOSELINI ALERT - she will be running ads during the football game on Thursday ... everytime one comes on, let's flush the toilet! Best critique I can think of.

[Michael Green]

A thought on driver's licenses for the undocumented, or perhaps it is mingled with a question. If you are visiting the United States and want to drive, do you need to apply for a driver's license?

Now, one might say there's a difference, since an undocumented immigrant is here illegally. To which I say, a driver's license includes a fee and a means of identification. Why would we not want that?

I know. It's like telling a homophobe that encouraging gay marriage is good for the institution of marriage and the creation and perpetuation of families. But I thought I would try.

[temujin... khan of the yakka mongols]

...We don't need no steenking license....

[Patrick]

Dude,

First, have you ever bothered to think of how corporate taxes are paid?

Second, we should eliminate all corporate taxes in this state... (partly because they drive up the cost of doing business and partly because they harm every individual).

Want to be anti-growth, anti-business, anti-Nevada citizen, then by all means do a gross receipts tax.

Should corporations get special exemptions for land-use, water-use, or energy-use?...NO, none. That should be eliminated as well.

[Patrick]

Mike,

First, I'm for free trade, including the free movement of labor, so this anti immigrant bit is a bit anti growth, anti business, anti freedom, anti capitalist and anti free trade.

But to give IDs to illegal immigrants would just be silly. First, would they want them? If they did would that make them defacto no longer illegal? Wouldn't they think its a trick?

I am also against government regulation of marriage. I think it should just be the government recognizing unions of property between two individuals (kinda like a corporation...sorry I'm no romantic). But to suggest that gay marriage can save the institution of marriage when the institution of marriage has been defined as the union of a man to a woman is a straw man at best. To put it another way, it cannot save something that it is not defined as being a part of that something.

[Michael Green]

Patrick, first, I doubt, too, that an illegal immigrant would want identification, for obvious reasons. That's one of the reasons that the whole debate on that issue isn't really worth having.

As to "defining" the institution of marriage, who has defined it that way? Does The Bible? Fine, but that doesn't make it law. Does the Nevada Constitution? Yes, by a vote of the people. The people also have been known to vote for things that happen to be unconstitutional or--gasp--downright stupid, in my opinion and/or in yours. And in my opinion, the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal rights for all. And all means all.

[Patrick]

I agree Mike, the Constitution does protect and should protect equal rights under the law (I disagree with those that think that the government should try and force us to get along).

Marriage has always been between man and a woman...generally a religious ceremony and term (again government shouldn't be in this business). I don't believe that Roman and Greek cultures which permitted homosexuality even used a term similar to marriage to describe a homosexual union.

Therein defined (I am not suggesting that homosexuals should not have a right to union themselves and their property) homosexuality cannot save the institution of marriage because currently and historically homosexuality has not been defined as apart of marriage (to my knowledge).

Again, to repeat myself: 1) Government should be out of the business of defining and defending marriage that should be a private religious ceremony to be respected by ones community and 2) the government should only recognize property unification (like it does with corporations) between private individuals without regard to sex or race or religion.

Yes people will vote for unconstitutional measures, so will the government. No system is perfect but that is why, I believe, our founders wanted a system of limited federal government with checks between the branches and checks between levels of government so the rights of the majority and minority were protected together.

The larger the government the larger its sphere of influence, the larger its sphere of influence the more opportunity it has to do harm to our rights and our freedoms.

[Michael Green]

Patrick, I do not think gay marriage will save the institution of marriage. But if two gay people who have been together for 30 years or whatever cannot get married, but we can have Britney Spears and Madonna getting married every hour on the hour, I think we have a problem. Furthermore, if we are going to invoke Greek and Roman culture for our laws, I think we are going to have some serious issues beyond those we already have.

[Not Bob]

Excellent graphic Gleaner.

Harvey Korman, Madeline Kahn and the incomparable Mel Brooks are, to my mind, the only political scientists who have ever come close to describing what Nevada is all about.

Mishigas all the way down.

[Michael Green]

Actually, I have threatened for years to show Blazing Saddles in my Nevada history classes to explain railroad-building in the West. It's still more accurate than any other source I can think of.

By the way, there also really was a Jewish chief. He was in New Mexico.

[temujin... khan of the yakka mongols]

...I believe that gay marriage can reduce your wardrobe bill by fifty percent...?

[kickboxermomma]

Michael Green-After Having dealt with the undocumented population for more than 30 years I have found that undocumented individuals do want identification for obvious reasons. 1) to open bank accounts, 2) to buy car insurance 3) to provide identification in the event of accident etc. all the normal reasons any person would want identification. We have an undocumented population and wishful thinking and occasional immigration raids are not going to get rid of this population any time soon.

We have a consumer issue that faces all Nevadans who travel the roads. If persons who are undocumented are traveling the road without a drivers license that means they are uninsured and they may not be familiar with the rules of the road. A driver's license provides a process to allow persons to pass a test to show that they know how to drive properly and are familiar with the rules of the road. Only with a driver's license can someone purchase car insurance. Will the undocumented purchase car insurance uniquivocally the answer is yes.

Nevada has one of the highest insurance rates in the country. We also have a high rate of uninsured motorists. It makes fiscal sense to cut the number of uninsured motorists from the road and increase the number of licensed drivers. Nevada and we as citizens benefit with increased fees into the State coffers, less uninsured motorists and hopefully lower premiums.

A drivers license does not in any way change a person's legal status in the United States that person only has a form of identification.

Law enforcement will also tell you that one of the most effective ways of tracking someone is through a driver's license. So the positive aspects of a driver's license for the undocumented far outweighs any negative aspect.

[The Penguin]

Not Bob: That is not Madeline Kahn, who played Lili Von Shtupp in Blazing Saddles, in the photo. The character's name is Miss Stein, played by Robyn Hilton. (Trivia: Hotbody Magazine voted her the Best Breasts award in 1973, 1974 and 1975.)

[Michael Green]

KBM, you know much more about the issue than I do, so I am happy to defer and be corrected.

[Patrick]

Mike,

You missed the point. I am not advocating adopting Greek or Roman customs.

I'd also like to point out that traditional marriage pretty much forbaid divorce. Such law is anti-freedom, but that was traditonal marriage.

So suggesting that Maddona or B.S. is ruining the institution doesn't follow. To suggest a gay 30 year couple could improve the institution would be like saying the Exon Valdez can improve the quality of life for animals in the north Pacific.

You can't destroy something then expect the same philosophy to come along and fix what it destroyed.

You can't just redefine and redefine and redefine until you've "Saved something"

Nevertheless, gay marriage is just a red herring for more important issues. The government shouldnt be invovled.

[kickboxermomma]

Patrick re: gay marriage, the government is involved. It is the government that issues the license to marry. Since it is the government that issues the license to marry then that opportunity to marry should be open to any individual who is of legal age to enter into that contract who is not already married. Any religious institution that choses not to officiate at a ceremony for two people of the same sex is not obligated to officiate for that wedding. I should not expect my marriage to be sealed by the Mormon Church because I am not a Morman.Nor would I have any legal recourse to demand a ceremony through the a LDS Temple.What's the big legal deal? Thisis a social and religious big deal but just as Churches opposed the lifting of prohibition and stores open on the Sabbath-if those activities are offensive don't engage in them. Just don't impose your "moral" standard on me.

[Michael Green]

Patrick, I fear that you are lapsing into a right-wing tendency (I prefer not to say conservative because there is much to be said for conservative ideology and nothing for right-wing ideology) to try to cloud what people are saying.

You cited Greek and Roman custom. Those to the political right, however far over they go, tend to cite original intent, textual analysis, etc. While the Founding Fathers were influenced by a variety of forces, we have Supreme Court justices (Anthony Kennedy, a conservative often incorrectly described as moderate) citing international law and custom for their opinions and others (especially Antonin Scalia, a right-wing lunatic often incorrectly described as conservative) claiming that is utterly ridiculous. Now, if the Constitution says what it says, especially in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, then how do we justify denying gays the right to marry?

To try to turn around my point about marriage being degraded on the one hand by the ease with which people can move in and out of it while denying the right to those who take it seriously on the other hand by talking about the Exxon Valdez as a comparison is unworthy of you, or should be.