Free State Project Forum
270456 Posts in 22072 Topics by 36296 Members / Latest Member: Kipper
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 22, 2014, 08:39:15 pm

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search

Join the FSP

POSTING GUIDELINES and ADVICE FOR NEW MEMBERS

NOTICE: The forum will be down for maintenance beginning at 7PM (NH time) this evening. It should be up again by 9PM. Please forgive the inconvenience and feel free to e-mail arick@freestateproject.org if you have any questions or support requests.

+  Free State Project Forum
|-+  Archive
| |-+  Which State?
| | |-+  More and other criteria to weigh states with
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 [14] 15  Go Down Print
Author Topic: More and other criteria to weigh states with  (Read 91882 times)
Kelton
FSP Participant
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604


el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad




Ignore
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #195 on: August 23, 2003, 11:24:53 am »

How wonderful! 8 of our 10 candidate states are also among the safest states in America!!

  But where's Delaware and Alaska in this list?

Sitting about 2 points above the median rating at #32 is Delaware and making the most dangerous ten list is Alaska at #43- (sure hope that new Vermont-carry law brings Alaska into the fold of Vermont's top 10 list soon!)

Frequently, the 2000 FBI crime statistics have been presented here, but since then, the 2001 statistics have been presented and the 2002 state-by state FBI data should soon be ready on the FBI web-site.
Following is the FBI DATA: Rate of Violent Crime Per 100,000 Residents, 2001


ND  79.6
VT 105.0
ME 111.5
SD 154.8
NH 170.3
ID 243.1
WY 257.3
MT 352.4
AK 588.3
DE 611.4
« Last Edit: August 23, 2003, 12:50:49 pm by exitus » Logged

. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
1DayAtATime
First 1000
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6390


Live Free or Die!


WWW
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #196 on: August 23, 2003, 12:48:48 pm »

Safest states in America
2003 RANK   STATE   SUM   2002 RANK   CHANGE
1   Vermont   -65.63   3   2
2   North Dakota   -65.57   1   -1
3   Maine   -59.84   2   -1
4   South Dakota   -53.23   4   0
5   New Hampshire   -52.39   8   3
6   West Virginia   -49.31   10   4
7   Wyoming   -48.95   6   -1
8   Iowa   -47.82   7   -1
9   Idaho   -44.47   5   -4
10   Montana   -42.21   9   -1
Source:
http://www.morganquitno.com/dangsaf03.htm

How wonderful! 8 of our 10 candidate states are also among the safest states in America!!
 

I agree.  This is great news.  People ask, what if everything does not work out?  What do I gain?

At least part of the answer is living in one of the 10 safest states in the nation!  That sounds good to me.
Logged

Please do not take anything I say as 100% accurate or as an official opinion of the FSP.

Haven't joined the Free State Project yet? Join now! http://freestateproject.org/fsn10
Looking for resources on where to live and how to find a job in NH? http://freestateproject.org/resources
Kelton
FSP Participant
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604


el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad




Ignore
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #197 on: August 25, 2003, 12:31:53 pm »

Legal Status of Direct-Entry Midwives

Where and how a woman chooses to give birth should be a very personal decision, chosing midwifery is also a practical one:

According to Dr. Frank Oski MD, [the Country] could save $13 to $20 billion a year by developing midwifery care, demedicalizing birth, and breastfeeding. Frank A. Oski, MD, Professor and Director, Department of Pediatrics, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. Contemporary Pediatrics, Nov., 1993, p9.

The following was obtained by folowing the chart compiled by the Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA), the Midwifery Education and Accreditation Council (MEAC) and the North American Registry of Midwives (NARM), found here: Direct-Entry Midwifery State-by-State Legal Status-Last Updated 5-22-2002
and also by doing key-word searches for each state on Yahoo!. with some additional help by http://www.motherstuff.com/.  I started work on this in January, and have put many hours into this, though I remain unsatisfied with the incompleteness of this work, (I hate to put something out that is so incomplete) but since times-a- wastin', I figured I have just got to get this out there, what I have.


Ranked by seemingly most free to least free.  .  . ( with quotes from the various websites regarding the legal status).
 

1. Idaho- Legal by constitutional interpretation.

North Dakota (unknown status, though by some accounts, it seems identical to Maine).


2. Maine Legal by Judicial Interpretation or Statutory Inference


3. Montana- license, private accredited training acceptable. Under a 1991 law, direct entry midwives are licensed by the Alternative Health Care Board, which also licenses Naturopathic Physicians. Direct entry midwife apprentices also pay an annual licensing fee to work with a preceptor. About 11 midwives, including 8 Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs) are currently licensed and attend home births. The NARM written exam (part of the CPM requirement) is used as part of the licensing process.

4.? Delaware- permit, accept permits by other states through reciprocity only nurse-midwives may practice, because licensing is performed by medical authorities(1)Direct Entry Midwives (DEMs) are legal by licensure. CPM with NARM Exam not required. No MEAC Accredited Schools of Midwifery. No Medicaid reimbursement. Delaware Friends of Midwives is actively working to pass a Rules and Regulations change that would make it possible for all midwives (CPM's and CNM's) to attend births in all settings in this state. (1)

5. Alaska- license required by law. Recip not offered.   Direct entry midwives are licensed and practice in homes and birth centers. The law that permits direct entry midwives to practice was extended in April 1999, granting CDM licenses (Certified Direct-entry Midwife) and uses the NARM exam as part of the credential process. There are some restrictions to the care that direct entry midwives can provide, for instance, a CDM cannot assist a woman with a prior C-Section.



6. New Hampshire- Certification recip recognizes at least one private training, accepts Medicaid reimbursement. After 20 years of being regulated under the Depaartment of Health and Human Services, New Hampshire enacted legislation in 1999 creating an independent Midwifery Council, a regulatory agency with rule-making authority. The council is currently drafting rules for the practice of midwifery.


7. Vermont by licensure, accepts ACCS and MEAC training by private means. Vermont- license On May 5, 2000 International Midwives Day, the entire Senate passed the bill licensing CPMs in Vermont, the final legislative step. The licensing act went to the Governor as part of an omnibus bill, and he allowed the bill to go into effect without his signature. He was opposed to a section of the bill unrelated to midwives, but did not veto it. The bill will go into effect July 1, 2000. Creation of the rules will take place over the summer with the Director of Professional Regulation, two midwife appointees and a physician with home birth experience. This is a public process that allows input, but not final say by all concerned parties (Medical Society, nursing etc.). Law mandates that state Medicare pay for midwifery.


8. Wyoming illegal, prohibited by statute. Midwives may attend births in Wyoming, but are restricted from practicing prenatal or postpartum care and a midwife in Wyoming may not deal with a pregnant woman until contractions begin.

9. South Dakota no legal status, specifically prohibited to non-licensed individuals, otherwise unknown.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2003, 12:33:59 pm by exitus » Logged

. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
1DayAtATime
First 1000
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6390


Live Free or Die!


WWW
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #198 on: August 26, 2003, 08:06:45 am »

Issues pertaining to smoking
...States Ranked by Laws Ensuring Smokefree Air --State of Tobacco Control: 2002


Rank in the nation, State, Grade assigned by American Lung Association

#50 Wyoming  F

#28 Idaho  F

#27 North Dakota  F

#25 Montana  F

#17 South Dakota  F

#13 New Hampshire  F

#8 Alaska  F

#5 Maine  C

#4 Vermont  B

#2 Delaware  A  Tongue
...

Smoking Bans in the Candidate States:

AK
As of Jan. 2002Anchorage passed a law making most workplaces (restaurants, bowling alleys and pool halls, but not bars) smokefree.

DE
Smoking ban goes into effect 11/27/2002 and includes all public buildings and workplaces including bars, restaurants, and casinos.

NH
Keene and Colebrook have bans.  The NH Supreme Court ruled that that Colebrook law (even though it was passed by the votes) does not count.  This might make the Keene law void.  However, Concord's law about smoking in parks is still valid.

ME
Smoking banned in restaurants

MT
June 2002: Helena banned smoking in all public venues, including bars and casinos.(However, the MT Supreme Court overturned the Helena ban) Missoula has a similar ordinance but exempts bars and casinos. Bozeman bans smoking in restaurants and bars where there is no separation, Nov. 2002.

VT
Smoking banned in restaurants
Logged

Please do not take anything I say as 100% accurate or as an official opinion of the FSP.

Haven't joined the Free State Project yet? Join now! http://freestateproject.org/fsn10
Looking for resources on where to live and how to find a job in NH? http://freestateproject.org/resources
Kelton
FSP Participant
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604


el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad




Ignore
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #199 on: August 27, 2003, 01:58:59 pm »

One of the very first indicator tests posed on this forum was about retail sale of raw milk.  Surely any state that allows this "dangerous" practice of drinking unpasteurized milk even despite the existence of harmful diseases in milk is surely more libertarian-leaning, right?  (California is currently the best state in the nation for this, I have access to a variety of different raw milk products here where I l;ive -yum!)

When this question was first posed, it was stated that only the Northeastern states had retail sales of raw milk.  Largely based on information from this website: http://www.realmilk.com/happening.html . Recently, I communicated with a resident of Idaho Falls who works in a large store and she stated that she loves the raw goats milk cheese available there.  This surprised me since I had heard on this forum that this was illegal in Idaho.  Not So!  Drinking raw milk and eating raw milk products has a strong following in Idaho and is allowed by law.  A search online revealed the following,
RAW MILK SURVEY RESULTS (WDATCP)
Candidate states that allow retail distribution of raw milk products:

ID Yes  (Must obtain retail raw milk license.)
ME Yes [must obtain license]
NH No (with exception of direct sale of raw milk [on farms])
SD YES [Only on the farms]
VT No (with [several] exception [only on farms])

That's it.
So, according to this website, it is illegal to sell raw milk in AK,DE,MT,ND,WY  :'(

From the previous-mentioned website, there is more to it, however, here's some more info:

AK State regulations are presently being interpreted to permit raw milk distribution by cow share or stewardship programs.

DE Illegal to sell raw milk.

ID Sale of raw milk is legal with a license. However, there are currently no licensed raw milk facilities in the state. The last raw milk retailer went out of business in the early 1990s.  [Are all raw-milk products being brought-in from California?]

ME Raw milk sales permitted. The milk producer must have a permit and the milk distributor must be licensed. Raw milk must be cooled to 45 degrees F immediately after milking and maintained with low bacteria count. Cows must also have negative brucellosis and tuberculin tests. The regs are contained in 01-001 Chapters 321, 329.

MT Illegal to sell raw milk and “home pasteurizers do not qualifiy as legal pasteurization methods,” according to Rosemary Hinkey, State Milk Inspector

ND Legal to sell raw milk as pet food. The ND Dairy Commission has no control over milk sold for animal consumption.

NHRaw milk may be purchased from the farm. A farmer can sell raw milk if the customer supplies the bottle. Many herds are grass-fed during the warm months. Several biodynamic farms are supplying high quality dairy products.

SD Information needed

VT Small quantities of raw milk may be sold on the farm. Many herds are pasture-fed.

WY Illegal to sell raw milk.



Based on all this information, how I would rank the states for Raw Milk sales:

Good: ID=ME > NH>SD>VT (ID and ME require license where NH and VT do not, yet offer a much greater ability to market products upon receipt of license, and those states which do not license requiore conformance anyways.  Vermont most restictive of these in its many regulations of even the farm sales)

Poor: AK (Based on issues of where in other states like WI that have had difficulty with this issue of cow share or stewardship programs, for all practicality, it is almost as bad as outright illegality in most states, but more info needed.)

Illegal: ND>DE=WY>MT  -(Out of these, ND clearly has a loophole that could be exploited, by selling for pet consumption but intended for humans).  From the descriptions, Montana seems worse in actually going out and prohibiting home pasteurization.

 
Logged

. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
Kelton
FSP Participant
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604


el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad




Ignore
Children and driving
« Reply #200 on: August 29, 2003, 07:47:21 pm »

State/  Earliest age to obtain learner's permit / Earliest age- driver's license
AK    14 / 16 
DE    15.8 / 16
ID    15 / 15
ME    15 / 16
MT    14.5 / 16
NH    16 / 16.25
ND    14 / 16
SD    14 / 14
VT    15 / 16
WY    15 / 16


These numbers don't tell the whole story, there are probably numerous exceptions.  For instance, in Wyoming, children in rural areas may drive to school or a bus stop if they live outside the area serviced by buses.  In Idaho, 14 yr.-old children may drive farm equipment and farm trucks with certain restrictions.

AK,DE,ID,MT,SD,WY do not require a learner's permit first in order to obtain a driver's license.

Among those that do, there are waiting periods: ME,NH,ND require 90 days. VT unknown

Fans of Neal Boortz out there are probably familiar with the argument that children should not be allowed to drive until age of majority.  Others argue that teenage children should have the right to drive with parent's consent (and willingness to take responsibility).  Others still will argue that the age of majority is set too high/low. Whatever the argument, these numbers are some more facts to peruse.
Major source for this: http://golocalnet.com/drivingage/
« Last Edit: August 29, 2003, 07:49:33 pm by exitus » Logged

. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
1DayAtATime
First 1000
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6390


Live Free or Die!


WWW
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #201 on: August 30, 2003, 12:06:59 pm »

The following is an older post that will do well in this thread.

Quote
SandyPrice on December 16, 2002, 06:45:29 pm
Another problem that we should look into is the "Right to Work" category of each state.  When the state grants a right to work it means one can work in a union position without joining the union.  Arizona has this and we all love it.  This can be as important as the minimum wage.

I covered this in a past thread.
Rankings for top of All 50 states for Freedom (personal and economic)
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=967


Right to work states
VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, TN, LA, AR, OK, TX, KS, NE, IA, SD, ND, WY, ID, UT, AZ, NV

Out of the FSP states that leaves (Right to work states):
SD, ND, WY, and ID

To compare the FSP states for minimum wage, living wage, and right to work:

States with a minimum wage NOT higher than the federal:
MT, ID, WY, ND, SD, NH

States WITHOUT any city having a 'living wage':
ID, WY, NH, DE, AK, SD, ND, ME

Right to work states:
SD, ND, WY, ID

With 1 point for each time a states is listed out of a possible 3 points.

Total:
1. WY, ND, SD, ID with 3 points
2. NH with 2 points
3. MT, DE, AK, ME with 1 point
4. VT with 0 points

Summary:  Comparing the 10 states for all 3 factors shows that WY, ND, SD, and ID are more enployment friendly.  MT, DE, AK, and ME are more against workers and companies than most of the other states.  VT, looks even more socialist then before.
Logged

Please do not take anything I say as 100% accurate or as an official opinion of the FSP.

Haven't joined the Free State Project yet? Join now! http://freestateproject.org/fsn10
Looking for resources on where to live and how to find a job in NH? http://freestateproject.org/resources
JonM
First 1000
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1938



Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #202 on: August 30, 2003, 12:32:47 pm »

Regarding right to work legislation in NH from 2003.  From the House Journal 3/25/2003

HB 821, establishing a right to work act which provides for freedom of choice on whether to join a labor union. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. Corey E. Corbin for the Majority of Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services: This bill basically would prevent the assessment of agency fees upon non-members of a labor union. The non-members, however, have an obligation to pay their fair share of the costs associated with contract negotiations and collective bargaining, as they enjoy all the wages and benefits as full dues-paying members, negotiated for them by the unions. This bill was comparable to a citizen stating they should not have to pay the education property tax because they have no kids, despite the benefit we all receive from well-educated kids. As a result, and the overwhelming show of opposition to this bill (nearly 10-1 in testimony) the bill was reported ITL. Vote 13-6.

Rep. Jarvis M. Adams for the Minority of Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services: There is a fundamental first amendment right of free association that is violated when government regulates the private lives of workers by forcing them to financially subsidize unions against their wishes. In addition, This bill, if passed, would improve the health of unions and our economy by making unions more user-friendly.


Majority report adopted (bill killed) 262-103.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2003, 12:34:07 pm by JonM » Logged
1DayAtATime
First 1000
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6390


Live Free or Die!


WWW
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #203 on: August 30, 2003, 12:39:34 pm »

Regarding right to work legislation in NH from 2003.  From the House Journal 3/25/2003

HB 821, establishing a right to work act which provides for freedom of choice on whether to join a labor union. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. Corey E. Corbin for the Majority of Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services: This bill basically would prevent the assessment of agency fees upon non-members of a labor union. The non-members, however, have an obligation to pay their fair share of the costs associated with contract negotiations and collective bargaining, as they enjoy all the wages and benefits as full dues-paying members, negotiated for them by the unions. This bill was comparable to a citizen stating they should not have to pay the education property tax because they have no kids, despite the benefit we all receive from well-educated kids. As a result, and the overwhelming show of opposition to this bill (nearly 10-1 in testimony) the bill was reported ITL. Vote 13-6.

Rep. Jarvis M. Adams for the Minority of Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services: There is a fundamental first amendment right of free association that is violated when government regulates the private lives of workers by forcing them to financially subsidize unions against their wishes. In addition, This bill, if passed, would improve the health of unions and our economy by making unions more user-friendly.


Majority report adopted (bill killed) 262-103.


That is seriously bad news.  I had no clue that the good Reps of the state of NH were so far away from the free market view on right-to-work laws and the 1st amendment to the US Constitution.   This is yet another sign that the last part of New England that is still somewhat free (NH) has large socialist undertones.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2003, 12:40:45 pm by FreedomRoad » Logged

Please do not take anything I say as 100% accurate or as an official opinion of the FSP.

Haven't joined the Free State Project yet? Join now! http://freestateproject.org/fsn10
Looking for resources on where to live and how to find a job in NH? http://freestateproject.org/resources
JonM
First 1000
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1938



Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #204 on: August 30, 2003, 12:55:03 pm »

That is seriously bad news.  I had no clue that the good Reps of the state of NH were so far away from the free market view on right-to-work laws the the 1st amendment to the US Constitution.  

Now there is no need to muckrake.  The testimony about this bill during public hearings was 10-1 against.  There were not a great deal of activists in favor of the bill willing to go speak to the committee in support of it.  Thus the committee went against it 13-6.

Now as to the main concern of the opposition of the bill, that basically someone could take the benefits of a union contract without contributing to the union that negotiated the contract, that is a fair point.  Should someone be allowed to take advantage of the results of collective bargaining without contributing to the costs of the bargaining?  The main perceived problem, at least from my view, is that unions branch out from that collective bargaining into politics which the members may not support, and are loathe to fund through their dues.

It's a tricky question, one which I don't have the knowledge to properly answer.  But even with such testimony against it and a dearth of testimony in support, 1/4 of the house supported it.  Had the testimony been in favor of this bill rather than so overwhelmingly opposed, perhaps the committee's recommendation would have been ought to pass, rather than inexpedient to legislate, and more members of the house would have voted yea.
Logged
Zxcv
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1229





Ignore
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #205 on: August 30, 2003, 03:12:15 pm »

Still, Jon, it looks bad.

On another subject, I just looked at my bottle of Canada Dry Tonic Water. It says the states of VT and DE require merchants to collect a 5c deposit.

I looked at a pop can too. VT and ME have a deposit for that.

Did you ever see that movie (I think by John Waters) called "Serial Mom"? Kathleen Turner plays a mom who goes on a killing spree against those of her neighbors who aren't religious enough about recycling. It is hilarious.
Logged
JonM
First 1000
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1938



Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #206 on: August 30, 2003, 03:24:52 pm »

What it means is there aren't enough activists in NH who care enough about Right To Work to go to Concord to testify on behalf of this bill.  It means 25% of the current house likes it even without broad based support, meaning 26% more need to be convinced through letters, testimony, and other activism.

I don't work in a field that is unionized, so I don't have much experience with unions in my own personal work experience.  Someone who has more experience would be better suited to explaining the merits of this particular right to work bill, and if it would need alteration to be more widely accepted, or if it's just a matter of needing more support.

My empty bottle of Otter Creek Stovepipe Porter, craft brewed (heh) in Vermont says DEP: ME, VT, CT, DE, NY, MA 5 cents, MI 10 cents.

Bottle bills (nowadays) are almost never about encouraging recycling but more about a revenue stream for the state.  If 100 bottles or cans go out with a 5 cent deposit, and only 67 are redeemed, that's a net 33*.05 to the state coffers.  Which is what happens.  To most people the 30 cents on a six pack isn't quite worth the effort, so they toss them.  Now, the more kind people who don't give a damn will leave them separate so the people who might otherwise ransack your garbage for them will leave it be and take the bottles and cans with minimal effort.
Logged
Zxcv
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1229





Ignore
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #207 on: August 30, 2003, 08:59:31 pm »

Huh, I didn't know bottle bill money went to the state on unredeemed bottles. I thought the vendors got to pocket it (I think that's how it goes in Oregon, but I could be wrong). That seems reasonable because they have to put up with the pain of redeeming the silly things. The big stores here in Oregon have to invest in can crushing machines that sort the redeemables from non-redeemables, although they might get some help from the state for that. They still have to dedicate floor space.

I was just reading off the labels of pop, those states in our 10 that have bottle bills.

You said something that I'll comment on:
Quote
Should someone be allowed to take advantage of the results of collective bargaining without contributing to the costs of the bargaining?
The answer is, of course! If they are not union members. Because there are free riders, does not give union bosses the right to coerce non-union members to fork over the cash. The most they can do is persuade them to join the union, at least in a free state.

Some here have commented that right-to-work laws are un-libertarian. The correct answer is that right-to-work laws become uneccesary in a truly free state, because unions do not in that case use government to coerce others.

Quote
What it means is there aren't enough activists in NH who care enough about Right To Work to go to Concord to testify on behalf of this bill.
Care enough - or maybe they just don't want bricks hurled through their living room windows by union thugs!
« Last Edit: August 30, 2003, 09:01:57 pm by Zxcv » Logged
Kelton
FSP Participant
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604


el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad




Ignore
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #208 on: September 05, 2003, 12:25:19 am »

 # Farms / Acres of Farm land

SD 32,500  44,000,000
ND 31,500  39,700,000
MT 27,000  57,800,000
ID 24,500  12,000,000
WY  9,200  34,600,000
ME  7,000   1,280,000
VT  6,600   1,330,000
NH  3,000     420,000
DE  2,800     585,000
AK    560     910,000


Source: http://www.nemw.org/farmland.htm


Total Gross State Product (GSP) by State: 2001
(in millions of current dollars)

NH 47,183
DE 40,509
ME 37,449
ID 36,905
AK 28,581
MT 22,635
WY 20,148
SD 24,251
VT 19,149
ND 19,005



Source: http://www.nemw.org/gsp.htm
Logged

. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
Kelton
FSP Participant
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604


el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad




Ignore
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #209 on: September 05, 2003, 09:08:02 am »

Oil and Gas Tax Burdens for states belonging to Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission


Total Oil Tax Burden as of Oct. 2002

AK Avg. 9.9% of taxable value
DE n/a
ID 2.0%
ME n/a
MT First 12 months, 0.8%, then variable between 5.8%-9.3%
NH n/a
ND 11.5% 9.0% or 5%
SD 4.74% of value
VT n/a
WY 9.9%-13.7%



Total Natural Gas Tax Burden as of Oct. 2002

AK Avg 5% of taxable value
DE n/a
ID 2.0%
ME n/a
MT First 12 months, 0.8%; then variable between 11.3%-15.1%
NH n/a
ND $0.04 per MCF, adjusted annually per consumer price index
SD 4.74% of value
VT n/a
WY 11.9-13.7%






Source:  http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/ISSUES/Taxation%20Info/2002stateoiltaxchart.pdf
http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/ISSUES/Taxation%20Info/2002%20summaryofadvalorem.pdf
http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/ISSUES/Taxation%20Info/TaxChart.htm
Logged

. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 [14] 15  Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!