Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?  (Read 12300 times)

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229

I just got the March issue of Vin Suprynowicz's "Privacy Alert" newsletter (BTW, serious FSPers really should subscribe, go to http://www.privacyalert.us/  Vin's writing is right at the forefront for what we are trying to accomplish). The headline article is entitled "Trojan Horse tax scheme could poison Nevada as business locale". This article has a lot of information of tremendous significance to FSP.

Here's a link to a shorter version of the article in his newspaper web site:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Feb-09-Sun-2003/opinion/20603005.html

Vin writes that Nevada, Wyoming and Delaware (his compatriot Cort Christie later adds SD which makes sense as that confirms what our spreadsheet says) are business havens that bring a lot of benefit to these states. But get this: Nevada is about to kick itself off that short list! As he puts it, "...[Republican] Gov. Kenny Guinn has just proposed a smothering blanket of new tax hikes which could drop Nevada from that happy list of "pro-business" states, and that hardly anyone at Nevada's Legislature - nearly half of whose members (and their spouses) are now government employees - seems to care."

More from the Privacy Alert article... "Nevada's Legislature, meantime - once dominated by proudly independent laissez faire ranchers and miners... is now dominated, as is the state's population, by the newly arrived Californians and Rust Belt escapees... who just look puzzled when you warn them against electing legislators whose day jobs as policement and schoolteachers and university employees would once have forbidden them their legislative seats due to the constitutionally mandated separation of powers - strictly enforced up through the 1950s, now completely ignored."

Vin writes the decisions on these new taxes, and destruction of Nevada's business haven status, takes place in June.

Folks, right before our very eyes, we are seeing the (likely) transition from a relatively free state to one going down the statist toilet. And look at what is involved, things that have been discussed here in the forum before:

1) A nearby concentration of large numbers of statists.

2) Pressures in that nearby state to export jobs and people. These economic refugees however remain ignorant of what forced them to move in the first place, and they bring their statist culture with them and infect their adopted state with it.

Getting 20,000 people to our chosen state is only a small part of the problem! At least as important is keeping the bozos out! We need to have some barriers in place and erect as many new ones as we can think of. We need to "fail" in every measure that statists can dream up, so they won't want to go there. If they think we spend the least amount on kids in government schools, so much the better. If they think we have nothing in the way of government health care, so much the better. If they see no sweetheart deals for particular large businesses, but only a general business-friendly climate, so much the better. If they write that we are a haven for racists and anti-government loons, so much the better (although I'd prefer the racist part would not be true - and given media reliability, it probably will not be).

That's why I think the jobs issue in Wyoming is really a blessing in disguise. It will allow us to shut down non-FSP immigration almost entirely, and to build up our influence there enough so that when the Wyoming economy finally heats up, we will have put in place additional barriers to keep statists out and keep our state free.

As it is, with Nevada kicking itself in the a$$, we may see the Wyoming economy heat up faster after all. And businesses thinking of bailing out of Nevada for Wyoming will be even more encouraged when they see we've picked the same state. They will know we'll keep the business environment safe for them, and prevent Wyoming from copying Nevada's actions.

Here's Cort Christie's business:
http://www.nchinc.com/
Be sure you look at why he thinks you should incorporate in Nevada:
http://www.nchinc.com/whynv.php
You'll notice a lot of this will no longer be true if the Governor's package is passed. I'll bet Cort Christie will be one of the first to go to Wyoming. Maybe we ought to get him on board the Free State Project!  :)

I'm hoping Vin will move to our state, and I don't want him to have to write the same kind of article about our state that he's been writing about the tragedy happening in Nevada.

BTW, Vin is going to be a speaker at the Great Western conference in May. I'm going to do everything I can to get there and see if we can take him out to dinner or something along those lines. I'd like to hear what he has to say about all this, with respect to FSP.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2003, 04:17:48 pm by Zxcv »
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2003, 01:02:47 pm »

I got my latest "Privacy Alert" today and found an interesting letter to the editor about the above-mentioned article in the previous issue:

Quote
"...I am also a member of the Nevada Resident Agents Association and I really appreciate your taking a look at Derek Rowley and Cort Christie....

My employer, Incorp Services, Inc., has more than 6,000 corporate clients all contributing to this Nevada "cash cow". We will be moving these 6,000 clients to Wyoming....

...the members of the NRAA that are planning on assisting their clients in moving to a less onerous venue stand to enjoy the biggest windfall from doing so. At an average of $1,000 per client to move, Incorp would be looking at $6 million in revenue for itself (paid to its Wyoming division, of course, to avoid any Nevada gross receipts taxes)...

Looks like a lot more Wyoming jobs are going to show up if Nevada shoots itself in the foot this way (which seems likely, according to Vin). I hope there aren't so many jobs that Wyoming finds itself in the same unfortunate condition NH and ID are in, of not being able to shut down statist immigration of economic refugees.  ;)

Having these agents as political allies would be a good deal, too!  :)
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2003, 03:23:27 am »

Excellent news!  It's hardly surprising though, given the advantages Wyoming has over its neighbors when it comes to being a fertile ground for business interests.

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?
« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2003, 04:25:34 am »

NV is getting even worse for business.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Jun-07-Sat-2003/news/21485119.html

Some quotes:

Legislators on Friday missed their second deadline to approve more than $860 million in tax increases, so Gov. Kenny Guinn extended the special legislative session until 5 p.m. Sunday.

Without taking an actual vote, a 19-member special Assembly committee agreed to prepare a bill calling for $866 million in tax increases over the next two years. The bill will include a 5 percent net profits tax on business. Forty-seven states have similar taxes on business.

The Nevada Department of Taxation, however, would not have the technology and staff available to collect a net profits tax until January 2005. In the meantime, the Assembly committee proposed a temporary increase in the $100 per employee annual business license tax to $190.

If a tax increase cannot win legislative support this weekend, Guinn will meet with his Cabinet early next week to discuss how to shut down state government on July 1, the start of the next fiscal year.


However,


NV's law markers are getting rich.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Jun-03-Tue-2003/news/21453477.html

some quotes:

The district attorney will get a 55 percent raise to $155,745. The sheriff will get a 60 percent raise to $134,263.

But as a result of the compromise, salaries for the Clark County clerk, assessor, recorder, treasurer and administrator will go up only 26 percent to $91,138. The raise is equal to the salary hikes given to state employees over the past eight years.

Clark County commissioners, by a majority vote, could raise their own salaries by 26 percent as well to $68,000 from the current $54,000.
Logged

Dalamar49

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
  • I smoked out the sheriff and his deputy! : )
Re:Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?
« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2003, 10:06:35 am »

Its so sad to see my state turning into an Eastern California sub-state.  :'(
Logged
Get up, stand up, stand up for your right. Don't give up the fight.

robmayn

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
  • Freedom Rising!
    • Citizens For Property Rights
Re:Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?
« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2003, 11:35:55 am »

If they think we spend the least amount on kids in government schools, so much the better. If they think we have nothing in the way of government health care, so much the better.

You have hit on a pet issue of mine, as the separation of school and state is my most pressing concern.   (We will never defeat statism until we break the state's stranglehold
on the indoctrination centers called "schools")  In the long run, how will this issue fare in Wyoming when the state constitution clearly provides for "free" state goverment provided schooling.  Can this simply be ignored, or will we have to change the constitution?  In reading tghe Wyoming constitution, as opposed to the New Hampshire or Vermont constitutions, I see a number of areas that would have to be changed.  

I really like the wide open spaces in Wyoming, and would like to live there.  What troubles me is the federal/environmentalist control of land/resources and the numerous areas where the state consititution mandates a state role.  Here in Vermont, we have definitely moved in a far more statist direction than Wyoming, but our constitution
is much more libertarian.  The result being that the FSP could sell itself here as an attempt to return the state to its roots, rather than an invasion.  The same can be said for New Hampshire.

Would some Wyoming supporter put my mind at ease and explain why my concerns are overblown.  Could it possibly be that these problems could be used to spur locals to fight even harder for liberty and be a plus?
Logged

BobW

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 453
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?
« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2003, 12:41:20 pm »

Hi Rob,

Your concerns are overblown.  Still, don't put your mind at ease.  

The Wyoming Congressional delegation could not be better than dreams.  The State's body politic support modern, progressive programs.

True, there are external controls over land and natural resources but this is found throughout the US.  

To minimize development the water resources issue crops up.  To maximize development, restrictions are nil.  Watch the user charges for small airports and then watch the land use costs nearby. Wyoming is similiar to most of the states.

Ref the Wyoming constitution; Don't fight the rip tide.  Swim in the same direction.  Public education is a national issue and it is currently being addressed.  What is needed is help.  Concepts are not needed.  Those familiar with the State Constitution will resolve the Constitutional questions.  It is really required to be on scene to develop matters with the state constitution.  We cannot speed it up until on location.

If your "calling" is education issues, you're in friendly territory in Wyoming.

I'm a Wyoming supporter and like the place but would consider a Montana move if the place is chosen over Wyoming.  (One caveat;  I have a colleague living in Montana and he told me all he can get on the radio is National Public Radio [NPR].  I do not watch television and if Mont and Wy only have NPR, it's back to shortwave again.)  

BobW
Logged

robmayn

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
  • Freedom Rising!
    • Citizens For Property Rights
Re:Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2003, 08:55:22 pm »


True, there are external controls over land and natural resources but this is found throughout the US.  

That may be so, but most states do not have 45.9% of the land in  the state owned by the feds.  (I know some other western states are in the same boat)  I simply can not ignore this fact.   Standing up to the feds and gaining a few
concessions is great, but it is no substitute for owning the land to begin with.  I really would be uncomfortable moving to a state to fight for freedom that is almost 50% owned by the feds.  Here in Vermont we have a problem with STATE government control over our land, but at least private citizens own a good percentage of the land in the state.  I see the battle to gain control of the land to be more winable if one owns the land.

Another big concern I have about Wyoming is that it has the highest percentage of people working for state and local government than any other state being considered.

As a native Vermonter, who yearns to see the Green Mountain State reclaim its libertarian heritage, I would like to see the FSP come to Vermont.  If I am to be totally objective though, I would have to place my bet on New Hampshire.  
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2003, 02:15:30 am »

Quote
You have hit on a pet issue of mine, as the separation of school and state is my most pressing concern.  (We will never defeat statism until we break the state's stranglehold
on the indoctrination centers called "schools")  In the long run, how will this issue fare in Wyoming when the state constitution clearly provides for "free" state goverment provided schooling.  Can this simply be ignored, or will we have to change the constitution?  
Rob, that's a hot item for me, too.

My prescription is this:
1) Make all alternatives to government schools attractive as possible. For example, remove all government regulations to homeschooling and private schools. Provide tax credits for homeschoolers and private schoolers (not vouchers or other subsidies). Allow all people to direct that portion of their taxes used for schooling to the institution of their choice. And so forth. None of these should be politically controversial, except to the NEA crowd.  ;)

2) Tax cuts - starve the beast. Also politically popular.

3) At all costs kill any legislation or initiatives mandating teacher pay raises or minimum student-teacher ratios, these are budget busters.

None of these fall afoul of constitutional requirements. Eventually the govt schools will get so bad and alternatives so good that even clueless parents will finally figure things out and pull their kids. I believe the current system is toppling, we will just be helping the natural tendency along a bit.

Alternatively, it may morph back into the old one-room schoolhouse, which was not so harmful to kids, and very cheap. There is no need to have any administrators, just one teacher, 30 kids and a few volunteer parents to help around the edges. This also passes constitutional muster, obviously, since it used to be the system they had at one time.

Jason also has some ideas, somewhat more elaborate. I tend to like things simple.

Quote
Another big concern I have about Wyoming is that it has the highest percentage of people working for state and local government than any other state being considered.
If you think about it, there are two items here. The first is the percentage of government workers in the population, the second the actual number of government workers. Wyoming has a high percentage of workers (it doesn't reap the economies of scale the way the high-population states do), but the third lowest number of government workers. So what we give up in percentage of voters (a couple percent more than the best states), we gain in having far fewer pro-government campaign volunteers, working against our activists. Personally I think the number of government workers is more important than the percentage.

Wyoming also has the lowest number of NEA members of the 10 states. NEA members are certainly among the most active big-government campaign workers.

One of our Wyoming residents tells us people are already giving up on the govt. schools in droves, and some schools are shutting down, forcing kids to be bused long distances to other towns. I was glad to hear this because I worried that small state folks are not as mad at their schools as the out of control big-state schools, but apparently it's not so.

It won't matter if the constitution says they are required to provide schools, if few parents "take advantage" of them. And when that point comes, taking that out of the constitution should be easy anyway.

This is getting off-topic...
Logged

BobW

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 453
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2003, 03:30:22 am »

Hi Robmaya,

There is where we disagree. To exert political influence for election results is not a function of land ownership - by government or the body politic.

The Wyoming Congressional delegation is 100% GOP.  I am a Republican, also.  Note that VP Cheney used to hold Wyoming's House seat. It's not a question of fighting Washington, DC.  That's not the real battle.

Since you're not affiliated (I presume) with a political organization having large land holdings, Rob, you've got to find a substitute.  FSP can fill this void.  

It's not really correct to say "control" flows from ownership.  A company, Montana Resources, has a copper mine.  They own the place ,being both land and mineral rights.  It's been said they are stretching out the closing of the place because the reclaimation costs are more than the limited production costs.  Although this might sound strange at first, the "environmental" laws are distorting the value of this land.  Cui bono - Who benefits?  It's not land determining results.

Those tallys ref government workers aren't critical regarding the Western states and VT/NH.  In Virginia, it is but not those areas under discussion, less Montana, if (Only fools and sages make predictions and I'm no sage) a border force of federal civil service employees is assigned up north.

Now, I'm not addressing FSP state selection.  NH and WY are super areas.  Vermon is like Virginia; great heritage; changed places.  

BobW
Logged

robmayn

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
  • Freedom Rising!
    • Citizens For Property Rights
Re:Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?
« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2003, 09:46:27 am »

"Wyoming also has the lowest number of NEA members of the 10 states. NEA members are certainly among the most active big-government campaign workers."


I consider the percentage of NEA members, relative to the overall population, to be a more accurate assesment
of their political strength.





"One of our Wyoming residents tells us people are already giving up on the govt. schools in droves, and some schools are shutting down, forcing kids to be bused long distances to other towns. I was glad to hear this because I worried that small state folks are not as mad at their schools as the out of control big-state schools, but apparently it's not so."

Now this is encouraging, and would offset my concerns about the higher percentage of NEA members.  If home schooling can take off there, that would trump a lot of other concerns.  (I see the home schoolers as on the cutting edge of the pro-liberty movement)
Logged

Karl

  • Guest
Re:Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?
« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2003, 10:21:07 am »

Quote
...
2) Tax cuts - starve the beast. Also politically popular.
...
None of these fall afoul of constitutional requirements. Eventually the govt schools will get so bad and alternatives so good that even clueless parents will finally figure things out and pull their kids. I believe the current system is toppling, we will just be helping the natural tendency along a bit.

It would surely run afoul of Wyoming's constitution, which mandates specific taxes in specific amounts to fund public schools.  Plus, "starving" the schools as a strategy is pretty irresponsible, and any attempt to do so without ammending the constitution will be shot down by the courts.

Pretty much all of Article 7 of the Wyoming State Constitution will have to be repealed or heavily ammended to affect real education reform.  In addition to mandating a free public school system and minimum funding and specific taxes for those schools, it includes this little nugget:

Quote
97-7-020.  Duty of legislature to protect and promote health and morality of people.
As the health and morality of the people are essential to their well-being, and to the peace and permanence of the state, it shall be the duty of the legislature to protect and promote these vital interests by such measures for the encouragement of temperance and virtue, and such restrictions upon vice and immorality of every sort, as are deemed necessary to the public welfare.
Logged

robmayn

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
  • Freedom Rising!
    • Citizens For Property Rights
Re:Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2003, 12:14:20 pm »

[Pretty much all of Article 7 of the Wyoming State Constitution will have to be repealed or heavily ammended to affect real education reform.  In addition to mandating a free public school system and minimum funding and specific taxes for those schools,
Quote


That is pretty much how I see it.  
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?
« Reply #13 on: June 09, 2003, 10:10:33 pm »

"Wyoming also has the lowest number of NEA members of the 10 states. NEA members are certainly among the most active big-government campaign workers."


I consider the percentage of NEA members, relative to the overall population, to be a more accurate assesment
of their political strength.

I am glad you feel that way because Wyoming is #2 in that way, second to only South Dakota.  Check out the 'groups that could work against freedom' section of the Wyoming Report #2.  Scroll down to the 'Teacher Union' section and see why Wyoming is the best state for this factor.
http://www.freestateproject.com/wyoming2.htm#groups

I am glad we are on the same page here.  If you have not already read all of the state reports I suggest you do.  Most possible questions and issues relating to the states have already been answered in the reports.
http://freestateproject.org/statereports.htm
« Last Edit: June 09, 2003, 10:13:24 pm by FreedomRoad »
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Nevada's loss - Wyoming's, Delaware's and South Dakota's gain?
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2003, 01:13:20 am »

Zxcv, this is a great thread.  Nevada is going downhill and downhill fast.  Here are quotes from an article I just read on Lewrockwell.com.  It is from a banker in Henderson County, NV.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/french3.html

Titled "The Land Price Bubble"

Quotes:
While the Federal Reserve–induced stock market bubble has been flattened, despite continuous inflating by Greenspan’s troops, the land price bubble continues to expand in Las Vegas. Evidence the June 5th auction of a small sliver of the Bureau of Land Management’s land horde. The BLM owns approximately 90% of the land in Clark County, Nevada, which includes Las Vegas.

The average sales price of $233,452 per acre was a new record for these auctions, eclipsing the record of $159,944 per acre set at last November’s auction, a 46% increase. The average price per acre for all the auctions held previous to last week’s auction was $85,541.

As Las Vegas has grown, it has attracted the attention of many of the nations large publicly held homebuilders. And, with over 20,000 new homes sold each year in Clark County, these builders are manic about maintaining their respective market shares. To do that, they must have land to build on. This mad scramble for land along with increased permit costs and governmental red tape has forced many small local builders out of the business. Since 1996, seventy-one Las Vegas builders have shut down or sold out.

Reporting on the November 2002 Las Vegas BLM auction, Patrick Barta wrote in the Wall Street Journal that, "home prices have climbed 27% [in Las Vegas] since 1999, nearly seven times as fast as the growth in household incomes in the city. Many builders and would-be homeowners worry that the land frenzy will turn Las Vegas, long known as a place where casino dealers and cocktail waitresses could afford a piece of the American dream, into just another pocket of expensive real estate."

But, eventually interest rates will rise, home prices will outstrip the average Las Vegas working stiff’s ability to cover the monthly mortgage nut, Nevada’s state government will burden businesses with enough taxes to stunt job growth, and these builders – or their lenders – will have more ground than they know what to do with.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up