4 ms·

Could you clarify what it means by "commercial fisherman costs the taxpayers $1"? The point of government is not to extract maximum rent from the tenant/citize

Could you clarify what it means by "commercial fisherman costs the taxpayers $1"? The point of government is not to extract maximum rent from the tenant/citizens, so if your complaint is that fisherman are not paying the government enough to use common resources which the federal government is managing... you're thinking about the government wrong. (That salmon, fwiw, produces more than $1 in utility to the downstream consumers, which is the whole point of farming or fishing, or any economic exchange at all.)

specialist 5y ago
> ...you're thinking about the government wrong. Am I? A fraction of the revenue from anglers are reinvested in the fisheries. My state earns > $6bn year from the outdoors (fishing, hunting, birding, ecotourism). In my ledger, that's just smart business. > ...That salmon, fwiw, produces more than $1 in utility to the downstream consumers. Or you could pay $1 more for that delicious salmon yourself. Why am I bankrolling someone else's decadence? Let the Invisible Hand work it's magic. Without market distorting subsidies. Said another way, if BLM, Fish & Wildlife, Mining, etc agencies were run like "businesses", vs cash giveaways to campaign donors, then everyone would benefit, vs just some select corporations.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 5y ago
  Should government charge for roads, schools, and police as well?
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Hint: they do.
    - frosted-flakes 5y ago
      Where do you live that your government requires you to pay for those specifically? Those all come out of general taxes. The closest equivalent would be gas taxes, but that only covers a portion of road costs.
      - obmelvin 5y ago
        Isn't that what this discussion is about? The OP said that it costs the taxpayers $1. I don't know about this specific situation - but the claim does not seem to be about paying directly for things.
        specialist 5y ago
        Angelers pay govt fees for priviledge to fish. The government subsidizes commercial fishers. Add everything up, positive ROI for angelers, negative ROI for commercial.
      - rmbyrro 5y ago
        Not even that. Where I live, gas taxes or even car property taxes are not dedicated to road maintenance.
      - mywittyname 5y ago
        I live in a place that charges taxes specifically earmarked for all of those items. We call them levies. Ostensibly, we vote on them, but some levies stay in place for 30 years. For example, a levy for a new police station that covers the mortgage for 30 years.
        frosted-flakes 5y ago
        But those aren't based on use. Everybody has to pay them no matter what. However, the amount of gas tax you pay is dependent on how much you drive.
    - specialist 5y ago
      Yup. I've long been against any and all usage fees. They just exfiltrate money to cronies, transfer wealth from urban to suburban areas. Witness Bob Moses' innovative manifold money laundering schemes, as detailed in Caro's book The Power Broker, and since replicated every where. But now I'm open to alternative arrangements that make the bookkeeping painfully clear. Because too many people are hostile to collective action, the greater good. Maybe radical transparency meets universal basic income. Charge everyone full price in the front, pay as you go. Achieve progressive policies by just giving people cash to cover the cost in the back. In other words, the opposite of suuply side economics. So if you're a working parent, you just get cash to cover rent, gas, daycare, whatever. Might be feasible with today's mobile payment systems. Certainly wasn't feasible (logistically) until very recently. However we can make it work, sign me up. I'm just so sick of all the Freedom Markets™ wankery, err, sophistry.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  Why do you want to be a tenant, with a maximum-rent-seeking landlord in the federal government? The BLM was set up to avoid tradgedy-of-the-commons resource extraction. That's it. The land doesn't belong to the government — it belongs to the people. The goal is not a business trying to fleece "consumers" as much as it can get away with. To the extent that those agencies charge fees, it's to make sure people are efficiently using their permits, which is a healthy dynamic. You're trying to invert this relationship into making people subservient to a corporate government, which is gross.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    For "tenants" who make money off federal lands, rent-seeking seems a-okay. For "tenants" who are enjoying the view, then subsidization is great. There are too many business exploiting the federal government for the best of both worlds. They will "lease" land, usually at a step discount to market rate, then still stiff the government. This turns out to be so much cheaper than owning the land, because if they don't pay property taxes, the government will auction off their land to someone who will make sure they get paid. See: people like Ammon Bundy.
    - bpodgursky 5y ago
      The Ammon Bundy example is a good one — the BLM-managed lands have * always * been open for grazing for almost nothing, because — like I said — the only point is avoiding the tragedy of the commons. The federal government never gave people the option of buying that land for themselves! Now, people see people using federal land the way it was intended, and complain that the BLM isn't being a cost-effective landlord. And that's true... because that's a terrible thing for the BLM to become.
      - specialist 5y ago
        What's your Ammon Bundy takeaway? That federal lands should be a free-for-all? I don't know about cost-effectiveness, or what that even means. In the case of BLM, they're just expediting the plunder of our natural resources for the benefit of a select few. (To say nothing of betraying their charter.) I don't expect BLM to be revenue positive. But I do expect them to charge fair prices in the open market. Because fair is fair.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

specialist 5y ago

> ...you're thinking about the government wrong. Am I? A fraction of the revenue from anglers are reinvested in the fisheries. My state earns > $6bn year from the outdoors (fishing, hunting, birding, ecotourism). In my ledger, that's just smart business. > ...That salmon, fwiw, produces more than $1 in utility to the downstream consumers. Or you could pay $1 more for that delicious salmon yourself. Why am I bankrolling someone else's decadence? Let the Invisible Hand work it's magic. Without market distorting subsidies. Said another way, if BLM, Fish & Wildlife, Mining, etc agencies were run like "businesses", vs cash giveaways to campaign donors, then everyone would benefit, vs just some select corporations.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gruez 5y ago
Should government charge for roads, schools, and police as well?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Hint: they do.
  - frosted-flakes 5y ago
    Where do you live that your government requires you to pay for those specifically? Those all come out of general taxes. The closest equivalent would be gas taxes, but that only covers a portion of road costs.
    - obmelvin 5y ago
      Isn't that what this discussion is about? The OP said that it costs the taxpayers $1. I don't know about this specific situation - but the claim does not seem to be about paying directly for things.
      - specialist 5y ago
        Angelers pay govt fees for priviledge to fish. The government subsidizes commercial fishers. Add everything up, positive ROI for angelers, negative ROI for commercial.
    - rmbyrro 5y ago
      Not even that. Where I live, gas taxes or even car property taxes are not dedicated to road maintenance.
    - mywittyname 5y ago
      I live in a place that charges taxes specifically earmarked for all of those items. We call them levies. Ostensibly, we vote on them, but some levies stay in place for 30 years. For example, a levy for a new police station that covers the mortgage for 30 years.
      - frosted-flakes 5y ago
        But those aren't based on use. Everybody has to pay them no matter what. However, the amount of gas tax you pay is dependent on how much you drive.
  - specialist 5y ago
    Yup. I've long been against any and all usage fees. They just exfiltrate money to cronies, transfer wealth from urban to suburban areas. Witness Bob Moses' innovative manifold money laundering schemes, as detailed in Caro's book The Power Broker, and since replicated every where. But now I'm open to alternative arrangements that make the bookkeeping painfully clear. Because too many people are hostile to collective action, the greater good. Maybe radical transparency meets universal basic income. Charge everyone full price in the front, pay as you go. Achieve progressive policies by just giving people cash to cover the cost in the back. In other words, the opposite of suuply side economics. So if you're a working parent, you just get cash to cover rent, gas, daycare, whatever. Might be feasible with today's mobile payment systems. Certainly wasn't feasible (logistically) until very recently. However we can make it work, sign me up. I'm just so sick of all the Freedom Markets™ wankery, err, sophistry.
bpodgursky 5y ago
Why do you want to be a tenant, with a maximum-rent-seeking landlord in the federal government? The BLM was set up to avoid tradgedy-of-the-commons resource extraction. That's it. The land doesn't belong to the government — it belongs to the people. The goal is not a business trying to fleece "consumers" as much as it can get away with. To the extent that those agencies charge fees, it's to make sure people are efficiently using their permits, which is a healthy dynamic. You're trying to invert this relationship into making people subservient to a corporate government, which is gross.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  For "tenants" who make money off federal lands, rent-seeking seems a-okay. For "tenants" who are enjoying the view, then subsidization is great. There are too many business exploiting the federal government for the best of both worlds. They will "lease" land, usually at a step discount to market rate, then still stiff the government. This turns out to be so much cheaper than owning the land, because if they don't pay property taxes, the government will auction off their land to someone who will make sure they get paid. See: people like Ammon Bundy.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    The Ammon Bundy example is a good one — the BLM-managed lands have * always * been open for grazing for almost nothing, because — like I said — the only point is avoiding the tragedy of the commons. The federal government never gave people the option of buying that land for themselves! Now, people see people using federal land the way it was intended, and complain that the BLM isn't being a cost-effective landlord. And that's true... because that's a terrible thing for the BLM to become.
    - specialist 5y ago
      What's your Ammon Bundy takeaway? That federal lands should be a free-for-all? I don't know about cost-effectiveness, or what that even means. In the case of BLM, they're just expediting the plunder of our natural resources for the benefit of a select few. (To say nothing of betraying their charter.) I don't expect BLM to be revenue positive. But I do expect them to charge fair prices in the open market. Because fair is fair.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]