Elephant in the room...

Everything Wyoming Cowboy and Mountain West football!
Old-Bull
Ranch Hand
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:42 pm

OrediggerPoke wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:59 pm
Old-Bull wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:17 pm
Coal is dead because people worldwide realize it's filthy, regardless of how cheap it is.
Domestically, this is 100% false. Coal demand has fallen domestically as a direct result of costs and abundance of cheap natural gas...which is purely because of *gasp* fracking unconventional reservoirs. Had the McMurrys never had the ingenuity to test frac methods in the tight reservoirs of the Jonah Field and had many companies not copied and improved upon the McMurry formula, PRB coal production would absolutely be at all time demand highs.
That, or, banks won't give loans to coal companies because it's filthy, and not coincidentally, the largest contributor to the "fairy tale" of global warming.

Believe what you want to believe. The solution to the death of coal isn't to replace it with a substance so toxic that an hour of exposure to it will cause your flesh to melt off your bones, your internal organs to liquify, and absolute agony for the last few hours of your life.

I know a lot of people in this state have made tons of money on coal, but is it even remotely possible that the future of the state could be tied to something other than toxic chemicals? Or is the only possible solution to poison our state, and the world, for profit?
carbonpoke
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1050
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:54 pm
Location: Puyallup, WA

Red desert is the worst place (risk wise) to put it. Extreme weather with a wind that blows easterly... When I was in the military my background was this exact subject. Risk analysis and management for nuclear, and other sources, fallout patterns. While our population is low, the risk to communities 200 miles east of the red desert is above acceptable levels.

I'm the type of person that believes we need to get away from typical energy revenue. Our cool, dry, climate is good for other avenues. But that's a long term shift.
Old-Bull
Ranch Hand
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:42 pm

McPeachy wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:19 pm
Old-Bull wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:12 pm Is it possible that the answer might not involve toxic substances at all?

If our only solution is varying levels of toxicity, we're all doomed.

Maybe we could find someone that will just inject spent nuclear fuel straight into our veins for $19.99 per horribly painful, cancerous, slow death.

They can start with all of you that suggest we bury the most toxic substance in existence under land my family lives on.

If thinking out of the box = allowing our state to become a toxic playground. Wyoming is screwed.
I feel bad that your family lives on the land between Rawlins & Rock Springs. What a sh#t[#], it is like the [#]f##k[#] wind-swept moon out there.

**That, and the storage is a temporary "non-toxic" above ground facility, while in transit to Yucca Mountain FFS. You can read about it here:

https://trib.com/news/state-and-regiona ... 95e6b.html
Post edited because I didn't realize that you were talking about a temporary housing facility as it travels through the state.

It doesn't make the idea much better though. The first time one of those trucks rolls and plutonium spills out onto the road, this idea will look really stupid.

My objection to any of these ideas is the mindset of Wyoming's leaders that the only possible way forward is varying levels of risk to our citizens health for profit.
carbonpoke
A Real Cowboy
Posts: 1050
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:54 pm
Location: Puyallup, WA

Wyovanian
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 2150
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:28 pm
Location: Wherever I'm At

Old-Bull wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:29 pm
McPeachy wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:19 pm
Old-Bull wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:12 pm Is it possible that the answer might not involve toxic substances at all?

If our only solution is varying levels of toxicity, we're all doomed.

Maybe we could find someone that will just inject spent nuclear fuel straight into our veins for $19.99 per horribly painful, cancerous, slow death.

They can start with all of you that suggest we bury the most toxic substance in existence under land my family lives on.

If thinking out of the box = allowing our state to become a toxic playground. Wyoming is screwed.
I feel bad that your family lives on the land between Rawlins & Rock Springs. What a sh#t[#], it is like the [#]f##k[#] wind-swept moon out there.

**That, and the storage is a temporary "non-toxic" above ground facility, while in transit to Yucca Mountain FFS. You can read about it here:

https://trib.com/news/state-and-regiona ... 95e6b.html
Post edited because I didn't realize that you were talking about a temporary housing facility as it travels through the state.

It doesn't make the idea much better though. The first time one of those trucks rolls and plutonium spills out onto the road, this idea will look really stupid.

My objection to any of these ideas is the mindset of Wyoming's leaders that the only possible way forward is varying levels of risk to our citizens health for profit.
Newsflash- those trucks have been rolling through the state for years.

While it won't fix the whole state's economic prospects, legalized sports gambling would transform southwest Wyoming.
"WE are the music makers and WE are the dreamers of the dreams." -Willy Winka (Gene Wilder) Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
OrediggerPoke
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 4053
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:57 am

Old-Bull wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:21 pm
OrediggerPoke wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:59 pm
Old-Bull wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:17 pm
Coal is dead because people worldwide realize it's filthy, regardless of how cheap it is.
Domestically, this is 100% false. Coal demand has fallen domestically as a direct result of costs and abundance of cheap natural gas...which is purely because of *gasp* fracking unconventional reservoirs. Had the McMurrys never had the ingenuity to test frac methods in the tight reservoirs of the Jonah Field and had many companies not copied and improved upon the McMurry formula, PRB coal production would absolutely be at all time demand highs.
That, or, banks won't give loans to coal companies because it's filthy, and not coincidentally, the largest contributor to the "fairy tale" of global warming.

Believe what you want to believe. The solution to the death of coal isn't to replace it with a substance so toxic that an hour of exposure to it will cause your flesh to melt off your bones, your internal organs to liquify, and absolute agony for the last few hours of your life.

I know a lot of people in this state have made tons of money on coal, but is it even remotely possible that the future of the state could be tied to something other than toxic chemicals? Or is the only possible solution to poison our state, and the world, for profit?
Banks won't lend because coal production produces a negative cashflow in current natural gas and coal commodity prices. Banks are in the business of making money not making political statements. Come on, you should know that. Sure, some banks will advertise their investment in 'green energy,' it is because the banks with relative certainty have determined that it won't lose its lending investment.
Old-Bull
Ranch Hand
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:42 pm

Wyovanian wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:58 pm
Old-Bull wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:29 pm
McPeachy wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:19 pm
Old-Bull wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:12 pm Is it possible that the answer might not involve toxic substances at all?

If our only solution is varying levels of toxicity, we're all doomed.

Maybe we could find someone that will just inject spent nuclear fuel straight into our veins for $19.99 per horribly painful, cancerous, slow death.

They can start with all of you that suggest we bury the most toxic substance in existence under land my family lives on.

If thinking out of the box = allowing our state to become a toxic playground. Wyoming is screwed.
I feel bad that your family lives on the land between Rawlins & Rock Springs. What a sh#t[#], it is like the [#]f##k[#] wind-swept moon out there.

**That, and the storage is a temporary "non-toxic" above ground facility, while in transit to Yucca Mountain FFS. You can read about it here:

https://trib.com/news/state-and-regiona ... 95e6b.html
Post edited because I didn't realize that you were talking about a temporary housing facility as it travels through the state.

It doesn't make the idea much better though. The first time one of those trucks rolls and plutonium spills out onto the road, this idea will look really stupid.

My objection to any of these ideas is the mindset of Wyoming's leaders that the only possible way forward is varying levels of risk to our citizens health for profit.
Newsflash- those trucks have been rolling through the state for years.

While it won't fix the whole state's economic prospects, legalized sports gambling would transform southwest Wyoming.
I know they have been travelling through here. Let's keep it that way. Any idea that involves us storing the filthiest substance in existence for profit needs to go down the road on that truck, temporary or not.

The real problem is with the Wyoming decision makers that automatically default to toxic chemicals when generating money for the state comes up.

Why did we run Tyler Lindholm out of the legislature with someone farther "right", when his actions have made Wyoming the financial center for Blockchain in America?

We need new ways to generate money that are safe for our citizens.
Old-Bull
Ranch Hand
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:42 pm

OrediggerPoke wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:12 pm
Old-Bull wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:21 pm
OrediggerPoke wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:59 pm
Old-Bull wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:17 pm
Coal is dead because people worldwide realize it's filthy, regardless of how cheap it is.
Domestically, this is 100% false. Coal demand has fallen domestically as a direct result of costs and abundance of cheap natural gas...which is purely because of *gasp* fracking unconventional reservoirs. Had the McMurrys never had the ingenuity to test frac methods in the tight reservoirs of the Jonah Field and had many companies not copied and improved upon the McMurry formula, PRB coal production would absolutely be at all time demand highs.
That, or, banks won't give loans to coal companies because it's filthy, and not coincidentally, the largest contributor to the "fairy tale" of global warming.

Believe what you want to believe. The solution to the death of coal isn't to replace it with a substance so toxic that an hour of exposure to it will cause your flesh to melt off your bones, your internal organs to liquify, and absolute agony for the last few hours of your life.

I know a lot of people in this state have made tons of money on coal, but is it even remotely possible that the future of the state could be tied to something other than toxic chemicals? Or is the only possible solution to poison our state, and the world, for profit?
Banks won't lend because coal production produces a negative cashflow in current natural gas and coal commodity prices. Banks are in the business of making money not making political statements. Come on, you should know that. Sure, some banks will advertise their investment in 'green energy,' it is because the banks with relative certainty have determined that it won't lose its lending investment.
Banks won't lend because of the actions of Obama and the nutball lefties that forced it out. Regardless, anyone who hasn't seen this coming has their heads up their asses or their heads up the A$$ of some fossil fuel CEO.

It doesn't matter how long people keep calling global warming a "myth". The reality of the situation is that when I was a kid you had snow on the ground from Halloween until June. Now it's gone the same day it snows. You don't have to be a damn scientist to figure that out.

Coal is dead. Move on to something that won't get shut down by the Sierra Club.
OrediggerPoke
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 4053
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:57 am

Old-Bull wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:46 pm
OrediggerPoke wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:12 pm
Old-Bull wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:21 pm
OrediggerPoke wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:59 pm
Old-Bull wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:17 pm
Coal is dead because people worldwide realize it's filthy, regardless of how cheap it is.
Domestically, this is 100% false. Coal demand has fallen domestically as a direct result of costs and abundance of cheap natural gas...which is purely because of *gasp* fracking unconventional reservoirs. Had the McMurrys never had the ingenuity to test frac methods in the tight reservoirs of the Jonah Field and had many companies not copied and improved upon the McMurry formula, PRB coal production would absolutely be at all time demand highs.
That, or, banks won't give loans to coal companies because it's filthy, and not coincidentally, the largest contributor to the "fairy tale" of global warming.

Believe what you want to believe. The solution to the death of coal isn't to replace it with a substance so toxic that an hour of exposure to it will cause your flesh to melt off your bones, your internal organs to liquify, and absolute agony for the last few hours of your life.

I know a lot of people in this state have made tons of money on coal, but is it even remotely possible that the future of the state could be tied to something other than toxic chemicals? Or is the only possible solution to poison our state, and the world, for profit?
Banks won't lend because coal production produces a negative cashflow in current natural gas and coal commodity prices. Banks are in the business of making money not making political statements. Come on, you should know that. Sure, some banks will advertise their investment in 'green energy,' it is because the banks with relative certainty have determined that it won't lose its lending investment.
Banks won't lend because of the actions of Obama and the nutball lefties that forced it out. Regardless, anyone who hasn't seen this coming has their heads up their asses or their heads up the A$$ of some fossil fuel CEO.

It doesn't matter how long people keep calling global warming a "myth". The reality of the situation is that when I was a kid you had snow on the ground from Halloween until June. Now it's gone the same day it snows. You don't have to be a damn scientist to figure that out.

Coal is dead. Move on to something that won't get shut down by the Sierra Club.
Coal’s downfall has nothing to do with anything Obama, Trump or the Sierra club did. The Obama administration adopted the ‘clean power plan’ as an EPA agency rule that sought to regulate CO2 emissions and the rule was withdrawn immediately by the Trump administration. Well guess what, coal companies saw more equity losses And bankruptcies during the Trump administration than every past President combined. Is that Trump’s fault? No that’s ludicrous. The natural gas market destroyed the profitability of coal.

This isn’t a political issue. It is an issue called technology and markets. We didn’t stop killing whales for whale oil because we ran of out whales or because the president said so, we stopped because it became prohibitively expensive once we discovered that oil could be produced a more cheaply by drilling holes in the ground.
User avatar
Asmodeanreborn
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 6765
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:16 pm

Old-Bull wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:17 pm There isn't any way to change spent nuclear fuel into anything other than the most toxic substance on earth. It has a half life of 5000 years, which means it takes 5000 years for 5 grams to degrade into 2.5 grams and another 5000 years for it to degrade to 1.25 grams. It NEVER goes away.
A lot has changed with regards to nuclear research in the past few decades. There are shortcuts, as my energy.gov link above pointed out. For a bit more information on how exactly you transform the spent fuel rods into something else with a WAY shorter half life, here's some reading that isn't super-heavy:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ear-waste/

The neat thing about these reactors is that you can calibrate them into an equilibrium where you start with "burning off" spent "traditional" nuclear fuel, and then you transition them to where you don't need to supply spent fuel anymore.

And no, this isn't cheap, but also not really more expensive than our current nuclear power.
Wyovanian
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 2150
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:28 pm
Location: Wherever I'm At

The hard economic truth is that the minerals and energy revenues that Wyoming has relied on since the 70's are cyclical, at best, and, in the long term, diminishing with each cycle. Wyoming needs a more stable and secure revenue base.

Looking around, I would start with sales tax on food. Currently, food purchased in grocery stores is not subject to sales tax. This is ludicrous. I could see some foodstuffs such as raw ingredients, milk, bulk proteins, and perhaps produce being exempt, but rotisserie chicken, frozen pizza, ice cream, candy, soda, energy drinks, microwave-ready products- these should all be subject to sales tax.

Another thing to look at is the state wholesale markup on wine and spirits. It is currently a ridiculously low 17.75%. I know that in Nevada, the average markup from the private distributors was around 30%. That leaves a pretty wide margin to play around in. Not sure what the Liquor Division's annual sales revenue is, but a very modest increase in markup to, say, 20% would, I daresay, result in a significant jump in revenue. The WLA will throw a fit about it, but it's up to their members to pass the increase along to their customers. Customers who really have little choice. I know that even with a modest price increase, folks from Utah will still make trips to Wyoming to stock up.

Anyway, taken together, these two revenue streams, while not being a silver bullet, would certainly improve the revenue situation while being difficult to argue against when one compares the concepts in other states similar to Wyoming.

The free ride for Wyoming residents is over. Time to quit subsidizing our responsibilities on the back of a single industry. Sooner or later, that giant is going to shrug, or perhaps it has...
"WE are the music makers and WE are the dreamers of the dreams." -Willy Winka (Gene Wilder) Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
User avatar
laxwyo
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 7594
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:27 am
Location: Rock Springs, WY

Anyone advocating for a state income tax is a moron.

Interstate tolls should start tomorrow. I80 is rutted out after one summer after its been resurfaced. If I have to pay $10 just for using the interstate to the airport in Denver, those piss bottle monkeys and out of staters can pay some for crossing our whole state. Other things wyovanian mentioned are also good ideas.

We should be calling every firearm/ammunition company that lives in a liberal sh#t[#] and encourage them to relocate to the new firearm hub of the US.

There was talk of a rare earth mineral deposit over here by RS but haven’t heard much lately. Couldn’t find anything online for it either. Lithium is definitely needed for the future.

Doesn’t matter anyway, Gordon is a dork and Biden will put the nail in the coffin for tons of us after some kind of authoritarian 6 week national lockdown.
W-Y, Until I Die!
Wyovanian
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 2150
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:28 pm
Location: Wherever I'm At

laxwyo wrote: Thu Nov 12, 2020 9:26 pm Anyone advocating for a state income tax is a moron.

Interstate tolls should start tomorrow. I80 is rutted out after one summer after its been resurfaced. If I have to pay $10 just for using the interstate to the airport in Denver, those piss bottle monkeys and out of staters can pay some for crossing our whole state. Other things wyovanian mentioned are also good ideas.

We should be calling every firearm/ammunition company that lives in a liberal sh#t[#] and encourage them to relocate to the new firearm hub of the US.

There was talk of a rare earth mineral deposit over here by RS but haven’t heard much lately. Couldn’t find anything online for it either. Lithium is definitely needed for the future.

Doesn’t matter anyway, Gordon is a dork and Biden will put the nail in the coffin for tons of us after some kind of authoritarian 6 week national lockdown.
As someone who returned to Wyoming to open a business, i can tell you honestly that Wyoming's total climate for business is barely adequate. Sure taxes are minimal, but the cost of doing business here more than offsets tax savings. From a lack of government transparency and arbitrary code enforcement to a lack of competent professional services such as HVAC and poor distribution networks within the state, the added costs, time loss and loss of revenue due to lack of services has proven to be very frustrating. There is a clear need for investment to improve administration of extant laws and codes that would do far more to attract industry than "low taxes". Other states with an exceedingly higher tax environment see far more new businesses and relocations than Wyoming does. Wyoming has failed to address the stated concerns of industries who have looked at Wyoming and passed.

As for I-80, the state would basically have to buy the Interstate from the federal government. I'm fairly certain the majority of funding for its upkeep comes from federal highway funds.

Wyoming needs to consider cutting spending in plenty of areas, but it also needs to not take anything off the table when it comes to revenue sources. Everyone just KNEW Governor Hathaway's severance tax would kill the Golden Goose...
"WE are the music makers and WE are the dreamers of the dreams." -Willy Winka (Gene Wilder) Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
OrediggerPoke
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 4053
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:57 am

laxwyo wrote: Thu Nov 12, 2020 9:26 pm Anyone advocating for a state income tax is a moron.

Interstate tolls should start tomorrow. I80 is rutted out after one summer after its been resurfaced. If I have to pay $10 just for using the interstate to the airport in Denver, those piss bottle monkeys and out of staters can pay some for crossing our whole state. Other things wyovanian mentioned are also good ideas.

We should be calling every firearm/ammunition company that lives in a liberal sh#t[#] and encourage them to relocate to the new firearm hub of the US.

There was talk of a rare earth mineral deposit over here by RS but haven’t heard much lately. Couldn’t find anything online for it either. Lithium is definitely needed for the future.

Doesn’t matter anyway, Gordon is a dork and Biden will put the nail in the coffin for tons of us after some kind of authoritarian 6 week national lockdown.
How does inviting every firearm company to the state raise revenues in any meaningful way? We don’t have a corporate income tax. I’m all for bringing in business but it really just brings in jobs and perhaps moderate increases in sales tax revenues. Sales tax revenues are dwarfed by mineral revenues.

I’m afraid we will see steep property tax increases. I hate income taxes just as much as the next person, but I’d personally prefer an income tax over steep property tax increases.

Rare earths and lithium are unlikely to bring in any meaningful revenue anytime soon. Because of labor prices in China, rare earth business models of any substantial scale don’t work in the US currently. Lithium in Wyoming is largely brine extraction in deep formations - - it probably only works economically currently if you can produce another usable product simultaneously.
307bball
Cowpoke
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:08 pm

If Wyoming put in place an income tax that is around 4-5% (commensurate with surrounding states)...does that actually move the needle? I did some back of the napkin calculations based on recent census data:

Population ~ 587,000
Per Capita Income ~ 32,000
Aggregate Income ~ 18.7 Billion
4.5% of aggregate income ~ 840 Million

What kind of shortfall is the state looking at with decreasing extraction industry royalties? Would a reasonable (based on surrounding states) income tax even be helpful....independent of whether it is a good idea?

*This is a very rough calculation...bit it should be close right?
OrediggerPoke
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 4053
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:57 am

307bball wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:05 am If Wyoming put in place an income tax that is around 4-5% (commensurate with surrounding states)...does that actually move the needle? I did some back of the napkin calculations based on recent census data:

Population ~ 587,000
Per Capita Income ~ 32,000
Aggregate Income ~ 18.7 Billion
4.5% of aggregate income ~ 840 Million

What kind of shortfall is the state looking at with decreasing extraction industry royalties? Would a reasonable (based on surrounding states) income tax even be helpful....independent of whether it is a good idea?

*This is a very rough calculation...bit it should be close right?
I believe that your math is wrong because I believe the per capita income is among adults (substantially less than 587,000 people).

With budget cuts, the deficit looks to be in the $300 million dollar annual range (we went from an annual surplus of $300 million about 6-7 years ago to a deficit). Deficit forecasts going forward depend a lot on energy demand/prices and coal production.
307bball
Cowpoke
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:08 pm

OrediggerPoke wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:27 am
307bball wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:05 am If Wyoming put in place an income tax that is around 4-5% (commensurate with surrounding states)...does that actually move the needle? I did some back of the napkin calculations based on recent census data:

Population ~ 587,000
Per Capita Income ~ 32,000
Aggregate Income ~ 18.7 Billion
4.5% of aggregate income ~ 840 Million

What kind of shortfall is the state looking at with decreasing extraction industry royalties? Would a reasonable (based on surrounding states) income tax even be helpful....independent of whether it is a good idea?

*This is a very rough calculation...bit it should be close right?
I believe that your math is wrong because I believe the per capita income is among adults (substantially less than 587,000 people).

With budget cuts, the deficit looks to be in the $300 million dollar annual range (we went from an annual surplus of $300 million about 6-7 years ago to a deficit). Deficit forecasts going forward depend a lot on energy demand/prices and coal production.
I thought that too, at first, but according to the census bureau, "Per capita income is the mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group..."

*edit, here is the full excerpt from Census Bureau,
Per capita income is the mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group including those living in group quarters. It is derived by dividing the aggregate income of a particular group by the total population in that group. This measure is rounded to the nearest whole dollar. For the complete definition, go to ACS subject definitions "Income in the Past 12 Months, Per Capita Income."
OrediggerPoke
WyoNation Addict
Posts: 4053
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:57 am

307bball wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 12:15 pm
OrediggerPoke wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:27 am
307bball wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:05 am If Wyoming put in place an income tax that is around 4-5% (commensurate with surrounding states)...does that actually move the needle? I did some back of the napkin calculations based on recent census data:

Population ~ 587,000
Per Capita Income ~ 32,000
Aggregate Income ~ 18.7 Billion
4.5% of aggregate income ~ 840 Million

What kind of shortfall is the state looking at with decreasing extraction industry royalties? Would a reasonable (based on surrounding states) income tax even be helpful....independent of whether it is a good idea?

*This is a very rough calculation...bit it should be close right?
I believe that your math is wrong because I believe the per capita income is among adults (substantially less than 587,000 people).

With budget cuts, the deficit looks to be in the $300 million dollar annual range (we went from an annual surplus of $300 million about 6-7 years ago to a deficit). Deficit forecasts going forward depend a lot on energy demand/prices and coal production.
I thought that too, at first, but according to the census bureau, "Per capita income is the mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group..."

*edit, here is the full excerpt from Census Bureau,
Per capita income is the mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group including those living in group quarters. It is derived by dividing the aggregate income of a particular group by the total population in that group. This measure is rounded to the nearest whole dollar. For the complete definition, go to ACS subject definitions "Income in the Past 12 Months, Per Capita Income."
I stand corrected, nice research.

The number is still likely high because any income tax instituted would probably be on 'taxable income' and not 'gross income' as it is in most states. Basically low earners are exempted from income tax based on a 'standard deduction' type model.
307bball
Cowpoke
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:08 pm

OrediggerPoke wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 12:51 pm
307bball wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 12:15 pm
OrediggerPoke wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:27 am
307bball wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:05 am If Wyoming put in place an income tax that is around 4-5% (commensurate with surrounding states)...does that actually move the needle? I did some back of the napkin calculations based on recent census data:

Population ~ 587,000
Per Capita Income ~ 32,000
Aggregate Income ~ 18.7 Billion
4.5% of aggregate income ~ 840 Million

What kind of shortfall is the state looking at with decreasing extraction industry royalties? Would a reasonable (based on surrounding states) income tax even be helpful....independent of whether it is a good idea?

*This is a very rough calculation...bit it should be close right?
I believe that your math is wrong because I believe the per capita income is among adults (substantially less than 587,000 people).

With budget cuts, the deficit looks to be in the $300 million dollar annual range (we went from an annual surplus of $300 million about 6-7 years ago to a deficit). Deficit forecasts going forward depend a lot on energy demand/prices and coal production.
I thought that too, at first, but according to the census bureau, "Per capita income is the mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group..."

*edit, here is the full excerpt from Census Bureau,
Per capita income is the mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group including those living in group quarters. It is derived by dividing the aggregate income of a particular group by the total population in that group. This measure is rounded to the nearest whole dollar. For the complete definition, go to ACS subject definitions "Income in the Past 12 Months, Per Capita Income."
I stand corrected, nice research.

The number is still likely high because any income tax instituted would probably be on 'taxable income' and not 'gross income' as it is in most states. Basically low earners are exempted from income tax based on a 'standard deduction' type model.
Yeah.. if Wyoming were to implement one for next year I doubt it would be 4.5% anyways...just trying to get a handle on the magnitude of the problem.
Expat_Poke
Ranch Hand
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:58 pm
Location: Under the evening shadow of the Bighorns

Here is a list of state and local expenditures per capita in the Rocky Mountain/Plains Region FY2017 (Most current I could quickly find)

Wyoming - $15,393
North Dakota - $12,842
Nebraska - $9,204
Montana - $8,967
Colorado - $8,960
Utah - $8,379
South Dakota - $8,091
Idaho - $6,766

source: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statist ... res-capita

Two of these are not like the others. Yes we are a large unpopulated state but so is SD and MT to a large degree.

If coal, natural gas, and oil are dying we are fooling ourselves to think we can operate a state government at a budget per capita 183% of the average of the states bordering Wyoming. If coal, natural gas, and oil are dying that means we better brace ourselves and look at the biggest costs and that is education and healthcare/insurance costs (largely tied to education as that industry has the biggest number of government employees). Outside of mineral extraction taxes you are not going to make up that nearly $7000 more per capita that Wyoming spends compared to our bordering states. If you want to maintain that level of state and local spending that is going to mean trying to come up with something similar to minerals severance and leasing taxes. Maybe some outside the box ideas making personal information online and placing a severance tax on mining that, higher taxes on all energy generated in the state (wind, hydro, solar). In short taxes on individual and corporate incomes isn't going to make up that shortfall. They may be necessary to keep pace with our bordering states, but it won't maintain our current level of state and local government spending.

Of course I am less concerned with the state budget than me and my neighbors ability to put food on the plate. That is why attracting different industries to Wyoming helps out. If we have a viable private economy the state government can be worked out. It may hurt some, but it is workable. Yes I know the budget and ability to put food on the plate are tied, but my main point is not that I am not concerned about the state budget rather I am more concerned about how do we create a strong economy here in Wyoming so that we can live a decent living where we want to live.

A couple of things that should be done tomorrow in my opinion. Raise Wyoming's IFTA rate. No tolls are needed and no tax paid at the pump. The vast majority of WYDOT spending is on keeping I-80 in shape and that is hard to do with all the trucking running on it. It only makes sense that those benefitting from that trucking pay for it, and they will as the trucks pass that tax cost onto the consumers. I don't buy that truckers will choose I70 with Denver and Eisenhower tunnel in large enough numbers. If the state is concerned about this hurting our local ranchers and farmers, let the state pass an exemption of agricultural vehicles. Raise the tax on electricity generated by wind turbines. We need someone to calculate the direct taxes generated by coal per unit energy and whatever that is slap it on those turbines.
Returned from my 4 year exodus in Greenieville
Post Reply