Can someone explain why this is called a "stimulus"

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

FYI -- mineral rights are already taxed (heavily) in the state of Texas. Oil companies and royalty interest owners pay taxes on their minerals the same way home owners pay taxes on the value of their homes. In most other states, oil companies pay a severance fee on oil and gas production to the state long before they pay income taxes (or not) to the fed gov.

agreed with Alexamenos. I know from prior discussions that Dalmations lives in a rural area as I do. I have some personal knowledge and experience on the issue of mineral rights as well. The value is heavily, heavily taxed. Of course, those with mineral rights are not complaining. It is basically free money with a passive income for which you do nothing. At some point, the family owned land where oil/gas was found, but they sold the land and kept the mineral rights. Thus, they no longer have any real investment in the passive income.

So, I understand both sides of the arguement.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

agreed with Alexamenos. I know from prior discussions that Dalmations lives in a rural area as I do. I have some personal knowledge and experience on the issue of mineral rights as well. The value is heavily, heavily taxed. Of course, those with mineral rights are not complaining. It is basically free money with a passive income for which you do nothing. At some point, the family owned land where oil/gas was found, but they sold the land and kept the mineral rights. Thus, they no longer have any real investment in the passive income.

So, I understand both sides of the arguement.

I just hate the fact that I can't buy land with the mineral rights because someone has held the rights for eons because, as I have been told -- why give them up?

They might make something years from now worth more than all the land is worth right now. I'll never sell the mineral rights on the land where I live ...several generations down will have them -- regardless of what happens to the land (unless they start taxing the possible value yearly, in which case they'd have to give them up)

IMO, any land with non-producing wells, mineral rights should go back to the landowner after 10 years of non-production. All mineral rights separated from the land should be taxed heavily every year (if you are going to tax the land). Right now land owners are taxed more than mineral rights are "unless" they are producing.

[dude1394]

Only democrats could be this stupid.
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori...ism/?uniontrib

U-T Editorial: No protectionism
Strip 'buy American' rules from stimulus bill

2:00 a.m. January 31, 2009

Earlier this week, the European aircraft maker Airbus took itself out of competition to build a new fleet of planes to be designated as Air Force One for the president of the United States. That left Chicago-based Boeing as the only company in the world capable of supplying the world's most photographed plane.

Americans may breathe a sigh of relief that the president will continue to fly on American-made planes, but we shouldn't feel the same way about efforts in Congress to attach “made in America” provisions onto the massive stimulus bill that just passed the House.

As currently written, the $816 billion stimulus bill would require that all iron and steel used in stimulus-funded infrastructure bills be U.S.-made. It also would require that uniforms for the more than 100,000 officers in the Department of Homeland Security be made in America. Some members of Congress also want a $20 billion allocation for computerizing medical records to be directed exclusively toward companies in the United States.

It is true that a clear majority of Americans are concerned with global trade and manufacturing jobs lost in this country. And, yes, calls to “buy American” sound patriotic. But the world is more complicated than that. Once the United States throws up barriers to imports, our exports become targets of foreign governments. And governments from Canada to Brazil to China have warned the United States to refrain from adopting such blatantly protectionist measures.

America and the world are in the midst of a recession, perhaps the deepest since the Great Depression of the 1930s. There are many lessons to be learned from that period. Willis Hawley and Reed Smoot, two protectionist congressmen, persuaded Congress to impose tough trade tariffs. Other nations retaliated, and international trade collapsed. What America doesn't need at this time is job-killing legislation.

[dude1394]

From the Union Leader. I think the bloom may be falling from this stinkbomb.
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?...c-4a5976b88449

The alleged "stimulus" bill passed by the U.S. House Wednesday night is a cynical fraud committed upon a trusting American people whose hopes politicians are cruelly exploiting.

We were told that the bill will get the economy moving by upgrading America's infrastructure. Of the $550 billion in new spending, only $30 billion goes to highway construction. Another $13.1 billion goes to other Department of Transportation spending and $20 billion to renovating public schools.
people from winding up on the streets. Only $11 billion goes to housing assistance.

We were told that it would help Americans who got laid off. Only $4.6 billion goes to employment and training programs, and $27 billion to expand unemployment benefits. (By contrast, the bill raises Medicaid spending by $89 billion.)

We were told that it had to be passed immediately. But the Congressional Budget Office notes that large portions of the spending cannot even begin until spring and will take three to eight years to complete.

The Wall Street Journal calculated that only 12 percent of the bill's provisions can accurately be called stimulative. The rest is simply being thrown at favored constituencies by Congress. The bill even includes a provision forbidding the use of foreign steel in the construction projects it funds. Does no one in Congress remember Smoot-Hawley?

Naturally, U.S. Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes giddily voted for this monstrosity. They did this only five months after voting to kill last summer's smaller bailout bill. What a difference a partisan change in the White House makes.

President Barack Obama can call this recession a national emergency all he wants, but that doesn't make this bill any better. By pushing an irresponsibly gargantuan bill that spends too much and stimulates too little, he squandered his first opportunity to show real bipartisan leadership. What a waste -- of money and goodwill.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dude1394

From the Union Leader. I think the bloom may be falling from this stinkbomb.
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?...c-4a5976b88449

Nice article. Even if the bill were 850 billion dollars in actual simulus, I'd have heartburn over it. But, the bill as passed in the House (and authored by Nazi Pelosi, not Obama) is not even a stimulus bill. It is nothing more than the largest pork spending bill ever, showering money on various constituents and favored groups but doing next to nothing to:
1)make jobs or protect jobs
2)stimulate the economy

The only thing I can say in the defense of Obama is that he didn't write that crappy bill. But, I do blame Obama for supporting this crappy bill and pushing it.

[wmbwinn]

Even Obama knows that this bill is not going to work:

"At the end of a week that saw hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs, Obama also used his Saturday radio and Internet address to tell that nation that "no one bill, no matter how comprehensive, can cure what ails our economy." "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/.../obama_economy

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Nice article. Even if the bill were 850 billion dollars in actual simulus, I'd have heartburn over it. But, the bill as passed in the House (and authored by Nazi Pelosi, not Obama) is not even a stimulus bill. It is nothing more than the largest pork spending bill ever, showering money on various constituents and favored groups but doing next to nothing to:
1)make jobs or protect jobs
2)stimulate the economy

The only thing I can say in the defense of Obama is that he didn't write that crappy bill. But, I do blame Obama for supporting this crappy bill and pushing it.

This is Obama's bill, period. He's out there promoting it, he's calling out republicans for not supporting this because they are "just too political". He was rated the most liberal congressman in this country...there is nothing in this bill that he's not for.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dude1394

This is Obama's bill, period. He's out there promoting it, he's calling out republicans for not supporting this because they are "just too political". He was rated the most liberal congressman in this country...there is nothing in this bill that he's not for.

I agree that he is in favor of everything in that crappy bill. I wonder if he would have included things that actually stimulated the economy or actually produced and/or protected jobs had he written it.

The bill, as currently constructed, is nothing more than a far left Christmas shopping list. It is all about left wing agenda and not at all about
1)stimulating the economy
2)producing and/or protecting jobs

It is sadly misleading to call it a stimulus bill. I agree with you that he will hang on this bill if it passes. It will fail. It cannot succeed on its own merits. If the economy recovers despite this bill, this bill cannot be logically supported as the cause of recovery.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by dude1394

This is Obama's bill, period. He's out there promoting it, he's calling out republicans for not supporting this because they are "just too political". He was rated the most liberal congressman in this country...there is nothing in this bill that he's not for.

And just think, it wasn't that long ago you voted for the most "liberal" man in congress because you was so scarred of Hillary. Now you get both of them. Remember you saying, i voted for Obama?

Speaking of liberals and democrats, it seems it hasn't been a Dem senator since 1932 in Kansas and looks like now if one certain woman runs, you will have your first Dem senator in a state that no one thought would ever have a Dem win again.

Now let's see, where did all those catch words go Dude, Liberal, Obama's middle name, black man, muslim, faith and values, and speaking of stimilus, wasn't that what George W Bush was for? But i forgot, he was one of the biggest spenders and borrowers the country ever saw in the history.

Lilless than 4 years dude and the gop will lose even more in the congress and senate. Not even John Libberman McCain can save the gop. Oh Dude, when are you going to start in on Steele? He is a black man you know.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I just hate the fact that I can't buy land with the mineral rights because someone has held the rights for eons because, as I have been told -- why give them up?

They might make something years from now worth more than all the land is worth right now. I'll never sell the mineral rights on the land where I live ...several generations down will have them -- regardless of what happens to the land (unless they start taxing the possible value yearly, in which case they'd have to give them up)

IMO, any land with non-producing wells, mineral rights should go back to the landowner after 10 years of non-production. All mineral rights separated from the land should be taxed heavily every year (if you are going to tax the land). Right now land owners are taxed more than mineral rights are "unless" they are producing.

you can purchase mineral rights, of course. As a matter of fact, most of the energy companies in the US actively look to buy mineral rights as they find the opportunity. Generally, the selling price is roughly the value of royalties received for three years. So, beynond three years you start to turn a profit. It is a good business investment plan if you can buy those rights. Generally, those mineral rights have been handed down in inheritance to each progressive generation with heavy dilution of the value. Millions of people have a 0.0015 share in this well or that well and they get around 30 dollars per month for it if it is producing. If you want to buy mineral rights, then what you do is find people (like me) with mineral rights that are so watered down that the royalty is 30 dollars per month. The paperwork including the division orders and the tax filing is much more trouble than the royalty is worth. But, if you can find a lot of people like me, then you can buy a lot of mineral rights and make it worth your time and investment. I get emails and letters all the time from people wanting to buy mineral rights. Actually, most of them come from the company paying me (such as Chesapeake).

You are right that the owner of the mineral rights is not taxed directly for that mineral right in the same fashion that the land owner pays property tax. It would be terribly complicated to come up with some way to tax the mineral right. All land has a mineral right attached to it. So, does all land have a mineral right "property tax"? Most land does not produce anything to be sold with that mineral right. It, to me, makes more sense to tax the royalty as a method to tax mineral rights that produce and leave the others alone.

Anyway, the royalty is taxed heavily.

And, you would also probably be appalled to find out how royalty goes to the state instead of persons. A lot of people with minimal royalty checks just quit filing the division orders, and the companies are legally obligated to send the royalty money to the state. But, am I going to hand my 30 dollars per month boondoggle to my three children such that they have to fight all the same paperwork for ten dollars per month? Of course not. It would be cruel.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

you can purchase mineral rights, of course. As a matter of fact, most of the energy companies in the US actively look to buy mineral rights as they find the opportunity. Generally, the selling price is roughly the value of royalties received for three years. So, beynond three years you start to turn a profit. It is a good business investment plan if you can buy those rights. Generally, those mineral rights have been handed down in inheritance to each progressive generation with heavy dilution of the value. Millions of people have a 0.0015 share in this well or that well and they get around 30 dollars per month for it if it is producing. If you want to buy mineral rights, then what you do is find people (like me) with mineral rights that are so watered down that the royalty is 30 dollars per month. The paperwork including the division orders and the tax filing is much more trouble than the royalty is worth. But, if you can find a lot of people like me, then you can buy a lot of mineral rights and make it worth your time and investment. I get emails and letters all the time from people wanting to buy mineral rights. Actually, most of them come from the company paying me (such as Chesapeake).

You are right that the owner of the mineral rights is not taxed directly for that mineral right in the same fashion that the land owner pays property tax. It would be terribly complicated to come up with some way to tax the mineral right. All land has a mineral right attached to it. So, does all land have a mineral right "property tax"? Most land does not produce anything to be sold with that mineral right. It, to me, makes more sense to tax the royalty as a method to tax mineral rights that produce and leave the others alone.

Anyway, the royalty is taxed heavily.

And, you would also probably be appalled to find out how royalty goes to the state instead of persons. A lot of people with minimal royalty checks just quit filing the division orders, and the companies are legally obligated to send the royalty money to the state. But, am I going to hand my 30 dollars per month boondoggle to my three children such that they have to fight all the same paperwork for ten dollars per month? Of course not. It would be cruel.

This is how I understood it as well.

With that said, if you taxed the mineral rights, on non-producing stuff, then it wouldn't get so demolished, and land owners would have more rights with it.

As it is, there is no reason to give up mineral rights. They only cost me "if" it has something producing on it. It might pay off "if" they find something in the future. But, leasing the oil rights, and other issues which cause only the lawyers to profit happen, when it gets split drastically.

If the mineral rights stayed with the landholder, then large oil companies would own all the land. I understand that one.

If the mineral rights went back to the landholder, IF it had been 10 years without production, or you are taxed for them, then people wouldn't keep them just to keep them.

As it sits on my land, if I didn't have controlling interest of the mineral rights, the controlling interest mineral person could lease my land, and them put a well on it -- without my OK. Now I could sue for damages, but only surface damages and not for the loss of value based on the fact that no one wants to live right next to an oil/gas rig. I would also only get surface % of the minerals.

Plus the laws allowing horizontal drilling are just as horrendous.

In fact, this last year, the last 22 acres that we bought -- we could only get 50% of the mineral rights from the guy -- he kept the other 50%. Then he died, and his daughter in law signed a lease agreement on our land @ much less money than we signed the rest of the land for. PO'd me because we were landholder and had 50% minerals, but she signed the lease. That was ignorant how that worked.

Back to my point. If you could send mineral rights back to the land owner -- when it isn't producing -- and tax the mineral right (which would keep people from just diluting them farther and farther) -- then you could add taxes, and value.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

This is how I understood it as well.

With that said, if you taxed the mineral rights, on non-producing stuff, then it wouldn't get so demolished, and land owners would have more rights with it.

As it is, there is no reason to give up mineral rights. They only cost me "if" it has something producing on it. It might pay off "if" they find something in the future. But, leasing the oil rights, and other issues which cause only the lawyers to profit happen, when it gets split drastically.

If the mineral rights stayed with the landholder, then large oil companies would own all the land. I understand that one.

If the mineral rights went back to the landholder, IF it had been 10 years without production, or you are taxed for them, then people wouldn't keep them just to keep them.

As it sits on my land, if I didn't have controlling interest of the mineral rights, the controlling interest mineral person could lease my land, and them put a well on it -- without my OK. Now I could sue for damages, but only surface damages and not for the loss of value based on the fact that no one wants to live right next to an oil/gas rig. I would also only get surface % of the minerals.

Plus the laws allowing horizontal drilling are just as horrendous.

In fact, this last year, the last 22 acres that we bought -- we could only get 50% of the mineral rights from the guy -- he kept the other 50%. Then he died, and his daughter in law signed a lease agreement on our land @ much less money than we signed the rest of the land for. PO'd me because we were landholder and had 50% minerals, but she signed the lease. That was ignorant how that worked.

Back to my point. If you could send mineral rights back to the land owner -- when it isn't producing -- and tax the mineral right (which would keep people from just diluting them farther and farther) -- then you could add taxes, and value.

In the situation above, do you get 50% of the royalties for the well placed on your property since you own 50% of the mineral rights? Or did the other person somehow manage to get all of it? What exactly is your legal position now?

Anyway, I understand everything you said.

In the current system, those tiny fragmented mineral rights usually end up getting bought out by the oil/gas companies drilling them. Chesapeake sends me an offer to buy out the mineral rights every year. I will probably sell it to them at some point just to be done with it.

So, that could be even worse for a land owner. Now, it is Chesapeake (or a similar company) who actually owns the mineral right and is also drilling it (double profit). And, certainly, they are going to build wells and do whatever else fits their business model with no regard for your concerns.

But, if you did what you want to do, then people with tiny mineral rights would sell out to the oil/gas companies even faster. And, those with mineral rights that aren't worth anything would also potentially sell those mineral rights more readily also.

I don't know how that idea would actually result in the landowner getting the mineral right back. And, would the landowner even want that mineral right back if wasn't worth anything and would cause a higher tax to be placed?

I'm just not sure how the idea would help you.

Are you wanting the mineral right (and its tax you proposed) just to prevent the mineral right owner from signing leases for wells and similar construction? Is it worth that?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

In the situation above, do you get 50% of the royalties for the well placed on your property since you own 50% of the mineral rights? Or did the other person somehow manage to get all of it? What exactly is your legal position now?

Yes, we would, if there was a well on it. Unfortunately, we don't get the lease money -- at least not at the rate we sold the rest of it at. She leased it at $175 an acre for 5 years, we leased at $325 for a 3/2 split. Pay us for the first 3 then pay us again for a guarantee for the next 2. We are about a year from it ending, without a drill put on the place because the gas line didn't come through but got re-routed. We lost lots of money on her deal, that we didn't have a choice about, even though we own both the land and 50% of the mineral rights.

Anyway, I understand everything you said.

In the current system, those tiny fragmented mineral rights usually end up getting bought out by the oil/gas companies drilling them. Chesapeake sends me an offer to buy out the mineral rights every year. I will probably sell it to them at some point just to be done with it.

So, that could be even worse for a land owner. Now, it is Chesapeake (or a similar company) who actually owns the mineral right and is also drilling it (double profit). And, certainly, they are going to build wells and do whatever else fits their business model with no regard for your concerns.

But, if you did what you want to do, then people with tiny mineral rights would sell out to the oil/gas companies even faster. And, those with mineral rights that aren't worth anything would also potentially sell those mineral rights more readily also.

I don't know how that idea would actually result in the landowner getting the mineral right back. And, would the landowner even want that mineral right back if wasn't worth anything and would cause a higher tax to be placed?

I'm just not sure how the idea would help you.

Are you wanting the mineral right (and its tax you proposed) just to prevent the mineral right owner from signing leases for wells and similar construction? Is it worth that?

The landowner is already taxed. I agree with royalty taxes as well. I just don't agree with the splintered mineral rights that can be kept indefinitely when the landowner is paying the bill, but the mineral rights owner is the one that can hit the jackpot.

[wmbwinn]

Dalmation:

The landowner is already taxed. I agree with royality taxes as well. I just don't agree with the splintered mineral rights that can be kept indefinately when the landowner is paying the bill, but the mineral rights owner is the one that can hit the jackpot.

I don't know that the issue of legally dividing land ownership from mineral rights can be resolved other than by national legislation. And, generally, that is always a bad idea.

Agree that the issue of dividing mineral rights endlessly through generations of a family that can't even remember what the land looks like or even where it is strange. In my family, with my generation the mineral rights are too tiny and fragmented to amount to anything. But, my father's generation do well enough that the income is certainly better than Social Security. My grandparents lived very well on nothing but royalties and some "hobby ranching" and scheming. That generation went around actively buying mineral rights all over the place from poor farmers/ranchers. Most of those efforts did not produce anything but it was like buying lottery tickets. The generation of my great grandparents was where the lottery ticket hit. That generation was fabulously wealthy for their time. But, four generations of mineral right divisions combined with a diminishment in what comes out of the ground means that it is no big deal to me and my generation. But, by now, the mineral rights are divided across relatives I don't even know. The tiny rights are miniscule.

I don't know what the "answer" is, but I prefer free market principles and private contracts to any government solution.