[Nmcaver] nmcaver Digest, Vol 21, Issue 9
Mike_Bilbo at nm.blm.gov
Mike_Bilbo at nm.blm.gov
Wed Jun 28 10:17:16 EDT 2006
Well, I stand more informed. When I saw Bill's message, I thought he was
confusing, as in business practice, taxation or tax law with fees. So I
looked up the words "tax" and "fee" in the encyclopedia Brittanica to see
more on the subject. I couldn't find a good explanation of what a fee was
or really meant and here's what they had to say about taxes:
Taxes are a general obligation of taxpayers and are not paid in exchange
for any specific benefit. They have existed since ancient times—property
taxes and sales taxes were known in ancient Rome—but tariffs were favored
over internal taxes as a source of revenue. In modern economies, there has
been a trend away from tariffs in favor of internal taxes, which provide
the majority of revenues. Taxes have three functions: to cover government
spending, to promote stable economic growth, and to lessen inequalities in
the distribution of income and wealth. They have also been used for
nonfiscal reasons, such as to encourage or discourage certain activities.
Taxes may be classified as direct or indirect. Direct taxes are those that
the taxpayer cannot shift onto someone else; they are mainly taxes on
persons and are based on an individual's ability to pay as measured by
income or net wealth. Direct taxes include income taxes, taxes on net
worth, death duties (i.e., inheritance and estate taxes), and gift taxes.
Indirect taxes are those that can be shifted in whole or in part to someone
other than the person legally responsible for payment. These include excise
taxes, sales taxes, and value-added taxes. Taxes may also be classified
according to the effect they have on the distribution of wealth. A
proportional tax is one that imposes the same relative burden on all
taxpayers, unlike progressive taxes and regressive taxes.
So, yes, Bill's right, a fee increase is a form of tax increase. I do
agree with you in the concern that (and this is a very real future
possibility) if people have to pay annual fees to visit public lands, are
those lands actually public? Personally, I don't use those passes and
probably never will. The concern is the National Parks Pass and other
annual passes becoming mandatory, especially Forest and BLM managed land.
Back to the subject of convenience of those passes, I remain correct on
that, the convenience - people can choose to pay or not pay. And yes, of
course, protest fee increases, especially people who are used to those.
On NPS-managed land, is that land technically public, given NPS protection
mandate (as opposed to multiple use)? Years ago I got into trouble by
leaving a trail and traveling cross country in the back country of
Guadalupe Mountains NP. I maintained it was public land and that I could
do that as I wanted to visit an area other than where the trails led. I
was informed to go back to the trail and stay on the trail, end of
discussion.
Stephen Fleming
<swcaver at warpdriv
eonline.com> To
Sent by: nmcaver at caver.net
nmcaver-bounces at c cc
aver.net
Subject
Re: [Nmcaver] nmcaver Digest, Vol
06/28/2006 02:06 21, Issue 9
AM
Mike, I have to agree with Bill. He is not wrong. These are fees to use
lands we have already paid for and if you want to play on the NPS segment
you will pay ever-increasing costs. When you read the NPS press releases,
they don't even pretend they have involved the public in their fee
decisions. There is no mention of public comments or hearings. No mention
that not everyone agrees with their processes. All you see is that they've
done an internal study to ensure the fees are consistent with other parks.
Well, I am so impressed they are so concerned with consistency among parks.
Doesn't make any of it right. Where is the data to show any of their fees
are necessary? By that I mean some verifiable process that is not based on
them just saying they need it. You ever seen that kind of data? I haven't.
There is no oversight, only their own determination that a fee is a)
necessary and b) not yet high enough to satisfy them. More importantly and
distressingly, they are now levying a 'scenery tax'. The only service they
are providing for this is to be there to collect a fee for your simple
presence on the land. Outrageous, and that includes the current POS $3 fee
they imposed to little fanfare a few years ago. They pulled that one off,
so now it's time to get serious about making money. Note that there are no
facilities provided, no capital improvements being used. Except for the NPS
'need' to be there to 'service' your wallet, even the employee serves no
purpose in your use of the land while hiking. What's next, stopping traffic
on the highway to extract a fee because you are looking at 'their' mountain
as you drive to El Paso?
Read Lujan's letter again, he says he wants comments but he doesn't care
whether anyone does or not; it is VERY clear the fee increase is a done
deal as far as he is concerned, regardless of what the public thinks.
Pretty cavalier attitude with our public lands. Everyone who acquiesces to
this sort of robbery because 'oh, they need it because they say they do' or
'oh, I don't mind paying to use what I already own' or 'it's for a good
purpose and is only a few dollars', etc. certainly doesn't understand where
this is all headed. They merely are priming you to eventually pay them
something every time you turn around in a park. There's already
(progressively higher) entry fees, camping fees, and now
hiking/look-at-the-view fees. They haven't begun to exhaust the potential
here, but they are already starting to exhaust their clientele; something
they must not be able to understand they cannot afford to do if they plan
on surviving as an organization. The higher the fees go, the less people
will visit and the higher the fees will have to be to offset the loss. It
is a downward spiral. When will their fees be too much? They already are
for a lot of us (as always: it's not because I can't pay them, it is
because the fees are WRONG). The NPS is serving itself, not the public.
They don't see it that way. They never have. They never will. We have a
good track record of quashing other ill-advised proposals affecting the
Guadalupe Mountains over the last 10 or so years. Sadly, they never learn
and now we have to do it again. There's apparently no institutional memory
for these things and you have to constantly educate these over-achieving
managers one at a time that the public lands are placed in their trust for
management, not their ownership or proprietary dalliance.
nmcaver-request at caver.net wrote:
Subject: Re: [Nmcaver] nmcaver Digest, Vol 21, Issue 7
From: Mike_Bilbo at nm.blm.gov
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:51:22 -0600
To: <bbellis at cptnet.com>
To: <bbellis at cptnet.com>
CC: nmcaver at caver.net, nmcaver-bounces at caver.net
http://www.nps.gov/fees_passes.htm
No one is required to obtain these - they are offered for
convenience.
Mike Bilbo
The National Parks Pass and the Golden Eagle are fancy names for
another
TAX TO USE OUR OWN PUBLIC LANDS.
Bill Ellis
Subject: Re: [Nmcaver] nmcaver Digest, Vol 21, Issue 7
From: Mike_Bilbo at nm.blm.gov
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:41:38 -0600
To: <bbellis at cptnet.com>
To: <bbellis at cptnet.com>
CC: nmcaver at caver.net
Bill, you are absolutely wrong on this.
Mike Bilbo
Subject: Re: [Nmcaver] nmcaver Digest, Vol 21, Issue 7
From: <bbellis at cptnet.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:26:55 -0600
To: <Mike_Bilbo at nm.blm.gov>
To: <Mike_Bilbo at nm.blm.gov>
CC: nmcaver at caver.net, nmcaver-bounces at caver.net
Tax; A contribution for the support of a government required of
persons, groups or businesses within the domain of that government.
(The American Heritage Dictionary)
I stand by my statement.
The passes at the web site below cost $50.00. True, that you are not
required to buy one. But you will still be charged entrance fees at
the parks if you don't have one. By definition these are taxes.
So when a park Superintendent decides to raise entrance fees, how is
this not "taxation without representation". He is not elected. And it
seems to me that issues like this caused quite a reaction a few
hundred years ago.
Bill Ellis
_______________________________________________
nmcaver mailing list
nmcaver at caver.net
http://mail.caver.net/mailman/listinfo/nmcaver_caver.net
More information about the nmcaver
mailing list