Do you support the legalization of amber mining in ukraine?

Masha Sha

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 252

Quote from: Lieldoryn on May 17, 2017, 09:53:24 PM

Once in the area will begin the production of amber on an industrial scale private miners will not be able to produce and after some time, the land in this area will be destroyed, and amber is over. Then what will happen to their economy.

Initial capital acquisition - bitcoin mining?

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Lieldoryn on May 17, 2017, 09:53:24 PM

Once in the area will begin the production of amber on an industrial scale private miners will not be able to produce and after some time, the land in this area will be destroyed, and amber is over. Then what will happen to their economy.

Mining is always harmful to the environment, and in some cases, the local population needs to be resettled. But there are ways to minimize this environmental damage, and if strict regulations are followed then mining can be a very productive activity.

Lieldoryn

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 272

Once in the area will begin the production of amber on an industrial scale private miners will not be able to produce and after some time, the land in this area will be destroyed, and amber is over. Then what will happen to their economy.

Masha Sha

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 252

Quote from: mainpmf on May 15, 2017, 06:24:07 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 12, 2017, 11:58:25 AM

Quote from: mainpmf on May 12, 2017, 07:21:41 AM

Funny how you got some very good leftist ideas for a right wing psycho Grin

Don't get me wrong. I am against income tax. The maximum income tax rate which I support is around 15%. But in case of national resources such as petroleum and amber, it is different. The companies can have some profit, may be 10% or 20%. The remaining should go to the treasury.

But why should there be a company taking 10%?
Why should them have a cut of the profits if the work is done by the people?

Let the idea sink in Wink

Actually the habited area around those amber field are experiencing an economic boom. Lot of new homes. Right now the biggest problem of the extractors is to have to pay crime syndicate for mining even if there is no find.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: matuson on May 15, 2017, 06:33:34 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 14, 2017, 11:17:46 PM

Quote from: Lampaster on May 14, 2017, 09:14:23 AM

I support a complete ban on mining until the total eradication of corruption. What's the difference who steals money? Maybe it will be private companies or government officials. In any case, and now living and posterity will not see this benefit.

No. If there is a blanket ban, then no one is going to benefit. It the government allows and regulates the mining, then the treasury will be getting the tax revenues and the locals in these regions will be getting attractive jobs with good salaries.

All natural resources which are in the earth on the territory of a state belong not to the state, and people. Including our children. What right do we have to start to sell everything and leave our children without this resource?

This is a ridiculous argument. So what about petroleum? Do you want to stop the extraction of petroleum as well? If the future generations want amber, then they can easily purchase the already mined and processed amber. Why do you insist on mining fresh amber?

matuson

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 255

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 14, 2017, 11:17:46 PM

Quote from: Lampaster on May 14, 2017, 09:14:23 AM

I support a complete ban on mining until the total eradication of corruption. What's the difference who steals money? Maybe it will be private companies or government officials. In any case, and now living and posterity will not see this benefit.

No. If there is a blanket ban, then no one is going to benefit. It the government allows and regulates the mining, then the treasury will be getting the tax revenues and the locals in these regions will be getting attractive jobs with good salaries.

All natural resources which are in the earth on the territory of a state belong not to the state, and people. Including our children. What right do we have to start to sell everything and leave our children without this resource?

mainpmf

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 12, 2017, 11:58:25 AM

Quote from: mainpmf on May 12, 2017, 07:21:41 AM

Funny how you got some very good leftist ideas for a right wing psycho Grin

Don't get me wrong. I am against income tax. The maximum income tax rate which I support is around 15%. But in case of national resources such as petroleum and amber, it is different. The companies can have some profit, may be 10% or 20%. The remaining should go to the treasury.

But why should there be a company taking 10%?
Why should them have a cut of the profits if the work is done by the people?

Let the idea sink in Wink

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Lampaster on May 14, 2017, 09:14:23 AM

I support a complete ban on mining until the total eradication of corruption. What's the difference who steals money? Maybe it will be private companies or government officials. In any case, and now living and posterity will not see this benefit.

No. If there is a blanket ban, then no one is going to benefit. It the government allows and regulates the mining, then the treasury will be getting the tax revenues and the locals in these regions will be getting attractive jobs with good salaries.

crypto_ranger

newbie

Activity: 18

Merit: 0

In all fairness I support anything that will help the Ukrainians stand up to the Russians. however seeing how this is eastern Europe some corrupt politician and his connections in the oligarchy will probably reap all the profits and export them to their Swiss bank accounts.

What we should support instead is altcoin mining in the Ukraine. Their electricity is dirt cheap and a cloud mining service there would dominate the whole market. In fact this could be a good idea for an ICO.

saenko

full member

Activity: 262

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lampaster on May 14, 2017, 09:14:23 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 14, 2017, 12:06:47 AM

Quote from: Lieldoryn on May 13, 2017, 07:00:26 PM

In Ukraine, a lot of corruption. Even the President is corrupt. Therefore, all state enterprises are losing money, but the OIG bring millions of dollars to its Directors and policymakers who oversee them.

I know that corruption is very prevalent in Ukraine. That is why I preferred private corporations extracting amber after paying a 70% tax, rather than limiting the extraction rights to the publicly owned enterprises.

I support a complete ban on mining until the total eradication of corruption. What's the difference who steals money? Maybe it will be private companies or government officials. In any case, and now living and posterity will not see this benefit.

I agree with you - this activity should be completely banned and increased responsibility. Now there is a terrible situation, I saw a documentary about it. It kills nature. It is necessary to involve not the local authority but the international organization that will protect the unique forests

Lampaster

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 255

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 14, 2017, 12:06:47 AM

Quote from: Lieldoryn on May 13, 2017, 07:00:26 PM

In Ukraine, a lot of corruption. Even the President is corrupt. Therefore, all state enterprises are losing money, but the OIG bring millions of dollars to its Directors and policymakers who oversee them.

I know that corruption is very prevalent in Ukraine. That is why I preferred private corporations extracting amber after paying a 70% tax, rather than limiting the extraction rights to the publicly owned enterprises.

I support a complete ban on mining until the total eradication of corruption. What's the difference who steals money? Maybe it will be private companies or government officials. In any case, and now living and posterity will not see this benefit.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Lieldoryn on May 13, 2017, 07:00:26 PM

In Ukraine, a lot of corruption. Even the President is corrupt. Therefore, all state enterprises are losing money, but the OIG bring millions of dollars to its Directors and policymakers who oversee them.

I know that corruption is very prevalent in Ukraine. That is why I preferred private corporations extracting amber after paying a 70% tax, rather than limiting the extraction rights to the publicly owned enterprises.

Lieldoryn

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 272

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 12, 2017, 10:29:41 PM

Quote from: Lancusters on May 12, 2017, 05:09:57 PM

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 12, 2017, 11:58:25 AM

Quote from: mainpmf on May 12, 2017, 07:21:41 AM

Funny how you got some very good leftist ideas for a right wing psycho Grin

Don't get me wrong. I am against income tax. The maximum income tax rate which I support is around 15%. But in case of national resources such as petroleum and amber, it is different. The companies can have some profit, may be 10% or 20%. The remaining should go to the treasury.

Well someone else's hands raking fire. Then let the state and is engaged in extraction and sale of amber. Ukraine has already tried to introduce a 70% tax on gas production. This led to the fact that official production has declined, and began to flourish the gray scheme. Who will benefit from this?

Oh no... the state must stay away from amber extraction. Look at the government owned enterprises in Ukraine. They are extremely incompetent and inefficient, in addition to being filled with corrupt officials. And regarding gas production, it is not as profitable as petroleum extraction. The 70% tax rate was too high.

In Ukraine, a lot of corruption. Even the President is corrupt. Therefore, all state enterprises are losing money, but the OIG bring millions of dollars to its Directors and policymakers who oversee them.

freedomno1

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1094

Learning the troll avoidance button :)

This is a new area for me, but seeing that clear cut is used it does environmental harm but less than other means of extraction for oil.
"Acres upon acres of forest are clear cut and backhoes are used to dig a channel to a water source—usually a river. Then thousands of miners descend on the Klondike and use water pumps made of old Mercedes van engines to blast into the ground, sucking water from the canal in huge tangles of pipe."

It does impact future oxygen production due to the time it takes trees to regrow and nature has to replant the area and the ground looks terrible afterwards like someone went to a warzone and bombed the area so it would be terrible for wildlife.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/illegal-amber-mining-ukraine/

But I would support some legalization I guess over illegal amber mininge but would be concerned about government corruption in the industry and over taxing.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Lancusters on May 12, 2017, 05:09:57 PM

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 12, 2017, 11:58:25 AM

Quote from: mainpmf on May 12, 2017, 07:21:41 AM

Funny how you got some very good leftist ideas for a right wing psycho Grin

Don't get me wrong. I am against income tax. The maximum income tax rate which I support is around 15%. But in case of national resources such as petroleum and amber, it is different. The companies can have some profit, may be 10% or 20%. The remaining should go to the treasury.

Well someone else's hands raking fire. Then let the state and is engaged in extraction and sale of amber. Ukraine has already tried to introduce a 70% tax on gas production. This led to the fact that official production has declined, and began to flourish the gray scheme. Who will benefit from this?

Oh no... the state must stay away from amber extraction. Look at the government owned enterprises in Ukraine. They are extremely incompetent and inefficient, in addition to being filled with corrupt officials. And regarding gas production, it is not as profitable as petroleum extraction. The 70% tax rate was too high.

Lancusters

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 263

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 12, 2017, 11:58:25 AM

Quote from: mainpmf on May 12, 2017, 07:21:41 AM

Funny how you got some very good leftist ideas for a right wing psycho Grin

Don't get me wrong. I am against income tax. The maximum income tax rate which I support is around 15%. But in case of national resources such as petroleum and amber, it is different. The companies can have some profit, may be 10% or 20%. The remaining should go to the treasury.

Well someone else's hands raking fire. Then let the state and is engaged in extraction and sale of amber. Ukraine has already tried to introduce a 70% tax on gas production. This led to the fact that official production has declined, and began to flourish the gray scheme. Who will benefit from this?

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: mainpmf on May 12, 2017, 07:21:41 AM

Funny how you got some very good leftist ideas for a right wing psycho Grin

Don't get me wrong. I am against income tax. The maximum income tax rate which I support is around 15%. But in case of national resources such as petroleum and amber, it is different. The companies can have some profit, may be 10% or 20%. The remaining should go to the treasury.

mainpmf

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 11, 2017, 09:31:55 AM

Quote from: Lorak on May 11, 2017, 08:15:09 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 10, 2017, 04:30:08 AM

Quote from: mainpmf on May 10, 2017, 04:10:47 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 09, 2017, 08:50:10 PM

No. It makes sense. Amber is a national resource of Ukraine, and each and every Ukrainian must benefit out of it. Not just a few powerful politicians and their cronies. The government must conduct auctions on amber mining sites and they should lease out the rights to private corporations.

Because obviously the private corporations are the best at splitting wealth and redistributing it...

If they impose a 60% or 70% levy on the revenue from amber mining by these corporations, then the poor people of Ukraine are going to benefit out of it. Else, only a handful of the politicians and the goons are going to benefit.

With this tax, nobody wants to work. You will work for such conditions? What are they bad? Easier to bribe corrupt politicians and the police and let it remain as it is.

What is wrong in taxing a profitable venture? For example, in Russia the oil companies were paying almost 70% tax when the crude oil price was going at $110 per barrel. Even then, they were making huge amounts of profit.

Funny how you got some very good leftist ideas for a right wing psycho Grin

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Lorak on May 11, 2017, 08:15:09 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 10, 2017, 04:30:08 AM

Quote from: mainpmf on May 10, 2017, 04:10:47 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 09, 2017, 08:50:10 PM

No. It makes sense. Amber is a national resource of Ukraine, and each and every Ukrainian must benefit out of it. Not just a few powerful politicians and their cronies. The government must conduct auctions on amber mining sites and they should lease out the rights to private corporations.

Because obviously the private corporations are the best at splitting wealth and redistributing it...

If they impose a 60% or 70% levy on the revenue from amber mining by these corporations, then the poor people of Ukraine are going to benefit out of it. Else, only a handful of the politicians and the goons are going to benefit.

With this tax, nobody wants to work. You will work for such conditions? What are they bad? Easier to bribe corrupt politicians and the police and let it remain as it is.

What is wrong in taxing a profitable venture? For example, in Russia the oil companies were paying almost 70% tax when the crude oil price was going at $110 per barrel. Even then, they were making huge amounts of profit.

Lorak

newbie

Activity: 11

Merit: 0

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 10, 2017, 04:30:08 AM

Quote from: mainpmf on May 10, 2017, 04:10:47 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on May 09, 2017, 08:50:10 PM

No. It makes sense. Amber is a national resource of Ukraine, and each and every Ukrainian must benefit out of it. Not just a few powerful politicians and their cronies. The government must conduct auctions on amber mining sites and they should lease out the rights to private corporations.

Because obviously the private corporations are the best at splitting wealth and redistributing it...

If they impose a 60% or 70% levy on the revenue from amber mining by these corporations, then the poor people of Ukraine are going to benefit out of it. Else, only a handful of the politicians and the goons are going to benefit.

With this tax, nobody wants to work. You will work for such conditions? What are they bad? Easier to bribe corrupt politicians and the police and let it remain as it is.

Topic: Do you support the legalization of amber mining in ukraine? (Read 1732 times)