Honor Indian Treaties - Get Involved

http://www.honorindiantreaties.com/act/ ^

[SheLion]

- HOME - ABOUT - LEARN MORE - GET INVOLVED - NEWS - ADS - CONTACT -

Get Involved

New York State wants to break the law.

Governor Pataki has already called it unconstitutional.

And yet, it’s been adopted for the 2003-04 budget.

It’s a provision that calls for the State Department of Taxation and Finance to collect tax on the sale of tobacco and gasoline on Native American territories. The state’s unconstitutional action will cause over 1,000 Indians and non-Indians to lose their jobs, consumer prices to rise and businesses to close.

Tell Governor Pataki to honor the supreme law of the land. Tell him that to break centuries old treaties would be to break the law.

Click on the link below to send an email message to Governor Pataki.

Because it’s wrong.

Because it’s not fair.

Because you won’t let it happen.

Contact the Governor:

Call Governor Pataki at 518-474-7516 or send him an email message by visiting his web site (http://www.state.ny.us/governor/) and clicking on "Contact the Governor."

If you wish to contact other state representatives, visit the state Assembly home page (http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/) or the state Senate home page (http://www.senate.state.ny.us/).

We are also encouraging supporters to send letters to the editors of the daily newspapers in New York state. Links to most of the state's media outlets are on a web site called the Empire Page (http://www.empirepage.com/medialinks.html).

Sample Message:
If you wish, copy the text below and paste it into your message:

- HOME - ABOUT - LEARN MORE - GET INVOLVED - NEWS - ADS - CONTACT -

This web site is sponsored by the Seneca Nation of Indians

 

[CSM]

"That comes at a steep cost, which comes from taxing Americans."

Or it could come from spending reductions. Does your boss garuntee you a raise, just because you decide to spend more money each month?

[IYAS9YAS]

I have nothing against keeping the treaties. Read my post #7. The tribes in Idaho don't pay state fuel tax on fuel sold on their reservations by tribally owned stations. They undercut the stations near them who have to pay the state tax. Over 90% of the sales at the tribal station are to non-tribal members. The state is federally mandated to maintain the roads on the tribal lands and yet cannot collect fuel taxes from these tribal station sales. Do the words "unfunded mandate" mean anything to you?

[Right Wing Professor]

Do you vote in local elections? What does that have to do with anything?

Eligibility to vote in local elections is not based on race. That's what the Civil Rights movement was all about.

[Chad Fairbanks]

I have nothing against keeping the treaties. Read my post #7. The tribes in Idaho don't pay state fuel tax on fuel sold on their reservations by tribally owned stations. They undercut the stations near them who have to pay the state tax. Over 90% of the sales at the tribal station are to non-tribal members. The state is federally mandated to maintain the roads on the tribal lands and yet cannot collect fuel taxes from these tribal station sales. Do the words "unfunded mandate" mean anything to you?

Actually, I have two issues with your statements, and I will address each accordingly. :0)

Issue 1: The tribes don't pay the state fule tax. Wrong. A perfect example is the Shoshone-Bannock tribes, who send on average 750,000 dollars in fuel taxes to the state each year.

Issue 2: The state is federally mandated to maintain the roads on the tribal lands. Wrong - Again, with the Shoshone-Bannock tribes as an example, they pay for the maintenance of their own roads with revenue they generate from cigarette sales.

Issue 3: Do the words "unfunded mandate" mean anything to you? Yes, they mean a lot to me, but in this instance it is not applicable.

I hope we all have learned something here this morning.

:0)

[Chad Fairbanks]

Actually, when I said "2" issues, I meant 3. Oops.

[Arkinsaw]

The tribes in Idaho don't pay state fuel tax on fuel sold on their reservations by tribally owned stations. They undercut the stations near them who have to pay the state tax.

It sounds like your stations have a government problem that the tribes do not, the solution is not to tax the Indians. If I am taxed too much the solution to my problem is not to tax you more for "fairness".

If you do not believe that the roads on the reservations should be funded (and that may be a very valid point) then the fault lies in Washington and not with the tribes. The solution would be to get Washington to end the mandate (or fund it if its a federal treaty obligation) rather than tax the Indians to pay for the mandate.

[Chad Fairbanks]

And, just as an added note - of the 750,000 dollars the tribes send to the state in fuel taxes, ya know how much of that comes back to the tribes for road repair?

Zilch. Nada.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Actually, Arkinsaw his basic premise is incorrect - the tribes DO pay fuel taxes to the state.

[IYAS9YAS]

You are correct on the Sho-Bans for past sales, I concede that. However, currently no state taxes are being collected from any sales to any tribally owned station. All monies for state taxes are going into a "trust" account and will be meted out to the winning parties once a legal determination has been made by the courts (above Idaho).

Yes, the Sho-Bans do maintain some of their roads, but not all. IIRC The state is required to maintain the state and federal highways through the reservation. Local roads are being maintained by the tribe. The state does get federal matching funds (only on taxes it collected - tribal sales are discluded - that's where I got the unfunded mandate part - maybe not the right term) for roads.

I don't think the other tribes maintain any of their roads, but I'm not certain.

The issue is not to tax the tribes, but sales to non-tribal members. I agree it's a mess. I'll also agree that maybe it needs to be looked at in a different way. I'm conservative, and agree with the fact we need to maintain the treaties. What I don't agree with, is that the tribes seem to want the perks of the roads without paying for them. If the state can't collect fuel tax on fuel sales on tribal land, then maybe cost to repair the roads should fall on the fed and the tribes with no state funds.

I would be in favor of that.

The biggest problem is that the State took such a militant position on it in the beginning, that they pissed off the tribes. There could have been a really good agreement made between gentlemen that would have been good for all.

[IYAS9YAS]

Actually, Arkinsaw his basic premise is incorrect - the tribes DO pay fuel taxes to the state.

That is currently incorrect. My premise is correct.

[IYAS9YAS]

Do you know how much Jackson's food stores sees in state fuels taxes they collect on sales???? Zilch, nada. It's for the roads. That argument is invalid.

[IYAS9YAS]

I'll agree to what you said. It is a government problem. I just want the party who benefits from the roads to pay for the roads. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of them being able to control their land and their activities. I could give a rip about cigarette or alcohol taxes. But you'll have to agree that roads are a slightly different issue.

[IYAS9YAS]

I'll agree to what you said. It is a government problem. I just want the party who benefits from the roads to pay for the roads. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of them being able to control their land and their activities. I could give a rip about cigarette or alcohol taxes. But you'll have to agree that roads are a slightly different issue.

[IYAS9YAS]

And, just as an added note - of the 750,000 dollars the tribes send to the state in fuel taxes, ya know how much of that comes back to the tribes for road repair? Zilch. Nada.

Did you know that of all the roads on tribal land in Idaho (over 500 miles on the Sho-Ban's reservation alone) only 43 miles are maintained by the tribe (in this case the Sho-Bans). This is data from the Idaho Transportation Department. Most of that 43 miles is dirt road. None of the other tribes in Idaho do any of their own maintenance.

[agarrett]

Secondly, you can thank the influence of the various Iroquoian tribes, and their system of government, for the very constitution that you and I enjoy today. So, before you badmouth the "native" governments, you might look a little closer...

  This is the first time I've seen this particular myth posted on Free Republic, and I'm not going to just let it pass. It is taught in New York, I grant, due to the Iriquois lobby there.

  However, I have never seen any actual documentary proof for it - I'd go so far as to say there is none. There is no evidence that Madison, or any of the other framers of the Constitution, was even aware of the structure of the Iriquois Nations, let alone was influenced by it. There were a few parallel ideas - and only a few - but that is a long way from saying they were a basis for the COnstitution.

  I'd be interested in seeing what you profer as evidence for this claim. My own starting point in this is Arthur Schelsinger Jr.'s book, Disuniting of America - which was the first place I'd ever seen this claim, and seen it debunked. It is not on the web, sadly, so I can't give a link, but I'll see if I can find something on it.

Drew Garrett

[IYAS9YAS]

Yes the tribes paid fuel tax (not currently - as it has been in limbo since March of 2002).

The fuel tax in Idaho is paid by the first receiver in Idaho. This is a distributor. The cost is then passed to the retailer and ultimately on to the consumer. The cost to the tribe is nil. It's a flow through. The person who actually buys the fuel (whether a tribal member or not) is the only one who actually bears the burden of the tax. Again, more than 90% of the sales on the reservation are to everyday travelers and not tribal members. All that tax goes into the big pot for road repairs statewide.

[agarrett]

Most indians pay federal income taxes, and state income taxes if applicable, so I really don't understand what all teh hullabaloo is about.

  I think the "hullabaloo" is pretty state dependent. I believe in most areas of the country it's not much of an issue at all. The two areas I know of where Indian lands have become an issue is New York - the upstate land claims - and Claifornia - the whole bloody state.

  Further, in both these cases, it has become an issue because we appear to be changing our laws, and many of us suspect that corrupt practices are at the heart of it. In upstate New York, we're throwing out all statute of limitations laws we can, in order to keep the case in the Courts - and it is having a big effect on local land values too. The amount of money the Indian Tribes have donated to New York politicians has quite a few people convinced that this is the real cause for the case going forward.

  In California, a similar thing has happened. State laws have changed to exempt more and more income from Indian lands from taxation, and also to allow them more and more liberties. At the same time, and probably not coincidentally, the amount of money the Indian tribes donate to politicians has skyrocketed - it became a big issue in the Recall election, for instance.

  But, in the end, these are two examples, and I don't think the Indian Treaties are a big deal through most of the country. That doesn't excuse the abuses in the two cases I mentioned, and we should work on fixing them. Also, if there were payoffs, don't be surprised if we get ticked off about corrupt practices too.

Drew Garrett

[Chad Fairbanks]

As of February 2003, my data was correct in that the idaho tribal governments remit fuel sales taxes to the state, and receive none back.

Als, keep in mind that the major users of roads on the reservations are non-indians. I suppose if you'd really like to push it, they can start charging your farmers a "use tax" for access to use of the roads instead - but then, food costs would go up. Be careful what you wish for.

The bottom line is, the tribes pay more than there fair share, but it's never enough, and it won't ever be enough, right?

[Chad Fairbanks]

I just want the party who benefits from the roads to pay for the roads.

You mean the Idaho farmers who are the primary users of the roads? Good idea.

[IYAS9YAS]

The farmers pay the tax at the pump just like everyone else. As I said, the tribe isn't actually paying the tax. The consumer they sell the fuel to is. So everyone who buys fuel in Idaho (with the exception of dyed diesel, which is not legal for use on the highway in licensed vehicles) at the retail level is paying tax on the fuel they buy. The only one who is burdened with paying the tax is the consumer. It is a pass-through to everyone else. Yes the distributor pays it up front, but they pass the cost down the line. So, technically, the only tax paid by the tribe or its members is what they actually buy to use themselves.

By the way, the farmers do not get out of paying state fuel tax just because they are farmers. Any fuel they use to travel down the road is taxable to them.