Skip to main content

NM locals demand LANL remain for profit!

Image
By scooby


  1. Public officials from Northern New Mexico communities are renewing a push to try to ensure that Los Alamos National Laboratory and its contractors continue to pay gross receipts taxes on their purchases.

    Under state law, the communities and the state would lose tens of millions of dollars a year in gross receipts taxes if a nonprofit group takes over management of the lab next year when the Department of Energy puts a new contractor in place. The lab is now managed by a for-profit consortium, which is required to pay gross receipts taxes.

    http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/officials-want-lanl-to-keep-paying-taxes/article_e1ce04c9-8391-50b3-a782-53e6208fe277.html
    Reply

Comment :
  1. "These communities need this revenue!"

    Perhaps, but could someone point out some improvements made by these revenues since the contract change? There may be some but even in Los Alamos, any improvements seem to be to the county officials and buddies rather than to the actual community. I hope it is different in the other parts of New Mexico but I have my doubts.

Comments

Anonymous said…
How did these communities survive all those years when the lab was non-profit and the only revenue was the monies spent by the employees and whatever local purchase made by the lab?

Tax dollars - the heroin of government entities.
5/18/2017 8:16 AM
Anonymous said…
Squeeze those teats as long as possible.
5/19/2017 9:37 PM
Anonymous said…
If you are gonna continue with trolls, at least make the topic interesting... like tit size or something. TCP-1 was closed in 2006. As a legacy it is covered by ERISA rules. Stop, News stop.
5/21/2017 11:56 PM
Anonymous said…
TCP-1 or any other retirement plan has no bearing on the local governments wanting to keep the Labs as a profit entity to collect taxes. So 11:56, what is your point or did the late hour of posting confuse you as to what this thread was concerning?
5/22/2017 8:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more