Lifetime license revenues

[mike rossi]

Let me see, lets say 500.00 basic, at 4 yrs of age x's a mere 1,000 parents, purchasing for just one child. Collecting what ever the going interest rate for investment made.

Realistic estimates in this day and age of say, 10% of those 1,000 kids ever going on to become long term hunters or even say 5 year hunters. That being the time they are of legal age to hunt and living at home.

 

So when plugging in those numbers...Where is the down side to the states conservation fund? All I see is they received funds  to collect interest from...if managed properly... where they would never have received funds in the first place considering social trends.

 

I do not know how investments work, however; one obvious thing stands out; if license buyers are saving millions of dollars, then it follows that the conservation fund is losing millions of dollars. The only way that cannot be the case, is if the return on investment equals or exceeds the lost revenue. 

 

Everyone keeps focusing on the conservation fund (balance) and neglects to consider the purpose of it. Our system of funding conservation was never intended to sustain state agencies on a shoestring budget. Insuring agency funding is sustained  may be an argument with merit, however, the intent was to invest in the land, not in the STIP. 

 

Instead of the DEC  receiving appropriations from the general fund to make ends meet,like every other state agency would do when struggling; the DEC is putting a portion of our license money into the general fund. On the face that reversed order of operations seems like a good idea; however it is compromising the natural resources the DEC is mandated to protect for every state resident, not just hunters. 

[Doc]

I knew this would be an interesting topic.

 

When I bought my lifetime hunting/fishing license a few years ago, I hit the jackpot. I got it for the grand total of $50. The state lost money on me the very first year that I bought it, and I know they haven't made a cent off of me. But of course that was a special circumstance that doesn't represent a whole lot of people. But for me, it was an offer I couldn't refuse.

[growalot]

I'm still trying to figure out how they are losing millions in money's they would never have received in the first place:

Licenses never every purchased had a life Tiimes never bought for a child

License sales lost due to death, and injury.

Your focus May be in the wrong place. It should be on the ability to will them incase of death and the handling of funds.

BTW ,I could be wrong so correct me, there was some fine print to the life time license...as to terms and conditions change.

Edited February 27, 2016 by growalot

[fasteddie]

I knew this would be an interesting topic.

 

When I bought my lifetime hunting/fishing license a few years ago, I hit the jackpot. I got it for the grand total of $50. The state lost money on me the very first year that I bought it, and I know they haven't made a cent off of me. But of course that was a special circumstance that doesn't represent a whole lot of people. But for me, it was an offer I couldn't refuse.

 

I did the same thing Doc . $50 for the lifetime . All I had to do was purchase Archery and ML . When I turned 70 , both of those were free .

 

Three of my grandkids received Lifetime Hunting Licences when they were 5 years old . It was a good investment as the price keeps climbing . They don't hunt but do go out with my son sometimes .

[mike rossi]

I'm still trying to figure out how they are losing millions in money's they would never have received in the first place:

Licenses never every purchased had a life Tiimes never bought for a child

License sales lost due to death, and injury.

Your focus May be in the wrong place. It should be on the ability to will them incase of death and the handling of funds.

BTW ,I could be wrong so correct me, there was some fine print to the life time license...as to terms and conditions change.

 

"ARGUMENT BY REPETITION"

"argumentum ad nauseam"

 

(also known as "proof by assertion")

 

Description: Repeating an argument or a premise over and over again in place of stating supporting evidence.

 

Explanation: Restating the same claims, even rearranging the words or substituting words, is not the same as making new claims, and certainly does not make the claims any more true.

[gjs4]

Thinking you guys should Google compounding interest because the formulae and math presented is not proper

[phade]

Thinking you guys should Google compounding interest because the formulae and math presented is not proper

I dont think its compounding, unless the structure is different than what I understand it to be. The interest is moved to the "spending" acct. Compounding would require interest to remain and earn interest on that. i suppose it could compound if interest is claimed monthly or quarterly and moved to the other acct annually. Edited February 28, 2016 by phade

[Doc]

I dont think its compounding, unless the structure is different than what I understand it to be. The interest is moved to the "spending" acct. Compounding would require interest to remain and earn interest on that. i suppose it could compound if interest is claimed monthly or quarterly and moved to the other acct annually.

Yeah, there isn't a lot of compounding going on if the interest is annually pulled and spent.

[gjs4]

My bad-

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk