Let the lazy people from the so-called South South clamouring for 100% resource control be reminded that 90 - 95% of all crude exported out of Nigeria in the last 10  years is from offshore.  

Even with your 100% resource control, you will still remain poor due to your laziness and the continuous theft of your leaders such as Ibori and governors. Now, the 90% export from offshore belong to all of us, shikena!

You people who disagree with Oshiomhole appear to be narrow minded.

ndu_chucks:

Let the lazy people from the so-called South South clamouring for 100% resource control be reminded that 90 - 95% of all crude exported out of Nigeria in the last 10  years is from offshore. 

Even with your 100% resource control, you will still remain poor due to your laziness and the continuous theft of your leaders such as Ibori and governors. Now, the 90% export from offshore belong to all of us, shikena!

You people who disagree with Oshiomhole appear to be narrow minded.

If Nigeria splits today, where will "offshore" be? Secondly, bro, do you know the meaning of "littoral zone?"
If you call South South people lazy, what would you say about Nigeria that can't survive without free oil?

Abeg, go and sit down!

Kilode?!:



^^-- That is what some of the federal government revenue generated through taxes will address.

The role model of federalism -USA- still gives Federal grants to States. Even an Oil rich State like Texas collects billions in Education aid from the Federal Government. That is why the power of the Central Government wil never go away completely, but the control it has over the Federating States will be drastically reduced.

I think you are answering a slightly different question, no? Basically, there will be some states that generate less tax revenue than they amount they demand. Currently, for all but a few states, that is true. So again, what incentive does a net "+" state have to merge with a net "-" one? (For example, the British merged the Northern and Southern protectorates because the Northern one cost money and the Southern one generated money. If it had been up the people of the South (or their representatives), they would have opposed such a merger.)

^^--That is where competition comes in. If you study the Federal fiscal tax map of the USA you will notice that California, New-York and Texas basically eclipsed more than 25 states in federal revenue contribution. Of course, because they make more,  they get to keep more, but they still contribute most of the revenue that goes into aids, defence, welfare and entitlement programs across all 50 states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

So, as long as we have enough states generating revenue, all we need to do is allow them keep it and pay as they earn. It is a fairer more justifiable version of the forceful sharing we have right now.  

The forceful sharing we have now is pretty much the same as what exists in the US. Just the formulas used are different. Take a look at this link, for example:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

New Mexico gets $2.03 of FG spending for every $1 is gives to the FG. Washington, DC gets $5.55 for every $1 it generates for the FG.

New Jersey=$0.61, Nevada at $0.65, etc. If you look at it though, everything falls roughly between this $2.00, $0.60 boundary (aside from DC).

The sharing is not what makes Nigeria different from the US. The issue is that a similar chart for Nigeria might be $100.00, $0.05 as the boundaries.

I do agree, getting as close to parity (getting $1 from the FG for every $1 you contribute) would be ideal. But that isn't really the topic of this thread.

If Zamfara or Wyoming are tired of living at the mercy of California or Delta State, then they should find a way to make their strategic resource (whatever that may be) generate more or just make do with what they have. We can't all be big like California or Lagos or Delta.

Even Nevada had to put some good a$$ booties in that Las Vegas desert to attract money, get creative!

I'm fine with that. All I'm saying is, don't rapidly alter this formula in the short term.

^^-- It is not lost revenue if it did not belong to you in the first place. But your state has Cocoa, It has arable land,great tourism potentials, comparatively well educated and cosmopolitan citizens, great place to put R&, great commercialized Agric potentials, and if all else fails, you can apply to merge with Ondo State 

I'm not questioning the ownership of the resources. I'm just saying. . . attempts to rapidly change revenue allocation will have a pretty negative impact on those effected in the short term.

^^^-- Military defence? free access to market? free capital and federal grants from richer sisters like Ondo, Bayelsa, Lagos, Delta, Akwa Ibom, Rivers? I will think twice before leaving all that on the table, I will agree if I can somehow take it by force

It depends on what the total value of that basket of goods on the table is.

Let them keep their money and pay taxes. You will still benefit from that, and who knows, they might one day need you too, Ask the Detroit city of yesterday.

As I said, that is effectively what happens now.

Beaf:

If Nigeria splits today, where will "offshore" be? Secondly, bro, do you know the meaning of "littoral zone?"
If you call South South people lazy, what would you say about Nigeria that can't survive without free oil?

Abeg, go and sit down!

If Nigeria splits, is a BIG IF, so I will not entertain that line of thought for now. What else have you and your governors done with the billions of dollars received to date? Have you developed your agric sector, for example? No, you people were starving because of onion shortage a few weeks ago. All you have excelled in to date is oil bunkering and receiving welfare checks from primarily, offshore oil. olodo

What is GEJ's plan to cure the country of the Dutch disease?  Oshiomhole's idea is well grounded and well thought-out. Your idea that Nigeria can't survive without oil is the concept that need to be expunged from the brains of you people. Many poor welfare recepients in the USA also believe that they cannot survive without the monthly check.  You continue to forget that we ran your governments with groundnut proceeds in the past.

mens dept:

There is of course reason for the gov to say what he's said. The same thing can be said for localizing the police amongst many things. The problem is that we have many Iboris, Orjis, Nnamanis, Daniels, and Mallams who are occupying the seats that serious minded persons should be occupying. So, give the states more money may just as well enrich the crooks at the states

They are already enriched, the crooks will always be with us. But it is better to localize their power and give their people more control over them.

For Example: IMO, Let the people of Ogun and their home based law enforcement and judicial service deal with the excesses of Daniels. He can't fool his people for too long, the policemen and Judges will be from Ogun State too. resident in the states with ties and loyalties across the state. Crooked leaders will always try to usurp power, but their influence cannot go far if they become brutal like our state governors are. Supporting them with federal police makes them more powerful. more invisible.

You are giving Daniel or Akpabio more power through a Federal police force, you are taking the control and power from Ogun or Akwa Ibom people and giving it to Daniel, Akpabio and those they choose to ally with at the center.

I totally support local and City police. Not even state. Local laws too, harmonized based on basic National and Federal Principles. Rights to liberty, Freedom e.t.c

@Kilode: My post got swallowed by the spambot.

Anyway, let me respond to each of your "^----"s:

1) I think you are answering a slightly different question, no? Basically, there will be some states that generate less tax revenue than they amount they demand. Currently, for all but a few states, that is true. So again, what incentive does a net "+" state have to merge with a net "-" one? For example, the British merged the Northern and Southern protectorates because the Northern one cost money and the Southern one generated money. If it had been up the people of the South (or their representatives), they would have opposed such a merger.

2) Regarding how it is done in the US. . . consider this chart: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
DC gets more than $5.00 for every $1 it pays out. New Jersey only gets $0.61 cents for every $1 it pays. We can make a similar table for Nigeria. . . but likely the variance is far higher. Highest might be $100, lowest might be $0.10. I agree, the goal should be to reduce the variance down to $1, as much as possible.
But let's not act as if the current system is completely abnormal. The quibble is the formula for FG payouts (or equivently, FG takeaways from each state.)

3) Regarding "belong to you in the first place", I freely acknowledge that it doesn't belong to me. And in a perfect world, I wouldn't need it at all. But as things stand, it seems critical.

4) Regarding "military defense", if the basket of goods sitting on the table is sufficiently valuable, then sure, I stay. Otherwise. . .

5)

Let them keep their money and pay taxes. You will still benefit from that, and who knows, they might one day need you too, Ask the Detroit city of yesterday.

How is that not what occurs now? Current derivation formula is 13%. So roughly speaking, the tax rate is 87%. I have no issue with seeing this tax rate reduced. But that is not the topic of the thread, or Oshiomole's point. His point is, how should whatever the FG accrues from this tax be paid out? Surely you see that these are two separate issues.

ndu_chucks:

If Nigeria splits, is a BIG IF, so I will not entertain that line of thought for now. What else have you and your governors done with the billions of dollars received to date? Have you developed your agric sector, for example? No, you people were starving because of onion shortage a few weeks ago. All you have excelled in to date is oil bunkering and receiving welfare checks from primarily, offshore oil. olodo

What is GEJ's plan to cure the country of the Dutch disease?  Oshiomhole's idea is well grounded and well thought-out.

I disagree!
Most of the Niger delta depend on fishery as a source of livelihood but since the discovery of oil, this industry has been killed by oil spillage and gas flares. I agree that some of us in the Delta are lazy but we can certainly survive without Oil!

ndu_chucks:

If Nigeria splits, is a BIG IF, so I will not entertain that line of thought for now. What else have you and your governors done with the billions of dollars received to date? Have you developed your agric sector, for example? No, you people were starving because of onion shortage a few weeks ago. All you have excelled in to date is oil bunkering and receiving welfare checks from primarily, offshore oil. olodo

What is GEJ's plan to cure the country of the Dutch disease? Oshiomhole's idea is well grounded and well thought-out.

You are a failure at reasoning.
Look through the thread and tell me if you can find any sandpit reasoning of the sort you are introducing.
Please, pass by if you are clueless.

In a proper federal system, even your state that you proudly feel is immune to productivity will become productive.

Kilode?!:

That is why we need to find the reasonable middle ground. IMO, the solution must address the the point raised by kalokalo. Most serious critics of the Nigerian revenue sharing system approach it from that angle of justice and empowerment. We are not just seeking the transfer of money from Abuja to Asaba or Ado-Ekiti. No! for this to work, it must address the right of the individual, Land royalties and the right to mineral must reside with the individual not the state.

Sure, that is fine by me. You can in fact vest the ownership of all resources with each state. So what happens when the FG decides to tax the generated resource at an 87% rate? Nothing has really changed, has it?

As they say, "six of one, half-a-dozen of the other". . . no difference.

None of our presidential aspirants will implement federalism. None of them wants to lose their power on the country. None of them wants to weaken the center!

jason123:

I disagree!
Most of the Niger delta depend on fishery as a source of livelihood but since the discovery of oil, this industry has been killed by oil spillage and gas flares. I agree that some of us in the Delta are lazy but we can certainly survive without Oil!

What fishing industry are you talking about? The last time I checked there has not been a major oil spill which destroyed and killed the fish in the atlantic ocean!  How many ocean going liners dedicated to fishing, crabbing, lobster harvesting do you have in the region? Which oil spillage destroyed this virgin industry as far as your region is concerned.

I think you people are better off developing in these areas than to keep depending on handouts from the government. Lazyiness is partly responsible for your demise.

ndu_chucks:

What fishing industry are you talking about? The last time I checked there has not been a major oil spill which destroyed and killed the fish in the atlantic ocean!  How many ocean going liners dedicated to fishing, crabbing, lobster harvesting do you have in the region? Which oil spillage destroyed this virgin industry as far as your region is concerned.

I think you people are better off developing in these areas than to keep depending on handouts from the government. Lazyiness is partly responsible for your demise.

Lol! Its so easy to talk nonsense.
Please point out your state on the map, ours (me and Jason123) is Delta. Lets know how well off you are comparatively. Don't be shy now, its a challenge.

ndu_chucks:

What fishing industry are you talking about? The last time I checked there has not been a major oil spill which destroyed and killed the fish in the atlantic ocean!  How many ocean going liners dedicated to fishing, crabbing, lobster harvesting do you have in the region? Which oil spillage destroyed this virgin industry as far as your region is concerned.

I think you people are better off developing in these areas than to keep depending on handouts from the government. Lazyiness is partly responsible for your demise.

You do not understand us, your fellow country men   .
Most of our fishing is done in the rivers, creeks and at max estuaries. I called it an "industry" because it was a form of substantial fishery done by a lot of people. When oil is spilled by those compaines, it affects this small water bodies and they become tars. Would you eat a fish from this:
[img]http://cinemaelectronica.files./2010/05/niger-delta.jpg[/img]
or [img]http://blogs.amnesty.org.uk/i.aspx?w=400&i=/uploads/blogs/entries/3215.jpg[/img]

Can you see? their livelihood has been taken away from them.
It's like killing all the cows owned by the fulanis!

Beaf:

Lol! Its so easy to talk nonsense.
Please point out your state on the map, ours (me and Jason123) is Delta. Lets know how well off you are comparatively. Don't be shy now, its a challenge.

I will not participate in your customary diversionary tactics. It is up to you and your leaders to use my suggestion to your advantage. Learn how to generate billions from the fishing industry and stop hiding behind oil spills in order to line up and collect welfare.  

ndu_chucks: Your position is pretty unreasonable. Ultimately, the resources belongs to those who own the land. So whether they are lazy or not is irrelevant; a rich man can be as lazy as he wants.

I'm not challenging their ownership of the resource. I'm just suggesting that 100% resource control say tomorrow will have a pretty negative impact on lots of states which don't have oil. An increase in derivation is fine; a 20 year plan to phase it out completely is fine too.

But. . . don't pull out the ladder from underneath me while I'm changing the lightbulb. If you tell me I have 10 minutes to use the ladder, I can prepare.

ndu_chucks:

I will not participate in your customary diversionary tactics. It is up to you and your leaders to use my suggestion to your advantage. Learn how to generate billions from the fishing industry and stop hiding behind oil spills in order to line up and collect welfare.  

You running away?
. . .But sir! You said our people are lazy na! So, I just wanted to do a straight comparison between your state (Jigawa) and mine (Delta). No?

jason123:

You do not understand us, your fellow country men   .
Most of our fishing is done in the rivers, creeks and at max estuaries. I called it an "industry" because it was a form of substantial fishery done by a lot of people. When oil is spilled by those compaines, it affects this small water bodies and they become tars. Would you eat a fish from this:

Can you see? their livelihood has been taken away from them.
It's like killing all the cows owned by the fulanis!

Most Nigerians understand that the common people of the ND and the almajiris are the most marginalized Nigerians. We all should be ashamed of the plight of these people.  Now, your governors have received over $100billion in the past few years. Do you know how many local fishermen could have been employed if only a minute portion of the funds were used to develop the fishing industry?  You people could be supplying fish to all of Africa and beyond while employing hundreds of thousands of local fishermen.  Where does the buck stop?

ndu_chucks:

Most Nigerians understand that the common people of the ND and the almajiris are the most marginalized Nigerians. We all should be ashamed of the plight of these people.  Now, your governors have received over $100billion in the past few years. Do you know how many local fishermen could have been employed if only a minute portion of the funds were used to develop the fishing industry?  You people could be supplying fish to all of Africa and beyond while employing hundreds of thousands of local fishermen.  Where does the buck stop?

Save your crocodile tears and proffer your ridiculous suggestions to your state whose citizens make much much much less money than Delta states.
We are already doing fine, thank you. After Lagos, the next two most industrialised states are Rivers and Delta, we just wanna take care of the polution and kick cabal parasites off our back. And its just a matter of time.

eku_bear:

@Kilode: My post got swallowed by the spambot.

Anyway, let me respond to each of your "^----"s:

1) I think you are answering a slightly different question, no? Basically, there will be some states that generate less tax revenue than they amount they demand. Currently, for all but a few states, that is true. So again, what incentive does a net "+" state have to merge with a net "-" one? For example, the British merged the Northern and Southern protectorates because the Northern one cost money and the Southern one generated money. If it had been up the people of the South (or their representatives), they would have opposed such a merger.

2) Regarding how it is done in the US. . . consider this chart: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
DC gets more than $5.00 for every $1 it pays out. New Jersey only gets $0.61 cents for every $1 it pays. We can make a similar table for Nigeria. . . but likely the variance is far higher. Highest might be $100, lowest might be $0.10. I agree, the goal should be to reduce the variance down to $1, as much as possible.
But let's not act as if the current system is completely abnormal. The quibble is the formula for FG payouts (or equivently, FG takeaways from each state.)

3) Regarding "belong to you in the first place", I freely acknowledge that it doesn't belong to me. And in a perfect world, I wouldn't need it at all. But as things stand, it seems critical.

4) Regarding "military defense", if the basket of goods sitting on the table is sufficiently valuable, then sure, I stay. Otherwise. . .

5) How is that not what occurs now? Current derivation formula is 13%. So roughly speaking, the tax rate is 87%. I have no issue with seeing this tax rate reduced. But that is not the topic of the thread, or Oshiomole's point. His point is, how should whatever the FG accrues from this tax be paid out? Surely you see that these are two separate issues.

I think we agree on most of these. like I pointed out earlier, what you are proposing and what Oshiomohole is speaking about"

"is a fairer more justifiable version of the forced sharing we have right now"

I will welcome that, like you said, it is like comparing Six and Half a Dozen, We are giving up the revenue, they are not just forcefully taking it from the center. The power to negotiate is still there.

Even if you give me 100% control, I will still pay taxes. right? which means I will have to give up a certain % of that 100%. I'm fine with that. As long as I'm not bit/ch-slapped into coughing up money. The other states will also get whatever is commesurate with their need, population and strategic importance. I don't believe the North cannot out-produce the South.

We can also do better than the US by re-merging states. You bring your advantage to the table and negotiate a union or just remain small and less wealthy if you wish.

That is why we need a more wholistic reform that addresses the fundamentals of revenue generation, taxes and control, I can bet we will not have the agitation we have in the SS if they are simply paying their own fair share rather than having their piggy bank robbed by the Bully Big Brother. There is a big difference between giving and taking.

"Sharing" away 87% is just some crazy nonsense though. . .

eku_bear:

[b]I'm just suggesting that 100% resource control say tomorrow will have a pretty negative impact on lots of states which don't have oil. An increase in derivation is fine; a 20 year plan to phase it out completely is fine too.[/b]But. . . don't pull out the ladder from underneath me while I'm changing the lightbulb. If you tell me I have 10 minutes to use the ladder, I can prepare.

I don't disagree with the bolded above. I'm not sure which position of mine you find unreasonable.

ndu_chucks:

I will not participate in your customary diversionary tactics. It is up to you and your leaders to use my suggestion to your advantage. Learn how to generate billions from the fishing industry and stop hiding behind oil spills in order to line up and collect welfare.  

I am highly disappointed in your statement even after the evidence I put before you. BTW, if anything should happen and we have federalism, the off shore oil is delta's. .

ndu_chucks:

Most Nigerians understand that the common people of the ND and the almajiris are the most marginalized Nigerians. We all should be ashamed of the plight of these people.  Now, your governors have received over $100billion in the past few years. Do you know how many local fishermen could have been employed if only a minute portion of the funds were used to develop the fishing industry?  You people could be supplying fish to all of Africa and beyond while employing hundreds of thousands of local fishermen.  Where does the buck stop?

Yes, we are all ashamed! If you read my previous post, you would noticed that I said some are lazy. These people are the governors. I, in all honesty, cannot defend these governors, after all the money they get. . . .  .what a shame!

We simply cannot fish extensively because of the spillage. Moreover, in fishing, the practice is small scale. Also, people are simply follow their fore-father's traditions so its going to be hard to tell them to leave that and go for the industrial fishing methods or techniques.
All in all, I blame our governors not Nigeria or Northerners or any other group.

As for the almajiris, you and I know that they can be gainfully employed but they chose the "almajiri" way so as to be used by their leaders during violence. C'mon, the North can probably take care of itself and these "almajiris" but they will not because of the reason stated above.

Edited some typos

@Eku, I think ndu_chucks and Beaf have an history of having a go at each other like that on NL

Just take their harsher comments with a pinch of salt.

jason123:

We simply cannot fish extensively because of the spillage. Moreover, in fishing, the practice is small scale. Also, people are simply follow their fore-father's traditions so its going to be hard to tell them to leave that and go for the industrial fishing methods or techniques.
All in all, I blame our governors not Nigeria or Northerners or any other group.

It should be quite easy to convince a local fisherman who cannot catch enough fish to feed his family because of the said oil spills to become a commercial fisherman - especially if he'll catch more fish and make more money.  What is stopping local entrpreneurs from developing this industry? We know the governors are thieves.

Kilode?!:

I think we agree on most of these. like I pointed out earlier, what you are proposing and what Oshiomohole is speaking about"

"is a fairer more justifiable version of the forced sharing we have right now"

I will welcome that, like you said, it is like comparing Six and Half a Dozen, We are giving up the revenue, they are not just forcefully taking it from the center. The power to negotiate is still there.

Err, what do you mean by the bolded?

Even if you give me 100% control, I will still pay taxes. right? which means I will have to give up a certain % of that 100%. I'm fine with that. As long as I'm not bit/ch-slapped into coughing up money.

It is pretty much the same thing that happens now. There is no real practical difference. Having 100% resource control and having to pay 50% taxes is no different from the FG owning it and giving you 50% of it  

The other states will also get whatever is commesurate with their need, population and strategic importance. I don't believe the North cannot out-produce the South.

Heh. I don't believe in what you wrote in bolded. . . and I suspect that you don't either   But that is fine.

We can also do better than the US by re-merging states. You bring your advantage to the table and negotiate a union or just remain small and less wealthy if you wish.

I'm fine with doing that to cut down on administrative costs. No need for 6 governors in the SW; one will do. Etc, etc.

That is why we need a more wholistic reform that addresses the fundamentals of revenue generation, taxes and control, I can bet we will not have the agitation we have in the SS if they are simply paying their own fair share rather than having their piggy bank robbed by the Bully Big Brother. There is a big difference between giving and taking.

Ultimately, there will always be New Mexicos and DCs in Nigeria, as well as New Jerseys, New Yorks, and Californias. This is simply inevitable; I doubt a nation exists on earth where every state pays exactly $1 out and gets $1 back. The goal should be reducing the variance, trying to make it more uniform. But realistically, unless the SS secedes, it is going to be a region that gets back less than it contributes. Hopefully we can go from $.05 or $0.10 up to $0.60.

"Sharing" away 87% is just some crazy nonsense though. . .

It is too high, I agree. But this was never the topic of the thread.

ndu_chucks:

It should be quite easy to convince a local fisherman who cannot catch enough fish to feed his family because of the said oil spills to become a commercial fisherman - especially if he'll catch more fish and make more money.  What is stopping local entrpreneurs from developing this industry? We know the governors are thieves.

Dude, I'm at pains to understand why you keep yarning OP like this. We are talking about revenue allocation, not job creation.
You have purposely come in to derail the thread.

I am sure your fishing advise will work fine for Lake Chad though, when we move to true federalism.

Beaf:

Dude, I'm at pains to understand why you keep yarning OP like this. We are talking about revenue allocation, not job creation.
You have purposely come in to derail the thread.

I am sure your fishing advise will work fine for Lake Chad though, when we move to true federalism.

I'm sure you are free to ignore my post if you think I'm purposely here to derail the thread. I'm actually enjoying the discussion of the thread. I will not hesitate to offer sound/good advice to your likes if I think it will help. Now run along and build a fishing industry in the ND -  the profit from such ventures are better than monthly payments to appease oil bunkerers, thugs, and kidnappers. 

P.S. In case you don't know, the Atlantic ocean is very far away from Lake Chad, olodo

What i really want to know is the distance between these rivers that has been rendered useless by oil spillages and the Atlantic ocean, does it mean there are no other waters to fish around? if yes, are these waters too far to be reached? and can't government invest in commercial fishing equipments?


Rather than paying militants that aren't adding any value to the nation for free, why not use same money to equip them so they can become real time fishermen?

eku_bear:

Err, what do you mean by the bolded?

Simply means I'm bendable, but it has to be on  mutual terms, my money and resources belongs to me. I can pass a fair share to the State, then to the Federal through taxes. I can easily justify a system that implements that fundamentally.

It is pretty much the same thing that happens now. There is no real practical difference. Having 100% resource control and having to pay 50% taxes is no different from the FG owning it and giving you 50% of it  

But right now, the right of first appropriation belongs to the Federal and state government, that is unfair. I can give a % not 50  but you should not have the Right to take it out, I should be giving it to you. Ownership matters, both economically and psychologically.

Heh. I don't believe in what you wrote in bolded. . . and I suspect that you don't either   But that is fine.

Tryna expose your brotha?   but seriously I think they can, don't mean I will let them

i'm fine with doing that to cut down on administrative costs. No need for 6 governors in the SW; one will do. Etc, etc.
Ultimately, there will always be New Mexicos and DCs in Nigeria, as well as New Jerseys, New Yorks, and Californias. This is simply inevitable; I doubt a nation exists on earth where every state pays exactly $1 out and gets $1 back. The goal should be reducing the variance, trying to make it more uniform. But realistically, unless the SS secedes, it is going to be a region that gets back less than it contributes. Hopefully we can go from $.05 or $0.10 up to $0.60.
It is too high, I agree. But this was never the topic of the thread.

I agree. I doubt any sensible SSner will disagree.

10cirenoh:

What i really want to know is the distance between these rivers that has been rendered useless by oil spillages and the Atlantic ocean, does it mean there are no other waters to fish around? if yes, are these waters too far to be reached? and can't government invest in commercial fishing equipments?

Rather than paying militants that aren't adding any value to the nation for free, why not use same money to equip them so they can become real time fishermen?

The Niger Delta is the most polluted wetlands in the World. Go figure.
Instead of worrying about militants, why not cure the problem by moving away from enslaving some people, to true federalism?
Yar Adua spent $3.3billion arming JTF, what did it fetch? The amnesty programme nobody asked for?

It is always cheaper to solve problems than patch them.

Kilode?!:

Simply means I'm bendable, but it has to be on  mutual terms, my money and resources belongs to me. I can pass a fair share to the State, then to the Federal through taxes. I can easily justify a system that implements that fundamentally.

But right now, the right of first appropriation belongs to the Federal and state government, that is unfair. I can give a % not 50  but you should not have the Right to take it out, I should be giving it to you. Ownership matters, both economically and psychologically.

Tryna expose your brotha?   but  seriously I think they can, don't mean I will let them

I agree. I doubt any sensible SSner will disagree.

Fair enough. Just wait about 20 years to pull out the ladder from underneath me   Or, alternatively if electricity starts running 24/7, then you can boost derivations from 13% to even as high as 75%, if you like. Which that running, I can find an alternate (and more lucrative) revenue resource pretty easily.

ekt_bear:

Fair enough. Just wait about 20 years to pull out the ladder from underneath me Or, alternatively if electricity starts running 24/7, then you can boost derivations from 13% to even as high as 75%, if you like. Which that running, I can find an alternate (and more lucrative) revenue resource pretty easily.

This bolded is the koko of the matter. 100% resource control is ideal, but no advanced nation including the USA allows the states 100% control. Having said that, it is impossible to simply allow the states 75 or 100% control because of the practical effect of complete chaos and decimation of a few states which could lead to war.

The tragedy of the matter is that those who are clamouring for 100% resource control are the ones championing GEJ's candidacy while ignoring the fact that he will not get us any closer to true federalism or 75-80% resource control than Buhari, whose fight against corruption would lead to the kind of development that would ultimately allow for 80 - 100% resource control.

^-- Exactly. If you want 100% derivation tomorrow, then you also want civil war tomorrow.