Posted on 03/08/2011 5:28:00 AM PST by maggief
The Denver Post concludes a two-part report today on Colorado's agriculture-land tax breaks and the non-farmers who benefit from them.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizjournals.com ...
So you believe that some people (ie those "who actually want to get into ranching") should get tax breaks, but not other people, eg. developers? And this is a so-called conservative forum.
This might be a good thing. Totally ignoring the fact that 95% of what government does is reward special interests at the expense of the rest of the citizenry, and looking solely at HOW the money is looted. I think that tax rates should be uniform. However, failing that I think it doesn't make any difference WHO you are. If you qualify legally for the break based on land usage, then you should be able to get it regardless of your income.
Apparently some of the posters on this thread are in favor of means testing.
How much of a tax break and direct payments did that silk stocking lawyer and Senator Salazar get for his “family farm?”
He’s recently found religion in the sage grouse totem that prevents oil development in the western lands.
Over 90% of our food comes from family farms.
I agree with you to a point. By receiving the breaks, do you get visits from EPA storm troopers checking you environmental impact?
The economics of it have changed. It is complicated by the "government programs" and by the influence of Global Ag but some still survive in spite of everything.
My family has farmed in Haskell County TX since they were burned out of AL during Reconstruction. It has never been easy. My ancestors were here before a town, before the railroad and before civilization. Some of the land that my father and uncle farm has been farmed by our family for over 110 years.
Several of the local families came about the same time, running away from the consequences of a terribly corrupt central government. They voted with their feet and moved past the edge of comfort and civilization.
There are many similarities today with what drove them here. (I moved away for over 25 years, first in my family, but moved back about 15 years ago)
“So you believe that some people (ie those “who actually want to get into ranching”) should get tax breaks, but not other people, eg. developers? And this is a so-called conservative forum.”
Yes, I do.
Developers produce precious little of any long-term use. They’re more in the business of putting up cheap, poorly made houses and permanently destroying farmland.
Go ahead and get E.Coli with your food from Mexico, champ.
By definition, this tax law was put into place to ease the burden on soemone who is going into agriculture, which is a boom/bust enterprise, at times with crops entirely dependent on the weather. By practice, it’s being grossly abused by parasites.
You call yourself a conservative but pay little heed to conservation. But like I said, I hope you enjoy your imported food tainted with God knows what, pretending you’re more conservative than anyone else. It’s obvious you haven’t even set your hands on a plow.
That said,I am for eliminating all the subsidies and loop holes. A flat tax or the fair tax would do just that.
“I have a plot of land in southern Colorado I use for shooting. Because the ranch owner I bought it from still grazes cattle on it with my permission,”
Did you bag the limit on cows last year?
you’d pay 5 to 8 times that on a three bedroom house in my area
When investors buy property for future development ... so what? What is at question is what is the property being used for currently. If they are still grazing, haying, growing or otherwise putting the land to Ag use, they should get the Ag tax rate.
When they actually develop the land and sell it off, it then goes to either the commercial or residentual rates.
Developers produce precious little of any long-term use.
So you consider houses, shopping malls, industrial parks, office parks, etc. to be of "little long term use?" Amazing.
permanently destroying farmland.
Again so what? there isn't anything sacred about farmland. Before it was farmland it was prairie or forest. Just in case you didn't realize it, "champ," The country didn't come with big chunks of farmland. farmland was converted from something else. Are you some kind of tree hugger or something? Because if you're not, you ought to change your tune because you're sure beginning to sound like one.
Go ahead and get E.Coli with your food from Mexico, champ.
Now this is just plain bullsh!t. When I go to the grocery store I buy pineapples from Costa Rica, limes from Mexico, grapes and asparagus from Chile, etc. and you know what "champ?" I've never gotten E. Coli. I have no idea where the chicken, pork, or beef I eat comes from, and I bet you don't either. One thing I won't buy is overpriced "organic" crap that's grown locally - more tree hugger nonsense.
By definition, this tax law was put into place to ease the burden on soemone who is going into agriculture,
Once again you're wrong. The law was put into place to shift the burden from one set of taxpayers to another.
which is a boom/bust enterprise, at times with crops entirely dependent on the weather
As Harry Truman once said, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
You call yourself a conservative but pay little heed to conservation.
Conservation is not even vaguely like conservatism. In fact, unbridled conservation is one of the sacred comandments of the loony left - Earth F!rst, "greenspace," etc.
But like I said, I hope you enjoy your imported food tainted with God knows what,
I enjoy every bite. And this "contaminated" crap is more of your bullshit - It's contaminated with nothing. You want contamination stories? Read about the peanutbutter plant that cranked out contaminated peanutbutter that went into hundreds of products right here in the USA.
pretending you’re more conservative than anyone else.
First off, "champ" you need to learn how to debate without insult. Second off "champ," it's pretty obvious that you're really a redistributionist (another term for liberal) who thinks that his niche, unlike everyone else's niche, is really worthy of special government favors, so I guess that does make me more conservative than you.
And finally
It’s obvious you haven’t even set your hands on a plow.
First, you say this like it's a bad thing. Like "putting you hands on a plow" gives you some special insight. Well let me say I've never been a welfare recipient either, but that doesn't mean that I can't criticize welfare. I've never been a Kongressman, but I feel competent to criticze them too.
And one last thing. I'm proud to say that I'm not a farmer, although you're wrong about the plow crap just like everything else you've posted. My grandparents' generation mostly had farms, and I got tapped for many chores on my grandparent's farm and my great aunt and uncles' farms and running the tractor was one of them.
Is your mother in law Goldie Hawn or Tom Cruise?
dittos
Outstanding post.
Libertarian free trade garbage but thanks anyway for playing
Libertarianism the godless religion of I me my mine
The religion of atomistic individualism
Thanks.
There are no other effects at all? You mean, no impact on the volume of production, on prices?
Let me know when you've taken your medication. On second thought, don't bother. You have nothing to say that I'd be interested in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.