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 ...
Kerry was guilty only of hypocrisy: there was absolutely nothing wrong with him parking his yacht wherever he wanted.
It's fine to be angry at Kerry or Hollywood celebrities, but it would be nice if you new why you are angry at them, wouldn't it?
I have no issue with property rates based on use restricted by zoning. But it shouldn't be to encourage anything, aka "empowerment zones".
Really? Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax. What's so patriotic about not having the military, then?
Watch your libertarian blood pressure
non sequitur
Not taxing selectively based on who the government wants to reward or punish equals a subsidy or a handout. Yes, it does. If green eyed 45-yr-old men were exempt from income taxes this year, I would get quite a pile of money compared to other people making my same income.
The key to taxation is fairness.
I have a 40 acre plot in So Colorado. Bare ground. My taxes are less than ten bucks a year. For that I get no road maintenance (the land owners do it),no water or sewer and the fire dept is volunteers. If I build the taxes will go up. The services will not.
Yep, I grew up in the most rural and second poorest county in Missouri. So I know what a small tax base is. That said, your argument is a bit spacious. Services meet outlays in small taxing authorities, and are still averaged out. Now let's take those volunteer firefighters who still have to be provided a truck and equipment, you are getting the added service of fire protection (however limited it might be) for a house, vice your bare ground. I presume that if a house was built on every 40 acres, that the community might want to improve emergency services a tad. Or not, up to them.
So a flat milleage rate, determined by the local vote, sounds like as fair a system as you are going to get.
Actually he broke the tax laws of Massachusetts, he was caught doing it and that is why he had to pay up the $500,000....Read up on it if you want
If you are going to go the protectionist route, tariffs do more for keeping internal market forces healthy than subsidies do. They are far simpler and work at a macro level, vice trying to micromangage production.
Of course tariffs cause many unentended consequences at the macro level.
It is not selective. Bare ground is ag, improve it with a house and it is not ag.
I presume that if a house was built on every 40 acres, ...
that the taxes would increase on those 40 acre lots accordingly. No matter your eye color or how many movies you made.
If you choose to say something so silly, don't put it in such as pretentious form. Intellectual honesty dictates one to exposit his arguments with all the more care the more provocative the claims are.
You've made a provocative claim whereing you declared that paying less taxes is Americn's partiotic duty. To show its invalidity (to the point of silliness) I used reductio ad absurdum by sharpening your own argument: if nobody payed any taxes we would have no defense (or any other public goods) --- how is that partiotic?
Rather than attempting to anwer the question, you are spewing new nonsense. Care to state where the alleged non sequitur has occured? Or, the person that taught you Latin failed to tell you that it is no substitute for logic?
What's the case here, my friend? How is it patriotic not to have defense for America? Kindly explain.
Effect on volume of production? Not really, as people who are inclined to farm don't take most subsidies. Of course, the subsidies do drive up land prices, so those farmers may in fact put more of their land into production. Farming production is a very flexible figure and market forces remain market forces.
If "x" production occurs to meet "y" prices, then paying some people to reduce production would logically increase price, but that would result in other people producing more until the price falls back to "y". At this point, nothing has been accomplished, but a waste of tax dollars.
Let's assume that Joe's Muffler Shop doesn't do brakes, and you pay 50% of the brake shops in his area to stop doing brakes in order to increase the rate that can be charged for brake jobs. If you are successful in raising those rates, then you are going to see guys like Joe jumping into the brake job business and that will drive the prices right back down. But now you will be paying heavy subsidies to maintain the new status quo.
We appear to be in general agreement.
But I see your reasoning now. What prompted me to ask was the statement that was too strong: "all the subsidy does..."
Thank you for your reply.
I followed your advice. I could not find a single reference to a law he supposedly broke or any article that he was compelled to pay $500,000 by anything other the desire to avoid further controversy.
Could you give me references?
FReegards!
Therefore, your question is based on a false premise.
I'd be happy to answer a question regarding something I actually DID say.
Also, how was the federal government funded at the time of our coutry's founding?
Wow that’s a silly argument. If they construct the tax laws in such a way that the populace as a whole can legally pay zero, then they’re either getting their money some other way, or they just plain don’t need it.
Don’t over feed the government, no good ever comes from it. Pay it not one cent more than you absolutely have to by law.
Loop holes not everyone gets to use them.
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.