Forest Reserve Program Meetings

[Daver]

... The reality is that lower taxes result in fewer government services and programs. However, anybody that knows details about tax levies knows that putting more lands back on the tax rolls lowers taxes for everyone else.

Preamble - I am totally fine with some "back and forth" discussion that remains civil, but I am not interested in an "internet sand fight". :grin: This conversation has NOT devolved into that IMO, I am just putting that out there prior to going any further. If someone disagrees with me, that is just fine in my mind.

A couple of things then...Sligh - I still think you are blending a multitude of tax areas into one discussion that doesn't necessarily fit together. Property taxes go into a much more local entity(county) than any federal tax and do not concern me as much given that the benefits are usually evident and tangible AND useful to myself and my neighbors, etc. (Law enforcement, schools, roads, etc, but not so much for handouts and ridonkulous multi-multi-million dollar loans to companies that then go belly up in a year. I digress, but how can a company "qualify" for a loan of over 1/2 billion dollars one year and be out of business the next year??? That one smells to high heaven.)

... The reality is that lower taxes result in fewer government services and programs. However, anybody that knows details about tax levies knows that putting more lands back on the tax rolls lowers taxes for everyone else.

Pack - in reality, oftentimes a lower tax rate leads to MORE tax revenues. This is because lower taxes help foster more economic activity. A hypothetical example to consider... Scenario A - let's call the tax rate 20% and the taxable value of economic activity as 100 units. 20% of 100 is $20 in the tax coffers. Scenario B - let's lower the tax rate to 15%, a tax cut if you will, but then the economic activity level increases from 100 units to 140 units. 15% of 140 is $21 in taxes. So there you have a tax decrease, 20% to 15%, but then an associated increase in volume that actually results in more taxes collected, $21 v. $20.

Granted, this is hypothetical, but I will ask this question...the much maligned "Bush tax cuts" resulted in more OR less overall federal tax revenue being collected?

Hint - our real problem is spending too much as a nation, not that we are short on revenue.

 

[loneranger]

If you think Local or State Taxes are not wasted, think again. I have some experience working in a Stae Dept.

 

[Sligh1]

Preamble - I am totally fine with some "back and forth" discussion that remains civil

A couple of things then...Sligh - I still think you are blending a multitude of tax areas into one discussion that doesn't necessarily fit together. Property taxes go into a much more local entity

OK, let's just say we agreed on that and I am mixing all my taxes together (which I get hit at about 10 different angles with all my taxes, fees, etc- you'll go cross eyed looking at your pay stub). So, let's JUST talk property tax.... What I am STILL SAYING is we are getting HAMMERED their too! The folks who have SOME ground in Forest Reserve and THEN get TAXED on their BUILDINGS, FARM LAND, PONDS, TILLABLE, CRP, PASTURE, FOOD PLOTS, DEER BLINDS (YES, I AM PAYING TAXES ON A DEER BLIND!) & their HOUSE they live in and/or if they have an old farm house on land- these folks are paying 4 to 5 figures $ for property taxes, we are getting hammered as it is. Like I said, I have some FR and we shell out 5 figures in property tax bills. Then, down the road we've got folks living in gov housing for 10, 15, 20 years & on the dole for food, utilities, welfare, healthcare, etc and they are contributing ZERO, NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH. And yes, local government wastes, abuses $ and is inefficient like ANY branch of government. Government in general is the worst stewards of $ and I'd rather give my credit card to a 19 year old crack addict than the gov.

Whatever the case, my point is: for PROPERTY TAXES ALONE, the guys (every single one I know and I know a lot) who have SOME land in FR are paying staggering amounts of PROPERTY TAX on everything else, 4 to 5 figures a year, we're paying and contributing far more than our fair share of PROPERTY TAXES every year. Raise it and then you have to deal with all the inintended consequences of why this program was created + we're talking about such a small amount of the tax-base/possible tax revenue gains anyways with the tiny amount of timber in IA that's also in FR (remember, nothing that's leased for hunting, pastured, etc can be enrolled).

FINALLY, if they raise these taxes OR any others.... A year will go by or 2 and all that money will be spent through bigger budges, more bells & whistles, more waste, bloating, bureaucracy, etc.... Then, "hey, we need to raise your taxes ANOTHER 1-2% because we're not going to survive and we don't want to cut all these great benefits". IT'S NEVER EVER GOING TO BE ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT, whatever the rate.

 

[J_Barton]

My opinion- we need every program we can get in this state to preserve timber. Why not take the 'incentive' ?....anyone think others are passing on social programs in big cities so money can be better used ?

Sign up for Forest Reserve if you are eligible, and if you feel quilty, call the county assessor and ask them how much to send a check for each year.

 

[Scott]

Its a great program, provides some incentive for not grazing every square inch of this state. IMO, I see no reason to not take advantage of it and if your not, I hope you never took any exemptions for your kids or wrote off any interest on your home. Wouldnt want to cheat the gov out of their money

 

[Sligh1]

Its a great program, provides some incentive for not grazing every square inch of this state. IMO, I see no reason to not take advantage of it and if your not, I hope you never took any exemptions for your kids or wrote off any interest on your home. Wouldnt want to cheat the gov out of their money

BINGO!!! GREAT POINT on the exemptions and deductions!!!! Couldn't agree with the last 2 posts more!!

 

[Tubby One]

Sligh1, just a few things, as far as I'm concerned your Forest Reserve Exemption isn't much different than those people you keep complaining about living down the road on government money. Everyone else in your county is picking up the tab for what you are not paying for. I can't speak for your county but in mine there are almost 17,000 acres in Forest Reserve, that's a good chunk of change for everyone else to pickup. I also know that it would take 250 acres of ag land to equal the amount of taxes I pay on my $75-80,000 house. That doesn't sound to me like ag land taxes are outrageous. Also if you are truly paying 5 figure taxes, you either own an aweful lot of farm ground or the house you own is pretty expensive. The way I feel about it, if you don't want to pay the taxes on it then don't buy it.

 

[Sligh1]

your Forest Reserve Exemption isn't much different than those people you keep complaining about living down the road on government money. Everyone else in your county is picking up the tab for what you are not paying for. .

1) I'm paying, I'm paying subsantially. I'm paying the tab where there's thousands in my county paying ZERO. You just want me to pay more.
2) Yes, I do pay 5 figures. Yes, I do have a nice house and lot of ag land (purchased with $ I've already been taxed on & thankfully I spent years saving for, etc). Yes, I'm paying substantially more than my far share.
3) do you take ANY deductions or exemptions like: child deductions, interest on your house (thanks Scott), write anything off, get any subsidies, etc?
4) How about this.... How about if there isn't enough $ coming in, how about we cut back on what's being spent??? Federal, LOCAL, state, WHATEVER. If anyone were to say "government will NEVER have enough" and they'll always ask for more, reason out why all these tax dollars are needed - would you ever believe that or agree that will ALWAYS happen? *Just a side question... do you think government is the worst steward of $ in our economy? Do you think they spend with vast waste, fraud, abuse, inneficiency and corruption? Do you feel MORE $ taken out of our hands is better in ANY government's hands versus its citizens who earned it?

Thankfully we get a few folks that cut taxes BUT most want to raise them and it's always a fight. I pay my fair way beyond my share and I pay far far more than the average citizen and they get the same services I do.

Economy goes in the crapper and government's intake is hurt... raise my taxes even more- makes sense. I totally get where/why folks go to that BUT if that happens in MY HOUSE- i adjust my budget and quit spending so much frickin money, even if it's painful. Take more out of everyone's pocket, money we've earned that's not yours- let's see if that fixes anything. It won't and it will make things worse, especially the forest land in our state. I'm sure all the "little guys" who would love to strive to own a piece of ground- this will help them out too.

 

[jw_wildfire]

I urge each and every one of you to at least attend one of these meetings before spouting off for 1 side or another. The information presented (I have attended) is very informational and will at least let you form an educated opinion.

My opinion is that the benefits of forested land far outweigh the "lost" tax revenue. Taxing land that provides income once every 100-120 years (timber harvesting) will absolutely result in more land being cleared for farming. Fall leaf color change generates $6 million for Iowa's economy annually!

 

[Sligh1]

I urge each and every one of you to at least attend one of these meetings before spouting off for 1 side or another. The information presented (I have attended) is very informational and will at least let you form an educated opinion.

My opinion is that the benefits of forested land far outweigh the "lost" tax revenue. Taxing land that provides income once every 100-120 years (timber harvesting) will absolutely result in more land being cleared for farming. Fall leaf color change generates $6 million for Iowa's economy annually!

I am going or having a written statement recorded. I'm trying to make it on the 11th. How have the meetings gone so far? Have there been folks there in support of Forest Reserve? Folks need to get out there if you support this and want IA's small amount of timber to remain- if you don't you'll see what timber that's left being grazed, leased out for hunting (far more to pay for higher taxes land owners will incur), dozed timber, etc. Get out there folks!!!


I'd like to ask a few who don't support FR and want higher taxes for land owners.... Is access to hunting and getting permission to hunt private land important to you and important to other hunters in your opinion? the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES will be seen full force here, ONE of the many examples... These land owners will find ways to increase income to cover these higher taxes and I GUARANTEE there will be a lot of land owners that start leasing out there land for hunting & many folks will lose access. (Not knocking LEASING, just explaining what WILL happen as ONE of many unintended side effects that government is so great at overlooking constantly.)

 

[jw_wildfire]

There were approximately 275 people at the Yellow River State Forest meeting last week. There were over an hour's worth of comments made. The majority were in favor, but there were definitely some that were not. Anyone making comments: please make sure they are coherent and well thought out! Anti government ranting and raving has no place in these meetings!

Also it is amazing the number of people who are just plain ignorant to the facts that are presented. People who make comments that the facts directly refute should be shot!

 

[Daver]

I'd like to ask a few who don't support FR and want higher taxes for land owners....

Skip - you ask what I perceive to be a loaded question, one that potentially suppresses meaningful conversation on the subject. Given that we have already established that you and I have differing opinions on this subject, how would you react if I posed this question, "I'd like to ask the few who do support FR and want to continue to avoid paying taxes on their land like the rest of us do..."

I support EVERYONE paying a reasonable amount of property taxes on the land that they own. If the taxes are too high in aggregate then that to me is a different issue and should be addressed through a variety of other means. I do not support some people avoiding paying tax while others do. We can all come up with a variety of reasons why we shouldn't pay, etc.

 

[Sligh1]

Skip - you ask what I perceive to be a loaded question, one that potentially suppresses meaningful conversation on the subject. Given that we have already established that you and I have differing opinions on this subject, how would you react if I posed this question, "I'd like to ask the few who do support FR and want to continue to avoid paying taxes on their land like the rest of us do..."

I support EVERYONE paying a reasonable amount of property taxes on the land that they own. If the taxes are too high in aggregate then that to me is a different issue and should be addressed through a variety of other means. I do not support some people avoiding paying tax while others do. We can all come up with a variety of reasons why we shouldn't pay, etc.

Yep Daver, we do differ and you're a good dude on how you handle. We strongly disagree but I sure don't take it personally and after all, it's an internet discussion BUT is meaningful.

I can't think of any landowner who is avoiding paying taxes?!!? Someone who has no tillable, buildings, ponds, large house tax bill, food plots, crp, etc. What my point is: these folks are already paying their "fair share" and far beyond that. Taking advantage of an exemption for the timbered areas IF no leasing, no grazing and no clear cutting BUT paying their fair share through healthy/high taxes on everything else, I personally feel these folks are doing an immensely larger amount of tax paying ALREADY vs the average citizen AND in my opinion, NO ONE should feel guilty about taking this small exemption vs any others (again, 5% timber in this state average). And again, let's say they do raise my taxes and everyone else's who has some bit of FR ground, is there any MAJOR unintended consequences you see from this?
The Government will get a SLIGHT increase in revenue while timber will be leased for hunting, folks will lose their places to hunt (I've already talked with landowners that give permission to locals that if this goes through- DONE, they are leasing to make up the difference and increased costs), DOZING our little timber we have left to farm it, timber will be grazed, YOUNG/NEW FARMERS WILL BE HURT!!!, etc, etc. This story is the same as so many others with government trying to get more $ and not considering the vast impacts (yes, I'm ranting against government in general with some of my thoughts BUT I agree, I will not get too distracted with that as I concisely give my feedback in support of FR).

Do you take EXEMPTIONS or have you for a CHILD/DEPENDANT? Do you or have you taken EXEMPTIONS for your house mortgage interest? Do you write off any farm expenses? Do you get any CRP or government $ for YOUR farm? Those are no different and ways for folks to "avoid" paying taxes or taking tax $, I'd love to hear if you DO or DO NOT take advantage of any of those.



Please respond to this one from before:
I'd like to ask a few who don't support FR and want higher taxes for land owners.... Is access to hunting and getting permission to hunt private land important to you and important to other hunters in your opinion? the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES will be seen full force here, ONE of the many examples... These land owners will find ways to increase income to cover these higher taxes and I GUARANTEE there will be a lot of land owners that start leasing out there land for hunting & many folks will lose access. (Not knocking LEASING, just explaining what WILL happen as ONE of many unintended side effects that government is so great at overlooking constantly.)

 

[Daver]

Do you take EXEMPTIONS or have you for a CHILD/DEPENDANT? Do you or have you taken EXEMPTIONS for your house mortgage interest? Do you write off any farm expenses? Do you get any CRP or government $ for YOUR farm? Those are no different and ways for folks to "avoid" paying taxes or taking tax $, I'd love to hear if you DO or DO NOT take advantage of any of those.

Yes Skip, I take advantage of all of those things, however, I also support eliminating them. I think we need a far simpler tax code, be it property, federal, state or whatever, and the only deductions I feel like should be maintained are the ones for charitable contributions. You may see my answer as conflicted, I do not. FWIW, my previous answers have been focused on property tax, not other forms of tax.

As long as those deductions/exemptions are available and I qualify for them I will take them. I do see the property tax situation differently though and I do know a couple of people who pay very little property tax on fairly good sized "farms" via using the FR program. But they still call the same number I do to have the sheriff come out and drive the same roads I do to get to their place, etc.

I just think that since those property tax dollars goes towards funding local law enforcement, schools, county adminstration and roads predominantly that people should not have the ability to opt out because those costs are still there and they are then shared between the remaining tax payers.

FWIW, I would be fine with a lower tax rate for timbered ground if that could be efficiently managed, something that could be based off of assessed value like most home sites are.

Please respond to this one from before:
I'd like to ask a few who don't support FR and want higher taxes for land owners.... Is access to hunting and getting permission to hunt private land important to you and important to other hunters in your opinion? the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES will be seen full force here, ONE of the many examples... These land owners will find ways to increase income to cover these higher taxes and I GUARANTEE there will be a lot of land owners that start leasing out there land for hunting & many folks will lose access. (Not knocking LEASING, just explaining what WILL happen as ONE of many unintended side effects that government is so great at overlooking constantly.)

Yes, access is important to me and I would prefer that all people could find a good place to hunt for free. However, every other hobby that I can think of has some costs associated with it and it would not bother me one bit for hunters to have to pay for lease rights more often than they do now. I have listened to some people complain about leasing costs but then drop over $1000 on a new bow setup without blinking. What's to say that they couldn't spend that $1000 on a lease and use their bow for another year, etc?

 

[jw_wildfire]

Yes, access is important to me and I would prefer that all people could find a good place to hunt for free. However, every other hobby that I can think of has some costs associated with it and it would not bother me one bit for hunters to have to pay for lease rights more often than they do now. I have listened to some people complain about leasing costs but then drop over $1000 on a new bow setup without blinking. What's to say that they couldn't spend that $1000 on a lease and use their bow for another year, etc?

I couldn't disagree more. Public lands are available as a "free" hunting option, but are so crowded, they are not a legitimate option in most parts of the state. It is hard enough to find good private land options as it is now, and if more landowners come to expect payment for hunting rights, it will further commercialize the sport and exclude many hunters who cannot afford to pay. In my opinion, we should be doing everything possible to encourage people to hunt/fish, not push for things that will exclude people.

 

[Daver]

I couldn't disagree more. Public lands are available as a "free" hunting option, but are so crowded, they are not a legitimate option in most parts of the state. It is hard enough to find good private land options as it is now, and if more landowners come to expect payment for hunting rights, it will further commercialize the sport and exclude many hunters who cannot afford to pay. In my opinion, we should be doing everything possible to encourage people to hunt/fish, not push for things that will exclude people.

Fair enough, I used to think along those same lines myself but when I stopped to pay attention to how much money people were spending on hunting gear and such who then "couldn't afford" to spend anything on access I kind of switched positions. I would strongly prefer that hunting not become more commercialized than what is now too, I am struck by how prevalent "branding" is on all manner of hunting equipment.

I used to enjoy watching various deer hunting videos and such but in my mind they have degenerated in large part to little more than product pimping marketing devices so I am avoiding them more and more. It is way too late to worry about deer hunting becoming too commercialized unfortunately.

Now if someone was hunting with a hand me down bow and $50 worth of accessories, etc, I might be persuaded that they really didn't have enough money to give a portion to the landowner. However, I know a great many people who have thousands of dollars wrapped up in their equipment, which is perfectly fine by me, but I am just not persuaded that they can't afford something for the farmer when they have so much to spend on gear.

 

[Sligh1]

If we cut this down to Rock Bottom...

YOU ALL NEED TO READ THIS!!!! READ THE WHOLE THING!!!!!.......http://www.iowadnr.gov/portals/idnr/uploads/forestry/forestreserve_findings.pdf The 2nd page of facts, stats, etc are incredible, check out 2nd page at bottom for sure too, just read all of it!


We are talking about an Average of $40k tax increase PER COUNTY, we are talking PEANUTS HERE! PEANUTS!!!! I know 4 people with HOUSES that added together pay more in tax (yes, they are nice houses) or I know ONE farmer who pays more than that in taxes for his farm tax bill- ONE GUY! We're talking about $40k PER COUNTY!!!

So, the UPSIDE to this.... you get $40k more per county on average, yep, ok. DOWNSIDE: decreased timber quality, loss of vast amounts of habitat, threatened & endangered species hurt, access to land- worse, dozing timber, grazing timber, reduced tree plantings, less quality deer land, more poor water quality and more soil erosion, less logging income, less timber for future generations and to hunt, etc, etc, etc.


4.2 BILLION+ ($4,229,772,657) was collected in Iowa Property taxes (below) in 2011 statewide. The cost of FR (see above link) is about 4.5 million ($4,490,000) state-wide. If my CALCULATIONS are CORRECT (I THINK I DID IT RIGHT), FR would be 1/10th of 1% of tax revenue gains & increases if implemented.
http://www.taxrelief.org/reports/0000/0125/2011_February_11_Watchdog.pdf


** SIDE FACT: Iowa took in 6.6 Billion in tax revenue (above link) through sales, property, state income tax, etc. Of that, 4.2+ billion was from Property taxes. 64% of Iowa's tax income or bill gets paid by property tax payers (while TONS of people here pay ZERO property taxes- renters, free housing, roomates, etc, etc). I'd say the property tax payers are lifting quite the heavy weight here already!

 

[letemgrow]

With IA only have 5% of the state in Forest...It would stand to reason to keep some incentives there so people see value in having timber???

Native prairie should be no different...that stuff should be tax exempt so people will leave the less than 1% that remains intact.

 

[Packnasty]

To address the public access rights, I used to enjoy taking advantage of WI's Forest Crop Law, which was similar to IA's FRP, but required participating landowners to allow public access.

While the door is closing on hunting access, this is one way the state could improve this program. I would love to see this program implemented in IA. Landowners get their tax breaks, hunters get a place to hunt, and forest land gets preserved and improved. However, this is a program that only non-hunters would typically take advantage of.

 

[Non-typ.]

That would be great Packnasty lets do the same with C.R.P.