Discussion in 'Legislative Forum' started by Fishbonker, Jan 16, 2019.
Wow, pulling the property tax exemption for forest reserve (unless it is fruit trees). That will be popular!
I sure hope that doesn't pass.
They tried the same thing last year and/or the year before. The difference is the fruit trees. I'm sure they are trying to garner support or at least not have the frit tree folks fight it.
FWIW, I have purposely never pursued the Forest Reserve designation on my timbered acres, although it would save me $$'s every year. I have always felt that I should be paying property taxes to support local roads, street signage, schools, law enforcement, etc. So I would be in favor of this passing.
I understand that the argument in favor is that more woodlands may be bulldozed if they cost the owner tax money every year, etc. But it is my perception that the primary adopters of the Forest Reserve program are actually just choosing a no tax option on their recreational properties AND drive on the same roads, stop at the same stop signs, call the same deputies, etc, as those of us that actually pay the property taxes do.
Iowa, which has very limited amount of timber, should not be messing with this law. (my opinion)
Times have changed since the forest reserve program started. If you have enough money to buy land strictly for deer hunting you have the money to pay some taxes on it. I know that this will enrage some of you but its a simple fact that the rough ground is being bought up by "out of towners". Land that could be used for grazing cattle etc, farmed whatever, expanding the tax base. Governments are looking for more money not less. Trust me that this will be a popular bill for the people that live in an area that is being bought up by outside money that doesn't spend money at the farm store or coop like a farmer would. Getting rid of this tax will not take more land out of timber until farmers, especially cattle farmers can afford to pay more than deer hunters. That's just not going to happen. No cattle farmer is going to pay top dollar for timber, then cut it down and plant grass. They also aren't going to pay top dollar for timber and try to graze it, cows don't eat trees. Sorry if this ruffles your feathers.
Probably should end CRP as well so that the deer farmers aren’t subsidized by the government.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They will cut down more trees for agriculture or whatever, if there is no tax advantage, guaranteed. Iowa is not like Minnesota or Wisconsin with large tracts of big timber. I think it is less than 10% timber, why would you want that to decrease?
You own land here in Iowa right Hardwood? How much timber will you cut down if the tax exemption is repealed? I stand by my comments if you can afford to buy land strictly to shoot a deer, then you can afford the 10 bucks an acre tax or whatever it is. Where I live I am surrounded by out of town landowners that don't pay tax on their playgrounds or old ladies that don't pay tax on their rough ground or its owned by sawmills. They aren't going to fence their playgrounds off to run cattle on them, or cut down the trees to plant corn.
Heck it might even make some of the old ladies that own the ground sell it. It might make the rough ground cheaper. What it won't do is clear cut old growth timber to be farmed.
Sod Savage--I am a hunter, so I will only cut some walnut, TSI, etc... If you suddenly add taxes to farmers who have not paid taxes on the timber, say $10 an acre or more---they will probably cut some of it. With the new CRP not being as attractive, this would be a double whammy to habitat.
It won't pass anyway, legislators would be voting for a tax increase to thousands of farmers., I doubt that will happen in this current political environment.
I have been on the fence to log mine and right now as the laws are it would not be worth the effort. If they passed this I might log the heck out of it and get rid of my canopy to get it a little thicker.
Interesting...I see that the Farm Bureau supports this...then it really wouldn't surprise me to see it go on through.
IMPORTANT FOR FOLKS TO KNOW!!!... "Govermnent needs $!".... Land owner's property taxes just went up 20-35% (depending on county) in the last 6 months. That's a LOT of increased funds going to every county now!!! It's also a steep increased cost to incur for the averaged income landowner. Most landowners (no, most are not "Mega rich") look at an extra $1,000-5,000 tacked on to their already large tax bill, with concern. This last Spring's taxes were an eye opener for everyone opening their tax bill.
1) The Government ALWAYS needs more $!!!! Never ends. They rarely or never say they can do with less!!!! Government rarely, if ever makes cut backs. To the contrary, their budgets USUALLY increase yearly. Private sector often has to adapt to decreases in spending & budgets. Government does or often can run with massive waste, inefficiencies & has an almost impossible task of terminating incompetent employees. The private sector goes bankrupt or out of business with the same structure.
2) We agree we need road work, schools, etc. We are taxing the daylights out of folks. Housing, AG, whatever.... It's now the highest it's ever been. Is there anyone who feels they are not paying enough?
3) Like stated & would seem obvious.... 5-6% timber.... If we want to encourage the removal of timber to be put in production, this is a great way how. The reason the Forest Reserve Program EXISTS is the protect this little remaining timber in the most transformed state of the 50 states.
4) Most counties in Iowa have very little forest left & are not impacted greatly at all because of this. The counties that are impacted - look at their overall tax revenue & the Forest Reserve is drop in the bucket VS the overall revenue.
5) Be careful what you wish for!!! Doesn't take a long memory to recall Iowa Forests continuing to be removed, dozed in & impacts of it (that's with FOREST RESERVE IN PLACE!!).... https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...-trees-and-is-hurting-water-quality/87074442/
AMENDMENT FOR THE BILL!!!! I propose the "IW Generosity Tax Ammendment"!!!!..... There will be a blank space on everyone's tax returns.... CHECK THIS BOX: X & FILL OUT THIS COLUMN WITH SAID $ AMOUNT... $_______ is what I would like to pay in addition to my tax bill. Everyone who feels we don't pay enough will have the ability to contribute additional $ to the county or state!!!
Bill is sponsored by a Republican from a rural district and backed by Farm Bureau. I would like to know why? I have my own thoughts. Anybody?
My theory...some % of the local farmers have come to realize that their "neighbors", as in both NRLO's and RLO's who own their land primarily for recreational purposes, are not paying property taxes on their timbered acres. So..."why should a farmer pay taxes on his acres and a non-farmer be able to avoid the tax bite...especially if they don't shoot enough crop eaters off of their land and "send" them over to me to feed?".
As the farm economy has tightened up quite a little bit in the past 4-5 years, farmers are "looking around" more to see what is going on around them.
This is a copy and paste of an email reply to the IBA legislative committee from Amy Sinclair the bill sponsor.
> This bill relates to the elimination of the forest reserve tax credit has
> arisen because of the growing number of acres being placed into the forest
> reserve program. The request for the bill has come from a variety of
> groups, including County Supervisors and the Iowa Farm Bureau. While I
> wholeheartedly believe in building our forests and supporting conservation
> and habitat, I also understand that local governments function almost
> solely from property tax levies. As the number of acres being excluded
> from taxation increases, the tax burden on all other ag land and real
> estate property owners grows.
> There are certain basic and essential functions of local government that
> benefit all property owners, such as fire and police protection, medical
> and mental health services, and roadways just to name a few. The cost of
> providing those services does not change when acres are removed from
> taxation and only shifts that burden to all others.
> This bill is intended to spark a conversation around how the burden for
> the cost of essential services provided by local governments are borne by
> all and not just some property owners. Some solutions have been to open
> the credited acres to public hunting or to give a partial credit to
> continue to encourage the long-term investment into forestry. If you have
> other ideas for resolving the conflict between the cost of essential
> services and preserving our woodlands, I invite you to share those
> solutions for consideration during the subcommittee meeting next week.
> Thank you,
Fiscal impact report if tax exemption went away for forest reserve:
That’s a whole bunch of NOTHING right there. That’s gov economics for 6th graders. Maybe tells u about how funds are allocated & is common math on keeping or repealing tax excemptions. There needs to be a “report” (or, simply for myself, I can use COMMON SENSE) for the impacts to: 1) property values. 2) account for the fact that they just raised property taxes on all Land on all farms not in FR by 20%+. Could mention they increased these taxes during a time of low grain & farm income prices. Or to contrast- would like to increase tax burden on farms that do already pay steep costs & are weathering difficult market conditions. 3) environmental impact..... most transformed state in country with most aggressive & impactful farm practices.... 6% remaining timber. & coming off a loss of tens of thousands of acres of forest loss from the grain spike of 2012-2013.... ya, what’s the impact there? 4) how about the RESIDENT, middle class landowner who makes payments on land & saw income from rent go down while taxes went up 20%+ this year?? Impact to them?
Again- government rarely, if ever, goes without less & almost always has increased spending. They factually just steamrolled massive increases to the vast vast majority of land (over 90% had double digit increases). Will it ever be enough? Of course it won’t. Ever. What are all the other real ramifications of this? To some- nothing. To some- Change of land ownership. To some, losing a spot to hunt (maybe because now it’s SOLD, LEASED OUT or heck- eventually just dozed In for production). Anyone who “loves forests” - ya- this is BAD NEWS FOLKS! Wildlife? Ouch! Clean water, even air & other environmental impacts - bad. There is only ONE upside. ONE- $! Gov thinks this will give them a little more short sighted $!!! Only 100 downsides & 1 upside. Leave it to a politician to bring that genius to a prosed bill!
Not the first or worst in politics but this garbage gets tiring. Example # 99,029,933,973,738 for term limits on politicians.
Separate names with a comma.