farm tractor fees/registration costs

[Lazy]

Hi
I don’t understand why farmers should be exempt from taxes on the tools they use. the tools I used to make a living with are not exempt. And why should we pay the farmers to not work or use the land. If they cut out all the subsidy programs to land owners they could lower all of our taxes.

 

[jimg]

I take it that greenbelt is some article of law that you agree to in order that your taxes are lowered? If so, we have something up here called current use. I think it amts to nothing more than leaving your land as it is (not developing it). Current use is different though from farm...Im not sure how the rates compare.

 

[rambler]

> I don’t understand why farmers should be exempt from taxes on the tools they use. the tools I used to make a living with are not exempt. And why should we pay the farmers to not work or use the land. If they cut out all the subsidy programs to land owners they could lower all of our taxes.


I would be happy to discuss any of that with you. It may get beyond the scope of this forum, but you can PM me....

3M, Kraft, GM, Ford, etc. are exempt from paying _sales_ tax on raw materials & machinery they use in producing their products. Sales tax should only apply to the end consumer as this tax is set up in the USA.

Farmers are exempt from some of these sales taxes, and not others. Just as you are.

Back in the '60s there were farm programs to idle land. No more. Now there are programs funded by enviornmental concerns to set marginal land aside for wildlife.

The government feels it is better to subsidise farm land for about $40 an acre rather than have higher food prices on the grocery shelves. That is their decision, not up to farmers. How it is, we farmers have to play within the govt rules and regulations just as all other segments of society. Mostly it is all tied into enviornmental regulations these days, do this, sign up, or else.

Kind of don't understand the rest of your comment, seems you have a chip?

/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

--->Paul

 

[Slamfire]

I have agreed to let the land remain wooded for as long as I own the property, saved about $150 on my property tax bill. If I sell it the tax reduction automagically goes away.

 

[LAGEORGE]

Lazy, farming is a real pain in the ****. They should be subsided so the rest of us can eat!
I grow on a small scale and don’t think I would ever make it my full time job; it is just too difficult to make it work. But people need to eat and much like we need to encourage folks to continue to educate our children so too we also need to encourage farming. If this is not done one day we may all get hungry living in our new subdivisions.

George

 

[Lazy]

Hi
I agree we should encourage farmers to grow food by paying them what the food is worth. But I don’t think we should pay them to not use the land to grow food.

 

[BillyP]

Why not, they pay people not to work /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[cowboydoc]

"I agree we should encourage farmers to grow food by paying them what the food is worth. But I don’t think we should pay them to not use the land to grow food."

Yes and every farmer would agree with you. However, you are not right about getting paid not go grow food. Any program today, like rambler said, is designed to protect the land preventing runoff, pollution, erosion, etc. The other programs where you are paid for land not put in is called CRP. This is the Conservation Reserve Program. It is setup to let the land go back to it's native state. When this happens, deer, pheasant, quail, ducks, geese, etc. flourish. In Iowa they cut back on this type of land and the pheasant and quail population was decimated. This hunting was a major economic factor for the area. When the population went down the economic factors showed that for every $1 that was not spent on CRP ground they lost $4 in economic revenue from hunting. In this one case then it was a huge factor in the economy. The CRP program is a very good program. It protects the land, prevents pollution, makes the land more productive. The $ spent pay off in the long run.

As far as the farm subsidys this was put in place just to keep farmers from going broke. Most farmers would love to have this gone and have a true market. However, the govt. believes they have to control the market and control the farmer. There are only a couple buyers anymore and you either take or leave the price. The regulations are immense. It's socialist at best, and much of it borders on communism. They tell you what to do and if you don't do it you won't make it and they can shut you down as well. No it isn't the farmers where the problem lies there.

As far as not paying taxes the taxes are paid on back end. In any mfg. business you do not pay taxes on the raw materials or what you use to produce the product. You pay taxes on what you produce and sell. It's not different for farmers than any other mfg. sector.

 

[rambler]

> I agree we should encourage farmers to grow food by paying them what the food is worth. But I don’t think we should pay them to not use the land to grow food.


For the record, I hate much of the farm programs, wish we could get rid of them. However, it is structured in a way that a farmer does not have much choice. I wish what you paid at the grocery store had some relation to what I get for my product; but that is no longer true. A farmer gets 5 cents for the wheat in a box of Wheaties, so if wheat doubled in price, wouldn't make much difference to you buying cereal - or so one would think. Milk has gone up & down in price several times in the past 15 years in almost total opposite cycles - high at the grocery store when it is low at the farm, etc.

Anyhow, which programs don't you like, specifically? I guess that is the part I don't understand. What program pays money to not work on the farm - and where could I sign up for it????? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif It seems to be some urban legand that is not true. What program pays to not use land? Could you tell us which program(s) specifically you are opposed to? I may well agree with you on it - just not sure which it is you are talking about. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Back in the '60s this was true, idled land to recieve farm payments - supply-sided management. Since the '80s there have been smaller environmental programs that are very specific in idling poor land that maybe shouldn't have been farmed - but were because of govt programs back in the '50s & early '60s that encouraged farmers to use this land.... Gets complicated, doesn't it? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Now in the '90s & '00s they have base acre payments with no idled acres which is basically a subsidy but you do very much paperwork & agreements to get it; support system for extremely low commodity prices; and several fairly small environmental land programs. Gets _real_ complicated. I totally despise the basic subsidy but I'm in line for it like all other farmers - would you not take money that was offered? Could you afford not to & still remain in business??? The safety net support system & the environmental programs seem like good ideas to me, much like unemployment benifits & city parks for town folk.

Right now it seems you are opposed to the city parks. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif That couldn't be? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I could go on & on about the govt payments, but don't think that's what this forum is about. Basically the govt offers ~$40 an acre to the bulk grain producers which goes straight to the land owners as inflated rent or property taxes. It undermines efforts to grow non-traditional crops (legal stuff, oats, hay, pasture, etc.) and diversify - which would naturally stablize prices & agriculture. Without the subsidy farmers would be better off. My short take of it. If you want to help farmers & taxpayers, lobby to carefully end the direct subsidies, but keep the safety net part (for extreme low prices) and the land conservation program parts.

But the subsidy program does _not_ idle any land at all, only some small specific conservation programs.

--->Paul

 

[Lazy]

Hi
Maybe I don't understand what I'm reading

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1542.cfm

http://www.ewg.org/farm/region.php?fips=29000

I do know one thing, our taxes are too high

charlie