OT: Flex fuel vs regular

Page 2 of 6  
On 9/4/2013 3:22 PM, dpb wrote: ...

ERRATUM: ... other than peanuts, [COTTON] (not corn), and sugar--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, right. My sister is one of those "farmers". All it means is that they keep a big chunk of their land listed on the tax rolls as "farmland" so the taxes stay low. They lease it out to some other guy for pennies who "farms" it, i.e. they grow hay and sell it, just so they can get a lease document to met the tax law requirements. It's all one big scam. Next you'll be lobbying for buggywhip subsides because we need to keep the family buggywhip producers in business. It's all a shell game and the guys with the best lobbyists know where the pea is. They rest of us get the short end of the stick.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/4/2013 5:40 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote: ...

Well, if it's farmland and growing cash hay crop, what's wrong with that? The landowner has every right to rent their ground; after all it is their ground and there are still at least a few areas of relatively free economic choices in the country. Or would you expect her to simply hold on to acreage and pay taxes and the upkeep for no revenue?
Hay is a valuable and necessary crop just as are corn or soybeans or any other marketable crop. Hay is _not_ insurable as are small grains, so if there were any drought relief it would come under what is called the "NAP" program -- Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program. There is a signup and all acres have to have paid an annual NAP fee (and _all_ other insurable crop production acres on the _entire_ farm have to have been insured) to be eligible. Even then, it requires at least a documented 50% or greater loss of yield and the payout is only 55% of the value of the excess over 50% loss. So the 50% loss is zero payout. You don't get made whole by any stretch of the imagination.
And, just to complete the picture from the other side -- not only does the producer of insurable crops have to have the insurance on every planted acre every year to be eligible for those years in which might have a loss, he also must have NAP coverage on his non-insured acre crops to actually be eligible for payout in case there is a loss. And, it's just like your homeowner's insurance premiums -- there's no return of premiums for the years you don't collect nor does one get the NAP payment back for those acres, either. Those $$ all are outputs to the producer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You miss the point. BECAUSE of gvt manipulation of taxes they "farm" it, not because it makes true economic sense. The low taxes on "farmland" are just another subsidy to farmers who get almost all the benefit, but my sister tags along with a dozen acres because they haven't managed to squeeze the little guys, who really are NOT farmers, out of the process. I'd farm my front lawn if the gvt would say "OK, we'll reduce your tax bill from $3000 a year to $1000, even if my "produce" from my "farmland" cost me $300 out of pocket to produce. I'd still be netting $1700. Why should "farmland' be taxed at a different rate then "land"??? It's just another hidden farm subsidy if you look at it that way OR it's a complete screwing of those who don't farm if you choose to look at it the other way. Either way, it's gvt manipulation of things by rigging the tax system to the benefit of the FAT CATS who can afford the frigging lobbyists that crawl up the butts of our elected morons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/4/2013 9:53 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

...
That's state, not fed's and you can always file a complaint to the assessor if it bugs you that much.
Some folks always will "game" a system; doesn't mean the overall system itself is necessarily bad. Certainly ag land shouldn't be taxed at rates for commercial or higher-intensity use.
But, if it is actually raising a crop, whether it's a small acreage or not, seems ok to me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A successful family farm *IS* a corporate farm.
<mindless leftist (but I repeat myself) jab deleted>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/4/2013 6:57 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote: ...

?????? Only 4% statistically are actually organized as corporations; quite a number of very successful farms still operate as sole proprietorships albeit the larger they get the more and more likely it is that the tax structure is such that the only sensible way to do it is to be a corporation (as noted earlier, very little different than any other family small business).
As someone whom I forget once said, "Farming w/o a profit motive is gardening."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lying with statistics is still lying.

Now, read what you wrote.

You forgot the tax motive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/4/2013 7:37 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

I don't think I've forgotten anything. Farming is a business just as any other; one uses the rules as they are in place there as in any business (or personal finances, too, for that matter).
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You obviously have. "Ashton Crusher" called you on part of it, above.

Most business (read: hobbies) DO NOT get huge real estate tax subsidies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/5/2013 7:28 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

Nonsense...businesses get all kinds of subsidies/tax breaks from no real estate at all for years for moving in manufacturing or all kinds of stuff...
I pointed out on that one if he's so upset over ag use of a parcel that thinks isn't he can go to the local assessor and have the case reviewed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good lord. You INSIST on showing your cluelessness.

What a dumbfuck. What exactly do you think the assessor is going to do? It's the law. Idiot!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/6/2013 1:00 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote: ...
Obscenities are hardly needed/called for just 'cuz you can't see the logically obvious to me... :)

There's the law and there's avoidance of same...you don't think there's ever a case when an attempt at using the law to create an avoidance of liability has been foiled?
If it is within the intent then sure, and I've no problem with it as said before.
There are reviews of questionable judgments made all the time if they're brought to the attention of those making same. Certainly the County Assessor will be more than happy to collect the higher rate on any piece of property that is on rolls currently as ag use if review of same would show it isn't justifiable. But, they don't have manpower to check every parcel every year so unless an issue is raised it'll just go on until either it crops up on a routine reassessment check or someone brings a possible attempt to avoid to their attention.
I'm on local FSA (Farm Service Agency) County Committee a local committee of producers who are a first step in the chain of USDA implementation of prgrams. One of our routine duties is to make determinations of whether folks are qualified operators based on their contributions to farming enterprises all the time. Sometimes it's a hard call and takes requesting additional supporting documentation and/or other evidence an individual actually is contributing sufficiently to be considered a bona fide "producer" (FSA-speak for person qualified to be paid).
While the particular question at hand is regarding the local county tax assessment for the parcel, there are reviews in those offices as well.
Don't see what's so hard... :)
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What is obvious to you isn't reality in this universe.

Wrong. ...as usual.

The law is the law, dummy. If it's in the letter of the law, there's not a damned thing to be done.

Idiot.

Of course you don't. You're an idiot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/6/2013 1:00 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote: ...

There's the law and then there's evasion...
Your hypothesis is the taxing authority would have no recourse to determine what is/isn't valid ag use and I seriously doubt that is so in _any_ jurisdiction.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Clueless.

What a frappin' idiot. If the "farm" is within the letter of the law, there's not a damned thing you're going to do about it. It's easy for weekend farmers to be within that letter. It's *very* common and they get huge subsidies for it. Rent a clue if you can't afford to own one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/6/2013 9:47 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

Indeed if it is within the law then there's nothing that _should_ be done about it--that's precisely what I've said from the git-go.
OTOH, if it is a subterfuge solely for the purpose of avoidance then something could (and should) be done.
Now, there's the gray part--perhaps as the other poster says the sister wouldn't have done it w/o the side benefit but is still producing a viable hay crop--there's nothing wrong technically with that, either as per the law. And, indeed, I've also no problem therein as previously said as everybody is free to use the rules as they exist as they best server their own interest.
Again as previously pointed out, just because it is possible to squeeze corner cases into a general law that benefit a few that aren't generally intended doesn't mean the overall policy is wrong; only that there's never any way to completely prevent the occasional incident of the sort, no matter what the area.
OTOH, there are certainly instances that _are/were_ abuse that have been fixed and/or prosecuted. As said, we find them during FSA audits or have to reject individuals for not being in compliance on occasion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope.

No one said anything about "subterfuge".

TWEET! Illegal goalpost motion!

If it can squeeze into the letter of the law, it's perfectly legal. The fact that (whatever) it (is) insults your lefty sensibilities is irrelevant.

Fraud should be prosecuted. Less than that, it's all in your imagination.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/7/2013 6:16 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

...
Whoa!!!! It appears you've got the two posters' positions reversed -- I wasn't the one who claimed insult...it was the other poster who was incensed over his sister using the ag land designation, not I; I merely pointed out that if he thought it wasn't within the letter of the law to point it out to the local assessor for review/compliance.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/6/2013 9:47 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote: ...

What's your definition of "huge"? Unlikely there's really a lot of money involved for such recreational activities. How much actual money can there be in 10-12A? -- the other poster mentioned a thou or so; hardly a "huge subsidy".
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.