My Photo

Categories

Feeds and more

  • [ BadgerLink logo ]
Blog powered by Typepad

Stats

Uppity Wisconsin - Progressive Webmasters

« Road Trip: Hot Dogs, Race Track, Elementary School Gym Teacher, 50 years. | Main | From Barstool, Fox Valley Republican Launches Campaign To Unseat Rep. Kagen »

November 17, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Tim M.

Excellent point(s). Avoidance/evasion, "farmland preservation"/tax shift.

Jim L

Thanks for the info. Although I didn't know the history, I've certainly see the effects. You are correct tax avoidance is immoral, particularly for someone seeking a leadership possition.

Marius

A little language tweakng, a little political axle grease (i.e., campaign contributions) and the lobbyists persuade the legislators to insinuate loopholes into statutes that benefit the few at the expense of the many.
'twas ever thus.

The Sconz

This wouldn't make such a huge difference in a race between Wall and Herb Kohl, the richest member of Congress. However, running against Mr. "Full disclosure, poorest member of the Senate," hiding $34,000 might make a bigger difference.

Jonathan

Paul:

I remain a supporter of Farmland Preservation and the tax treatment provided for agricultural lands. I do agree, however, that lands, once platted or rezoned to permit development should not receive any tax breaks and should be assessed at their best potential use.
I disagree that the farmland tax treatment has not provided benefits. In my own Township of Primrose (Southern Dane County) all the land has been under real pressure to be developed into residential uses. But the farmland preservation tax treatment has had the effect of markedly slowing any such development. The Town and its residents, have instituted very restrictive land use requirements that prohibit building or crossing to build upon agricultural lands plus there are probitions on building near waterways, on steep slopes etc. plus a requirement to 'cluster' development when it does occur. The result is that Primrose actually has fewer residents today than we did in 1974 when farmland preservation was enacted. (We do have a small increse in new housing of approx 1-3 per year, but smaller family size combined with slower growth have kept the population below that of 1974 while also preserving virtually all agricultural land and all sensitive lands)
As a practical matter, all residential housing (including that as part of farms) have seen a sharp increase in assessment but the actual agricultural and conservation lands have not. The farmland preservation tax treatment has enabled our town to implement effective land-use control.
I would suggest--instead of trying to throw the whole thing out--that some changes to the implementation of the law allow a full assessment on those lands that are legally prepared for development regardless of pumpkins or corn or whatever--and that the land owner who feels agrieved be simply allowed to rezone and deplot their land back to agricultural permitted use to receive favored tax assessment.
And yes, I know that this was a constitutional amendment and that it is based upon use, but I also believe that this would be legally permitted if the statutes governing implementation were revised accordingly. It would be fair to do this if effected landowners were given a relatively short window (say two years) to re-establish their agricultural bonfides by going back to exclusive agricultural zoning. Otherwise, I agree, they should pay the full tax.
regards,

JB

urban resident

In Mount Horeb a discussion was introduced to consider an Ordinance change that would no longer allow agricultural uses within Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts. There will be further discussion on this at future Plan Commission meetings.

Residents who want to live near farming operations most likely live in townships. Theoretically, urban residents may not want tractors, manure, or the rodents that are part of rural farm operations in their back yards.

If Middleton did not allow agricultural uses in its Commercial zones, Wall would not have had permission to plant a (commercial farming operation) pumpkin patch in an urban area and the state law would have avoided this challenging and negative press.

Bob Morant

Please, this notion that tax avoidance is immoral is absurd. If it's unfair, change the law. Otherwise identify a single person who pays more than required by law because they feel the law doesn't tax them enough. I promise you anybody pontificating that taxes should be paid where no liability exists, is not facing that dilemna. Their deductions and exemptions are just fine.

"My mortgage interest deduction is a good thing, but your capital gains rate is immoral."

I think Huey Long put it best: "Let's not tax me and not tax thee, let's tax that man behind the tree."

Alderman Steve

'I think Huey Long put it best: "Let's not tax me and not tax thee, let's tax that man behind the tree."'

Actually, I think that was Senator Russell Long...

This is a very useful post, Paul.

Ben Masel

Would turning this into a tax deferment fix the scam?

So long as the land remains in agriculture, the difference between the tax paid and the tax that would have been due as developed land is rolled over. If and when development occurs, there's a bill due for the deferred tax, plus a rather high interest rate.

Carlo Ponzi

T. Wall is against socialized healthcare* but he loooooooooves his socialized TIF. And now find out that he's also involved in those commie pinko pumpkin patch collectives. Reagan must be rolling over in his grave.

*http://ibmadison.com/againstwall?id=215

The comments to this entry are closed.