Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Should .GOV pay property taxes to local counties?

That's fugging LIE. And you are a shameless liar.

I have been in on ground floor county govt that got PILT. And compared to property taxes, which county govts run on, PILT was just pennies on the dollar. NOT more money than property taxes by any stretch of the imagination.

Private property is much more than just raw land value. The county taxes houses and improvements on private land. There are no houses and improvements allowed on public land owned by the Forest Circus or BLM, and therefore can't be taxed.

What if I offered $3 per acre... they would be even better off.

I'll pay $3k in taxes for a 1,000 spread in the Yellowstone Valley. Anyone else?

Pure manipulative .GOV bullchit.

You're also not answering my original question: Do the economic benefits of having a base in your community outweigh the negatives you've cited.

So far every single community that's had a base close has answered that question with a "yes."

Siskiyou Co's 6,400 sq miles (size of Hawaii) is 60% Fed owned. For this now, we get about 2 million annual PILT payment. I'm sorry to say that the original PILT formula was slashed to bare bones by Reagan in 1982. If I got the math right...that is 50 cents an acre. The private landowners (timber holdings in the county) are paying on average...10 to 20 times that amount...plus an additional tax on timber harvested. Be careful who your neighbors are, the USFS is not a good neighbor. Two years ago, an uncontrolled forest fire on Fed land was threatening me and neighbors property. I quickly got permission to act from the neighbors and cut a dozer line from Fed boundary to the highway...never once actually getting the Cat on Fed property. Wind shifted thankfully, but not before some uniformed dickhead informed me I could be arrested for interfering (?) and asked me why we hadn't evacuated when ordered to. They have recently changed the law though, and now you can defend your property legally.

Read the article dummy...private ag land here is taxed at 31cents an acre.

PILT pays $2.67 an acre for that exact piece of ground if it were owned by the feds.

Those are facts...end of story.

Ask him exactly who collects the fees for oil and gas, grazing and timber allotments on govt land...

Hint: It ain't the county.

Yet, PILT is the socialistic savior contrived by a federal govt that has no constitutional authority to be the largest landowner in U.S.

Cray-Cray, huh?

I don't know about anyone else, but our local government would just take the extra money and piss it away. Any extra funds would go toward empire building and fat contracts for friends and family. Meanwhile, the federal government (regardless of party) would just print more money and reduce the value of a dollar even further. GD

If it was classified as ag land, absolutely that's what you would pay. The feds pay 26k in taxes.

$2.67 x 2 = $5.34 per acre...

Hell... I am feeling generous

I'll double the amount... $5,340 a year in taxes for a 1,000 acre spread in the Yellowstone...

The federal government absolutely has the authority to be the largest landowner. Pull your head out of your ass and think on your own. You'd be better off than parroting some BS you read on the 'net from your favorite conspiracy website, or something you heard from the bar stool next to you.

Got it...

If I could own a National Park at $0.11 an acre... I would.

Set up a Dream Catcher stand at the gate... to cover the ANNUAL TAX BURDEN.

That's dumb, your taxes would only be 31 cents an acre, and after buying those thousand acres, you wouldn't even be able to afford that.

If you had the money to purchase a park, the last thing you'd be worried about are the taxes. Well other than having something to bitch about at the local coffee shop.

Fact.

All discussions of "Government Money" should begin with the realization that gov't produces nothing. It has no money that it did not take from a working taxpayer. I often think that replacing "Federal' or "State" money with the phrase "my neighbor's money" would make folks think differently. Should we levy another tax on the people of FL to offset local revenue lost by not taxing Yellowstone? Budgets from counties, states and DC are already somewhat comingled so, on some level, we already do. Also, most of the benefits of the land are already enjoyed by local folks. I vote no.








'

How about you show us all the exact constitutional authority the federal govt has to own vast tracts of land?

I can show you this though:

THE PROPERTY CLAUSE, Art 4, Sect 3, Cl 2
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

THE ENCLAVE CLAUSE, Art 1, Sect 8, Cl 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–

Blah blah blah, you're a broken record...like I said do some thinking on your own. It's not hard to find.

Instead of making 66,000 posts and wasting your time...try using that computer for something to improve your knowledge.

Access to facts has never been easier and yet you still refuse to try.

Sorry, won't spoon feed you your mush...

James Wilson, stated:


Did you get that? Many people claim that congress was vested with powers to do whatever it damn well pleased, in other words, to pass the laws that it sees fit to pass for whatever reason, or no reason, because the people, from which all power flows, elected them to pass laws, by majority vote, and that if there was any conflict with the constitution, the unlimited powers of congress would trump all other considerations. Many federalists today, claim that congress is the most powerful entity in the land because they can overcome executive vetoes and Supreme Court decisions by obtaining enough votes to overturn them.

The proponents of federal land control like to cite a Supreme Court decision which gave congress power “without limitation” to do what it wants with land. United States v. City of San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 29 (1940).

But, Wilson is saying that is not the case. Congress does not have unlimited powers with land or anything else. Congress cannot exceed the enumerated powers granted to it by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. The only way congress can get around those enumerated powers is by constitutional amendment which requires ratification by 2/3 of the states.

Under the Property Clause, congress had power given to it to “dispose” of property that it had acquired through treaty. It had a right to retain property for the purpose of fulfilling its limited mission as enumerated, i.e, forts, docks, navies, armies, post offices, etc. But, millions of acres of land owned by the federal government is in direct opposition to Madison’s statement, “few and defined”.

Any other "theories" you were going to plagarize for us today?

Have any of your own thoughts on the matter?

Didn't think so....

I think the answer to that problem is to not pay politicians and those that want to work for the government, not one red cent.. for anything they do...

won't be around to charge us all of those taxes...

sort of erasing the current way... a new way will start again...

or look at California...

the state charges the counties and cities taxes... and the cities and counties charge the State Taxes,.

that's fair.. but then, see how that is working out.... they go overboard a lot with taxes.. even to each other...

Oh, I've said my thoughts and posted what the constitution says about it.

Yet, here we are waiting on you to show us where the US Constitution entitles the federal govt to be the largest land owner in the US....

Where is that?