24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,484
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,484
Originally Posted by CashisKing
Que Buzz...

"Everybody Is Stupid" O'Clock time.


Ol' Buzzard ain't done doubling down on his commie propaganda yet.

He gets his ass handed to him every time he starts with that crap here, but all he can do is name call, and post 30 year old hero pics of when he was working for the forest circus, drawing taxpayer salary for closing hunting areas to others, posting online, and promoting socialism.


Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
BP-B2

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,464
K
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
K
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,464
Lots of yelling.
Not sure if people understand how pilt is calculated. It is not straight $ divided by acres as price per acre.
The population of the county is also included in the formula.

Last edited by KRAKMT; 02/08/23.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,484
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,484
Originally Posted by KRAKMT
Lots of yelling.
Not sure if people understand how pilot is calculated. It is not straight $ divided by acres as price per acre.
The population of the county is also included in the formula.


There's lots of factors included. % of county in fedlands, population, usage, etc.

Not many people have experience in the whole process, or even an idea that PILT even exists, or who gets it, or what strings come with it...

Yet they mouth off and name call, with complete ignorance. wink


Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 8,969
F
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
F
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 8,969
In my county, 5 Natl Forests converge, Feds own 60% of the productive timberland, valued at fair market value of 9,000 per acre (about 3X value of decent farmland)...for which they pay PILT of 50 cents an acre average. Got that Buzz? Their adjoining neighbors, (checkerboard sections from old railroad grants)private timberland owners pay 90 dollars an acre, about 160 X of what the Feds pay....AND, the private companies additionally pay a timber yield tax on every board foot they harvest. Rural counties are being ripped off period. By the way, my numbers are good and current, my son is a timberlands manager and deals with the market every day.
In addition, the USFS is a lousy neighbor...they don't manage, maintain or thin fuels in any significant quantity. Private companies to protect their long term investment, have to actually build wide firelines and fuel reduction zones to insulate themselves from USFS lack of fuels mangement.
As usual...government IS the problem, never the solution.


Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,484
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,484
Originally Posted by flintlocke
In my county, 5 Natl Forests converge, Feds own 60% of the productive timberland, valued at fair market value of 9,000 per acre (about 3X value of decent farmland)...for which they pay PILT of 50 cents an acre average. Got that Buzz? Their adjoining neighbors, (checkerboard sections from old railroad grants)private timberland owners pay 90 dollars an acre, about 160 X of what the Feds pay....AND, the private companies additionally pay a timber yield tax on every board foot they harvest. Rural counties are being ripped off period. By the way, my numbers are good and current, my son is a timberlands manager and deals with the market every day.
In addition, the USFS is a lousy neighbor...they don't manage, maintain or thin fuels in any significant quantity. Private companies to protect their long term investment, have to actually build wide firelines and fuel reduction zones to insulate themselves from USFS lack of fuels mangement.
As usual...government IS the problem, never the solution.


LOL.

Those pesky damn facts again! grin


Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
IC B2

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,682
I
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
I
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,682
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Why do you find it appropriate for PILT to pay nearly 8.5 times more than a private citizen for the same exact assett?

Once again, you lie. Why are you such a liar to support your socialistic politics?

It's really very basic knowledge that PILT is a small fraction of income to local govt vs actual property taxes. I know this because I've been involved at a local level where most of the county is BLM or Forest Circus land.

Why lie about it?

People above your pay grade seem to disagree with you as well.

https://www.risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/4/western-senators-introduce-more-pilt-act

Western Senators Introduce MORE PILT Act
April 1, 2021

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Jim Risch and Mike Crapo (both R-Idaho) joined U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) in introducing the Making Obligations Right by Enlarging Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, or MORE PILT Act. This bill would direct the Secretary of Interior to conduct a study on federal lands eligible for PILT payments to determine the actual property value of the land and the foregone property tax revenues that counties would have otherwise received.

“Every single county in Idaho relies on the PILT program to fund critical county services and compensate for the tax base lost to federal lands,” said Risch. “Unfortunately, these payments do not begin to make up for the actual revenue loss rural communities sustain. This legislation is a critical step to ensuring counties are made whole.”

“PILT payments are critical to rural Idaho counties that rely on the funds for essential services like roads and law enforcement,” said Crapo. “The MORE PILT Act would better reflect the value of land in Idaho owned by the federal government, in turn meeting the ongoing needs of those counties. The pandemic has stretched local budgets even thinner, and continued improvement on the PILT program will help these areas obtain a more sustainable funding stream.”

“Without a property tax base, and with woefully inadequate PILT payments, Western states and communities struggle to fund their schools, infrastructure, and vital community services,” said Lee. “This bill will help ensure that PILT payments more accurately reflect the lands’ value, so that the citizens of our public lands states have the means they need to both survive and thrive.”

Background: States, counties, and local governments are not able to collect property taxes on public lands in their jurisdictions. The Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program was established in 1977 to provide funding to offset the absence of property tax revenue. PILT payments have historically been a small fraction of what local governments would otherwise generate through property taxes, leaving rural communities in Western states with limited funds for essential infrastructure and services.
You and I have severely differing opinions on this matter.

1 There is good reason the COTUS prohibits local .gov taxing the fed.

2. Idaho's Reps can shove this bill up their ass. Fiscal responsibility is not gained by increasing obligations onto the Fed.

3 Local .gov entities need to learn to live on the budgets they are given, rather than screaming for ever increasing funds to blow in frivolous manners.

4 Collecting money at the Fed level and then redistributing it to local governments only serves to employ more Fed administrstors, increase the size of Fed beauracracy, waste 90 cents of every dollar returned as administrative costs, and give the Feds more control over local governments.

I fully supported Idaho's Sec of Education a few years ago when she told the Fed to pound sand, keep their funds, and keep their fingers out of our schools.

Unfortunately the liberals of the state raised a schitt storm over how she was robbing our youth of their education. And the battle was eventually lost

But I see the counties of any state becoming dependent upon the fed to sustain programs in the same light that I see schools which are dependent upon fed money.

We are better off without it. Learn to live within your budget.


People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 8,969
F
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
F
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 8,969
Idaho Shooter, Where you reside, I can see your point. But Treasure Valley is the highest population density in Idaho, and one of the most productive agriculture areas in the west. The property tax base is huge. Clearwater County...Benewah County, hell, all your rural mountain counties probably have a much different view with low populations and high Fed presence. You got great schools, would you deny the kids in the rural mountain counties less of a shot at education because they have a miniscule tax base compared with your area? In Calif, PILT...by law, is 50% to schools and 50% to roads. I think in Idaho it goes to a broader spectrum...law enforcement, Search and Rescue, Fire etc...but still, it goes to rural counties where it is needed.


Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,484
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,484
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
You and I have severely differing opinions on this matter.

1 There is good reason the COTUS prohibits local .gov taxing the fed..

Yes, we do.

First, I'm not saying that local govt should tax federal land. Not even close.

I'm saying that vast land should not be owned by the federal govt.

I'd also like to throw in there that the federal govt shouldn't be either the largest land holder, nor the largest employer in the U.S.

Neither one serves the interest of public good.

I don't have all the answers, but a huge federal govt is damn sure the wrong way to roll.


Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 8,969
F
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
F
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 8,969
Up until 1982 it was called, Timber Sharing Revenue, it was never a tax on the Fed...it was a VOLUNTARY (not a local tax, dammit) 25% contribution by the Fed in recognition of the huge volume of land held out of the tax base and profit from timber being cut. Back in those days, amazingly, the USFS actually sold profitable timber sales. But, the USFS because of a huge bloated bureaucracy, no longer is able to sell but a tiny fraction of what is rotting and burning every summer. The USFS is not even able to salvage the burnt timber after a fire on their land.
Why not, they used to do it? Back in the 80's a Fed rule was passed, the USFS had to break even or make a profit on sales. But, there was such a boom in hiring 'ologists, that so many people were involved in the sale, they couldn't possibly make a profit. It is estimated that in the USFS 24 expert 'ologists have to sign off on a harvest plan...minimum. My son's employer produces timber harvest plans with 4 people, start to finish, and as quick as the law allows. Private companies begin reforestation BEFORE logging is finished. Private companies begin logging after a fire, before the smoke clears. They go in, log it, prepare for erosion, replanting and are out before the snow flies...a new crop in the ground.


Well this is a fine pickle we're in, should'a listened to Joe McCarthy and George Orwell I guess.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,682
I
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
I
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,682
Originally Posted by flintlocke
Idaho Shooter, Where you reside, I can see your point. But Treasure Valley is the highest population density in Idaho, and one of the most productive agriculture areas in the west. The property tax base is huge. Clearwater County...Benewah County, hell, all your rural mountain counties probably have a much different view with low populations and high Fed presence. You got great schools, would you deny the kids in the rural mountain counties less of a shot at education because they have a miniscule tax base compared with your area? In Calif, PILT...by law, is 50% to schools and 50% to roads. I think in Idaho it goes to a broader spectrum...law enforcement, Search and Rescue, Fire etc...but still, it goes to rural counties where it is needed.
You are correct about tax base across much of the Treasure Valley. And the Valley is much worse off for it.

I well remember when our County Sheriff's dept was the Sheriff and two deputies, when our school district was comprised of 300 students 1-12 grade, when there were five school buses for the entire district, when the county road district had a few six wheel dump trucks for plowing snow and building roads vs a parking lot full of rigs bigger and better than the State highway dept.

Yes, we had to plow our own way out the first couple of miles of county road, you had to occasionally shovel your way through a snow drift.

And it was a hell of a lot bettet place to live.

The only thing growth does for a community is make land speculators and developers wealthy. And it makes the %age skimmed by local government a lot bigger.

As stated before, local governments need to learn to balance their budgets and live within their means.


People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
IC B3

Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 26,251
R
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
R
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 26,251
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
You and I have severely differing opinions on this matter.

1 There is good reason the COTUS prohibits local .gov taxing the fed..

Yes, we do.

First, I'm not saying that local govt should tax federal land. Not even close.

I'm saying that vast land should not be owned by the federal govt.

I'd also like to throw in there that the federal govt shouldn't be either the largest land holder, nor the largest employer in the U.S.

Neither one serves the interest of public good.

I don't have all the answers, but a huge federal govt is damn sure the wrong way to roll.

100%


FJB & FJT
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,682
I
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
I
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,682
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
First, I'm not saying that local govt should tax federal land. Not even close.

I'm saying that vast land should not be owned by the federal govt.

I'd also like to throw in there that the federal govt shouldn't be either the largest land holder, nor the largest employer in the U.S.

Neither one serves the interest of public good.

I don't have all the answers, but a huge federal govt is damn sure the wrong way to roll.

I am not sure that transferring the majority of public lands into private hands is the best thing for Americans.

It is certainly not the best thing for those who hunt, shoot, and recreate on public lands.

But yes, it would make a lot of rich people much richer as they aquired vast tracts of current public lands at fire sale prices and resold them for development.


People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 2,877
W
WMR Offline
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
W
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 2,877
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
First, I'm not saying that local govt should tax federal land. Not even close.

I'm saying that vast land should not be owned by the federal govt.

I'd also like to throw in there that the federal govt shouldn't be either the largest land holder, nor the largest employer in the U.S.

Neither one serves the interest of public good.

I don't have all the answers, but a huge federal govt is damn sure the wrong way to roll.

I am not sure that transferring the majority of public lands into private hands is the best thing for Americans.

It is certainly not the best thing for those who hunt, shoot, and recreate on public lands.

But yes, it would make a lot of rich people much richer as they aquired vast tracts of current public lands at fire sale prices and resold them for development.

Different regions of the country have different land ownership traditions. Here in MI, we've got wonderful National Forests for anyone to use. As such, hunting, camping, hiking and other outdoor pursuits are available to all. What a terrible thing if these became the pastimes of only the wealthy.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,393
A
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 27,393
Considering all the money that .gov funnels back to states (and in turn get funneled down to counties/cities), I think it makes more sense that they don’t pay property taxes.

For example in TN, .gov kicks in about 90-95% for many infrastructure projects and the local municipality is only on the hook for the remaining portion (or possibly less).


[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
97 members (99Ozarks, 10gaugemag, 16penny, 257_X_50, 15 invisible), 1,679 guests, and 658 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,727
Posts18,400,741
Members73,822
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.107s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 0.8820 MB (Peak: 1.0365 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 07:45:48 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS