Legislators debate end to secret ballot

Hope WEC gets additional inmates and staff as well as facilities. If the report is true that Red Willow County is the poorest county in the state, then this is a great opportunity for the state to help the county and Western Nebraska. The proposal to reduce property tax by adding an extra income tax is not a good idea. That is just a tax shift. I do understand farmers believe they are over taxed....even though they pay less on their property than others already. However, most farmers net worth is greater than most folks that live on social security and/or a pay check. Those that buy property at higher costs are responsible for their own tax burden. Helping farmers by hurting wage earners is not the answer. The new Senator does have a learning curve on government issues but I have faith he will do well.

Dennis, as I have stated before, farmers most definitely need a property tax break. You obviously have never farmed as a business. Most other taxes are based on the income gained during a period of time, or on the value of products produced during a period of time. Property taxes are the only type of tax that is either based on the value of improvements on such land or the earning potential of said land. The latter is what I have an issue with. Whereas with income, sales, fuel, even inheritance tax, it is based on the value that changed hands. With property tax on farmland it is based on the earning potential of the ground. It does not take into account all the other factors that it takes to produce and market a crop. How would you feel if income tax was handled the same way? In example "as a very intelligent and well-spoken man you have an earning potential of $350,000 per year and thus you will pay 35% or $122,000 to the federal government as income potential tax. But....you only earn $50,000 per year. What do you do?" Or "you attended college and improved yourself thus your earning potential is higher. Since you did that you are going to be taxes more because you should make more. Unfortunately, you can't find a job in your field, and have had to take a job working at a minimum wage job to make ends meet. Yet you still have to pay your taxes at a higher rate because you have an education". You may say that this is an oversimplification, and perhaps it is, but it illustrates the problem we have with the current tax system.

Also as for your statement that farmers already pay less than others. Let's look at income as a leveling factor. I have a friend who owns an apartment building in McCook; I own a farm and rent it out. He is charging average rents for McCook and I have my cash rent factored to the NASS statistics of average rent for the type of ground in southwest Nebraska. Obviously our net worth's are different but we can compare percentage of property tax to gross rent. Can you imagine my surprise when his percentage of gross income paid in property tax was 8% whereas mine was 29%? Both are income producing properties, neither of us are either high or low on our rents, both of us have maintenance costs. Where is the fairness? Let's use the example of a house in town. If I purchase a house in town for $70,000 and rent it out I can get approximately $600 per month this would equate to $7200 per year. Taxes on that property would be about $1000. That is only 13% of gross income for property tax. I repeat my farm is 29%! In conclusion, tax people on what they earn or what they buy DON'T tax them on what their POTENTIAL is!

Quickie13, I have no problem with farmers asking for additional property tax relief....ALL property owners would like that. I do have a problem with asking minimum wage earners, and others that would draw a check each week, every other week or once a month to pay an extra 19 percent income tax to pay for it. That assumes those workers can afford to pay more. When folks working at the hospital, McDonalds, Burns Lab, Valmont, Parker...retire, they do not have property to sell, lease or rent like farmers do to retire upon. Plus they even lost 19 percent more of their pay checks so they had less to set aside to retire on. Transferring one persons taxes to another group is not an answer. Less local government that draws on local property taxes?.. Would that fly?

Transferring taxes from one group to another is exactly what dennis promoted with an increase in the local city sales tax to keep the City of McCook's property tax levy the same since 2002. What a hypocrite!!!!! This is a typical response from someone who believes in promoting class warfare by attacking those that work hard and build wealth versus those that don't. In this country if you work hard and play by the rules you can get ahead. But as you study the comments by dennis during his career in politics it is very apparent that he believes that those people where handed everything for free or feels they haven't paid their fair share. His absolute distain for farmers or businessmen that build and acquire property/wealth is very telling and we are fortunate in the 44th that he didn't advance his political career this past year. Dan Hughes is a farmer and a business man that he supported so I don't see how he can reconcile this. I think that Dan Hughes will do a good job listening to the majority of his constituents, especially the ones that pay the largest portion of the tax bills in this state.

Denniekins, any economist would tell you that if there is more money in the area then local wages would go up. I would wager that they would go up considerably more than 19%! I am talking about keeping our dollars local. As you stated in one of your other comments on free college education, that people gain more from something if they have "skin in the game". How is this different? Right now the people in our country who vote outnumber the people who pay taxes......Think about that. How many of the number that pay taxes work at a nonpublic sector job? Sobering, isn't it?

Why don't they have property to sell, lease or rent out? What have they been doing with their money? Have they not planned well or decided to spend it now instead of investing it in property?

I am not asking taxes to be transferred to another party without that party's agreement. What I am asking for is a Fair, Equal tax that is based upon the fruits of the labor of that person that year.

Denniekins, what is it that makes our economy run in McCook? Please name me one business besides Parker, Burns lab or oil field, which is not connected to the agricultural sector. You fail to realize that by promoting high property taxes on the primary (almost only) industry in the area, you are cutting the income of everyone. While farmers are farming more acres per farmer, the profit margins per acre continue to narrow. Please see following website. (BTW. This is in Iowa without irrigation cost which can add another $100 per acre)

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/cr...

I do not know what the answer is but. I do know that property tax is not a fair tax. It is arbitrary and not based on the fruits of a man's labor but instead based upon a flawed formula of value. Also, I think that everyone would applaud your idea of less government, and I would hasten to add less federal government and more states' rights.

Still it is hard to swallow to ask some little old lady or man on social security to an additional 19 percent of their check so property rich others can pay less.

I'm sure there would be exemptions available to those on fixed incomes. No one wants anyone to suffer because of unfair tax burdens. But we want the taxes to be fair and based on the fruits of a persons labor. Not some magical figure of "potential"!

And BTW the term "property rich" is somewhat offensive. Unless you have access to the owners net worth statement/debt to asset ratio, you cannot make that statement.

The first mistake the little old lady or man made was trusting politicians that social security would take care of them during retirement. All it was designed to do was to take more of folks money and give it to the government to control. Those that plan on only social security and empty promises from politicians might want to wake up to these schemes. Just like dennis saying that if those on fixed incomes and retired in McCook would support the increase in the local sales tax their property taxes would go down. It didn't happen and it is unfortunate that all it did was increase the overall taxes that those on fixed incomes and retired pay. Most of people in the lower income category do not own a house or property so the local sales tax would be considered regressive and impact them more than those that build asset wealth.

The owners of rental property pass along the local property tax to those who rent. It is correct to say that the local city property tax did not decrease. What the sales tax did was what it said it would do...it prevented an increase so the levy has stayed the same since 2002. It is also true that the sales tax did transfer some taxes from just the local city property tax payers to others that visit the city and use the city streets, water, sewer, landfill/trash collection, city parks, library, burial sites, lights, police, fire, rescue..... The tax is much the same as most cities the size of McCook where they ask visitors to help pay for what they use....which to me seems fair, Maybe visitors to MCCook or other cities want somebody else to pay those cost for them. I do not hear grumbles from city folks about paying county tax even though they most likely do not use a majority of the services the county offers. I also strongly believe that those in Ag are hard working individuals, just like most of the wage earners not in ag. To those that much is given, much is expected. Do not tax you, do not tax me. Tax the one behind the tree.

You must understand, we do not want anyone to pay our share of the taxes. We only ask that the taxes we pay are FAIR! We ask for no breaks but we demand not to be singled out to pay the highest percentage of our gross. We of the Ag community realize that taxes are a fact of life. Sometimes it seems we better understand how our economy actually works. We know that everyone needs to pay taxes to support common services. (police, fire, schools, military, courts, etc.) A great many people remember that laws are supposed to protect the common citizen from theft, assault, and anything else that affects the individual's constitutional rights. But, that said it is an economic fact that a dollar spent local will pass through 7 hands before it leaves the community. (perhaps less now with Walmart..) Also, it is also an economic fact that private industry is more efficient that government. But we are held hostage by our elected officials saying they can save us money and deliver the same efficiencies. One of the local wastes of tax dollars is that of the new police/fire/city offices and the county jail/sheriff's office. There is no **** way that we needed two different facilities. But the arrogance of those in the positions of power prevented them from communicating well enough to save everyone some money. This is what I am talking about. We used to have a saying for those people who solved problems by throwing money at it. We called it solved by cubic dollars. This was the lowest form of winning. It showed no ingenuity or problem solving skills. Elected officials need to be the best problem solvers, not the best at kissing up to the electorate. A vast majority of people that I have talked to also believe that government (local, state, and federal) is out of control. A great many elected officials appear to be running the next election race as soon as they take office. Perhaps we do need another law, one that forbids anyone to run for elected office without at least 10 years of work experience in private industry. Government service was not intended to be a life's career. But it appears that those officials in charge don't understand basic economic principals, because they have no base of knowledge in the "real" world.

Ohh and BTW Denny, if you tried to pass on the property tax to your renters they wouldn't be your renters very long. The property owner has to charge the rate the market will bear....Did you study economics? And Todd is absolutely correct about Social security as the average life span when it was created was 62...(But You Can Start Receiving It At 65!!!!!!) They forgot to increase the age of benefits as the average life span increased!

"dennis", it would've been more correct to say when you were selling more taxes, "city of McCook spending will increase and your property taxes will NOT go down" with this vote. But that couldn't be said because then it would have never passed and those that needed this money to add to the city budget couldn't have illustrated to the citizens of McCook all the great thing they could do with it. I sure wish I would have kept one of the city manager (at the time) propaganda pieces that said a vote for the local sales tax increase and continuation of the sales tax would NOT increase the size of the local government. That sure isn't true as spending doubled. Maybe you can find one and post it so everyone could see all of the promises broke by the politicians.

One of these days the people that you have fooled are going to want answers as to why it didn't work out like you promised. But like I said the sales tax impacts the lower and middle income people the most because a majority of their income is spent on consumables that sales taxes apply to and not investments in assets such as land or a small business. Oh by the way those investments by the "property rich" helps create jobs, not government spending as you promote.

The topic which started much of the discussion on this blog was if property tax should be shifted ( property tax) from a group with generally a much higher net worth to wage earners with generally a lesser net worth. Unfortunately some of the bloggers shifted to attacks on the elderly on social security, past McCook city officials, city citizens who strongly supported the sales tax, myself and others. I support the right of all to have differing opinions but wish we could disagree without being disagreeable, stay on point and not resort to attacking others. My orginial point remains....transferring a property tax burden from those with generally a higher net worth to wage earners(income tax) does not seem like a fair shift. This ends my comments on this blog site.

How about everyone not on this list gets a property tax break?

http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=31145&progcode=totalfarm®ionname=RedW...

Wow president, you must be pretty hungry to slander these people.

Slander? Is the web site not true? How is that slander?

Pres.

Slander no half truths yes.

1. The figures that you include are for 17 years including the time when there were direct payments to farmers

2. A majority of these figures are non-direct crop insurance subsidies. Which the farmer never receives a check for.

3. It also includes cost share for improvements such as conservation work such as wildlife set asides, flood control structures, etc.

4. In 90% of these "amounts" the farmer had to put in more as his share than the government did for theirs.

5. In most cases he/she wouldn't have insured at as high of rate or chose to have the conservation work done if they had to pay 100%.

6. All of these payments are designed to keep the local producer in business.

7. As of the last farm bill there are no more direct payments to farmers.

8. Ranchers do not receive crop insurance subsidies and minimal conservation cost share

If what you are saying (that the people on the list have lots of money) is true, then what would be wrong with taxing their profit instead of taxing their lands potential?

So don't tax their property, tax their profit? That's cool as long as I get the same deal. I will pay taxes on my profit and none on my property.

Perhaps the land valuation is too high. I would argue that it sells for such a high price because the government helps pay for it.

I think all farmers need help! Just like the president and I took care of the banks by making them to big to fail we are doing the same for the Farmers!

Pres.

1. If you don't like the idea that farmers get government subsidies, then take action to change it. I believe that you would find that most farmers would love the idea of not having to accept assistance. But this also goes with increased commodity prices aka food cost.

2. This is what I am saying; the property valuation formula is flawed. It is not a fair tax. It is nondependent upon profit or loss. It is an arbitrary value based upon recent sales and the profit POTENTIAL of that type of land.

3. On your incorrect assumption that land prices are too high because the government helps pay for the land, this is incorrect in many ways but the primary way is thus; too many investors have left the relative insecurity of the stock market and have reinvested in hard property aka land. Farmland is not purchased now on its earning capacity, but on its value as an investment.

I am no expert but I do realize that taxes need to be fair. No farmer/rancher that I know thinks that they don't owe something in taxes. But every last one of them believes that they are being unfairly singled out as having the majority of the tax burden placed upon them.

This is illustrated by my friend with the apartments who has to spend only 8% of his gross income for property taxes and I have to spend 29% of mine of my farm? This is to say nothing about the income tax we both have to pay. Please explain this inequality.

Joe, have you ever considered why the farms just keep getting bigger and bigger? Its the profit margin. you must farm more and more just to keep your same standard of living. the medium home price in 1950 was $7354 whereas in 2014 it was $188900 in 64 years the cost for an average home has risen by a factor of 25. if you would apply that factor to wheat or corn prices it would be $47.00 a bushel for wheat and $37.50 a bushel for corn.