Grays Harbor vs. Weyco update

[fireweed]

Doesn't look like a closed issue if you read the article.  Grays Harbor's lawsuit was really just "symbolic" in my opinion and a call for action in the legislature.  It is now time for the state to take up the issue, not put all the costs on one of the poorest counties in the state.  Time to call your reps again.  All we need to get this started is a simple review of what the intent of the original law is.

[hoof rot]

I purchased a weyco permit the last 2 years, and took nice bulls, and way less people in archery season anyways, but with that being said its still not worth it to me and I think its wrong and will not contribute anymore, I prefer state and fed land over greedy timber co land, the lazy "w" will fall someday I hope, maybe over all this hoof rot if it can b proved

[fireweed]

Check out Grays Harbor Commissioner getting ready for round two--at the state level next year. 

http://montesanotoday.com/2016/02/17/video-interview-with-county-commissioner-wes-cormier-timber-land-access-fees/

[bowbuild]

I wonder if this will trickle over and change the way farmers get taxed and recieve federal money then turn around and lease ground for tens of thousands of dollars for waterfowl hunting?

Anything with a "for profit" venture should be taxed much different in my opinion. If they choose to not charge a access fee, OR deny access, then no tax increase should be involved.

So you think a farmer that doesn't let people on his land should lose his ag. tax status? If so I'm sure you agree that you should be paying income taxes at the highest tax bracket so those that make more than you don't have to subsidize you anymore?

We will NEVER see eye to eye. Yes, a farmer, a land owner, a timber company......I could care less......it has NOTHING to do with access,(although that is what brought this subject up) lock all the gates, and keep hunters off private land....don't like it, but if they pay equaly, they have that right! I do not feel those with "MORE" should get tax breaks for having more...period! You are constantly suggesting that welfare for corperations or private land owners is fair....that does not sound very conservative to to me, it only proves what the Dems always spew "freebees" makes me wonder what side of the fence you are on?.....If you can't afford the taxes that "should be" equaly destributed, then buy less....heck it could mean more state land for all of us to hunt!  Good day to you sir....

[cboom]

I wonder if this will trickle over and change the way farmers get taxed and recieve federal money then turn around and lease ground for tens of thousands of dollars for waterfowl hunting?

Anything with a "for profit" venture should be taxed much different in my opinion. If they choose to not charge a access fee, OR deny access, then no tax increase should be involved.

So you think a farmer that doesn't let people on his land should lose his ag. tax status? If so I'm sure you agree that you should be paying income taxes at the highest tax bracket so those that make more than you don't have to subsidize you anymore?

We will NEVER see eye to eye. Yes, a farmer, a land owner, a timber company......I could care less......it has NOTHING to do with access,(although that is what brought this subject up) lock all the gates, and keep hunters off private land....don't like it, but if they pay equaly, they have that right! I do not feel those with "MORE" should get tax breaks for having more...period! You are constantly suggesting that welfare for corperations or private land owners is fair....that does not sound very conservative to to me, it only proves what the Dems always spew "freebees" makes me wonder what side of the fence you are on?.....If you can't afford the taxes that "should be" equaly destributed, then buy less....heck it could mean more state land for all of us to hunt!  Good day to you sir....

So then you agree you should be paying income tax at the highest rate as well? And because you have less money in your pocket you will just buy less? And you will find your food and housing costs go way up as well since the land they come from are taxed so heavily.

Different tax rates for different land uses is no more welfare than different tax brackets for different income levels.

[Magnum_Willys]

The whole purpose of timber tax breaks was to slow the subdividing and sale of lands due to timber owners having no incentive or financial ability to keep lands in an undeveloped state if they have to pay high tax rates. 

The lanquage of the law referenced the benefits of the tax breaks for constituents including encouraging retention of forest lands for all to enjoy. 

The last few words are being grabbed upon as meaning the law provided for free public access of forest lands. Thats a stretch but even so that is not the primary intention of the law and the benefits of the tax break are still important .

[bowbuild]

I wonder if this will trickle over and change the way farmers get taxed and recieve federal money then turn around and lease ground for tens of thousands of dollars for waterfowl hunting?

Anything with a "for profit" venture should be taxed much different in my opinion. If they choose to not charge a access fee, OR deny access, then no tax increase should be involved.

So you think a farmer that doesn't let people on his land should lose his ag. tax status? If so I'm sure you agree that you should be paying income taxes at the highest tax bracket so those that make more than you don't have to subsidize you anymore?

We will NEVER see eye to eye. Yes, a farmer, a land owner, a timber company......I could care less......it has NOTHING to do with access,(although that is what brought this subject up) lock all the gates, and keep hunters off private land....don't like it, but if they pay equaly, they have that right! I do not feel those with "MORE" should get tax breaks for having more...period! You are constantly suggesting that welfare for corperations or private land owners is fair....that does not sound very conservative to to me, it only proves what the Dems always spew "freebees" makes me wonder what side of the fence you are on?.....If you can't afford the taxes that "should be" equaly destributed, then buy less....heck it could mean more state land for all of us to hunt!  Good day to you sir....

So then you agree you should be paying income tax at the highest rate as well? And because you have less money in your pocket you will just buy less? And you will find your food and housing costs go way up as well since the land they come from are taxed so heavily.

Different tax rates for different land uses is no more welfare than different tax brackets for different income levels.

I believe in a Flat tax, so yes I would agree to a point.....everyone pays the same amount, no exceptions...

[fireweed]

There is a lot of confusion, misinformation, and anger about this tax system that is nearly 50 years old.  Even reading the intent of the law, where recreational is cited as a benefit, muddles the issue.  Was the tax break set up to simply preserve open space lands, or (as the intent of the law suggests) the BENEFITS of open space lands.  There is a difference.  And even if the original law rewards a landowner for just having big chunks of land, and doesn't obligate them to provide any benefits associated with that land, obviously there is resentment and confusion now about the tax shift.  We know there's problems in the law: For goodness sake, a county tried to toss the largest landowner in the country off the program.

We need a review.  Go back to the original law, review the testimonies, and see what it really was supposed to reward.  Then, check that with the issues of today, and ask if the law is still working as intended.  Does it need modified?  I believe today, if the law was in the legislature or on the ballot, it would never pass as-is.  When this law passed, most people agreed it was a win-win situation for recreationists and landowners.  I doubt very many would assert that now. 

To the naysayers, if the tax break still works exactly as intended, what is wrong with a review to confirm that?  After nearly 50 years, don't the taxpayers deserve to see if they are still getting a good deal?  Or is corporate welfare as much of a "sacred cow" as real welfare?

[fireweed]

Looks like some people in the legislature are going back to look at tax breaks, and making sure the public benefits tied to those tax breaks actually materialize.
This focuses on Boeing deal--another tax break put in the law without any hard numbers of jobs attached. But the timber tax breaks are similar--tax breaks set in place under one set of conditions--time passes and benefits decrease, but tax break is still the same. 

http://crosscut.com/2016/02/target-boeing-a-new-push-for-conditions-on-tax-breaks/

[fireweed]

opinion piece by Grays Harbor Commissioner Wes Cromier

http://thedailyworld.com/opinion/columnist/timber-companies-shouldn-t-get-tax-break-forests-if-they-don-t-share-forests