🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <EDs2F0.BHx@plamondon.COM>,
robert@plamondon.COM (Robert Plamondon) wrote:

> So what do you think of the current plan to tax standing timber at
> the current lower property tax rates?  The reports I read made it
> unclear whether the severance tax was being eliminated altogether, or
> run as a parallel program with higher taxes.  Either way, it
> discriminates against small landowners.

I hope it doesn't tarnish my omnicient image if I admit that this
whole thing has gotten so complex that I don't have a clue what
is going on.  Timber prices flucutate so much I have no idea how
they would appraise standing timber for tax purposes.  Timber is
a commodity, and like any commodity market, it can gain or lose
20% of its value in 24 hours, and commonly fluctuates 50% over
a year's period.  How do you levy property tax on something like 
that?  Also, lots of my trees aren't as valuable as they look.  A
big fire went through here in the 1950's, and a smaller one in
the 1970's, and lots of the logs have fairly serious defects that
reduce their value.  Some of those defects are invisible until you
fall a tree and look at the inside of it.

The equalization board is likely to sink under the weight of the 
appeals to assessments.

Under the current (old) system, my land has been appraised at bare land
value, and the trees are treated like any other agricultural crop, except
of course that it is the only agricultural crop that gets taxed at harvest.

I don't think the severance tax has been repealed.  The OSWA even proposed
an increase in severance tax, with the additional revenue used to fund
additional fish biologist positions as part of the salmon recovery plan.
That passed early in the session.  

I frankly don't understand the bill Kitzhaber vetoed (is going to veto?) 
but I guess it means I get taxed at a higer rate than everybody else in 
the state.  It's really irritating to volunteer for a higher tax rate
on severance to solve a serious regional problem, then get singled out
for a screwing on property taxes.

> I had always thought that the timber deferral/severance tax system
> was a great idea, as it didn't penalize people for simply having
> trees on their property, and only taxed them in years when they
> actually sold trees (and thus had income to cover the taxes).  Big
> Timber doesn't see the difference, since they cut all the time, but
> taxing the value of standing timber is going make all the small
> landowners cut their trees early to pay their taxes.  Most people
> can't afford to pay taxes today for timber they're going to cut in
> twenty years.

I don't know enough to predict the results.  It would be a shame if the
small timber owner got squeezed out by property taxes.

-- Larry