There is a guy in Cameron, Texas that sells Longhorn and Corriente cattle. His name is Justin Tucker. Shoot me a DM and I will give you his phone number.

Quote:

---

But he is certainly gaming the system by exploiting an exemption for something other than it's intended purpose.

---

I think we make a mistake when we make the discussion about "he" (the property owner) rather than the subject property. Motives and intentions for (future) use aside, what is the current use of the property? That should (and does) determine its "tax value" to the taxing entities, and nothing else. Whether the owner needs the income generated from it or not, how he chooses to utilize, or underutilize property he owns should be of no concern to me, you, or (especially) the taxman!

Many "owners/investors" would just as soon leave the land vacant, but are forced to enter into the charade you deplore in order to avoid suffering an onerous tax burden from a greedy tax system bent on wringing every last dollar from otherwise over-taxed and over-burdened economy.

Across the board, our problem is not too little tax revenue; rather, it's inflated budgets and spendthrift taxing entities who are never satisfied, and only grow larger and larger with each passing year. If I sound like a bitter, over-taxed, property owner, tired of the onerous tax bill I pay each and every year, for the privilege of owning real estate, there's a damn good reason for it!

And if it weren't for those "gamers" bringing their city-earned $$$ to the country driving up the values of rural properties, and pumping $$$ into local economies, where might they be? Food for thought.

Rant over. Now we shall return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Btw, we should have discussed all of this between Las Cruces and Hobbs!

I'll try and distill Sean's wall into something more succinct:

Do you think the exemption for livestock that are not producing, purely cosmetic, and solely for tax mitigation is above reproach?

shaynew1 said:

---

I'll try and distill Sean's wall into something more succinct:

Do you think the exemption for livestock that are not producing, purely cosmetic, and solely for tax mitigation is above reproach?

---

How do you intend to prove the premise of your question? Your assumption is just that; an assumption, with a lot of pejoratives.

Was explicitly stated in the OP

My bad, not the op, the seventh.

Chita Craft's husband sells longhorns. Give him a call.

http://www.craftranchlonghorns.com/Default.aspx?action=home

But my question was a more general philosophical one, not necessarily an accusation leveled at the OPs friend.

I'm all about disinheriting the ol gov of all the dollars possible, but as a producer that is getting his ass kicked right now, it's a little frustrating to read about this scenario.

The term "exemption" itself is a pejorative in this context such that it implies an unearned/undeserved benefit to one class of taxpayer, at the expense of another, which is Sean's fundamental point, and with which I take issue. Ranch and farm land are the backbone of a statewide ad valorem tax system, so granting it an "exemption" from taxation implies its receiving preferential treatment, which is a canard.

I hope this can remain a philosophical discussion, btw, and not descend into pettiness. I encourage those who disagree to expand your mind and consider alternatives to the status quo. It's (our tax system) complicated, and interwoven at this point, and unfair to many, and in dire need of reform.

I think the end of family owned ag is inevitable...it may be a long ways off, but losing the ag exemption would definitely tomahawk it pronto.

I'd bet ahole politicians are eyeballing all those land values and would love to find enough examples of misuse to axe the whole thing altogether. Because like you said above, they wants them monies to spend. Just outside of Austin seems like a prime place for a ****ty precedent to be set too.

shaynew1 said:

---

Was explicitly stated in the OP

---

So then, had your post read :

Quote:

---

Do you think the exemption for livestock that are not producing, purely cosmetic, and solely for tax mitigation is above reproach?

---

and left out the pejorative language, you'd have been fine. You took his post to another level, did you not? And THAT is the problem (with tax policy, and how it is being applied/enforced). This is the essence of the argument.

Don't try to extract more revenue from a resource than it will produce. This is nothing more than a veiled attempt to get into the pocket of so-called "wealthy" investors who invest in real estate in the form of farms and ranches, but do not need nor want the income pursuing ordinary agricultural operations will generate. Why should they be forced, or expected by "the public" to partake in those enterprises if they'd rather not? I submit they should not; but that is why the "charades" ensue. It's human nature. Both to tax property, and to avoid that same tax.

Dude he said "strictly to look at."

There is no such thing as a tax loophole. There are the tax laws and we can each use them to our benefit or not.

shaynew1 said:

---

Dude he said "strictly to look at."

---

Dude, pretty sure "he" can't speak for the property owner. Tax policy application should not be based upon internet speculation. Can we eliminate it from the debate, charading as fact? That's my point.

Since no one is interested in objectively considering the implications (which was the point of my "perjurative language"), I concede.

I'm expecting Sean to get us back on track with his objective response to my queries.

I apologize in advance as this is going to be a disjointed response because I'm trying to multi-task.

First, I'm very glad we didn't discuss this between Hobbs and Las Cruces. It would have taken significant wattage away from my brain at a time when I was trying to make peace with my maker in case I met my maker in an untimely vehicle crash.

Next

Quote:

---

I think we make a mistake when we make the discussion about "he" (the property owner) rather than the subject property. Motives and intentions for (future) use aside, what is the current use of the property? That should (and does) determine its "tax value" to the taxing entities, and nothing else.

---

I agree, but a small tweak. It's the current "primary use" of the property. If you build houses on 97 acres of a 100 acre parcel and hay 3 acres of it that is not a 100 acre ag use. If you are deer hunting, fishing, and riding 4-wheelers on 100 acres and putting 3 cows on the place it's primary use is recreation. My only concern with the landowner here is that (A) he's losing his ag valulation - which shows it's not being used for ag; & (B) He is scrambling in a very short time to find just enough cattle to try and save that valuation at the last minute. And is focusing on the aesthetics of the cattle. We have to go on the word of the OP because that is all the data we have. If we change the data, I might change my mind but it appears pretty clear cut to me here, and it's common enough that I see no reason yet to change my mind.

Quote:

---

Many "owners/investors" would just as soon leave the land vacant, but are forced to enter into the charade you deplore in order to avoid suffering an onerous tax burden from a greedy tax system bent on wringing every last dollar from otherwise over-taxed and over-burdened economy.

---

Wow... talk about pejorative.... and while I may agree with you, you've made as many/more assumptions in here than others did in their comments.

Two things: (1) If everyone avoided the charade and utilized exemptions for their legitimate, intended purposes then the mill levels across the board could be decreased exponentially. (2) it's not a greedy tax system. At least not at it's base. I tend to agree with some of your other comments that it's "inflated budgets and spendthrift taxing entities." ...of course those are elected, so the electors are doing a terrible job. And it's not just "the liberals." That hot mess extends across all political spectrums to the point that I honestly believe the system is broken and a failure. Not if, when. Over the past 70 years too many niceties have become a "right" when they are not in my opinion.

Quote:

---

And if it weren't for those "gamers" bringing their city-earned $$$ to the country driving up the values of rural properties, and pumping $$$ into local economies, where might they be? Food for thought.

---

In a much better place in my mind, but I'm a hermit. I've seen a bumper sticker somewhere that says, "Boerne, TX ... Gone Forever" or something to that end, so I'm not the only one that believes it. They may bring more money to rural communities, but they also bring significant new demands on the system. Do those demands drive more costs than the new revenues? I'm sure it varies greatly from place-to-place so I'd be hesitant to say.

Quote:

---

The term "exemption" itself is a pejorative in this context such that it implies an unearned/undeserved benefit

---

This is absolutely 100% false. It is certainly special treatment, but in no way does the term "exemption" imply something unearned or undeserved. In fact, in many cases I think exactly the opposite is true. Let's stay on the agricultural front. I believe the history of this country will show a public policy that supports the fact that a safe and stable food and fiber industry was important to the economic and social well-being of the country. We have food stability that many parts of the world do not. There are trade-offs for that stability. Ag producers by and large are cost and price takers. Due to that there are structural differences in tax policy aimed at agriculture to help "smooth out the rough edges" of a cyclical market. Although in reality many commercial entities and manufacturers get similar tax treatment.

Quote:

---

Ranch and farm land are the backbone of a statewide ad valorem tax system, so granting it an "exemption" from taxation implies its receiving preferential treatment, which is a canard.

---

I was very happy to see you use 'canard.' To this point you'd used pejorative so often I thought it was on your word of the day calendar. Also, there is no canard here. Ag land IS receiving preferential treatment. In my opinion for a legitimate purpose, but that opinion may vary by each person's individual belief. As for being the backbone, I think it far and away makes up the bulk of the acreage, but I would be very surprised if it makes up the bulk of the revenue. I suppose it would depend on how you define backbone.

Again, I don't think the ag exemption as intended is undeserved. My opinion would be very different if we were talking other exemptions, particularly sales tax and income tax related exemptions. My major concern with what I believe is gaming the system is the same as shaynew1's... and that is destabilization of the existing food system in this country.

Quote:

---

I think the end of family owned ag is inevitable...it may be a long ways off, but losing the ag exemption would definitely tomahawk it pronto.

---

Thanks for all the input. Looks like I've been missing a splendid tax policy debate. My friends did end up buying some great looking longhorns from a cattle ranch in Lockhart.

Months that aren't September make me disagreeable.

Agreed. Dove and prairie grouse to the rescue!!!

Sean98 said:

---

I apologize in advance as this is going to be a disjointed response because I'm trying to multi-task.

First, I'm very glad we didn't discuss this between Hobbs and Las Cruces. It would have taken significant wattage away from my brain at a time when I was trying to make peace with my maker in case I met my maker in an untimely vehicle crash.

Next

Quote:

---

I think we make a mistake when we make the discussion about "he" (the property owner) rather than the subject property. Motives and intentions for (future) use aside, what is the current use of the property? That should (and does) determine its "tax value" to the taxing entities, and nothing else.

---

I agree, but a small tweak. It's the current "primary use" of the property. If you build houses on 97 acres of a 100 acre parcel and hay 3 acres of it that is not a 100 acre ag use. If you are deer hunting, fishing, and riding 4-wheelers on 100 acres and putting 3 cows on the place it's primary use is recreation. My only concern with the landowner here is that (A) he's losing his ag valulation - which shows it's not being used for ag; & (B) He is scrambling in a very short time to find just enough cattle to try and save that valuation at the last minute. And is focusing on the aesthetics of the cattle. We have to go on the word of the OP because that is all the data we have. If we change the data, I might change my mind but it appears pretty clear cut to me here, and it's common enough that I see no reason yet to change my mind.

Quote:

---

Many "owners/investors" would just as soon leave the land vacant, but are forced to enter into the charade you deplore in order to avoid suffering an onerous tax burden from a greedy tax system bent on wringing every last dollar from otherwise over-taxed and over-burdened economy.

---

Wow... talk about pejorative.... and while I may agree with you, you've made as many/more assumptions in here than others did in their comments.

Two things: (1) If everyone avoided the charade and utilized exemptions for their legitimate, intended purposes then the mill levels across the board could be decreased exponentially. (2) it's not a greedy tax system. At least not at it's base. I tend to agree with some of your other comments that it's "inflated budgets and spendthrift taxing entities." ...of course those are elected, so the electors are doing a terrible job. And it's not just "the liberals." That hot mess extends across all political spectrums to the point that I honestly believe the system is broken and a failure. Not if, when. Over the past 70 years too many niceties have become a "right" when they are not in my opinion.

Quote:

---

And if it weren't for those "gamers" bringing their city-earned $$$ to the country driving up the values of rural properties, and pumping $$$ into local economies, where might they be? Food for thought.

---

In a much better place in my mind, but I'm a hermit. I've seen a bumper sticker somewhere that says, "Boerne, TX ... Gone Forever" or something to that end, so I'm not the only one that believes it. They may bring more money to rural communities, but they also bring significant new demands on the system. Do those demands drive more costs than the new revenues? I'm sure it varies greatly from place-to-place so I'd be hesitant to say.

Quote:

---

The term "exemption" itself is a pejorative in this context such that it implies an unearned/undeserved benefit

---

This is absolutely 100% false. It is certainly special treatment, but in no way does the term "exemption" imply something unearned or undeserved. In fact, in many cases I think exactly the opposite is true. Let's stay on the agricultural front. I believe the history of this country will show a public policy that supports the fact that a safe and stable food and fiber industry was important to the economic and social well-being of the country. We have food stability that many parts of the world do not. There are trade-offs for that stability. Ag producers by and large are cost and price takers. Due to that there are structural differences in tax policy aimed at agriculture to help "smooth out the rough edges" of a cyclical market. Although in reality many commercial entities and manufacturers get similar tax treatment.

Quote:

---

Ranch and farm land are the backbone of a statewide ad valorem tax system, so granting it an "exemption" from taxation implies its receiving preferential treatment, which is a canard.

---

I was very happy to see you use 'canard.' To this point you'd used pejorative so often I thought it was on your word of the day calendar. Also, there is no canard here. Ag land IS receiving preferential treatment. In my opinion for a legitimate purpose, but that opinion may vary by each person's individual belief. As for being the backbone, I think it far and away makes up the bulk of the acreage, but I would be very surprised if it makes up the bulk of the revenue. I suppose it would depend on how you define backbone.

Again, I don't think the ag exemption as intended is undeserved. My opinion would be very different if we were talking other exemptions, particularly sales tax and income tax related exemptions. My major concern with what I believe is gaming the system is the same as shaynew1's... and that is destabilization of the existing food system in this country.

Quote:

---

I think the end of family owned ag is inevitable...it may be a long ways off, but losing the ag exemption would definitely tomahawk it pronto.

---

---

Your tweak is a non sequitur. I do not understand why you even brought it up. Focusing on the OPs example, rather than the larger problem is counter productive. The larger issue is the continuation of depending so heavily upon an antiquated and overburdened ad valorem based tax system to fund schools and government entities in the first place. It's waaay past time to shift the burdens to the end users or consumers of government services. Can we agree on that?

Do you take issue with my assumptions and opinions? What is your point in pointing out that I made them?

Define legitimate exemptions. Thats a very slippery slope. As for the greedy tax systems, I misspoke. Should have said greedy tax entities, that never saw a budget they couldn't increase exponentially over time. Better?

And what is special about taxing an asset based upon its productive capacity rather than some imagined market value? That is only fair and reasonable. And exemption implies a freedom from an obligation, when none exists. It's a misnomer. Prove otherwise.

Your right to point out the long-standing "cheap food" Federal policy and how it has artificially depressed commodity prices historically. That disparity has only worsened over time, and the variety of adjustments in the form of subsidies etc over time have served to further complicate matters.

Sorry to learn of your "close call" between Las Cruces and Hobbs. Sounds harrowing. Details?

CaptnCarl said:

---

My friends did end up buying some great looking longhorns from a cattle ranch in Lockhart.

---

Oxymoron?

It's not an exemption. And thankfully our state had the wisdom to add it to our constitution to prevent local government from making a money grab. Landowner in the original post is not "gaming" the system - see the second purpose below:

"The original method is known as "agricultural use valuation" or "1-D appraisal" after the Constitutional section from which it originates. The second, intended to promote the preservation of open spaces, is known as the "open space valuation" or "1-D-1 appraisal."

Sean 98 needs to read up on 1-d-1 open space appraisal.

I didn't realize the language re livestock was as ambiguous as it is.

Edit: I'm not sure what happened. TexAgs ate my entire response which, in typical fashion, was very long. I don't have time to re-do it now.

Quote:

---

Land qualifies for special appraisal (1-d-1 appraisal) if it has been (1) used for agriculture for five of the preceding seven years and is currently devoted

principally to agricultural use as defined by statute, (2) used to protect federally listed endangered species under a federal permit, or (3) used for conservation or restitution projects under certain federal and state statutes.

---

That language is taken directly from the Open Lands application. (2) and (3) pollution/mitigation don't appear to apply here based on the facts as we know them.

Website of a teasip former coworker who retired to do this full time. Outfit is in Angleton.

Double H Longhorns