Right on mark

Market value is probably best. What people are willing to pay is the value. Then again I'm not a retired real estate broker and appraiser. Are there any more of these retired real estate brokers and appraisers out there? If so, please chime in.

Market value is an inaccurate measure of the taxable base. It would be much more accurate to use the actual profit from same ground. Let's use the value of gold as an example. There is really no difference between gold and real property as an investment. Several years ago you could buy an ounce of gold for $400.00 currently it is $1248.90. Let's say you bought 100 ounces of gold for 400.00 per. that would give you an investment worth of $40,000.00. Now that investment would be worth $124890.00. Now let's assume you have to pay an ownership tax on your gold $40000/100=400; 400x1.72 (mill levy) = $ 692.00 you owe per year as a privilege of owning 100 ounces of gold. Now let's assume that your gold is worth $124890 using the same computations 124890/100=1248 x mill levy of 1.73 =$2159.04 yearly for the privilege of owning 100 ounces of gold. You have done nothing to make the gold worth more. Yet you owe three times the initial tax. Is the practical use of the gold three times more? Can the gold produce three times more than it did at 400? No it can't. I realize in the real world the levies are adjusted so that all county expenses are met and the county does not profit from taxes. But this does not change the fact that property tax is an unfair tax upon those who may or may not make a profit.

One other comment....At a mill levy of $1.73 per $100 of valuation you will pay the amount in taxes that you paid for your ground every 57 years.

look at real estate. Suppose there's a rush to move to McCook Ne. In the year 2014 your house would sell for 59,000.00 - but because of the rush , it would now sell for 150,000.00 in 2016. What you are saying is that because you don't do anything more with the house than you did in 2014, the property tax should be the same - and that is wrong . But, getting back to farmland. I want to continue with this a bit - I want to find out what the "retired real estate brokers and appraisers" are up to here . Here's an example - Farm A,B and C are identical farms in 3 different states. The 3 farms have exactly the same potential because by some miracle they all have the exact same soil, weather, etc. In fact it's almost like they were right next door to each other. Farm A is in a state that has absolutely no property tax. Farm B is in a state that charges 20,000.00 a year for property tax. Farm C is in a state that charges 40,000.00 a year for property tax. When the farms go up for sale at the same time ,farm A will sell for more than farm B - and farm B will sell for more than farm C. Both farm B and C are stuck with a fixed expense that farm A doesn't have. Basically, one of the things that determines the market value of the farm is the amount allocated by the potential buyer for fixed expenses. And, property taxes are just one of many fixed expenses. If farm B sells for 1,000,000 you would expect farm A to sell for more than that and farm C to sell for less. Why here would you want to look at the bookkeeping of the 3 farms. The buyer has already factored expenses into his purchase price offer. The people offering money have done that work already. Why wouldn't the property tax be based on the amount people are willing to pay for the land?

What Bob S states is correct with the assumption that the person who is buying the land is buying it for agricultural use and not an investment(expected appreciation in value). When that occurs it throws the system a curve. Also, as I have stated before, the tax is on the POTENTIAL of the land, NOT the actual profit! When a person working for a wage or salary goes to work he/she knows that the taxes on those earnings will only be a sliding percentage of what they make. A business in town knows that his/her equipment and buildings have a taxable value and a depreciation value, that he/she can add to his breakeven costs His profit will be taxes upon the amount that he/she nets at the end of the year. An agricultural businessman/woman knows that he owes a percentage of the lands value before he ever puts a seed in the ground or pastures an animal. An Agricultural businessman/woman cannot set the price that he gets for his/her commodities, they have to take what the market offers. Yes there are ways to improve their margins. But, that horrendous tax bill is still there with no relief. And they still get taxed on their profit. Also land taxes encourage use of cheaper inputs on the land as to maximize margins. I know farmers who plant the best corn, use the best fertilizer, spray for weeds and insects when it is needed.and make sure fences and pastures are at the best levels possible. I also know farmers who plant the cheapest seed, use the minimum amount of the cheapest fertilizer, put the minimum amount of money into fences and wells, and run livestock on the pastures at higher than the sustainable rate. This is not good for the land. Those farmers/ranchers have higher profit margins but the same tax bills as the good stewards of the land. The only difference is that the farmers/ranchers who "rape" the land has to pay more income tax. This is NOT RIGHT!

It seems to me these tax rates are not consistent when a property such as Parcel ID 00034090 sells for $215,000 but has a assessed value of only $33,724. I'm sure there are many other examples of discrepancies in Red Willow County.

meant Parcel ID 000340900

I think people from other states are starting to come into McCook. They value property higher than people from this area value property. I can see this is happening. The big cities are getting rough. Almost,in certain areas, unlivable. If McCook catches on as a good place to live , you will probably see property values double over a relatively short time. In the process , you may well see this great difference between sale price and assessed valuation. In fact, if these out of state people bring their businesses with them, this could be a real boom town. If so, the high purchase prices will be the norm.

If you based taxes on profit for the year then property in the city would not be taxed because the lot makes no profit. A plot of farmland makes a profit and a plot that, let's say, a hotel or downtown store sits on makes a profit yet the farm ground is taxed at a much lower rate. If land value is land value should the land regardless of use be taxed at the same rates? Just asking questions to open discussion as some in the business community think farmers already get a huge tax break on property and they often pay little or no sales tax on equipment, the pickups they drive, fuel...Farmers this is your chance to tell all non farmers why others should pay higher rates and sales taxes and farmers pay less and most often get payments back from the government for not farming. That said, the largest exports to other nations are farm related.

Dennis, I don't know where to start.....

OK, by the numbers

1. Improved property should be taxed on the value of the improvements made on same, at the same rates.

2. Profit? How would you feel if you worked for a year and actually lost money? And you still had to pay income tax based on your earning potential?

3. Yes there has been an attempt to lessen the tax impact on the farmers who as I have stated before often cannot control his/her ability to pay.

4. Sales taxes on equipment, supplies, need to be reinstated as a way to shift the tax burden away from property. (I am not sure how to handle equipment and supplies purchased from other states that do not have taxes on such. Perhaps making sales tax mandatory irregardless of where purchased.)

5. Farmers do not want anyone to pay more taxes. In fact if asked, most farmers would like everyone to NOT have to be taxed. But, all realize that we must share the burden for government and services must be shared equally.

6. Obviously you know little or nothing about the latest farm bill that was passed. There are no more direct payments to the farmers. The only subsidy that the farmer receives is through helping pay the federal crop insurance premium. (The federal crop system has been profitable in the past and would have been in recent past except for the widespread weather disasters.) Also, the set aside acre program died in the 1980's. (Almost 25 years ago Dennis!)

7. Thank you for pointing out the fact that agricultural exports are the only thing slowing our trade imbalance with other countries.

People, I don't know how much simpler I can say this. Tax a person on his profit, or his input cost to make that profit. Taxing property on its potential to make a profit is just as insane as taxing a person on their earning potential rather than their actual earnings.

Very good job of spelling it out on why the state has different tax rates for different types of property!

I never cease to be amused. Gee, I wonder why politicians use the tax code to tax everyone differently? After all, isn't the primary reason politicians run for office is so they can solve all our problems and make the world a fair and utopian place? I am just so confused... I certainly spend all my time thinking the only role of government is to make the world a fair and wonderful place while solving all our problems.

Believe it or not Dennis there are people who realize that taxing property on its "potential" creates an unfair tax. Is it so hard to understand? We will pay our taxes on what is fair for everyone. But, when taxes are levied on property on the "assumption" that property will be profitable, then that is unfair taxation. The farmer/ranchers are at the mercy of Mother Nature. They cannot determine if they will profit from year to year or not. Yes, all improved property needs to be taxed. I am not debating that issue. I am incensed that anyone would assume that tax on unimproved property is fair. If there is something that I am missing please don't hesitate to point it out. The taxes I pay on a very very small farm are almost 1/4 of what I receive for rent. (my cash rent is at the average for the area according to the Nebraska bureau of Ag statistics) Is there anyone in town with property rented out that is taxed at 25% of your yearly gross? Let's get this discussion in gear.

Quickie, I understand what you are saying. My comments were to spur ag producers to speak up to make the points to those that have and are questioning the differences in why ag is taxed in Nebraska. What I hear is NOT and argument on potential but on value paid. Unimproved property, in town or country still has value. The way it is currently valued is on the vaue based on purchased price. From non ag property owners is that improved or non improved, all property should be taxed the same whether in town or in the country. Again, you have provided good information. That was what I was hoping for. Keep making your points.