Ag tax article didn’t get to root of problem

Nancy Cook Lauer’s article on property tax issues within the agriculture programs should have been on the Opinion page rather than the front page. To say farmers and ranchers are using loopholes to obtain generous property tax rates and not pay their fair share is an opinion that has been repeated often and now people believe it true.

While it is true farmers and ranchers get reduced assessments on their land, they do pay taxes at a rate 1.5 times higher than homeowners and they are not protected by the 3 percent growth cap.

Would it be fair to characterize seniors who get a $100,000 home exemption as using a loophole to obtain a generous tax break and not pay their fair share? Would it be fair to characterize homeowners protected by 3 percent growth cap as using a loophole to obtain a generous tax break and not pay their fair share?

And I struggle with the statement that agriculture programs result in $39.6 million dollars in lost revenue to the county. I understand how the number was generated but it is a based on a concept that a tax system would have zero exemptions. Does a senior homeowner getting a $100,000 home exemption result in lost revenue to the county? Has anyone ever asked Stan Sitko how much the 3 percent growth cap and homeowner’s exemption costs the county in lost revenue? And what does the paltry $100 minimum tax cost in lost revenue?

The implication that farmers and ranchers are using loopholes to get generous tax breaks and that other groups are not getting tax breaks is absurd. Getting all tax information on the table would allow the County Council and the public to make informed decisions.

Phillip Koszarek

Captain Cook