120 new acres

Joseph Zorzin redoak at forestmeister.com
Mon Oct 6 04:11:42 EST 1997

Larry Caldwell wrote:
> In article <01bccfd1$7c244ec0$3f13b4c1 at SE8R62600424.hel.se.pnu.com>,
> "Anders Axelsson" <anders.axelsson at eu.pnu.com> wrote:
> > We´d log minimum 60 years after planting and would expect to net 600-800
> > KUSD
> > not counting the income from 2-4 thinnings in the interim.Just for
> > comparison.
> Corporate plantations are logged on about a 60 to 70 year cycle where I
> live, but the tax structure in the USA makes long cycle management of
> individual holdings almost impossible.  We have a heavy inheritance tax
> that has to be paid within 6 months of death, so if you plant at 50
> and die at 80, your family either has to sell the land or log it and
> start over.  It's a rare family that has the cash resources to pay the
> inheritance tax without liquidating the estate.

Not having much money, taxes isn't a big problem for me. <G> But I
thought the problem with inheritance tax was alleviated somewhat by
raising the value at which this tax kicks in; but I'm not sure what that
is. Do you know? Or is there such a tax even if the estate is modest?

> The same ta structure has just about destroyed the family farm in the
> USA.  Only about 2% of the population farms any more, and most rural
> residents are just buying privacy and a view, not a means of production.
> -- Larry

Although taxes have contributed to the decline of farms, they have also
contributed to the decline of everything else in America except of
course the trully rich people and the megacorporations who have tax
attorneys (and politicians) at their beck and call- but I think what has
caused the decline of farming wasn't taxes- it was the overabundance of
farmland and modern farm technology. The most productive farms survive
and everyone else goes under. Sounds cruel, but cruely is the American
way of economics. Shutting down most heavy industry was cruel to
millions of blue coller workers. If anyone wants to know what bombed out
European industry looked like in 1945, just ride Amtrack from Buffalo to
Chicago. A few hundred miles of total industrial death zone.

And I agree that "most rural residents are just buying privacy and a
view, not a means of production". That's especially true here in the
Berkshires of western Mass. where most forest land is now in the hands
of wealthy New Yorkers. A few of the more enlightened ones learn about
the advantages of forestry from forestry consultants. They don't learn
from the vast legions of state service foresters, extension agents, ad
infinitum. Most of the forest land goes unmanaged- then about every 50
years the forest gets high graded- it's an aburdity which is "verboten"
to discuss in "state circles" and the forestry "ivory tower". Whenever I
bring up this fundamental TRUTH, the bureaucrats look at me as if I'm
HIV positive. If they acknowledged the TRUTH they'd have to change thier
ways and they certainly don't want THAT.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list