DEBATE OF '98- responsibilities of forest land owners

Joseph Zorzin redoak at
Mon Apr 20 11:17:10 EST 1998

mcour at wrote:

> If our tax burden were different, we might be inclined to plant only 20 acres
> or so and manage the balance of the property for timber.  However, there is no
> way we can keep paying $8000 annually while we wait for 50 years for those
> trees to reach their peak merchantable value.
> Michael Courtney
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Your state/province doesn't have any forestry tax programs? Here in
Taxachusetts, you get a 95% discount on property taxes, regardless of
the current condition of the land, even if no timber will be harvested
for decades. I lieu of the normal tax rate, you pay an 8% yield tax when
timber/wood is harvested. I've calculated that the 8% yield tax - in the
long term- is still much lower than the normal tax. This tax loop
hole... er... I mean mgt. incentive (in case my liberal friends are
reading this) is what makes forestry happen here; without it- very
little forestry.

"Still, after a year, the only forestry web page in the otherwise
sophisticated state of Massachusetts"

"In wilderness is the preservation of the world."
Henry David Thoreau

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list