Clear Example of Tax Laws Favoring Agriculture
Via John Combest (who played a terrific first base in softball on Sunday, if I may say so), the Suburban Journals has a good story about a smart property tax move by developers in St. Charles County. What exactly are the developers who have found themselves sitting on large lots of undeveloped property during this recession doing with it? They are farming the land just enough to get it taxed at the agricultural rate instead of at the commercial or residential rate. As the story details, the differences can be huge:
For example, an acre that goes for $5 a square foot and is assessed as commercial would have taxes of $4,800 for an acre. That same acre, assessed as agriculture, would have taxes of $7.68.
This is a topic I have been writing about since the beginning of this blog. Low assessment of agricultural land is one of the main reasons why each year the state transfers money (taxes) taken from suburban taxpayers to give to rural school districts.
The suburban residents, with their higher assessments and rates, support their schools at a fiscal level that has resulted in the state holding aid flat for years; the so-called “hold harmless” school districts. Many rural districts, with their lower assessments, lower rates, and agricultural property, pay less for their schools. The state makes up the difference with general taxes. Let’s be clear — rural districts can often educate their kids at a much lower expense than suburban districts, but the annual transfer of wealth from the suburbs to the rural areas is exactly the type of transfer that is often decried in other situations.





Once again proving that people want the best for themselves and their children etc., just not willing to pay for it. Health care, environmental protections, humane [non-Chinese] labor practices,. . .
To David Stokes,
How is the ‘who is living the greater subsidized life?’ study coming?
Comment by Papillon — June 8, 2010 @ 3:10 p.m.
Good question, Papillon. I thought about that project as I was writing the blog post. We did some research on it a few months ago, and at some point I need to put it together and come out with some answers. From the preliminary stuff we looked at, it seems clear to me that your “mainline” suburbs are the least subsidized type of lifestyle. (By “mainline” I mean those not too distact from the urban core – think St. Louis County.)
That is not to say it is the “best” or the “preferred” lifestyle, just the least subsidized by other taxpayers.
Comment by David Stokes — June 9, 2010 @ 9:58 a.m.