|
Posted by Bruce Richmond on January 17, 2009, 12:28 pm
Please log in for more thread options wrote:
> Jim Wilkins wrote:
> > > Jim Wilkins wrote:
> > > > > Jim Wilkins wrote:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > Grow more woods ! They cost effectively zero.
> > > > > Graham
>
> > > > No, they cost taxes without producing a compensating steady income
>
> > > That would be the energy.
>
> > > Since when do trees cost taxes anyway ?
>
> > You need to own the land to grow the trees
>
> That's not a tax.
The land is taxed, as are things on the land. Around here the tax is
based not only on the size of the property but on its value. A nice
wooded lot is worth more than a swamp or rock ledges. You may end up
paying more for mineral resorces if the land has the makings for a
good gravel pit, even though you are not extracting gravel from it.
The land is assessed at a higher value if it is in a good location for
development, even if you have chosen not to develop it. And you can
end up paying more taxes based on the view from the land.
> > and can't use it for much else.
>
> Not a problem where's there's lots of it.
Which is fine for those living in the country, but there are far more
people living in more densly populated areas.
> > Around here the owners of commercially-zoned flat land often cut
> > the trees and put in rental storage sheds, which produce far more
> > income than firewood and can be easily removed when they sell. Maybe
> > the Scots make more money from sheep?
>
> Commercially zoned. Who said anything about forestry there ? God, you're
> DIM.
We still have places where there are no zoning laws. Even in those
that do have the laws it is often possible to get a varience, a spot
zone, or some other work around.
> Graham- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap