|
|
Post by badbrad on May 2, 2017 6:33:24 GMT -6
I will be re-enrolling my front 40 here into MFL. I have the choice of a 25 years or 50 years. Been really struggling with the question since I could see the pros and cons to both. I am 40 years old so 25 years puts me at 65 and 50 years puts me dead. I am excluding about 3 acres by the cabin for the buildings and also a livestock pasture (yard) for potential someday. I think there may be a real chance of MFL eventually being canceled. Maybe I'm wrong I don't know. Taxes are so damn expensive if I'm not living on the land which I plan to do someday it would be difficult to afford. I plan to pass on to my 2 boys someday. Will they be able to afford it not living there and paying the high taxes without MFL?
Pros of the 50 year:
1. Lock in the program if it gets cancels 2. I'll never have to worry about crazy high taxes 3. Likely whatever I am going to want to do in 25 years I will want to do in 50 years. In other words I'm not going to want to do a whole lot more with it different after I'm 65 years old I assume. 4. If they raise the MFL tax rate I will be locked in at the cheaper rate for a longer time.
Cons of the 50 year:
1. Sometimes plans change and I or my kids will want the power to do something else with it. 2. May reduce re-sale value stuck with the plan if a buyer has other plans or doesn't like the program.
Pros of the 25 year:
1. Shorter duration may increase sale value 2. If plans change I would be out sooner or my kids would be able to do something different
Cons of the 25 year:
1. Program may be eliminated and force me or my kids to have to sell due to high taxes. Or a lot of wasted money paying high taxes after I'm 65.
Thoughts opinions? What would you do?
Just to give an idea the taxes on my 80 with the cabin would be about $5,200/ year with no MFL. With MFL it is about $2100 |
|
|
|
Post by Freeborn on May 2, 2017 6:45:50 GMT -6
Keep in mind most government programs are dependent on being funded. In my case my CRP payments were delayed because the farm bill was not approved. If the farm bill was changed to not fund CRP then the government breaks there contract with me. I have no recourse.
I'm not certain how MFL works but its hard to look out 10 years let alone 25 or 50. I wish I had better advise but its hard to see out that far.
|
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on May 2, 2017 6:47:41 GMT -6
Keep in mind most government programs are dependent on being funded. In my case my CRP payments were delayed because the farm bill was not approved. If the farm bill was changed to not fund CRP then the government breaks there contract with me. I have no recourse. I'm not certain how MFL works but its hard to look out 10 years let alone 25 or 50. I wish I had better advise but its hard to see out that far.
Agree things can change with the government programs. In this case MFL does not need to be funded because I don't get anything out of it other than reduced taxes. its not like they are sending me a check. I just pay $10 per acre instead of $50/acre.
|
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on May 2, 2017 6:49:19 GMT -6
I've become an anti-government curmudgeon so my input isn't going to be of value.
|
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on May 2, 2017 6:50:20 GMT -6
I've become an anti-government curmudgeon so my input isn't going to be of value.
LOL. Well I'm anti tax too Stu.
In a perfect world I would not have to enroll but unless you are rich you almost can't afford not to. $3,200 per year savings is a good chunk of change.
|
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on May 2, 2017 7:09:07 GMT -6
I've become an anti-government curmudgeon so my input isn't going to be of value.
LOL. Well I'm anti tax too Stu.
In a perfect world I would not have to enroll but unless you are rich you almost can't afford not to. $3,200 per year is a good chunk of change.
I hear you. One thing I'd say is to not try to make decisions based on what you think your boys may or may not want to do. Seems the age of 65 would be a convenient time to be able to "re-think" things and the fewer barriers to a possible major life change would be a good idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Freeborn on May 2, 2017 7:14:16 GMT -6
LOL. Well I'm anti tax too Stu.
In a perfect world I would not have to enroll but unless you are rich you almost can't afford not to. $3,200 per year is a good chunk of change.
I hear you. One thing I'd say is to not try to make decisions based on what you think your boys may or may not want to do. Seems the age of 65 would be a convenient time to be able to "re-think" things and the fewer barriers to a possible major life change would be a good idea. That's good advice!
Who knows what you or your family might want in 25 years. I know my priorities have changed allot. When it comes to kids/family, they will travel their own paths and if you want to be part of that you will need to be willing to adapt to their plans.
|
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on May 2, 2017 7:24:39 GMT -6
I hear you. One thing I'd say is to not try to make decisions based on what you think your boys may or may not want to do. Seems the age of 65 would be a convenient time to be able to "re-think" things and the fewer barriers to a possible major life change would be a good idea. That's good advice!
Who knows what you or your family might want in 25 years. I know my priorities have changed allot. When it comes to kids/family, they will travel their own paths and if you want to be part of that you will need to be willing to adapt to their plans.
Yep. Who knows where they will end up. They go off to college/military/jobs, meet somebody and then they live their lives and work for their dreams...not ours. Which is exactly what they should do |
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on May 2, 2017 7:26:41 GMT -6
That's good advice!
Who knows what you or your family might want in 25 years. I know my priorities have changed allot. When it comes to kids/family, they will travel their own paths and if you want to be part of that you will need to be willing to adapt to their plans.
Yep. Who knows where they will end up. They go off to college/military/jobs, meet somebody and then they live their lives and work for their dreams...not ours. Which is exactly what they should do
right so if they want to do that and sell they probably will have an easier time selling it with no government program attached? It works both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Satchmo on May 2, 2017 7:35:02 GMT -6
Brad, I think your priorities will begin to change long before 65. I would do 25. Seems to me that the high taxes in WI and this MFL program, seem to be the perfect combination to force landowners to do things the way the State of WI wants. Outright taxes of $50/acres on bare land seems like highway robbery to me. Am I missing somethings hére?
|
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on May 2, 2017 7:39:27 GMT -6
Yep. Who knows where they will end up. They go off to college/military/jobs, meet somebody and then they live their lives and work for their dreams...not ours. Which is exactly what they should do
right so if they want to do that and sell they probably will have an easier time selling it with no government program attached? It works both ways.
Having a newly re-newed MFL plan on my folks' old place ended up costing them quite a bit. It definitely reduced potential buyer interest. It's one thing if a new owner decides to pursue an MFL plan on their own, it's entirely different "being forced" to follow an existing plan. Simple human nature |
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on May 2, 2017 7:41:21 GMT -6
Brad, I think your priorities will begin to change long before 65. I would do 25. Seems to me that the high taxes in WI and this MFL program, seem to be the perfect combination to force landowners to do things the way the State of WI wants. Outright taxes of $50/acres on bare land seems like highway robbery to me. Am I missing somethings hére?
Couple of things. First, yeah $50/acre is extremely expensive hey? $2,000 per 40 acres. Fucking sucks.
I see mixed messages though in your post or maybe I'm misinterpreting it. You are saying how expensive it is to not be in the program but still saying I should not lock it in to keep the cheaper taxes? That confuses me.
Being in the program doesn't mean you can't sell it. Its just you need to find a buyer that will accept the program. I've had nothing but good experience with the program. They stay out of my way and I do what I want with the land. That is only because I good forest management practices align with what I want. So the state and me are on the same page with what to do with my woods (for now). I don't plan on clear cutting it and with its wetness I can't see much use for it other than deer hunting and growing trees. Its not like I will be able to turn it into a money making farm.
|
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on May 2, 2017 7:43:14 GMT -6
right so if they want to do that and sell they probably will have an easier time selling it with no government program attached? It works both ways.
Having a newly re-newed MFL plan on my folks' old place ended up costing them quite a bit. It definitely reduced potential buyer interest. It's one thing if a new owner decides to pursue an MFL plan on their own, it's entirely different "being forced" to follow an existing plan. Simple human nature
That doesn't make sense Stu. If it was a new plan you should of explained it is very cheap to get out of the plan in the beginning. As the plan ages it gets very expensive to get out. You only have to pay the back taxes for the years that plan is effective. So if you were only in your first few years either you could of pulled it out or the new buyers could of very cheaply if that was a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by smsmith on May 2, 2017 7:47:48 GMT -6
That's how it works now, it didn't work that way in 2012.
Even with how it works now, who wants to jump through more government paperwork? When I was looking for land here I automatically excluded anything with any kind of easement. Just wasn't going to deal with it.
Seems you want to go ahead and enroll for 50 years. If that's what you want, and that's what you think is best...do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on May 2, 2017 7:51:37 GMT -6
That's how it works now, it didn't work that way in 2012. Even with how it works now, who wants to jump through more government paperwork? Seems you want to go ahead and enroll for 50 years. If that's what you want, and that's what you think is best...do it.
No. I appreciate your guys comments and good discussion. Gets me thinking. But I'm just challenging and playing devils advocate. Locking in for 50 years shares the shit out of me too.
Its water over the dam now so it really doesn't matter but that pull out rule I think has been in effect since FCL was in place a long time ago. I don't believe that rule has changed. When I bought my land in 2011 I'm 100% sure you could of pulled it out for the back taxes.
|
|
