In the search for revenue, a Kansas City legislator has suggested property taxes be raised on land used for agricultural purposes. ON THE FLIP side, farmers say it would be their ruin. In its current form, Senate Bill 178 would increase land values by about 473 percent, according to the Kansas Department of Revenue. THE TRUTH, of course, is somewhere in between. IN THEIR SEARCH for funds, legislators should also reconsider the break they give farmers, who, like small businesses, are exempt from paying income tax on their net earnings.
Sen. Jeff Melcher, a Republican from Leawood, contends farmers have had it too easy. “They just don’t realize how good they’ve had it for many years,” Melcher said, referring to the way ag land is taxed, which is by how much a farmer can expect to produce from each parcel.
Melcher proposes the land should be taxed as any other. The result would be a coup for state coffers. State officials estimate the change would result in an additional $173 million.
Rural communities would especially benefit, Melcher said, because the higher property taxes would mean school districts and municipalities could lower their mill levies assessed to all taxpayers who own property.
Of Allen County’s 505 square miles, 313 are devoted to agriculture. Most of the land is for growing soybeans, wheat and corn, while about 40 percent is devoted to pastureland.
Farmers in western Kansas, where the bulk of the state’s agriculture lies, say the property tax increase would be prohibitive.
And Sen. Melcher is targeting his own constituents as much as those in the far reaches of the state.
Because farmland is taxed so low, people find all kinds of loopholes to get what should be classified as commercial or residential as agriculture. Corporations and developers use the tax advantage in their purchase of large swaths of land in and surrounding the metro areas of Wyandotte, Sedgwick, Johnson and Butler counties.
In wealthy subdivisions, owners claim their spacious lots as “farming/ranchland” to escape higher taxes.
At the very least, legislators need to tighten the noose on what may be classified as agriculture. As it stands, property owners can scatter a few fescue seeds and call it good.
It’s not right that business owners and farmers are exempt from such taxes, while their employees and hired hands are expected to carry their full share.
These realities become more and more clear as the state’s financial picture becomes more dim.
— Susan Lynn
City senator catches heat for proposing ag land tax increase
