How to make thngs more even

Hi

Here is a solution to help the people that own the land without minerals rights which should be enacted. First if you own the land and the mineral rights your school, county and local real estate tax bill stays the same, but 50% of each bill is divided up between the mineral rights owner and the surface owner.

If you own the land without the mineral rights your real estate tax bill is now reduced by 50% and the other 50% being paid by the owner of the mineral rights of you surface land. This really would only cost the people that own the mineral rights, and why not they have the power to change the surface but have been getting off tax free.

Views: 2547

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Perotto on June 30, 2014 at 9:07am

I don't agree with the statement:

"and why not they have the power to change the surface but have been getting off tax free."

The mineral rights owner has no power to change the surface.

Permalink Reply by jason irvine on June 30, 2014 at 9:49am
Its a start but as you see there will be issues. It is impossible to make everyone happy. I would like to think that the problems lie with a select few and not the majority. It a buyer beware and a lesson for all of us.
Permalink Reply by Don Himber on June 30, 2014 at 10:10am

The mineral rights owner have the right to change the surface. Just look at the many oil or gas wells  that have been drilled on the land by the mineral owner on land owned by a surface owner without any concern for that party 

Taxes really don't make much sense on what is taxed. Taxes are just a charge against something the state see as something they can create revenue on. Phones, land, turnpike (road) cars trucks the list goes on and on, find something and tax it.

So why not tax the mineral rights owners at 50% of the existing taxes. If you own surface and minerals, status quo, but if you just own the surface rights, you get a 50% reduction in you real estate taxes. The only group that would oppose this, are the individuals and  companies that own just the mineral rights.

Permalink Reply by mlb on June 30, 2014 at 7:19pm

" the only group that would oppose this, are the individuals and companies that own just the mineral rights"

Not so.  I own both and oppose your idea.  I'd oppose it if I owned surface only.  Why the need to solve issues via more and more taxes of every type!  And what if you own minerals but are never in a unit or the well is dry?   So then by your formula that mineral owner would be on the hook for a worthless piece of real property that is 9000 ft deep.    Next someone will suggest taxing every type and strata of mineral, elements on the periodic chart or geologic formation known to man.  Salts , sandstone, limestone etc.  No further remedies needed.

Permalink Reply by Don Himber on July 1, 2014 at 2:19am

I also own both surface and minerals rights, so this is not an attempt to solve anything, just give the surface owners some relief. This isn't an additional tax, just a shifting of the tax to what is above ground and below it. I don't think taxing every type and strata of mineral, elements on the periodic chart or geologic formation known to man including salts , sandstone, limestone etc makes anymore sense than taxing houses and the land they sit on. That is why I support PA HB 76 and SB 76, The Property Tax Independence Act.

Permalink Reply by Ragnars Repo on July 1, 2014 at 2:49am
Relief from what?
Permalink Reply by mlb on July 1, 2014 at 3:26am

If anything I am all for a across the board sales tax with no property taxes of any kind.  You pay on what you buy not on what you own on a yearly cycle that is more like rent.

But it will not happen so I support no new taxes of any kind.  Even an attempt at "relief" would backfire in my opinion...they would turn it around and tax us double for owning the mineral rights and the surface.  

Permalink Reply by Don Himber on July 1, 2014 at 6:26am

Write to your representative to support HB 76 and SB 76, The Property Tax Independence Act.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on July 2, 2014 at 4:34am

A consumption tax on all the goods and services you purchase is the only "fair" tax, assuming all the other taxes go away. Don't want to pay so much tax, don't buy so much. It hits everyone with an equal percentage of what they spend. Those who have more do spend more.

The real question is, Why do you think things need to be made "fair", and who gets to define what is "fair"? You seem to be begging for more and more government intrusion into your life and your affairs, which is ALWAYS a BAD idea. There are other countries where this notion is more popular. Here, not so much. If a person chooses to buy land without mineral rights, they should factor that into the purchase price, not expect the .gov to rebate them some tax money after the fact to make it "fair". How about the person who has land with mineral rights and cashes in and sells them outright (not a lease), should they then get a discount on their property taxes after they cashed in and sold the rights off?

Permalink Reply by CA770N on July 8, 2014 at 6:06am

I think you're naïve if you think this would happen.  They may tax mineral rights, but they won't do it by making mineral owners pay half of the present RE tax, it will be an additional tax on the rights.

Permalink Reply by Summer Johnston on July 1, 2014 at 5:39am

Courts won't rule in favor of speculative arguments. Asking to divide taxes up between surface and mineral rights owners, assuming they are different owners, makes the assumption that all mineral rights owners will benefit eventually. They will not; some mineral rights owners will not be included in units. 

That means that even if someone owns the mineral rights, they may not benefit from drilling either. 

There'd just be no end to this "fairness" issue.

Permalink Reply by Don Himber on July 1, 2014 at 6:24am

If you go out and buy a piece of land which is nothing more than an area of dirt, You get taxed on the land and anyone that owns land knows the assessment on property/land is never equal across the board to other properties. So by owning this piece of dirt, it offers no positive benefit, just nothing more than something you own. In the future you might be able to sell it a profit, or a loss. Every comparison to minerals ownership can be said for the land surface. There are some parcels of land that the mineral rights have reap that owner a large sum of money but the surface owner land value has been greatly reduced due to the location of the property next to a processing gas plant or gas wells.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service