Post by libby on Jan 25, 2016 20:35:34 GMT -6
For good reasons, Iowans are asking many questions about Gov. Terry Branstad’s plan for cleaning up the state’s waterways. But no one is asking this very important one: Why should Iowa’s urban residents bear most of the cost of fixing pollution problems caused by the national and international demand for the state’s agricultural bounty?
The governor’s plan would use potential surpluses in sales tax revenue to do something about the excess nutrients fouling Iowa’s waters, nutrients that largely come from agriculture. But that burden won’t fall on everyone. Iowa gives agricultural businesses wide exemptions from the sales tax. In 2010, the latest year for which there are numbers, those exemptions cost the state more than $550 million in revenue. The list of transactions exempt from the tax runs page after page. There’s no sales tax on drainage tile used in crop fields, on animals or on many of the fertilizers, pesticides and other “inputs” that actually cause agricultural pollution.
Agricultural business doesn’t escape all sales taxes, but the exemptions add up to a lot of money. The result is that under the governor’s plan, the vast majority of funding to address agricultural pollution would come from urban taxpayers. Why should non-farming Iowans bear the brunt of the cost of cleaning up the environmental damage caused by ethanol production and concentrated livestock feeding operations — when most of that ethanol and meat gets consumed somewhere else?
A fairer approach would be to simply roll back the existing agricultural sales tax exemptions by 1 percent and dedicate those funds to the cleanup. That would generate nearly $100 million a year — the amount the state nutrient reduction strategy claims is needed. And Iowans would not have to wait 15 years to see results.
See more: www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2016/01/25/governors-water-quality-plan-unfair-urban-taxpayers/79311192/
The governor’s plan would use potential surpluses in sales tax revenue to do something about the excess nutrients fouling Iowa’s waters, nutrients that largely come from agriculture. But that burden won’t fall on everyone. Iowa gives agricultural businesses wide exemptions from the sales tax. In 2010, the latest year for which there are numbers, those exemptions cost the state more than $550 million in revenue. The list of transactions exempt from the tax runs page after page. There’s no sales tax on drainage tile used in crop fields, on animals or on many of the fertilizers, pesticides and other “inputs” that actually cause agricultural pollution.
Agricultural business doesn’t escape all sales taxes, but the exemptions add up to a lot of money. The result is that under the governor’s plan, the vast majority of funding to address agricultural pollution would come from urban taxpayers. Why should non-farming Iowans bear the brunt of the cost of cleaning up the environmental damage caused by ethanol production and concentrated livestock feeding operations — when most of that ethanol and meat gets consumed somewhere else?
A fairer approach would be to simply roll back the existing agricultural sales tax exemptions by 1 percent and dedicate those funds to the cleanup. That would generate nearly $100 million a year — the amount the state nutrient reduction strategy claims is needed. And Iowans would not have to wait 15 years to see results.
See more: www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2016/01/25/governors-water-quality-plan-unfair-urban-taxpayers/79311192/