5 Ways to Put Farm Safety into Practice

Every year, thousands of farmers and ranchers are injured and hundreds more die in farming accidents across the nation. That’s what Nebraska Farm Bureau is reminding you to take precautions to make your farm and ranch as safe as possible. Continue reading

Nebraska Crop Values . . .

Economic Tidbits 12.18.17

The value of Nebraska’s 2017 corn crop is $5.55 billion and the soybean crop is $2.95 billion according to recent USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) estimates.  The corn production value is third-highest in the nation, falling behind Iowa at $9 billion and Illinois at $7.7 billion, and the soybean crop value is the fifth-largest.  The figure below shows the values of Nebraska’s corn and soybean crops since 2010.  The 2017 corn crop value is lower compared to 2016, but the soybean crop value is slightly higher.  The corn crop value exceeded $9 billion in 2011, but has since fallen to where it has been around $6 billion or less in recent years.  On the other hand, the value of the soybean crop has consistently hovered around $3 billion through the years.  The drop in corn prices and acres in production are both reflected in the lower crop values for corn.  Soybean prices have also come down, but increases in acres and higher yields have mitigated the effects on overall crop value.    Continue reading

2016 Farm Program Payments . . .

Economic Tidbits 12.18.17

Nebraska crop producers received $646 million in Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage—County (ARC-CO) payments last fall for the 2016 crop year.  In total, the USDA distributed $6.9 billion in payments to participating producers under these two programs.

Continue reading

What’s Ahead for 2018 . . .

Economic Tidbits 12.18.17

The USDA expects prices for corn, cattle, and soybeans to be off a bit in 2018.  Prices for wheat and hogs are expected to be higher.  Given the large production levels of all these commodities in recent years, prices, while soft, have been stable due to relatively strong demand, boosted in part by robust export markets.  The strong demand needs to continue, and, thus far, signs point to demand remaining strong.  For example, Jim Robb, director of the Livestock Market Information Center, recently said the average American is expected to eat 219 pounds of red meat and poultry this year, the highest level since 2007.

Continue reading

SALT & Taxes . . .

Economic Tidbits logo

The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the tax writing committee of the House of Representatives, announced a draft of the federal tax reform bill will be released November 1.   Leaders in both the House and Senate have expressed hope a tax package could be passed by Thanksgiving.  One taxing concern on the minds of many farmers and ranchers is the fate of the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT).  The concern is especially acute in Nebraska given the large amount of property taxes paid by agriculture, roughly $1.3 billion in 2016.

 

Captiol at night

Under the unified framework for tax reform, the Trump Administration and Republican Congressional leaders said they want to simplify the federal tax code by repealing all itemized deductions, except deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.  Itemized deductions are claimed by individuals on Schedule A filed with Form 1040.  Most farmers and ranchers file taxes as individuals-the 2012 USDA Census of Agriculture showed 85 percent of Nebraska farms filed taxes as either an individual or family.  Additionally, only 28 percent of farmers and ranchers itemize deductions.  It is these operations who itemize deductions the loss of the ability to deduct state and local taxes could affect.  The average annual deduction for state and local taxes reported by farm sole proprietors on Schedule A for 2009-2015 (excluding 2013) was $128.4 million.  Presumably, the deduction is for state income taxes, property taxes on farm residences, and taxes on personal vehicles.  For these operations, the loss of the deduction could increase federal income taxes an estimated $18 million per year if not offset by other changes.

Corn harvest in Illinois - SeptemberFarmers and ranchers also deduct state and local taxes paid as a business expense for their operations, be it as sole proprietors, partnerships, or corporations.  It is here where most of the property taxes paid by agriculture on land and machinery are likely reported and losing the ability to expense state and local taxes would result in a significant increase in federal taxes.  Fortunately, according to the lobbyist for American Farm Bureau, the ability to expense state and local taxes as a business expense will continue.  Congressional leaders have indicated the repeal of the state and local taxes deduction would only apply on individual returns, and not affect the expensing of taxes by businesses.  But stay tuned, the reform discussions are now beginning in earnest, and no one can predict what might happen.

 

Jay RempeJay Rempe is the senior economist for Nebraska Farm Bureau. Rempe’s background in agricultural economics, years of experience in advocating at the state capitol, and firm grasp of issues allow him to quantify the fiscal impact of a regulatory proposal, and provide in-depth examination of key issues affecting Nebraska’s farmers and ranchers.

Disregard for Taxpayers Apparent in SCC Board Action

Steve Nelson1By Steve Nelson, farmer from Axtell, Nebraska and Nebraska Farm Bureau president

 

Can you hear me now? You’ll recall that catchphrase from the popular Verizon ad campaign promoting the company’s prowess in ensuring cell phone customers could connect from virtually anywhere. If only the Southeast Community College’s (SCC) Board of Governors had such a reliable network.

Last November, taxpayers from across the 15-county SCC area sent a message to SCC. It was loud and clear. It came in the form of voters overwhelmingly defeating a $369 million SCC bond measure with nearly 70 percent of the vote. The voters message; show restraint, don’t push massive property tax increases that we can’t afford. Despite the clarity of the message, it apparently never got through, or worse, was ignored by the SCC Board of Governors.

Despite the call for being cautious in taking more taxpayers dollars, in late September the SCC Board acted to increase their tax levy. Instead of a slight increase, the Board opted to take the maximum allowable levy authorized by the state for building construction. The Board’s action will effectively raise property taxes on SCC taxpayers and, in the process, appears to show complete disregard for the message sent by voters.

Partners in the Vote NO 369 coalition, which formed in opposition to SCC’s bond, had warned voters leading up to election day that passing the bond measure was too risky, given that should the bond pass SCC would still have the ability to raise their property taxes even more, by using the building construction levy authority.

Less than 12 months from the vote of the people, that’s exactly what the SCC’s Board of Governors did, pushing forward with their plans, and in the process showing how determined SCC was to take more taxpayer money and how easy it is to ignore the wishes of those who have to fund SCC expansion.

As a partner in the Vote NO 369 coalition, we’ve received numerous calls from angry taxpayers outraged by the SCC’s Board action. They believed, like so many others, that SCC should have gotten the message last fall. Their concerns are well founded. If a 2-1 vote against boosting taxes won’t get their attention, what will?

The smart move, and what we are encouraging the SCC Board to do, is to reconsider their action. While the heart of the matter is about the money, in the vein that SCC is intentionally and actively taking more from those who’ve signaled they aren’t ready to give it, the reality is SCC is breaking public trust, a trust that when taxpayers speak, the public entities accountable to them will listen.

We understand the SCC Board has a responsibility to juggle the needs of students and taxpayers. But we also know that strong public and private relationships are important for building educational opportunities; that includes having a relationship with taxpayers. There’s no denying SCC and the other community colleges have an important role to play in helping grow Nebraska. To keep those relationships strong, SCC’s Board would be best suited over the long-run in taking a step back at this time and recognize the needs of taxpayers. After failing to respond to their initial message, taxpayers across the area are wanting SCC to demonstrate they heard the message so they can stop asking, “Can you hear me now?”

Northeast Nebraska Counties Lead the State . . .

Economic Tidbits logo

As was the case in 2016, counties in northeast Nebraska had the highest average cash rental rates for agricultural ground in 2017.  Dixon County had the top average rental rate for irrigated ground in 2017 at $312/acre, surpassing Cedar County by $1/acre.  Last year Cedar County topped all Nebraska counties with a cash rent of $324/acre on irrigated land.   Knox, Wayne, Cuming and Platte Counties all had irrigated cash rents above $280 per acre in 2017.  Counties in Northeast Nebraska also led the state in cash rents on non-irrigated land in 2017.  Dakota County led the way at $266/acre, $5/acre less than last year, followed by Cuming, Thurston, Cedar and Wayne Counties.  Pierce and Cuming Counties had the highest 2017 rents for pasture ground at $73/acre.

The maps in the slideshow below, provided in a recent CropWatch released by the UNL Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, provides average cash rental rates for irrigated cropland, non-irrigated cropland, and pasture ground across the state. The data comes from surveys of Nebraska farmers and ranchers by the USDA-NASS.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

Jay RempeJay Rempe is the senior economist for Nebraska Farm Bureau. Rempe’s background in agricultural economics, years of experience in advocating at the state capitol, and firm grasp of issues allow him to quantify the fiscal impact of a regulatory proposal, and provide in-depth examination of key issues affecting Nebraska’s farmers and ranchers.