What became of Econ 101

[fedup2]

Regulations in Alberta.
http://governmentservices.gov.ab.ca/lt/fola.cfm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Others--------General

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cr/SOR-79-416///en

5. (1) An ineligible person or foreign controlled corporation may take or acquire, directly or indirectly, an interest in controlled land if as a result of that taking or acquisition the ineligible person or foreign controlled corporation will own or beneficially own interests in controlled land consisting of not more than two parcels containing, in the aggregate, not more than 20 acres.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), an ineligible person or foreign controlled corporation that owns or beneficially owns, as a tenant in common, an interest in a parcel of controlled land is considered to own or beneficially own an interest in that area of controlled land equal to the product obtained by multiplying the area of the parcel by the extent, expressed in a percentage, of the ineligible person's or foreign controlled corporation's interest in the parcel of controlled land.

(3) No ineligible person or foreign controlled corporation shall as a tenant in common take or acquire, directly or indirectly, an interest in a parcel of controlled land that is greater than 20 acres in area if as a result of that taking or acquisition more than five ineligible persons or foreign controlled corporations will own or beneficially own, as tenants in common, that interest in the parcel of controlled land.

(4) Foreign controlled corporations that are associated with one another as determined under section 256 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) shall be considered as a single corporation for the purposes of this section, but in determining whether and at what time foreign controlled corporations are associated for the purposes of this section, subsection 256(1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) shall be read as though the words "at any time in the year" were struck out.


6. An ineligible person or foreign controlled corporation may take or acquire a lease of controlled land for a term of 20 years or less, other than a lease that contains a provision by which its term may be extended or renewed so that the period in which the lease is in effect will exceed 20 years, if the lease is registered in a land titles office within 60 days of its being made.


7. An ineligible person or foreign controlled corporation may take or acquire an option to purchase an interest in controlled land if

(a) the option to purchase is exercisable within a period of one year from its effective date and not afterwards, and

(b) the option to purchase contains a condition that it may be exercised only in favour of the ineligible person or foreign controlled corporation when the ineligible person or foreign controlled corporation becomes eligible to acquire the interest under these Regulations.

 

[fedup2]

Another thing I found interesting is that if you are a foreign owner of 20 acres or less & lease that land out or make any money off of it, you will pay up to 25% of your gross to taxes. :shock:

 

[Anonymous]

F'ed Up: "First of all, why do you feel that anyone has to prove anything to you? Who in the hell do you think you are on this forum that people have to constantly prove you wrong or prove themselves right?"

Because you blamers simply repeat things that you want to believe without ever looking for the facts that support those positions.

I ask for the proof that supports your views to point out the fact that it doesn't exist.

F'ed Up: "As far as showing your lies, that has been done many times & I'm not about to sit here and dig them up. What good would it do? You would tell more lies like you usually do and say, sematics, out of context, or Oh, I wasn't talking to him. The people on this forum are not as stupid as you think they are. Stevie Wonder could see through your little lying game."

Blah, blah, blah!

As always, all foam and no beer. Calling someone a liar is a lot easier than proving it.

F'ed Up: "Now you can do your usual little chicken dance and claim you are right again because I'm not about to waste any more time on a puffed up, insignificant, pompous, little @ss like you!"

Hahaha! Does this mean you couldn't find a lie? Imagine that?

Don't take it so personally F'ed Up! You're not the first blamer who couldn't back their position with supporting facts.

Keep talking smack and crushing beer cans against your empty head. How about another "cyber threat"? That always makes you feel better.

The above quote looks like a contender for the forum bad ass of the year award. I'll give you my vote.

When are you coming to visit?


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Boy fedup2-- Did he prove you right that time... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

as the lemmings gather...........


~SH~

 

[Bill]

Someone in the family or in the ownership has to have a primary residence in the province.

I have 2 neighbors that bought land out there, they have kids that are married and live there, making it so 1 couple covers the land for both families.

If that wasn't the case, I know of many Alberta ranchers that would buy up sections of land. Land here hasn't been at $50,000 per 1/4 for a long time.

If there truly is the will there is always a way to make it happen.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

What I find funny is Oldtimer complains about hunters and California types buying up Montana leaving much vacant for most of the year and how the CRP program has reduced rural populations because nobody in in the country working the land.
Then he turns around and criticize a province that passed legislation to try to keep that from happening. Just no pleasing some people?

 

[Anonymous]

What I find funny is Oldtimer complains about hunters and California types buying up Montana leaving much vacant for most of the year and how the CRP program has reduced rural populations because nobody in in the country working the land.
Then he turns around and criticize a province that passed legislation to try to keep that from happening. Just no pleasing some people?

I don't care what you guys do- Big Muddy-- but when you have government pass laws to keep land values cheap- and only can be owned by resident provincial citizens- and for agricultural use---- then you can't say you don't have a subsidized agriculture program...Tie that in with your Prairie Province Program payments that were given to put land back into grass and hay-- and Sks beef industry is heavily subsidized.....

But even with all that you still have to live by fraud and deceit and pass off your product as a US product riding on the shirttails of an industry the US cattleman built... :roll:

 

[cowsense]

OT- The only FRAUD AND DECEIT is in the crap that you continually post. You are a shining example of the fact that R-calf's policies are based entirely on deception , exaggeration and hypocrisy!

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

What I find funny is Oldtimer complains about hunters and California types buying up Montana leaving much vacant for most of the year and how the CRP program has reduced rural populations because nobody in in the country working the land.
Then he turns around and criticize a province that passed legislation to try to keep that from happening. Just no pleasing some people?

I don't care what you guys do- Big Muddy-- but when you have government pass laws to keep land values cheap- and only can be owned by resident provincial citizens- and for agricultural use---- then you can't say you don't have a subsidized agriculture program...Tie that in with your Prairie Province Program payments that were given to put land back into grass and hay-- and Sks beef industry is heavily subsidized.....

But even with all that you still have to live by fraud and deceit and pass off your product as a US product riding on the shirttails of an industry the US cattleman built... :roll:

Oldtimer which way do you want it?

Do not want Montana to be bought up by ABSENTEE LANDOWNERS?

Or. Do you want to be an ABSENTEE LANDOWNER in Saskatchewan?


Don't get talking subsidies with me. my son worked in Montana all summer and fall installing heavily subsidized water pipe lines for ranchers. the rate was 75% of the cost unless they had to put incentives on to get it complete then they payed 90%. Nothing like that up here.
Some grass got seeded on programs but nothing to the extent of the CRP and lots was small patches 40 acres or less on erodible land. Sure not like that Outlook bench land that got put into CRP so some could go to areas like Roy MT. or into South Dakota and buy up ranches and break sod.

 

[S.S.A.P.]

..... In 1999, Montana posted a record net farm income of $500.7 million, according to USDA statistics. The so-called profit included a record $492.1 million in federal payments. In the year 2000, the state's government payments of $490 million exceeded the net income by some $207.6 million, and in 1998 government money exceeded net income by some $32.2 million......

....... Montana's a classic example. In 1998 and 2000, government payments exceeded the state's net farm incomes, yet cropland land values have increased by 10 percent during that time. The ERS attributes that to a "sudden and substantial rise in government payments" and estimates that without those payments, land values may have decreased by as much as 25 percent the past two years.

...... In Montana's biggest wheat-producing county, Chouteau County, 1999 crops were worth $58.1 million and the government supplied what amounts almost to a matching grant of $45.7 million.

 

[Tam]

Hey Oldtimer the US Freedom of information Act kind of bites when you are trying to spread crap doesn't it? :wink:

 

[ranch hand]

This looks like farming not ranching subsidies. Very few if any got the pipeline money that I know of.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

This looks like farming not ranching subsidies. Very few if any got the pipeline money that I know of.

My son was kept busy all summer right to freeze up digging. Maybe your NRCS officer was to lazy to fill out the forms. Seemed like the sky was the limit for an approved project. All were backhoe dug to below the frost line, Fiber glass and Uke tires for tanks.

Oldtimer was talking land prices. Ranches are land and they are broke up to farm. I know of two operations from Sheridan Country MT that seeded to CRP and went and bought ranches to farm. What did OT want to seed MT land to CRP and buy a ranch in Canada?

 

[ranch hand]

This looks like farming not ranching subsidies. Very few if any got the pipeline money that I know of.

My son was kept busy all summer right to freeze up digging. Maybe your NRCS officer was to lazy to fill out the forms. Seemed like the sky was the limit for an approved project. All were backhoe dug to below the frost line, Fiber glass and Uke tires for tanks.
Oldtimer was talking land prices. Ranches are land and they are broke up to farm. I know of two operations from Sheridan Country MT that seeded to CRP and went and bought ranches to farm. What did OT want to seed MT land to CRP and buy a ranch in Canada?

You had better check the facts out on that one before you start spouting your mouth off. I know of most in my county, unless you had family working at the office ,that never even got their foot in the door.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

This looks like farming not ranching subsidies. Very few if any got the pipeline money that I know of.

My son was kept busy all summer right to freeze up digging. Maybe your NRCS officer was to lazy to fill out the forms. Seemed like the sky was the limit for an approved project. All were backhoe dug to below the frost line, Fiber glass and Uke tires for tanks.
Oldtimer was talking land prices. Ranches are land and they are broke up to farm. I know of two operations from Sheridan Country MT that seeded to CRP and went and bought ranches to farm. What did OT want to seed MT land to CRP and buy a ranch in Canada?

You had better check the facts out on that one before you start spouting your mouth off. I know of most in my county, unless you had family working at the office ,that never even got their foot in the door.

Spout what? My son went out the door every morning and brought a pay check home for running a backhoe and installing water systems. That is a fact.
They worked from Homestead to Westby to Outlook to Redstone. That covers most of Sheridan County. Fact

Are you telling that these are all patronage payments or is the money alloted on the Good Old Boys system?

Are you from Sheridan county MT?

 

[Econ101]

Hey, not to be conceited here, but aren't yall getting off topic?

I have decided to play less of a role on ranchers and more of a role in the items that will make a difference for producers. We are beginning to see a little movement in the political world on these issues and if not outspent (and accepted by politicians) we will succeed. Ranchers is fun and it happens to help sort out the arguments, but largely inconsequential to real change.

There are enough people here to put forward the points I would make and I enjoy watching them play out on the board. I need only be a participant if I decide to do so. Thanks to everyone who have held my confidence. You learn who you can trust and it was proven in the posts on this subject. Thanks again (Katrina and others).

 

[aplusmnt]

Hey, not to be conceited here, but aren't yall getting off topic?

I have decided to play less of a role on ranchers and more of a role in the items that will make a difference for producers. We are beginning to see a little movement in the political world on these issues and if not outspent (and accepted by politicians) we will succeed. Ranchers is fun and it happens to help sort out the arguments, but largely inconsequential to real change.

There are enough people here to put forward the points I would make and I enjoy watching them play out on the board. I need only be a participant if I decide to do so. Thanks to everyone who have held my confidence. You learn who you can trust and it was proven in the posts on this subject. Thanks again (Katrina and others).

Does that mean no more debating of death tax? :lol: