• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Leroy, SK Ritchie Auction...

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Rockpile,

    Take one look a few miles south across the 49th. $16Trillion will be soon $20T deficit? And what happened in 08 when the; Liberano's, Bloc, and ND's had a conniption and forced the government to spend the motherload or be turfed out.

    Now we are throttling back on spending... just watch the squealing like was just done on health care.

    Here is a good article to think about... tells the rest of the story... of where we are expected to be... from folks with a rational explanation:

    How Harper's deficit plan fits into his long-term strategy

    Stephen Gordon, Globe and Mail Blog, Posted on Monday, December 26, 2011 11:14 AM EST

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/stephen-gordon/how-harpers-deficit-plan-fits-into-his-long-term-strategy/article2283656/

    This link will get you the whole story and the graphs.

    "Maclean’s columnist Paul Wells has often pointed out that the best way of interpreting the patterns behind Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is to take the long view: examining incremental changes in trends instead of looking for grand gestures. This isn’t to say that the Conservative agenda is modest in scope. As anyone familiar with growth accounting knows, the cumulative effects of small changes in growth rates can be very large indeed.

    This is why we should be paying more attention to the Department of Finance’s Fiscal Monitor, which publishes government expenditures and revenues on a monthly basis. These numbers are noisy and subject to important seasonal swings (for example, there’s always a surge in personal income tax revenues each spring as people file their returns), but they are still a useful way of keeping track of the government’s budget balance between budgets. In what follows, seasonal movements are dealt with by tracking 12-month moving sums.

    In the first graph, we see that after a long stretch in which the deficit hovered around $35-billion a year, the annual deficit has finally gone below $30-billion. If the last five months of fiscal year 2011-12 are no worse than the last five months of last year, then the federal government should have no problem meeting its target of $32-billion for 2011-12.

    But the real lesson is in the second graph, which traces out changes in revenues and expenditures. It is clear that government’s basic strategy for deficit reduction is to simply hold spending constant and to let revenues -- in particular, personal income tax revenues -- grow to close the gap.

    The unilateral decision on the part of the federal government to set the rate of growth of health transfers equal to the rate of GDP growth shouldn’t have surprised anyone who read Section 5 of the last budget, and especially in Table 5.9. The deficit reduction plan is to let transfers to individuals and to other levels of government grow with GDP, while holding other spending constant.

    On the face of it, this isn’t radical change: GDP grows roughly one percentage point faster than population and inflation, so real, per-capita transfers will still keep increasing. There will be no decisive moment where a Conservative finance minister will be obliged to break the mould set by previous budgets. But if this pattern is sustained over time, the cumulative effect will be to reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 13 per cent of GDP over the course of the current mandate. And when the constant reinforcement of anti-tax sentiment is taken into account, it will be a difficult trend to reverse, no matter which party is in power."

    Comment


      #12
      I'm not sure on this but a lot of guys are leasing bins
      to take advantage of the tax angle.

      I don't know the numbers but it may be possible that
      leasing new is better.

      Maybe someone thats done the leg work on used vs
      new lease could elaborate.

      Comment


        #13
        I lease all bins and machine sheds. The leasing companies hose you on interest rates. There is very little risk to them on bins. But the fact is the tax advantages far outweigh the the high interest rate.

        Comment


          #14
          <i>"But the fact is the tax advantages far outweigh the the high interest rate."</i>

          I sincerely doubt that.
          If you need a tax deduction, write me a cheque and I'll give you a receipt. A win win, right?

          Comment


            #15
            We're thinking the fert bins... Grain bins we may end
            up leasing, or at least buying new...


            Hopperbin, how was your Christmas? We may have to
            try and sneak by around Jan 15th or so.... as we'll head
            back there around then...

            Comment


              #16
              Cost of bin $20,000
              lease interest rate 8.63%
              lease residual balloon $10,000
              bank interest rate 6.00%
              Marginal Tax Rate 40.00%
              Loan downpayment $4,000
              Length of lease/loan 5
              Depreciation rate 10.00%
              NPV interest cost 6.00%

              Lease payment = 3,184
              Loan payment = 3,798

              Running the numbers through a buy versus lease calculator yields a Net Present Value = roughly breakeven

              A higher relative lease interest rate, or lower marginal tax rate would make the lease worse financially.

              <b>It's important to know your own numbers.</b>

              Comment


                #17
                FarmRanger, I dont completely understand your statement.
                I lease most of everything for the income tax deduction. Implements, bins, augers, utlility trailers etc. Anything I buy, I would have to borrow the money. So,with a lease I can expense 100% of the cost over the time schedule of the lease. Otherwise, if I purchase outright, I would still borrow the money and make the payments. I would then use the CRA depreciation schedule and it would take 15(?) years to depreciate bins, etc. The tax management alternatives I can think of would be to incorporate my farm, and then be taxed the corporate rate. My farm is small and the accountant does not think incoporation is required so far. Something I forgot, was that some farms have cash and buy items outright. CRA depreciation may work favourably long term.
                Bluefargo, As far as the higher interest rate, shop around lease companies, compare their costs and prices and buyout terms,they have different angles to their leasing methods. Purchase prices from the dealer can also be negotiated. Thats about all I know on leasing, it seems to be working for me.

                Comment


                  #18
                  FarmRanger, you answered my question before I posted it!!!

                  Comment


                    #19
                    In the above example, if I use a corporate tax rate of 17% (I think that is close, depending on your province?), then the lease has an NPV that is $800 worse than the buy. That's taking interest and depreciation tax implications into account. $800 is quite significant on a $20,000 bin.

                    I don't know your situation, but if the lease interest rates are very much higher than the bank loan rates, in most of the lease vs. buy scenarios I've looked at, I'd be financially better off buying.

                    If you know the numbers, I can plug them in for you.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Hobbyfarmer and ranger

                      Just a couple things:

                      Although leasing as you presented can be an alternative to managing income tax it is only another method of FINANCING. Bins and buildings are really on the only way to bring deductions in quicker though a lease verses capital cost. On any proper structured lease of normally 20% and 30% capital cost assets, lease verses purchase benefits have a very narrow variance and you mainly end up at the same place after 5 years (especially tractors/combines etc)

                      I think the main trick to leasing is its a great way to push a sale because of the "easy pmts and tax advantages". Not suggesting that anyone is buying something they don't need but it can be easy to fall into the trap.

                      And more importantly, if you are talking about incorporating your farm someday, make sure you have the family farm partnership set up at least 2 years in advance of incorporating.

                      If you are single, create a partnership with your own corporation.

                      The tax savings and flexibility with this structure far outweigh any lease transaction

                      Comment

                      • Reply to this Thread
                      • Return to Topic List
                      Working...