"If they cease farming, but keep the land, it would be perfectly fair to base the tax on the land’s newly enhanced value." Does this imply you see a difference between:
(a) land owned by the person farming it and no rent paid; and
(b) land that is owned and let out to a.n.other who farms it as a tenant of the owner?
I'm not a farmer, but I would support making an exemption for (a) so long as the successor was a direct member of the family and personally farmed it as owner/occupier rent free.
My basic thesis is that the State should not be taking a capital sum out of an ongoing farming business if it (ie the State) wants to encourage economic growth, in general, and farming, in particular. That being so, I would focus on the economics of the business and not the legal separation of powers that happens when land is rented out. It remains my view that the State should not remove capital from the business and thereby potentially disrupt the continuity of the business.
Thanks and noted. Sympathetic to your thesis, but my concern is that I do not wish to see the wealthy avoid tax by buying a farm and then letting it out. As a farm manager, many years ago, I know there is middle ground where a wealthy non-farmer can buy a farm and until he dies employ a farm manager and then the farm is sold!
"If they cease farming, but keep the land, it would be perfectly fair to base the tax on the land’s newly enhanced value." Does this imply you see a difference between:
(a) land owned by the person farming it and no rent paid; and
(b) land that is owned and let out to a.n.other who farms it as a tenant of the owner?
I'm not a farmer, but I would support making an exemption for (a) so long as the successor was a direct member of the family and personally farmed it as owner/occupier rent free.
My basic thesis is that the State should not be taking a capital sum out of an ongoing farming business if it (ie the State) wants to encourage economic growth, in general, and farming, in particular. That being so, I would focus on the economics of the business and not the legal separation of powers that happens when land is rented out. It remains my view that the State should not remove capital from the business and thereby potentially disrupt the continuity of the business.
Thanks and noted. Sympathetic to your thesis, but my concern is that I do not wish to see the wealthy avoid tax by buying a farm and then letting it out. As a farm manager, many years ago, I know there is middle ground where a wealthy non-farmer can buy a farm and until he dies employ a farm manager and then the farm is sold!