The problem is that farmers cannot make that kind of money year in, year out. The returns on land are often under 2%, less than 1% if you are too close to a building up urban area. I know a dairy farmer trying to get to a retirement age on a farm that has been in his family since shortly after the Civil War. If he sells, he will pay taxes on 100% of the price. His improvements will be dozed down although they are, as an operating farm, worth hundreds of thousands...which are reflected on the taxes because these tax breaks only apply to the LAND, not the improvements. But suburban sprawl has reached his border and his land will bring $40K in a heartbeat per acre...His farm likely generates a net income of less than $100,000... So $5,000,000 in land becomes $50,000 plus in property taxes. After we've run all the farmers out of business, who is going to feed us...some window box organic farmer?
Brits and the French think differently and there, too, people complain the farmer is favored. But they have a different idea too. Mainly, towns are for towns, and if you want to build, then the government decides if your project makes sense, and you pay dearly for the conversion beyond buying the land. And don't even think about building a commercial enterprise beyond the boundaries of the city. Sprawl does not happen there. When you leave the city limits you are in the country.
As an example of the economics of pasture rents here are $40 an acre for good grass land. I was offered the same to farm my ground. That's $3,200 a YEAR income. The 40 next to me sold for $5,025/acre, say $5k...simple math. My land value would be $400,000, 20% assessment ratio, $80,000 taxable at 0.053, That's $4,240 a year. I would be FORCED to sell out or pay dearly. What hunting club could afford the taxes on woodlots or duck swamps unless they had so many hunters they were sitting on each other's shoulders or limited each to a couple days per season? Who would buy? Wealthy people who would promptly buy a politician or two and get it changed back. If they own it all, then the land becomes nigh worthless. If you timber the whole place to stumps you crush the environment benefit of letting land lay.
I am sure some of you are thinking, no problem. Let the farmer raise the price of beef so they can pay more for pasture rents, and the owner can pay the tax. Sure. You know what will happen. Rather than pay more, you import cheaper beef and devastate the farmer and rancher even more. We've done that with our fruit crops. And why do you think so many manufacturers packed it up and went to Mexico, China, etc.? Where are the furniture plants that used to be in almost every state? Where are the textile mills? One big reason is our tax structure, only labor being a bigger cost. What happens when we are totally dependent upon the rest of the world to feed us? To build all our cars? appliances? Anyone who thinks we can all live off the 'net and "intellectual property" has to be sucking on one of UCs gummy bears. The rest of the world is not stupid enough to sell their farmers down the river and tax them to death. They'll be happy to sell us their surplus food...just hope we don't get an early 1960s style famine...
Further, places like Colorado eyed these patches as "non-farm" so they stuck people with high taxes. And the result has been the Rockies are chopped up into small parcels because people cannot afford to hold lots or anything of any size without paying too dearly. Bad tax policy has been an serious environmental negative. It means tons of houses are found in the middle of nowheresville and still cost a mint to buy, so you only buy 3 acres...that's the new ranch. 4 acres and a llama...
The solution is to abolish the property tax and charge a sales tax on deeds and mortgages.
