Objection: LVT would hurt farmers and rural landowners

The Objection

Farmers own large areas of land. Wouldn't a tax on land value fall crushingly on agriculture, driving farmers off the land?

The Response

Generally not — and often the reverse:

1. It's value, not acreage. LVT taxes land value, not area. Most farmland has low per-acre value compared to urban land. A farmer's hundreds of rural acres may carry less taxable land value than a single downtown lot. The tax burden tracks value, which for agriculture is modest.
2. Replacing worse taxes helps farmers. If LVT replaces taxes on income, sales, equipment, and buildings (ATCOR logic), farmers — who buy lots of taxed inputs and improvements — can come out ahead.
3. It targets the right problem. Where farmland does carry high value, it is usually urban-fringe land held speculatively for future development — exactly the idle, appreciating land LVT is meant to bring into use. Genuine working farms far from development are lightly affected.
4. Improvements untaxed. Barns, irrigation, and equipment — the farmer's own investment — are not taxed under LVT, unlike a conventional property tax.

Net Assessment

The fear rests on confusing acreage with value. Because farmland value per acre is low and improvements go untaxed, working farmers are among the least burdened — while speculative holders of high-value fringe land are appropriately affected.

See Also

• Land Value Tax · ATCOR · Speculative Vacancy

Sources

1. Discussion of agricultural incidence in Dye & England (2010), Lincoln Institute.