Greedy White Farmers
So the government (or at least certain people within the government) are accusing white farmers of being greedy, asking prices that are at least double the worth of the land. Now I don't know much about the whole process, but it did make me think.
In a recent publication of "Landbouweekblad" (an Afrikaans agricultural magazine) there was an article on farms that have been marked for purhcase. The land was valued by a state appointed assessor and a price was agreed upon. However, in this case government is dragging it's feet, and nothing is happening to complete the transaction. According to the article a re-assessment of the land value had to be done in the meantime. At least in this one case it appears that it is not only the greedy white farmers who is the problem. However, the white farmers invariably takes the blame for this state of affairs.
It also makes me think of something my father told me once. He said that the improvements made to the land he owns is worth more than the land itself. Every fence, borehole, windmill, house and dam needs to be counted. Even the prickly pear bushes that was planted needs to be added (we use prickly pear leaves as food for the cattle in time of drought). If you keep this in mind, perhaps it is not a strange occurence that the "greedy" white farmers want more than double of the land's value.
It is entirely possible that some farmers out there really are a bit greedy when it comes to the land they legally owned for several years. Perhaps they are trying to hold onto it by asking exorbitant prices. I think these greedy ones are few and far between though. I suspect the majority of them would simply like to be compensated for the investment made into the land. It is also interesting to note that in the above mentioned article the capital gains tax on these properties contradicted the (much lower) evaluation made by the state appointed assessor.
Now depending on your viewpoint, it may be either right or wrong for these people to expect full compensation for the investment they made into the land. This borders on a discussion between Capitalism and Socialism, which I am not going to discuss.
By providing compensation of any sort, the government in principle subscribes to the capitalist model. That would seem to imply to me that if a farmer will not be compensated for improvements made to the land, he should be allowed to sell it off. That is sell all fences as scrap iron, take down the windmills and sell all farm machinery. The effect of that will be much worse.
Above all I often wonder why there should be a problem. Wouldn't it be easier to have an independant assessor value the land and the improvements made to it, and both parties agree to abide by that? Wouldn't that be fair?
In a recent publication of "Landbouweekblad" (an Afrikaans agricultural magazine) there was an article on farms that have been marked for purhcase. The land was valued by a state appointed assessor and a price was agreed upon. However, in this case government is dragging it's feet, and nothing is happening to complete the transaction. According to the article a re-assessment of the land value had to be done in the meantime. At least in this one case it appears that it is not only the greedy white farmers who is the problem. However, the white farmers invariably takes the blame for this state of affairs.
It also makes me think of something my father told me once. He said that the improvements made to the land he owns is worth more than the land itself. Every fence, borehole, windmill, house and dam needs to be counted. Even the prickly pear bushes that was planted needs to be added (we use prickly pear leaves as food for the cattle in time of drought). If you keep this in mind, perhaps it is not a strange occurence that the "greedy" white farmers want more than double of the land's value.
It is entirely possible that some farmers out there really are a bit greedy when it comes to the land they legally owned for several years. Perhaps they are trying to hold onto it by asking exorbitant prices. I think these greedy ones are few and far between though. I suspect the majority of them would simply like to be compensated for the investment made into the land. It is also interesting to note that in the above mentioned article the capital gains tax on these properties contradicted the (much lower) evaluation made by the state appointed assessor.
Now depending on your viewpoint, it may be either right or wrong for these people to expect full compensation for the investment they made into the land. This borders on a discussion between Capitalism and Socialism, which I am not going to discuss.
By providing compensation of any sort, the government in principle subscribes to the capitalist model. That would seem to imply to me that if a farmer will not be compensated for improvements made to the land, he should be allowed to sell it off. That is sell all fences as scrap iron, take down the windmills and sell all farm machinery. The effect of that will be much worse.
Above all I often wonder why there should be a problem. Wouldn't it be easier to have an independant assessor value the land and the improvements made to it, and both parties agree to abide by that? Wouldn't that be fair?
posted by ispburger at 7:44 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home