I love your tax proposal, generally speaking....though I wouldn’t necessarily hit the passive, non-working with a surcharge.
Just so I understand....active and working is pretty clear. But for passive and non-working, would that include people who own the farm but hire someone else to do the work? There are lots of good people who do that, also, and some of these farms are also modest in size. Like family farms, but just that the owner has hired someone else to do the farming.
If you could flush your proposal out a little bit, I’d appreciate it. I like it and you are on to something.
It’s a grey area in tax law. Passive has a complex definition with lots of subitem descriptions.
People that own arable land for the sole purpose of collecting a tax grant for NOT GROWING should be thought of as passive non-working.
In my view, a farmer or rancher who employs or contracts with others for farm labor is active and working as long as he or she are directly involved in taking the product to market.
Owners of farms with managers that call up or arrange for the transportation of products to markets should not be considered active-working.
This is the nature of the Income Tax, that all manner of definitions and conditions have to be codified and enforced in order to be ‘fair’ and it’s never fair.
The consumption tax after essential spending aka “FairTax” (no space for the brand name) which is introduced in the House every year as HR 25 would solve the problem hands down.
I am sensing that Trump is receptive to it.