Bill Overview
Title: Family Farmer and Rancher Tax Fairness Act of 2022
Description: This bill excludes from the gross income of certain farmers, ranchers, and forest land owners who are at financial risk payments for debt relief and for remedying past discrimination against such individuals.
Sponsors: Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
Target Audience
Population: Family farmers, ranchers, and forest land owners
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill targets individuals involved in agriculture specifically family farmers, ranchers, and forest land owners.
- The bill affects those who have received payments for debt relief or are remedying past discrimination.
- The agriculture sector varies globally, but similar groups exist in many countries.
- Globally, the number of farmers and ranchers is quite large, extending beyond millions.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a specific segment of the agricultural sector—family farmers, ranchers, and forest land owners—who have experienced financial risk due to past discrimination or have received debt relief. Given the target estimate of 1,000,000 people likely to be directly affected in the US, it's important to create a diverse set of simulated interviews.
- The policy may impact individuals differently based on their current financial situation, the extent of discrimination they have faced, and their overall reliance on agriculture for income. Not everyone in the sector will benefit equally due to the high variability in farm size, financial health, and previous debt levels.
- Considering the budget of $5 billion in the first year, the policy might prioritize those with the highest need or those who have been most severely impacted by discrimination. This could mean that individuals with smaller, family-run operations, or those in historically underserved regions, might see the greatest benefits.
- Interviews should cover various experiences, including those who won't be impacted by the policy because they haven't experienced discrimination or received debt relief related payments.
- Also, opinions on the policy can vary based on personal beliefs about government intervention, fairness in taxation, and the long-term sustainability of such policies.
Simulated Interviews
Family Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems like a good move. It's a relief knowing that debt relief amounts aren't taxed.
- It might allow us to reinvest more into the farm, but I'm skeptical about how long the benefits will last.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Rancher (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been waiting for something like this for years. Every bit helps in sustaining operations.
- I hope the policy also aims to prevent future discrimination, not just address past issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Forest Land Owner (Mississippi)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should have come a lot sooner. I feel like we've been overlooked for too long.
- This will ease the tax burden, which has been a huge weight on us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Family Farmer (Nebraska)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We're not directly impacted by this policy as we haven't been part of any relief programs.
- I see it as necessary for those who have faced unfair practices, but it doesn't change anything for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Sustainable Food Grower (California)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our operations don't really fall under this policy, mainly because we're not facing these tax issues.
- Still, I support the idea of easing financial strains for those on similar paths.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Rancher (Kentucky)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been wanting tax relief on these payments for a long time.
- It's a positive step, but I wonder about support for ongoing discrimination issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Forest Land Owner (New York)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time these relief payments aren't taxed, we've been counting pennies.
- This could lead to better conservation efforts without financial strain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Family Farmer (Montana)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't apply to us directly, but it could help other farmers stay afloat.
- I think it adds resilience to the community overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Rancher (Florida)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm continuously worried about taxes reducing the impact of our debt relief.
- This change is the break we've been needing for better planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Family Farmer (Georgia)
Age: 47 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy helps, but it's not the whole solution—systemic changes are needed to prevent discrimination entirely.
- The economic relief is welcome, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $6000000000)
Year 2: $5000000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $6000000000)
Year 3: $5000000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $6000000000)
Year 5: $5000000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $6000000000)
Year 10: $5000000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $6000000000)
Year 100: $5000000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $6000000000)
Key Considerations
- The number of individuals benefiting might change with amendments to the policy or new eligibility criteria.
- Tax revenue losses need to be weighed against intangible benefits to the agricultural sector stability.
- Effects on state-level revenues if states adopt similar exclusions need consideration.