sand85 - 2/12/2019 18:48

Oh, come off your high and mighty horse and exercise some critical thinking. Surely my numerous contributions here have earned me enough good will to do at least that.

In the scenario discussed, we presume the off-farm sibling gets half of the residual value of the farm overall today.

Which could be further split up into half of the value at the point when the on-Farm sibling started adding value. Plus half of the value increase from the point where the brother started adding value.not all farm kids are hard working.

In other words, the on-Farm sibling got 20 years of living expenses and an unknown quantity of spending money, and would presumably inherit half the residual value of the estate. The off-Farm sibling had a chance to earn 20 years of income in an outside career, and presumably inherit half the value of the estate.

We can have an involved discussion about the value of the housing and ‘spending cash’ but you can’t tell me anyone willing to work as hard as a dairyman, in any reasonable occupation, wouldn’t have more than a truck and the clothes on their back after 20 years.

If that isn’t working for cheap I don’t know what is.

I am a staunch believer in having a well-thought through plan that matches the economic incentives to the economic costs. If a kid turns his back on outside cash and comes back to support a farm operation and is making less than minimum wage and isn’t earning equity, I have a problem with that, and so should any reasonable human being.


Not all farm kids are hard working, all farm daughters are drunks or druggies like they are on nat.