Should Georgia double the acreage limit for conservation-tax farmland?

There should be no ad valorem tax. Only a sales tax so the amount of tax you pay is based on consumption.

This question is unimportant

Yes and land taxation is just unending rent to the government.

No because there is way to many places of land turning into commercial housing and other things, We still want to see the beauty of our land and help out the farmers.

Make it unlimited because as long as you have enugh money you should be able to spend it

I think if you can afford to keep and care for the land you purchase it should not matter how much you have.

Yes, it will help preserve farmland and natural land

if they using to to make food like farms and storing cattle they dont need to be taxed more

Georgia could moderately increase the acreage limit for conservation-tax farmland or phase it in gradually, protecting more land while maintaining fairness and tax revenue.

It should be reduced a little, but not so much that it reduces tax revenue.

Yes because even though it cut tax revenue, farmers would be able to make more products.

Abolish all taxes on property, the real property owner paid taxes on that land when they bought it. They pay utilities and other expenses for the land to maintain and operate it. All of which are taxed. Taxation is theft by the government.

if you paid taxes on your land, and/or anything you own; you can do whatever you want with it, within the boundaries of criminal, national law

I feel it could be slightly increased on demand, but it's not suitable for mindless increases. Farmers have always been the hardest-working group in any era. Their livelihoods depend on the weather, which is highly unpredictable. Every so often, a virus or some natural disaster strikes, disrupting everything.

No, doubling from 2000 acres to 4000 acres at a 40% credit could lead to potential non-good faith uses of land as it would be harder to regulate.

Yes if they are actually using it for farming. Close the loopholes that allow the exemption when the land is not actually being used for the designated purpose

prefer not to answer

Improve food distribution and reduce food waste before increasing farmland.

I am uneducated on this topic

No, instead put funding into vertical agriculture facilities.

Support expanding conservation incentives if it meaningfully aids preservation without perverse tax effects.

No, but additional acreage should be offered at lower tax rates.

YES! Let farmers put as much land in conservation as they want!!!

Save the farms… everyone is tryna find loopholes saying it’s at or conservational when they tryna make it r-40