blackbox wrote: » Correct - I am not from a farming background, but will you allow that perhaps that might give me a more objective view. Unless there are truly exceptional circumstances (e.g. criminality) I would treat my adult children equally. If I have an asset - property, a business, a farm etc. I would consider it only fair to divide it between them. If one child has been working in the business I would have been paying him or her an appropriate wage. At any stage they would have been free to look for a better job elsewhere. Each child has a choice (they are adults!) on what to do with his or her inheritance. If they think it is not viable as a source of income they can sell it and work at something else. If they can afford to buy it from the others for a hobby, fair dues to them. I see complaints above that you can't make money out of farming. I think these actually strengthen my argument. Land is hugely over-valued for the returns that can be achieved from it.
McGaggs wrote: » It's a pretty essential factor in the calculation of profitability of an investment.
Keep Sluicing wrote: » I would think between 28 and 32 is a good age to be handing it over. It allows the recepiant time to be sure it is something they want for the rest of their life, while allowing them plenty of their life to put their own stamp on the place.
wrangler wrote: » The feeble minded young lads should have it sorted long before the ould ones get old, You either sort it in your twenties or leave and forget about it until everyone is dead..... sell the place and share then,
charlesanto wrote: » If it not financially viable to run the farm and pay the lease on 2/3 of the land it probably isn't worth being tethered to the land.
charlesanto wrote: » Can you have your cake and eat it too ? Split the land, with a condition that the brothers must lease to sister while she continues to run a farm on the land. If she gives up farming the land it reverts reverts to the brothers to do what they want with it. If it not financially viable to run the farm and pay the lease on 2/3 of the land it probably isn't worth being tethered to the land.
Bentlee Kind Teapot wrote: » I don’t think you really get it if you think spending 10 to 15k on renting land can just be easily covered even by a fairly profitable farm. The farm is likely only viable as a part time farm. If you were making 15k profit it would be very nice, if you have to rent 2/3 or the land you haven’t a chance of making much even with the BPS if you are spending a load of money renting land that should be yours.
skooterblue2 wrote: » The reality of the farm is its not going to be strong enough to survive to the next generation. The two boys got a good thing with education. Nothing sadder than someone to waiting their whole life for something that may or may not come. A farm is a great place to raise a family close to grandparents. This will be a hobby farm in the mornings evenings and weekend. In China, trades are passed from Father to eldest son. In reality both mother and father will have to be working good jobs to keep the show on the road. I know of a few farms that are going to into cul-de-sacs with the children having no interest in the lifestyle.
charlesanto wrote: » Really, so the two realists should give up their inheritance for someones hobby ? Let them keep their inheritance, the "LAND" and let the sibling who wants to work it, work it profitably or surrender. If 80 acres in not a viable farm just give up, let each sibling have a 26 acre hobby !!?
blackbox wrote: » How big does a farm need to be (assuming fairly good land) to generate a good family income (over 50k) and cover the purchase repayments over say 20 years?
Treppen wrote: » People on here keep using the phrase "run the farm". But this daughter just does the books part time, does she actually go out and "work" on the farm?
charlesanto wrote: » If the lease value/cost is 10/15 K per year, whats that €225 per acre !? The lease value must be somewhat equatable to what can be made off the land, if the potential recipient of the free land cannot turn profit equatable to the lease value plus some they surely should drop the romantic notion of being a farmer. As you say "I probably don't get it" ...
charlesanto wrote: » Really, so the two realists should give up their inheritance for someones hobby ? !?
roosky wrote: » I think its awful sad that the family name thing still comes into it! if my mother inherited her home farm and I was farming it to the standard that I do my own farm, I dont think my grandfather (lord rest him) would be that upset to see his farm being well minded, productive and being farmed by his grandson.....even if we do have different surnames. Its hardly that big of a tragedy to see a farm move to an actively farming grandchild even if that grandchild has a different surname.
skooterblue2 wrote: » Yes you dont get it. You dont get the social interaction. The passing of the love of the land between the farm and the son. the excitement of driving tractors. On the female side, the mother teaching her daughter to raise turkeys and collect eggs. The Farm is a great place to grow up, adventure around every corner and healthier than urban living. The sense of community and sharing equipment with neighbours. The breeding programs and showing them at agricultural shows. There is growing up in Macra na Ferime. If you do not see the separate culture and way of life, then it is very different to see how everyone in a family fits into a farm.
whelan2 wrote: » That has to be the most sexist post I've read in years
Casati wrote: » I didn’t read all the posts but was it confirmed how the father came to own the farm in the first place? If he worked off farm and saved and borrowed to build it up from nothing then I’d see the logic in splitting it between each of the children
JeffKenna wrote: » I think a family meeting was called but cancelled due to the restrictions. This needs to be arranged again. The point above is very important. Was the farm in the family generations or bought by the parents. If bought then the parents should be able to divide it how they see fit. If it has been in the family generations then no harm going back to the transfer from the grandparents and seeing what agreement was in place then? If I were the daughter I'd make an attempt to replicate that agreement now taking inflation into account and use that as the basis of a transfer now. That's what I'd be bringing to the table for a family meeting. Can't see how it's fair the parents basically end generations of farming by placing huge debt on her. Also, don't know what her brothers position is? It seems they don't want to farm but maybe theyre happy to leave her have it?
roosky wrote: » Yes she does all dosing, vaccinating, de-horning, pour ons etc, any cows needing cirds or that kinda thing she does it. She organises the breeding plan for the herd, selects replacements etc......she does out the fertiliser plan for the farm and also looks after the purchasing of meal, hay, straw etc......She isn't there for the day to day labour of the farm but all big jobs are put on hold until the weekedn and at this stage she defiantly has 50% if not more of the say in decision making with her father. The only area where she has no involvement is tractor work !.....she was never thought to drive the tractor !!!
I says wrote: » It was written by somebody who read about farming in a 1920s de Valera handbook. All that’s missing is comely maidens dancing at the crossroads.
skooterblue2 wrote: » I see an end to family farms in the next generation. I see agricultural companies, more automation and mechanisation with robotics. I didnt say I liked it, it is on the way.
Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: » They might be but situations like this can be complicated by inlaws who mightn't agree that their partner shouldn't get anything from the farm.