From the 2026 budget audit
Why does a Budapest worker's payroll tax fund a private farm's irrigation system?
Irrigation infrastructure raises the value of the farm it serves — the gain goes to the landholder. The 3,515 millió Ft cost falls on every taxpayer, including those who own no land.
Roughly 856 Ft per taxpayer per year — 3,515 millió Ft total, overwhelmingly capital spending — for on-farm improvements whose productivity gain accrues entirely to the landholder.
What you see — and what you don't
The seen: irrigation capacity on agricultural holdings, financed at public expense. The unseen: the urban wage-earner whose payroll taxes fund a capital improvement to a private asset they will never own and whose higher yields they will never share.
Objection
"Irrigation modernisation improves food security and helps farmers cope with climate volatility — surely that's a public benefit."
Answer
A farm with improved irrigation produces more — and the landholder captures that gain in higher yields and higher land value. Private capital investments that pay for themselves attract private financing; if the irrigation investment is worthwhile, the landholder can finance it through retained earnings or agricultural credit, and keep the full return. The case for a public subsidy requires showing that the benefit falls on people other than the landholder. It does not.
Share if you think farm capital improvements should be financed by the farmer, not the taxpayer.
The analyst's verdict
Irrigation-use development
Rationale
This line subsidises the development of irrigation capacity — overwhelmingly a capital line (3,434.5 millió Ft of 3,514.9). Irrigation infrastructure on agricultural land is a private capital good: it raises the productivity and value of the holding it serves, and the gain accrues to the landholder. A farm that installs irrigation captures the higher yield; there is no reason the cost of that private capital improvement should fall on the general taxpayer rather than on the landholder, who can finance it through the same channels — retained earnings, agricultural credit, supplier finance — that fund every other on-farm investment. The subsidy concentrates benefit on the landholders who receive it while spreading the cost across all taxpayers, including the urban wage-earner whose payroll taxes fund a capital improvement to a private asset they will never own. Phase out over five years to let in-flight projects and multi-year commitments run their course; new capital subsidy stops.
Transition mechanism
Linear phase-out over 5 years. The horizon honours irrigation projects already approved and part-built under prior commitments — those run to completion — while no new capital-subsidy approvals are issued. By Year 5 the line is at zero; farm irrigation investment is financed privately thereafter.
Affected groups
Landholders who would otherwise receive irrigation capital subsidy — they retain the option to invest, financed privately, and keep the full productivity gain. In-flight project counterparties are protected by the run-off horizon.
Free Society Institute
Support independent analysis
Our research is free, open, and unsponsored. If you find it valuable, help us keep it that way.