Every budget season, the same proposal returns with familiar certainty: tax agriculture. The argument sounds straightforward. Agriculture contributes roughly a quarter of Pakistan’s GDP, yet direct tax collection from the sector remains limited. Therefore, the sector must be undertaxed.
It is an appealing argument. It is also deeply misleading.
The latest Agricultural Census tells a story many economists and policymakers conveniently overlook. Nearly 97 percent of Pakistan’s farmers cultivate less than 12.5 acres, while the average farm size has fallen from 6.4 acres in 2010 to just 5.1 acres in 2024. This is not a sector dominated by wealthy commercial estates concealing untaxed fortunes. It is increasingly a sector of fragmented family farms struggling to survive.
That distinction matters. Taxation should be based on income and the ability to pay, not on a sector’s share of GDP. Agriculture’s contribution to national output does not mean farmers are sitting on large disposable incomes. Much of what they produce is consumed by the rising costs of fertilizer, diesel, electricity, transport, labour, irrigation, and increasingly unpredictable weather.
For millions of farming households, agriculture is not a high-profit business. It is a livelihood.
The debate becomes even more distorted when we ignore the hidden taxes farmers already pay. Diesel carries petroleum levies. Electricity for tubewells has become increasingly expensive. Fertilizer and other farm inputs are burdened by indirect taxes and volatile global prices. Farmers also suffer from inconsistent procurement policies, inefficient markets, and commodity-price swings that often transfer value away from producers.
These burdens may not appear on a tax return, but they reduce farm incomes just as effectively as direct taxation.
This is the arithmetic that gets lost in a debate framed around sectoral GDP share. A farmer may already have paid federal excise duty on fertilizer, petroleum levy on every litre of diesel, and two separate wage bills before a tax officer ever asks about income tax. Layering a new direct tax onto that structure, without first addressing the price volatility and input costs that shape this arithmetic, punishes survival rather than profit.
This does not mean agriculture should remain outside Pakistan’s tax system forever. That argument would be equally flawed.
Large commercial agricultural enterprises generating substantial profits should contribute to public revenues like any other business. There is no economic justification for wealthy landowners using agriculture as a permanent tax shelter while salaried employees and industrial businesses bear a disproportionate share of the burden.
The real mistake is treating a five-acre family farm and a five-hundred-acre commercial operation as though they belong in the same tax category.
They do not.
Pakistan has already begun reforming agricultural income taxation. All four provinces have enacted updated Agricultural Income Tax laws under the National Fiscal Pact, while Sindh has introduced a modern self-assessment system administered by the Sindh Revenue Board. These reforms move in the right direction, but legislation alone will not produce a credible tax system.
Successful implementation requires digitised land records, reliable income documentation, integrated databases, and impartial enforcement. Without these foundations, agricultural taxation risks becoming another exercise in selective compliance, where politically connected landowners avoid taxation while smaller producers face administrative pressure.
International experience offers a useful lesson. Countries that have successfully modernised agriculture generally protect small family farms while taxing genuine commercial income. They also invest heavily in irrigation, agricultural research, crop insurance, rural finance, logistics, and market infrastructure before expecting higher tax contributions from the sector.
Pakistan should follow the same path.
The country’s long-term fiscal challenge will not be solved by taxing millions of struggling farmers. The revenue potential is simply not large enough to justify the economic damage. What Pakistan needs is a more productive agricultural economy, one capable of generating higher incomes, stronger exports, and larger taxable surpluses.
That requires investment.
Modern irrigation systems, climate-resilient seeds, agricultural research, warehouse infrastructure, cold chains, livestock development, digital markets, affordable credit, and effective crop insurance will do far more for Pakistan’s public finances than broad-based taxation ever could.
Higher productivity creates higher incomes. Higher incomes create a broader tax base. That is how successful agricultural economies develop.
The policy objective should therefore be clear: protect smallholders, tax genuine commercial surplus, replace hidden and inefficient costs with transparent taxation, and reinvest agricultural revenues into agricultural development.
Pakistan does not need a war on farmers. It needs a smarter fiscal policy that recognises the difference between survival and prosperity.
The state cannot tax its way to a stronger agricultural sector.
Fazeel Asif : The author is a senior leader with 30+ years across public and private sectors. Former Chairman of Punjab CBD, PBIT, and CM’s Taskforce on Governance & Reforms.
Expertise: : Strategic leadership in investment promotion, institutional reform, and policy innovation across communications, media, financial services, real estate, and public sector modernization.
Impact: Led provincial investment facilitation and business district development
Drove governance reforms at Chief Minister’s Office level
Delivered market expansion and operational excellence across multiple industries. He can be reached out at : fazeel63@gmail.com