You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
farm subsidies
- Thread starter black cows
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
While I don't participate in anymore programs. I'm always amused at those that call it welfare and belittle those that are participating in the programs, that in fact they themselves where most likely at one time or another getting paid pretty well.
Bruce
Well-known member
As a kid growing up I watched the neighbour who had a good start as a young farmer build an empire. On good year's he would finance land and equipment in times of drought there would be a picture of him or someone very similar standing in a barren field with a tear in their eye, times of flood there would be a picture of poking frozen wheat out of the combine hopper in December. In would roll the subsidies of one kind or another. A good year or 2 and more land and equipment.
He sold out a few year's back for between 6 and 7 million.
Now I'm not saying he didn't work hard or wasn't frugal, but......
it's gotta be pretty hard for the average factory worker to see someone over extend time and again only to be bailed out/kept a float by goverment money to sell out at the end of the day for million's.
I've seen people lose a lifetime of work from element's out of their control, and beleive the world is a better place with subsidies than without. Sure is agravating bidding on land against a big cat with a swelled head who was kept afloat just a few year's back with goverment money though. I paid all my bill's and debt's myself and who's to say I'm not hard working and frugal??
It's a complicated world and I don't have any answer's, one idea that has garned attention locally is to start burying the farmer's only three feet deep so they can still "get their hand out" :lol: :lol:
He sold out a few year's back for between 6 and 7 million.
Now I'm not saying he didn't work hard or wasn't frugal, but......
it's gotta be pretty hard for the average factory worker to see someone over extend time and again only to be bailed out/kept a float by goverment money to sell out at the end of the day for million's.
I've seen people lose a lifetime of work from element's out of their control, and beleive the world is a better place with subsidies than without. Sure is agravating bidding on land against a big cat with a swelled head who was kept afloat just a few year's back with goverment money though. I paid all my bill's and debt's myself and who's to say I'm not hard working and frugal??
It's a complicated world and I don't have any answer's, one idea that has garned attention locally is to start burying the farmer's only three feet deep so they can still "get their hand out" :lol: :lol:
Brad S
Well-known member
Absolutely it's a complicated analysis-subsidies and bailouts vs nothing. I think most of us opposed GM bailouts, but Obama wanted to protect union legacy payments and a bankruptcy court might not.
The market is unyielding and cruel, but always more fair than govt distortions, especially when you include inherent cronyism in govt actions.
Thanks, you're right Fred, it was hayak that authored the road to surfdom.
This discussion on farm subsidies is easily the most honest and anylitical discussion I've seen among farmers. Part of it is cattle producers don't roll that way.
The market is unyielding and cruel, but always more fair than govt distortions, especially when you include inherent cronyism in govt actions.
Thanks, you're right Fred, it was hayak that authored the road to surfdom.
This discussion on farm subsidies is easily the most honest and anylitical discussion I've seen among farmers. Part of it is cattle producers don't roll that way.
3 M L & C
Well-known member
Well here the farm payments are the same every year no matter if its a good year or not. Which is probably the dumbest thing ever. So your theory of being bailed out by the government wouldn't work here. Also not sure what everyone thinks but the subsidies we receive is not really that much compaired to what it takes to operate. I'm not talking about insurance. I believe rancherfred had some good points on insurance. Not enough that if you didn't get them you wouldn't be able to operate these days. No bank in the country would loan money to someone if their only way to make profit was the gov payments. I am curious for those of you who condemn some of us what you did on your tax's? When they changed the deductions from 25,000 up to whatever it was did you say no thanks I don't need to deduct this new baler,trailer, pickup, tractor or whatever and just chose to deduct 25,000 this year and put the rest on 7 year? The system is flawed and I see people that do things they shouldn't to get a check, can't aurgue that, just saying with the cost to operate these days the payments aren't making people rich like some believe. I still think they should do away with the whole system but that's just me.
the govt never intended for the subsidies to be a tool for the farmer. they were simply bait, so the govt can control what is planted, and use the food as a trade weapon.
I take every cent the dirty organizations wants to hand out, and use it to pay my taxes and insurance that they keep raising.
I think there should be a limit. and no loop holes. help the beginning farmer, but the mega farms and the repetitive bankrupt farmers need to be off the pay roll.
ag gets painted with a lot od BS in my opinion. a man out working his butt off to raise a crop, then gets some govt cash to help is no where near as bad as some crack smoking slum lord who keeps having babies to up her monthly check. and she probably lives way better than the farmer!!
if you shut off farm aid, kill welfare too....
I take every cent the dirty organizations wants to hand out, and use it to pay my taxes and insurance that they keep raising.
I think there should be a limit. and no loop holes. help the beginning farmer, but the mega farms and the repetitive bankrupt farmers need to be off the pay roll.
ag gets painted with a lot od BS in my opinion. a man out working his butt off to raise a crop, then gets some govt cash to help is no where near as bad as some crack smoking slum lord who keeps having babies to up her monthly check. and she probably lives way better than the farmer!!
if you shut off farm aid, kill welfare too....
Brad S
Well-known member
I don't think capital expenses should be taxed as income. So when write offs were raised I simply thought "duh"
3 M L & C
Well-known member
Brad S said:I don't think capital expenses should be taxed as income. So when write offs were raised I simply thought "duh"
Point is nobody has problem taking money from the government when the tax laws change to benefit them.
Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
3 M L & C said:Brad S said:I don't think capital expenses should be taxed as income. So when write offs were raised I simply thought "duh"
Point is nobody has problem taking money from the government when the tax laws change to benefit them.
Don't you mean nobody has a problem giving the government less money when the tax laws benefit them? :?
littlejoe
Well-known member
"Point is nobody has problem taking money from the government when the tax laws change to benefit them."
the govt only has one way of actually aquiring any money---by taking it from somebody who earned it. (Actually, they have two---they also love to borrow)
If I can let them 'aquire' less from me--legally--I am going to do it. I look at investment in equipment, etc, that I need to make money--and my life easier---as a deductible expense.
3ml&c----I have no idea how farm payments can be the same every yr in Kansas---I deal with the fsa, a branch of usda--federal programs. I was under assumption rules were the same across the U.S. Here 'support payments' vary with price of commodities.
the govt only has one way of actually aquiring any money---by taking it from somebody who earned it. (Actually, they have two---they also love to borrow)
If I can let them 'aquire' less from me--legally--I am going to do it. I look at investment in equipment, etc, that I need to make money--and my life easier---as a deductible expense.
3ml&c----I have no idea how farm payments can be the same every yr in Kansas---I deal with the fsa, a branch of usda--federal programs. I was under assumption rules were the same across the U.S. Here 'support payments' vary with price of commodities.
3 M L & C
Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:3 M L & C said:Brad S said:I don't think capital expenses should be taxed as income. So when write offs were raised I simply thought "duh"
Point is nobody has problem taking money from the government when the tax laws change to benefit them.
Don't you mean nobody has a problem giving the government less money when the tax laws benefit them? :?
Yes but in the end it's the same difference the government with less money. The guy working a regular job might not agree with higher deductions for equipment for farmer or rancher when at the end of the year he pays more income tax than a farmer or rancher. When they buy equipment and deduct 250,000 or whatever it is.
3 M L & C
Well-known member
The direct payments on base acres we used to recieve up till 2013 were basically the same every year and had absolutely nothing to do with if it was a good year or bad year. I'm Not exactly sure how new system works it's pretty confusing but still dumb. It's paying more on county average of yield but still on old base acres. This year I'm not planting any corn but because the base acres on all the ground I rent is mostly corn if it's a bad year for corn in the county I would get a check. The whole thing just lacks quite a bit of common sense.
Brad S
Well-known member
The guy working at hydrabed should be enriched when someone is able to purchase a unit because he was able to use pretax money.
As muddy sed; don't confuse keeping more of your own money with the govt giving you somebody else's. Seems like those guys in DC are pretty good at blurring the lines.
As muddy sed; don't confuse keeping more of your own money with the govt giving you somebody else's. Seems like those guys in DC are pretty good at blurring the lines.
3 M L & C
Well-known member
I'm not trying to compare farmers getting subsidies to ranchers deducting whatever the limit is. I'm trying to get you to look at it in a different perspective. Say an accountant in the big city or any job not having to do with Ag. From their eyes it's not right that we can buy equipment better our net worth and write it all off while ending the year on paper as basicly a wash as far as income while they pay 35% or whatever no matter what. I don't think the subsidy is right but that's the system. Which is also the taxs that's the system and that's how farmers and ranchers work it so we don't pay so much tax.
rancherfred
Well-known member
Those deductions and expensing provisions aren't just available to farmers and ranchers. Taxes that aren't collected because of current tax law are not lost revenue to the government. If you look at it that way you have to start with the assumption that all money belongs to the government and they are letting us keep some of it. That is not the way our founders viewed government and I refuse to ever accept that premise.
