• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Is Rcalf to blame for this one too SH?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Jason, those companies were going to pay 19% in taxes independant of their handout. It's not like that tax-payer fleecing is what triggered a tax liability that wasn't there before. So they give 19% back, they still keep 81%.

If they are paying taxes on profits, why are they being given cash in the first place? Does the Canadian Goverment routinely give bailouts to profitable companies? Were they in danger of capsizing - US companies, no less?
 
Jason
Tyson and Cargill are said to support right wing parties but the Liberals are left wing and they were the ones who paid the subsidy.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me Jason. If you beleive that one party is left wing and one party is right wing in either America or Canada, you are truely a dreamer. NDP might might lean to the left but Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, and Conservatives are all the same thing any more.

Give your head a shake Jason. Tyson and Cargill will have the same amount of cash in both parties on both sides of the border. And their lobby network couldn't give a rats arse who is in power.
 
Hey, maybe Jason is on to something. Lets ask all of our governments to send us money, after all, we will give a portion back in taxes. Jason, can you even hear what you are saying?

Maybe we should ask packers to give more money to producers, after all, they will plow that money back into producing a product for them to sell. Oh, that is what I am saying.

Jason, I hope you get your operation reversed.
 
Subsidy money is not tax free.

The gov't made the cash bail out in a hurry. In hind sight they should have excluded the packers. At the time it was fair. The packers owned cattle that were virtually worthless. No one not even the packers themselves knew how things would work out. If they knew they would be garanteed huge profits because they knew when they would open the border they would most likely have avoided the heat of taking the subsidy in the first place.

The point that they paid it back through taxes was just to show if that was what made the difference to them being profitable it could be argued it was a good investment.

There is no evidence it was paid to packers as a return of a political favor. If it was bring the proof, justice Gomry might add it to his report.

Baseless speculation really isn't worth the effort you guys put into it.

You don't advance conspiracy theories, but the packers rule the world. They buy the gov't off but that's by accident? As soon as I introduce you to what your idea would include then your off on a tanget thinking you know what I support.
 
Of course the packers should of been excluded. First of all, the bailout was intended so people wouldn't go belly up and Cargill and Tyson were never in that danger. Secondly, Tyson and Cargill aren't even Canadian. If I was Canadian, I'd be furious. How could it be fair when the US packers are in a totally different situation?

Jason, they never paid it back thru taxes. They only paid back SOME of it (19%?). Also, I would think a bailout should not make a company profitable in that year - only to give them the means to hang on so they can dig out when the storm passes. If it brought them back to black ink - it was way too much. How many of the producers can say that check put them in the black for the year?

True, there is no evidence the packers got it as a favor. Still, you have to know they don't "donate" to parties just for the write off. Nothing is free.
 
What are you talking about Jason.
If they knew they would be garanteed huge profits because they knew when they would open the border they would most likely have avoided the heat of taking the subsidy in the first place.
Click to expand...

I thought you said the profits were not HUGE?

Nobody here is saying that they knew the border was going to be opened soon to boxed beef, but they certainly had all the big guns working on it day and night. Live cattle, well that wasn't such a big deal. Captive supply like that has never been realized in the history of the cattle biz in North America. Can you say SALMON RUN.
 
Jason said:
Subsidy money is not tax free.

The gov't made the cash bail out in a hurry. In hind sight they should have excluded the packers. At the time it was fair. The packers owned cattle that were virtually worthless. No one not even the packers themselves knew how things would work out. If they knew they would be garanteed huge profits because they knew when they would open the border they would most likely have avoided the heat of taking the subsidy in the first place.

The point that they paid it back through taxes was just to show if that was what made the difference to them being profitable it could be argued it was a good investment.

There is no evidence it was paid to packers as a return of a political favor. If it was bring the proof, justice Gomry might add it to his report.

Baseless speculation really isn't worth the effort you guys put into it.

You don't advance conspiracy theories, but the packers rule the world. They buy the gov't off but that's by accident? As soon as I introduce you to what your idea would include then your off on a tanget thinking you know what I support.
Click to expand...

Jason, since it did turn out to be a windfall to them have they offered to give any of it back? You seem to think these are "nice" guys. Too bad part of your 14 months working off farm wasn't working at Lakeside learning about your "real world".
 
Sandhusker said:
Jason, those companies were going to pay 19% in taxes independant of their handout. It's not like that tax-payer fleecing is what triggered a tax liability that wasn't there before. So they give 19% back, they still keep 81%.

If they are paying taxes on profits, why are they being given cash in the first place? Does the Canadian Goverment routinely give bailouts to profitable companies? Were they in danger of capsizing - US companies, no less?
Click to expand...


Since I'm not a resident of Canada and the payment doesn't affect me only curiosity leads to my question. Do you suppose just maybe, Sandhusker, the reason the packing companies owning cattle were included is like the LDP and other subsidy payments to farmers in the USA? There doesn't seem to be much, if any, means testing there, or here. And I believe that is correct because if you are producing the crop, all should be treated equally, that is if you produce more, you receive more for deficient crop due to weather. The goal is low cost, secure food supply, not social program to keep all farmers in business, and I believe that is legitimate.

MRJ
 
Had a little trouble with a program we call CAIS up here in Canada MRJ. It is supposed to be about Income Stabalization but even the eds can't figure it out. Some guys I know got a cheque and are now sopposed to pay it back.

Funny how that's Okay to ask farmers to pay them back, but Cargill and Tyson were not even asked.

Sure they owned cattle, but they were also in the very uniqe situation of being able to sell those cattle for a profit the moment the border opened. BIG profit, followed by more BIG profit due to a captive supply set directly in their lap. All legal. Of course. Fair. I should say not.

Just a side question MRJ. Can you have cattle custom killed in the Cargill and Tyson plants in the USA? 85% of our packing capacity will not custom kill. 85% is owned by Cargill and Tyson.
 
Randy I have agreed many times with you that in hind sight the packers should have been excluded. You are the one that always say they made huge profits. I say they made money but they didn't know they would, and it wasn't garanteed. They could have decided to shut down..kill their own cattle to stop the feed costs and waited to see if the border would open. The millions they spent in extra cooler space prior to the border opening put billions of dollar more into the hands of feeders, keeping most of them solvent.

Sandhusker, those 2 companies may be subsidiaries of American owned companies, but for all intents and purposes they are Canadian. The value added stays in Canada.

Are you claiming they pay no tax? Prove that one.

CAIS is a much different program Randy. It is designed to assist producers who have a sudden drop in prices due to unforseen events. The fact that some were paid under it but didn't qualify for that payment is a totally different issue than the cash handed out on a per head basis. I am sure some wealthy ranchers got paid that really didn't need it.

CAIS has margins and counts inventory. If you make more than your average margin there is no payment unless your inventory numbers dropped because you sold it to make payments etc. The drop in value of cows from a $1600 level to a $500 is not used the same way when you have a stock that drops it is not a loss until you sell it. It isn't a perfect program but it helps.

Remembering bits and pieces doesn't give the whole picture. At that monent in time we didn't have the knowledge of what has happened since. Thus hind sight is 20/20. Anyone could look back and say this or that should have been done.

1 question Randy, did you get any of that subsidy money? Are you giving it back?
 
If these packers have such a IN on controling the opening of the border why did I recieve $92.10 In Feb. the week before the border was to open. The market hasn't been that high since unless it got there this week.
 
Sure did Jason, $1392.67. I can't find ways to spend it all even to this day.

You can talk about the differnce between CAIS and the program that paid 34 million to Tyson all you want. To me it's welfare and in both cases the guy who needs it gets very little.

Gave a few cheques back as a matter of fact Jason. In fact after telling the provincial governement to shove one up their ass once, I went on to have some fun. They wrote back saying that since I declined from the program, my cheque would not be released. I wrote back and said that I did not decline, but told them to shove it up their ass. I went on to suggest that I had changed my mind and I would like their office to have it instead as they were so crucial to society. Next week the cheque appeared.

Have you ever given any back Jason?

Jason
They could have decided to shut down..kill their own cattle to stop the feed costs and waited to see if the border would open. The millions they spent in extra cooler space prior to the border opening put billions of dollar more into the hands of feeders, keeping most of them solvent.
Click to expand...

This little fairy tale world you have just descibed simply needs no reply. :roll:
 
Jason don't forget:

Alberta meat packers almost tripled profit over BSE: report
Last Updated Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:51:56 EDT
CBC News

EDMONTON - Alberta meat packers reported huge profit increases because of mad cow disease, but they didn't make money from provincial BSE aid intended for ranchers, the province's auditor general reported Tuesday.



Profit (before interest and taxes) at three big packing companies, Cargill, Lakeside and XL Foods, rose by 281 per cent after the mad-cow crisis began in May 2003, Fred Dunn said.

The three packers made $79 a head in the before the crisis, and $216.52 a head after.

There had also been allegations "that the packers received program funds destined for the producers. These allegations are not true," the auditor general's website said.

The single case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy discovered in Alberta in May 2003 slashed the Canadian price of cattle. Export markets closed, flooding the market in Canada and driving down the prices packers paid for cattle.

But consumer demand remained steady, so the packers didn't have to cut the price they charged for beef products. Dunn explained the differing price drops by saying "cattle prices form only a small part of the retail price."

Dunn said the Alberta government's BSE recovery programs "were generally well-designed and had clearly stated goals and appropriate controls."

The $402 million paid in BSE compensation and the packers' finances have been a continuing source of controversy.

An Alberta report showed Lakeside received about $33 million, Cargill Foods Ltd. got $9 million, 40 other companies got an average of $5 million each, and 22,000 Alberta producers and companies were paid an average of $18,000.

The payments reflected the size of the companies and producers, Alberta Agriculture Minister Shirley McLellan said in June, when the report was released.

"The little guy didn't have that much invested or he would have got a bigger cheque."

* FROM JUNE 15, 2004: Meat packers got bulk of mad cow aid

* FROM MAY 6, 2004: Parliament faces off with meat packers

Parliament investigated the packers, but the companies refused to provide financial records.

When an all party committee moved to fine the companies, Conservative and Bloc Québécois MPs blocked the motion. The Bloc said they didn't have enough notice of the motion. A conservative MP said the Liberals were trying to blame the companies for poorly designed programs.
 
There has been a lot of publicity here in the U.S. of farmers that are farming the subsidy programs set up by the USDA. One of them even got a job policing at the USDA.

I remember 23 years ago sitting on an ASCS state committee meeting in the Northwest. Some farmers had been caught planting on land that was in a set aside program. The GS 17 brought it up before the committee to see what should be done. They discussed it and one of the committee members, after talking about how he knew the guys that did it and that they were "good republicans", to let it slide. They would still vote republican and were good party members. Took a vote on any action and it was 2 against one to not take any action.

I remember the day, the events, and the three people sitting on that committee, what they looked like and how they looked when they described why they should do what they had decided. The quiet one who was bald on top with greyish hair on the sides with glasses puzzled me the most. After hearing the one committee member pulling the levers of politics for his friends I thought for sure he would not go along with such an absolute wrong. He did. I knew then that it wasn't about being a republican or democrat. Either one could let the values of the law, and the political offices they held be squashed by self interest; the enemy within.

Tyson, Cargill, and all the other companies on capital hill are up there for a reason. They want what they want, no matter if it is in the public interest or not. We have too many legislators who have no ethics. They make a political decision as to what to do, not whether it is right or wrong. What is the gain, will it cost me, can I be held accountable or can I divert accountability, what is my benefit? Many times the questions and answers are lopsided. Regular people do not have a staff of lobbyists trying to push an agenda, but Tyson and Cargill do.

Jason, the games that are being played in our two capitals are disgusting. They are selling all of the taxpayers out. Defend them if you will, but I bet your grandfather would tell you it is wrong. Then again, I don't know your family very well. You are playing a part in the 5th column that is destroying our democracies and our communities. I still don't know if you even know it. You should.
 
A conservative MP said the Liberals were trying to blame the companies for poorly designed programs.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what I have said? The gov't was in a rush and paid on a per head basis.
 
Econ, if you had such proof that a fraud was being committed why didn't you report it to the DA? You defered to the 2:1 vote to let the corruption slide.
 
Jason, "Sandhusker, those 2 companies may be subsidiaries of American owned companies, but for all intents and purposes they are Canadian. The value added stays in Canada."

I don't know how to answer that, Jason. Tyson and Cargill are Canadian? :shock: They're not subsidiaries. Burger King is a subsidiary of Yum. The name on the outside of those plants is Cargill and Tyson. All profits go to the US after a skimming from Ottowa.

Jason, "Are you claiming they pay no tax? Prove that one."

What led you to believe I said that?
 
MRJ, "The goal is low cost, secure food supply, not social program to keep all farmers in business, and I believe that is legitimate. "

What was the goal of the bailout? Think hard about that one MRJ.
 
Does the US goverment ever declare a disaster in the US. Drought ect. Do they ever make payment or release CRP for haying. GEE did Canada have a disaster when our packing plants closed and we had cattle standing in feedlots with no where to go. I wonder.
 
Jason said:
Econ, if you had such proof that a fraud was being committed why didn't you report it to the DA? You defered to the 2:1 vote to let the corruption slide.
Click to expand...

It was the USDA committe that had the responsibility of handling the complaint. Do you think there is a District Attorney in USDA? That is the problem with the USDA having all of the power. It gets abused. I was not one of the committee members. The man who voted against the fraud was taken off of the committee the next year by the senior republican senator from the state. I guess he only liked yes men. The proof of the fraud was not brought up by me, it was the government agency that brought the complaint up to the 3 member political committee. Even now I don't believe there is anything I could do to stop that type of abuse. The USDA is looking the other way until it becomes a political embarrassment. They have ways of making sure it is squashed before then. Why do you think I have such low opinion of them? I was an idealist similar to you once. Reality bites.
 

Latest posts

Top