farm tractor fees/registration costs

[rdln]

Well now, look what I started. Please dont get me wrong, everybody needs a hand here and there. in the past two years I have received about 5 months of unemployment benefits. I dont know what percentage of that oxymoron was taxpayer or previous employers' contributions, but my hand was out nonetheless.

I dont have all the facts and figures before me and shouldn't pretend that I could intelligently debate the issue but I believe there are some taking advantage just like any other program intended to help those that truly need it.

Doc, the CRP and hunter figure is interesting, this probably wouldn't apply to Michigan due to the abundance of state land and that more people hunt on the land that they own. I know a alot of Michigan people who spend a week in SODAK pheasant hunting on private land every year.

 

[rambler]

> Maybe I don't understand what I'm reading

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Agriculture/BG1542.cfm

http://www.ewg.org/farm/region.php?fips=29000

I do know one thing, our taxes are too high

charlie



What you are reading is 2 web sites very, very much against farmers. They have their own political objectives, no matter how they sugar coat them are very anti-agriculture. Fair enough, it's a free country & wild debate helps us all see the middle a lot better. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif You should look into the finances of _those_ 2 orginisations tho, if ag policy seems bad to you. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

The EWG site lists indivudual's reciepts from all sorts of govt progams, most of which I previously decribed. One is a subsidy that amounts to ~$40 an acre (actually I'm overstating that, it's a sinking fund down to `$25 an acre now....) - those farming 100 acres get a lot less than those farming 10,000 acres, but _everybody_ who is willing to jump through the govt hoops gets the same $40 an acre. Seems fair to me. Big farm concerns that sucsessfully work within the system will get large sums of money. Small farms get an equal amount of money per acre as the big folks. (I happen to be very low on the EGW site, and have only a very small farm - if that matters in any way.)

Second program is the LDP/CCC program which offers a safety net. It was extremely heavily used in 3 of the past 5 years. That's unfortunate, but agriculture had some very bad years with extremely low prices - it's like saying the depression years used far too much govt assistance for poor people - just how it is, in times of deep need, the need must be met. I'm glad the safety net is there to help stablize agriculture. There were almost none of these payments in 2003 & probably will be none in 2004. City folks have minumum wage laws, unemployment wages, and so on - far bigger payouts than these LDP/CCC payments, and of like intention & value. Me, I don't really like socalizm, but if the city folks have their programs, us farm folks can't wing it alone either.... These payments are a little odd, as you are paid based on how many bushels of crop (volume) you raised. This can reward people with a good crop year & really hurt those who had crop failures. Not the fairest system for a safety net..... Works fine for super low prices, but not so good for weather created problems.

Thirdly there are specialized conservation payments to farmers for converting their fields back into treeland, wetland, or praireland wildlife areas. Doing this costs money. Since these actions benifit the general pulic and removes the use of the land from the landowner, it's only fair for all taxpayers to be billed? You don't make one homeowner put in a park instead of their house all by themselves & let the whole city use it??? Some of these payments are _very_ large to a few individuals, but they gave up control of their property for 10, 15, or 99 years yet must still maintain the land & pay some property taxes on them. Don't know how you can view this as wrong?

Again, please tell us which program you do not like. I'm not trying to be a blockhead here, I just do not understand what part of this you do not like??? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

On your last comment, I certainly agree! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Most farmers _hate_ that first payment scheme - it is the government's way to gain control & belittle farmers & control markets. But it _does not_ idle any acres at all. Most farmers pay way too much of the property taxes; get hammered wih sales tax on items that shouldn't be; pat the full 15% of SS tax unlike town folk who pay only 1/2 that; and so on. I agree there are way too many taxes! Could prune some things out of the ag budget - you do know that food stamps are part of the USA _AG_ budget by the way?

Any you seem to be opposed to idled acres programs, which were a fad in the late '60s & briefly in the late '70s, but no longer are in practice in any of the agricultural govt programs.

So, what is it you oppose? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif How do we make it better? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Thank you Charlie & the rest for reading my words & not getting upset - I didn't mean to hijack this thread, and my thinking is not the only thinking on this subject. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif There's room for different opinions. I'm just not sure the issue is understood at all when in '04 people are opposed to land setasides, and that is something that hasn't been done in over 2 decades. I don't understand.

--->Paul

 

[Slamfire]

Well the part about the large agribusiness farms receiving the bulk of subsidies is true. I wouldn't mind much if you changed it. It certainly isn't what it was advertised to be, but name me one government program that is.

 

[cowboydoc]

You can skew the #'s to make them look anyway that you want. Ok so the bigger farms get the money. Well yea that's true because they own most of the land. Today for a family of four to make a living at the poverty level it takes 2000 acres. Most farmers have other full or part-time jobs as well. The subsidy programs are the only things that keep them afloat. It's also the only way that the corporate farms make any money too. Farming on it's own would collapse at current prices within a couple years. The report was seriously errored when they said food prices are kept high. The opposite is true, in that food commodities are kept ridiculously low compared to what it takes to produce that product. Also what the report doesn't state is that in order to keep the production record on your land you HAVE to file the papers. If you're going to go through all of the paperwork you get the money whether you need it or not. If you don't file the paperwork and keep up your yields with the government then your property value is going to go down. Most farmground is priced according to what the yields are. The #'s in that report are probably nothing close to what those farms produce in taxes. In many states agricultural is the #1 employer in the state.

Most farmers would not have a problem with restructuring the farm programs. I have to go the FSA and NRCS office more than anywhere else, just because there is always a pile of paperwork to be done. Most farmers would also have no problem getting rid of welfare, food stamps, foreign aid, corporate subsidies, etc. Everybody is getting a piece of the tax pie. It's not just farmers. And yes taxes are WAY too high especially if you are self-employed.