# Curious how much your neighbor gets in farm ...



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

subsidies ???
I know I was .
 
http://farm.ewg.org/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

That's an eye opener isn't it? I couldn't believe the "top scorers" on the list.


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

Interesting...our top scoring in our area has gotten almost a million. On the other hand a little disturbing as I am not sure I would like my info out there like that.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Ziptie said:


> On the other hand a little disturbing as I am not sure I would like my info out there like that.


This is probably true of anyone, who gets taxpayers money.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> subsidies ???


I'm not sure I'd call crop insurance and disaster payments "subsidies", and "conservation payments" are payments for leasing farmland.

If you're going to complain about farmers, don't do it if you're not hungry



> 74 percent of farms in North Carolina did not collect subsidy payments - according to USDA.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

> 71 percent of farms in New York did not collect subsidy payments - according to USDA.
> Ten percent collected 75 percent of all subsidies.


I know my father refused to get involved with it, he thought it was wrong. He believed in a completely free market, no government intervention.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not sure I'd call crop insurance and disaster payments "subsidies", and "conservation payments" are payments for leasing farmland.
> 
> If you're going to complain about farmers, don't do it if you're not hungry


Said 81% in Texas did not receive subsidies but Texas was the number 1 state to receive monies. 

Lot of money going to 19% of the farmers here.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

The payments not to farm and other agricultural subsidy payments and benefits here have been public record available at our extension office and now online for as long as I can remember.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> Said 81% in Texas did not receive subsidies but Texas was the number 1 state to receive monies.
> 
> Lot of money going to 19% of the farmers here.


Like I tell my non-TX friends, go look at a map. We take up a lot of land!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not sure I'd call crop insurance and disaster payments "subsidies", and "conservation payments" are payments for leasing farmland.


When the poor get insurance, paid for by taxpayers, or get money for not producing, it's called "welfare".




Bearfootfarm said:


> If you're going to complain about farmers, don't do it if you're not hungry


51% of the farmland in the U.S. (450 million acres), is used to produce ethanol.

Now that most all food has corn sweeteners in it, morbidly obese Americans are alwasy hungry.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> When the poor get insurance, paid for by taxpayers, or get money for not producing, it's called "welfare".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ethanol is another government subsidized program.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> When the poor get insurance, paid for by taxpayers, or get money for not producing, it's called "welfare".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


450 million? Like to see a chart stating THAT one.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

arabian knight said:


> 450 million? Like to see a chart stating THAT one.


I don't know where that acreage number came from, either. Yes, would be interesting to see a chart.

This is the only chart I could find that looked like it might be at least related:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/521847/cornuse.jpg

?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> When the poor get *insurance, paid for by taxpayers*, or get money for not producing, it's called "welfare".
> 
> *51% of the farmland in the U.S. (450 million acres), is used to produce ethanol.
> *
> Now that most all food has corn sweeteners in it, morbidly obese Americans are alwasy hungry.


I don't believe either of those statements are true.
The Govt only pays a portion of the expense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_insurance


> Crop insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_insurance
> Crop insurance is *purchased by agricultural producers, including farmers, ranchers*, and others to protect themselves against either the loss of their crops


http://deltafarmpress.com/corn/ethanol-offers-growing-environmental-benefits


> Corn used for ethanol in the United States is grown on approximately *five percent *of our nation's cropland. For perspective, ethanol production uses less than three percent of all grain crops grown over the entire world.


The man who leases my farm got about $48,000 the last year listed.

That's a little more than $10 per acre for the amount of land he farms, and he pays me $60 an acre for the use. 

He's got a couple of million dollars worth of equipment, and employs quite a few people


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you're going to complain about farmers, don't do it if you're not hungry


Perhaps I shouldn't complain about carpenters while Im in a house . I don't understand the logic here ~ shrugs ~


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> 450 million? Like to see a chart stating THAT one.


Well, ya got me there! 

I don't have a chart, but it's 914 million acres total , of farm land in the u.s., which includes, grazing land. 408 million is for crops. so 50%which mean a mere *204 million acres are used to raise biofuel crops.*

*Better?
*
http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/landuse.html


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You Can't just Lump everything into saying Biofuels, and then in the same breath say Corn is being used to do that. And lumping it into one category in saying ethanol either.

Soybeans are used for most all biodiesel and should be separated out. 
So what if land is used for growing CashCrops, there is still many acres that are still being grown for human food.
And a lot of ethanol byproducts are used in many ways one is animal feed. If not getting animal feed from ethanol plants they would be getting From Other Crops that are being gown also.
There is plenty of land that is Not Being used and in The Set Aside Program Plenty left to grow all sorts of food stuffs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

J.T.M. said:


> Perhaps I shouldn't complain about carpenters while Im in a house . I don't understand the logic here ~ shrugs ~


If you're well fed in this country, chances are it's due to farmers.

The "subsidy" hype gets paraded on a regular basis to make them sound bad when that hype is not always accurate.

I bet those who complain about "subsidies" take all the tax deductions they can, so what's the real difference?


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> Well, ya got me there!
> 
> I don't have a chart, but it's 914 million acres total , of farm land in the u.s., which includes, grazing land. 408 million is for crops. so 50%which mean a mere *204 million acres are used to raise biofuel crops.*
> 
> ...


 Are you saying that all of the corn crop IS going to fuel, or that it COULD go to fuel. If your claim is that it IS used for fuel, please explain where does all the corn comes from used in human food and animal feed? Also you would need to account for the huge amount of corn that we export!


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Wow. Im so glad you posted this.

I think all subsidies should be abolished. It's just sanctioned, fraud, market manipulation, and a flagrant abuse of the powers awarded the govt under our constitution.

My opinion anyway.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Seriously, I looked at the list, my Barber got $5000 in subsidies.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Wanda said:


> Are you saying that all of the corn crop IS going to fuel, or that it COULD go to fuel. If your claim is that it IS used for fuel, please explain where does all the corn comes from used in human food and animal feed? Also you would need to account for the huge amount of corn that we export!


My bad, ethanol production uses about 40% of U.S. corn production, which is a total of about 80 million acres.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I don't agree with tax subsidies either. But, the difference is th govt will persecute me for not filing taxes s and being honest on them. Some years we've paid more, som years we've gotten refunded.

I find a huge portion of tax collecting money unconstitutional the same as these subsidies. So I don't believe it's right either way when we've paid extra or gotten a refund.

But, no one ne is putting a gun to any property owners or investors he ads and forcing them to apply for subsidies under this program. Try not filing your taxes for awhile vs not filing for these subsidies and I think you will see that the results are a bit different.

The devil is in the details as always.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> Seriously, I looked at the list, my Barber got $5000 in subsidies.


That's not unusual if he owns farmland in the CRP program


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Wow. Im so glad you posted this.
> 
> *I think all subsidies should be abolished.* It's just sanctioned, fraud, market manipulation, and a flagrant abuse of the powers awarded the govt under our constitution.
> 
> My opinion anyway.


Do you claim your children as dependents on your Federal taxes?
Is that not a "subsidy"?



> I don't agree with tax subsidies either. But, the difference is th govt will persecute me for not filing taxes s and being honest on them. Some years we've paid more, som years we've gotten refunded.


There are no penalties for NOT claiming deductions.
If you think subsidies are "wrong", don't take them


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you claim your children as dependents on your Federal taxes?
> Is that not a "subsidy"?
> 
> There are no penalties for NOT claiming deductions.
> If you think subsidies are "wrong", don't take them


Earned income credit is a subsidy as well.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

All of it could be done away with and have my total support.

So do you want to debate how we each feel about policies or nit pick and witch hunt individuals?

People in glass houses.........


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I have no interest in what my neighbors get in subsidies, I have plenty of my own business to tend to.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you claim your children as dependents on your Federal taxes?
> Is that not a "subsidy"?
> 
> 
> ...


Farmers have nearly all of the same tax deductions, any business for individual, plus they get subsides, or subsidized insurance, from thousands to millions of dollars.

For instance, A Kentucky Farmer gets $2000/yr, for _not_ planting tobacco. He can plant corn, just not tobacco. It's only a $10 billion dollar program!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> All of it could be done away with and have my total support.
> 
> So do you want to debate how we each feel about policies or nit pick and witch hunt individuals?
> 
> *People in glass houses*.........


I agree
Those taking one subsidy shouldn't complain about those taking another


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have no interest in what my neighbors get in subsidies, I have plenty of my own business to tend to.


True..true..was just curious to where my tax money was going to.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I agree
> Those taking one subsidy shouldn't complain about those taking another


So you're satisfied with the subsidy system that has taken control of the economy?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Farmers have nearly all of the same tax deductions, any business for individual, plus they get subsides, or subsidized insurance, from thousands to millions of dollars.
> 
> For instance, A Kentucky Farmer gets $2000/yr, for _not_ planting tobacco. He can plant corn, just not tobacco. It's only a $10 billion dollar program!


I find this rather interesting... Gotta link?


----------



## BlueRidgeFarms (Mar 23, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I find this rather interesting... Gotta link?


That sounds like it could have been part of the tobacco quota buyout. That program was a major mess, but I believe it is now over.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

BlueRidgeFarms said:


> That sounds like it could have been part of the tobacco quota buyout. That program was a major mess, but I believe it is now over.


That sounds right... The buyout was interesting to say the least but the price support program had been one of the best gov programs ever devised. It accomplished its goals at no net cost to the gov. We, the farmers, paid a small amount of our proceeds on sale day to pay the costs of running it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

No one here seems to be complaining about the internet being subsidized!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> No one here seems to be complaining about the internet being subsidized!


Just wait till Low income Gets Broadband, nice high speed net. That is the next thing coming.
You heard of Life Line for low income folks.

FCC Moves to Modernize Lifeline Program to Include *Broadband Internet Subsidies *for Low-Income Americans


> On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to consider a plan that would modernize Lifeline -- a long-running FCC program that provides subsidies for phone service to underprivileged households -- to include broadband Internet.


http://www.latinpost.com/articles/60957/20150619/fcc-moves-to-modernize-lifeline-program-to-include-broadband-internet-subsidies-for-poor-americans.htm


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

If the government pays me less than I could make on the land to use it for wildlife am I subsidizing government or is government subsidizing me ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

If your farmer has a office somewhere else where they receive mail that is where they will be listed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Farmers have nearly all of the same tax deductions, any business for individual, plus they get subsides, or subsidized insurance, from thousands to millions of dollars.
> 
> For instance, A Kentucky Farmer gets $2000/yr, for _not_ planting tobacco. He can plant corn, just not tobacco. It's only a $10 billion dollar program!


He gets that money in payment of his "allotment" that was taken by the Govt about 10 years ago

It's easy to complain when you don't understand the system, and I suspect these figures are as accurate as your "ethanol acreage" numbers *weren't*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> So you're satisfied with the subsidy system that has *taken control of the economy*?


LOL
That's not true, and you are supposed to have me on ignore anyway.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

BlueRidgeFarms said:


> That sounds like it could have been part of the *tobacco quota buyout*. That program was a major mess, but I believe it is now over.


That is correct, it has ended


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I was shocked to discover the local guy that doesn't believe that _anyone for any reason_ should receive benefits from the government was near the top of the list. :hysterical:


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> That's not true, and you are supposed to have me on ignore anyway.


The reality is the tax system and subsidy system is what controls the economy.

And, you didn't answer the question 

Also, in you recall I said I was going to try out the ignore option. I did, and then decided maybe I should go ahead and turn it back off in case I was throwing the baby out with the bath water and was missing so interesting and relevant things some of those people had to say.

But, maybe I was wrong and should have left it on. Because some people don't like to actually discuss issues in a deeper way where people can ask and share about topics beyond just it being a talking point.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I was shocked to discover the local guy that doesn't believe that _anyone for any reason_ should receive benefits from the government was near the top of the list. :hysterical:


Maybe he is being hypocritical. Or, maybe he feels like he's unhappy with the system, but can't figure out a practical way to extract himself from it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> Maybe he is being hypocritical. Or, maybe he feels like he's unhappy with the system, but can't figure out a practical way to extract himself from it.


I think he's a hypocrite. He's went on about it the 16 years we've lived here. If you don't believe in subsides (business or personal) don't use them. Pretty simple.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I think he's a hypocrite. He's went on about it the 16 years we've lived here. If you don't believe in subsides (business or personal) don't use them. Pretty simple.


That's not a clean cut as your statement implies.

Nearly everything is affected by subsidies and multiple layers of complex tax schemes from roads, to gas, food, to any type of health care, to film and television production, to political campaigns, the list of what is subsidized in our economy is far greater than what is not.

It's almost untraceable it's so big. And that creates tremendous waste, and is beyond what most citizens would consider reasonable if they were truly more aware of the scope of it.

That's why I believe it should all go. If the slate were wiped clean, the citizens might have a chance to reign it in by starting fresh and making decisions that were more reasonable.

It's a lot more involved than just witch-hunting farmers and parents who receive subsidies or decline them.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> That's not a clean cut as your statement implies.
> 
> Nearly everything is affected by subsidies and multiple layers of complex tax schemes from roads, to gas, food, to any type of health care, to film and television production, to political campaigns, the list of what is subsidized in our economy is far greater than what is not.
> 
> ...


I thought the discussion was farm subsides and branched (a bit) into personal tax subsides... and I wasn't witch hunting anything.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I thought the discussion was farm subsides and branched (a bit) into personal tax subsides... and I wasn't witch hunting anything.


I wasn't accusing you of witch-hunting anyone. I was referencing my statement about all subsidies being thrown out, which was not meant to be a narrow-scoped comment, to just single out those receiving farm subsidies. I was saying I had a problem with the situation as a whole with how it is functioning, and found this example just representative of a larger problem.

But, I'm starting to get the tactics I'm seeing in some threads here, to just deflect others questions and ideas and instead try and stifle them as being irrelevant to a discussion or choosing to interpret them as being personally critical or just ignore them all together even when quoting stuff.

That way of conversing bores me, and one of the reasons is because I find it fascinating to read other people's beliefs and thoughts and the reasons why they have come to those conclusions. Especially when they are open to others saying "but, what about under these circumstances". Life is messy and not black and white. Simple answers don't solve complex problems.

I think subsidies can be reasonable if done in a temporary, local, fiscally doable scenario. But, I find the vast majority are not, and there doesn't seem to be a way to right the ship without scrapping it and letting society start over with a clean slate. And, I don't think that can happen easily, but I do think it will eventually, because no society or government in history has ever not eventually fallen, and a new one taken it's place from the remaining population. We're not special. It will happen here eventually. But, I think we will be poorly equipped to have those discussions as a nation of people if we haven't taken the time to thoughtfully consider what's happening now, so we can have informed opinions on whether we feel the decisions we've made were wise or not.

I was raised one way as far as religion and politics goes, and over the years growing in my understanding of things and life experience ended up in what some would feel was a rather extreme opposite direction. So, I believe people can change their minds about stuff. But, only if others are willing to actually try and share their thoughts in a way that isn't superficial.

This isn't twitter. I'm sure we all have interesting things to say that some will relate to and others won't. But, it does involve a little effort to say your thoughts instead of just criticize others. And, again, I will say, I was not trying to accuse you personally of witch-hunting or anything else.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Certainly subsidies covers a pretty broad range but it seems to me that if one were complaining about subsidies, like the gentleman mentioned, a fairly simple approach would be to not apply or decline any direct subsidies. 

There are religious orders who farm and don't believe in government subsidies, including crop insurance programs so it would seem that one can opt out of the programs if one believes strongly enough.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> I was shocked to discover the local guy that doesn't believe that _anyone for any reason_ should receive benefits from the government was near the top of the list. :hysterical:


 I now work for a large local orchard, its actually one of the biggest pick-your-own and wholesale fruit growers in the midwest, been around since 1837, so obviouslty they're doing something right... When the subject of subsidies, grants, etc comes up, the owner (staunch conservative and Republican) says, only half-jokingly 'I am opposed to all forms of government handouts, that don't come directly to me'.... lol. And they do take plenty of government help, whenever they can get it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> I wasn't accusing you of witch-hunting anyone. I was referencing my statement about all subsidies being thrown out, which was not meant to be a narrow-scoped comment, to just single out those receiving farm subsidies. I was saying I had a problem with the situation as a whole with how it is functioning, and found this example just representative of a larger problem.
> 
> But, I'm starting to get the tactics I'm seeing in some threads here, to just deflect others questions and ideas and instead try and stifle them as being irrelevant to a discussion or choosing to interpret them as being personally critical or just ignore them all together even when quoting stuff.
> 
> ...


I will respectfully say that you may be reading more into some posts than you should. This was a discussion that slipped sideways slightly from farm subsides into personal tax subsides, and you moved it into a near global enterprise. Which to many people may be just too big a bite to easily handle.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I will respectfully say that you may be reading more into some posts than you should. This was a discussion that slipped sideways slightly from farm subsides into personal tax subsides, and you moved it into a near global enterprise. Which to many people may be just too big a bite to easily handle.


Fair enough.

Of course, I've found chewing through a conversation slowly and in a thoughtful way helps prevent choking.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> Of course, I've found chewing through a conversation slowly and in a thoughtful way helps prevent choking.


You keep on chewing. Some folks are as you described. 

I like your approach so I'll throw something at you. 

I too am fundamentally opposed to goverment handing out my money to those I believe undeserving. Being it's my money I think I have the right to judge who should get it. I pay a very large sum to Uncle Sam and his other relatives. 

Farmers face subsidized foreign competion. Therefore in my mind they deserve goverment protection. 

Farmers can be wiped out with one major natural disaster like a drought or flood , whatever. 

Farmers face very cyclical commodity markets. They are price takers, not market makers. Steady prices are important. 

Starting a farm from scratch is almost impossible. Farmland can cost over $5k per acre. Most farmers with economies of scale are over 10,000 acres or more. Do the math. Then the equipment costs runs in the millions. One days fuel for one tractor might be $1,000. Beans and rice sure have not gone up like land, fuel and tractors. You can't have the people that feed the world going out of business and starting over each year. 

It ain't simple. They ain't hypocrites. 

Some think wishes makes things happen. They don't. I wish they did.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

You're making valid points.

One thing that I think would help off-set some of the overwhelming pressures that farmers face from foreign markets is this.

I think we should out a stop to almost all foreign aid we are providing worldwide. There is a staggering amount of money that we spend each year internationally to help subsidize and prop up foreign economies with "aid".

I'm not opposed to one time offerings for aid if we are able to afford it, and it is for something very rare (not an every year or never ending problem), such as when the boxing day tsunami hit. 

But, I think the annual check writing subsidies that are handed out do have a meaningful and negative effect on the commodities market and many other areas of the economy.

I also think the market has become very unsteady because we've subsidized the heck out of farming to the point that there are basically monoculture farms which puts our food supply at constant risk.

California produces a ridiculous amount of our nation's food supply in an ecosystem that is only able to sustain it through completely artificial means. The irony in that is they've also destroyed perfectly ideal farmland like the iwens valley to do it.

Let the rest of the world feed itself. And, let our farmers get back to providing a variety of foods to their local or regional market.

I don't say any of this to take cheapshots at farmers at all. They aren't the captain of their ships anymore.

I have a lot of empathy for them. Some of what they go through reminds me of the pressures and difficulties if being a parent when dealing with schools.

Homeschooling isn't easy, and you definitely end up being on varying levels shunned by some people in your community. But, I also know a lot of parents who wish they could home school, but because they've been doing things the govt way for education and personal finance, it's a really daunting task to try and break out of the vicious cycle and find your way.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

And some of them _are_ hypocrites, the guy I brought up runs a small beef operation, maybe a 100 acres or a bit more and around 40 cows. He received almost as much in subsides than a good sized dairy farm. All after listening to him rant and rave about how there shouldn't be any government benefits. 

I agree that most farmers work hard, too hard, just trying to keep their heads above water. I come from a long line of dairy farmers, I know how hard it is.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Well said, HD. 

It isn't like the govt is propping up all the nail salons and doggie daycares, people gotta eat. 

Subsidies started as a way to ensure a steady, reliable supply of the core commodities. So we wouldn't be short on corn because everybody planted something else that was "hot" and not enough planted corn. Today that doesn't seem so likely to happen. Farming has entered "the information age" too and farmers have a lot of information available to them, unlike the days where they ignorantly plowed up all those marginal lands and helped create the Dust Bowl. 

I think there is excess and abuse, just like any government program seems to devolve into. Like the well publicized case of multimillionaire Sam Donaldson taking the wool subsidy for his ranch. A wool subsidy that had started out to ensure a domestic supply of wool during WW I, did it not? These things definitely can live on past their natural lives and scope.

I don't begrudge any farmer the crop insurance. Farmers literally bet the farm every year, so one crop failure could mean a multi-generational farm was lost. And you have to pay in your premiums just like any other insurance, it's not "free money". 

On the surface the CRP sounds ridiculous, pay farmers not to farm. But I think it's a lot better to have that land under the farmer's control and fallow for the time being, than to see it sold, developed into another housing edition or strip mall, lost forever to food production. It's like an emergency account, to be there when we need it. 

The straight subsidies for certain crops should be reformed, maybe even eliminated, but it would take some study first. I acknowledge there seem to be too many land owners who are just farming the taxpayers and not making a real effort to farm. But let's not throw our food system into chaos to punish a few people either. 

The world has changed so much so fast, it's time to take a fresh look at a lot of things, including our farm programs.

ETA - I don't know of any subsidy for beef cattle, maybe some of that neighbor's land is in CRP?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The reality is the tax system and subsidy system is what controls the economy.


Repeating it won't make it so.



> Because some people don't like to actually* discuss issues in a deeper way* where people can ask and share about topics beyond just it being a talking point.


In other words you only want to hear those who already agree with you
You didn't answer my questions, so I'm ignoring yours.

Anti Govt rants aren't a "deeper way"
They are just the norm for some



> Also, in you recall I said I was going to try out the ignore option. I did, and then decided maybe I should go ahead and turn it back off in case I was throwing the baby out with the bath water and was missing so interesting and relevant things some of those people had to say.
> 
> But, maybe I was wrong and should have left it on.


Save all the melodrama and just keep me on ignore because you're not going to like a lot of things I'll say


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Repeating it won't make it so.
> 
> 
> In other words you only want to hear those who already agree with you
> ...


Continuing to say the other people are wrong isn't offering much to a conversation to show why you think so.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Repeating it won't make it so.
> 
> 
> In other words you only want to hear those who already agree with you
> ...


Are all those comments from the same person?

Can't tell.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Continuing to say the other people are wrong isn't offering much to a conversation to show *why* you think so.


Some things are self explanatory.

Why should I have to prove the economy isn't "controlled by subsidies' when there's been no evidence it really is?

You keep saying "do away with them all", but you take advantage of them yourself. 

Do away with yours first, and then you can complain about what others do


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Are all those comments from the same person?
> 
> Can't tell.


Yes they are


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

HDRider said:


> Starting a farm from scratch is almost impossible. Farmland can cost over $5k per acre. .


 Part of the reason farm ground is so expensive is BECAUSE of subsidies. 
From Heritage...


> Current farm policies are so poorly designed that they actually worsen the conditions they claim to solve. For example:
> 
> Farm subsidies are intended to alleviate farmer poverty, but the majority of subsidies go to commercial farms with average incomes of $200,000 and net worths of nearly $2 million.
> Farm subsidies are intended to raise farmer incomes by remedying low crop prices. Instead, they promote overproduction and therefore lower prices further.
> *Farm subsidies are intended to help struggling family farmers. Instead, they harm them by excluding them from most subsidies, financing the consolidation of family farms, and raising land values to levels that prevent young people from entering farming.*


http://www.heritage.org/research/re...dies-harm-taxpayers-consumers-and-farmers-too


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Some things are self explanatory.
> 
> Why should I have to prove the economy isn't "controlled by subsidies' when there's been no evidence it really is?
> 
> ...


Do you want to just pick fights with people and somehow convince others to just patently dismiss other people's thoughts as invalid because you disagree?

I did also attempt to make the point with several examples earlier how the tax and subsidy system is so complex that it is virtually impossible for those not interested in participating from extracting themselves from it in a meaningful way.

If you truly believe they are good, why not give some examples and of benefits you see so that others can think them over and maybe even look into them further outside this thread to see whatever it is that you see that they do not?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Part of the reason farm ground is so expensive is BECAUSE of subsidies.
> From Heritage...
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/research/re...dies-harm-taxpayers-consumers-and-farmers-too


Might be part of it.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He gets that money in payment of his "allotment" that was taken by the Govt about 10 years ago
> 
> It's easy to complain when you don't understand the system, and I suspect these figures are as accurate as your "ethanol acreage" numbers *weren't*


It was 10 years ago and just finished up last year. 

So what? It was $10 billion *taxpayer dollars*, paying farmers *not* to grow tobacco.

If our government is broke, this is part of the reason. We can pretend it is not.


http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsRel...=detail&item=pf_20091008_insup_en_ttpp09.html


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Ziptie said:


> Interesting...our top scoring in our area has gotten almost a million. On the other hand a little disturbing as I am not sure I would like my info out there like that.


Yep. I remember someone made a big deal about this local farmer getting a million bucks when the tobacco quota system was abolished. He wrote in that it wasn't anybody's business, but since his name was being smeared in the paper, those people might be interested to know that he had spent almost twice that amount on specialized equipment and curing barns in the last several years that would be worthless once they took away his quotas.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

That's very interesting. I would think if he spent the money for the equipment, he must have expected it made business sense and would turn a profit.

How did the quota program work that would allow the government to shut his plans down and get him to accept their offer that would not cover his losses?


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

At first I got angry when looking at the numbers for my little zip code. Then I decided that those who get government subsidy money are in reality owned by the government who has likely more invested than the farmer / rancher sometimes. There for it will be easier when the government takes over control of all farms and orders them run a certain way and that they sell goods for a certain price. Its a jungle out there and I doubt anyone really understands it. I know for sure the more the government is in your wallet the less free you are.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Before looking down my nose at people who have been subsidized, I'd like to see a better breakdown. 

Obviously, some of that come from crop insurance and it is my understanding that there are areas in the US that have been hit pretty hard by drought conditions so I would suspect that a good portion of what's classified as subsidy is compensation for failed crops due to drought conditions. 

I'm not sure if there is a better way but I am pretty sure that between drought and hail, not many could take over a failed farm and run it any better than the folks before and it seems to me that subsidizing a farmer to get them through the lean years is a far better financial decision than dealing with the loss through bankruptcy.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Interesting discussion. The thing that I am not excited about in the subsidy realm, is that other countries, like Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, which have pretty much diddly for direct government subsidies, have to compete with the countries who do support their farmers on the world marketplace. It is not a level playing field, and it distorts how farmers farm, and distorts world prices.

Europe is especially nasty with their myriad of farm support and protectionism. And the rest of us have to deal with reduced crop prices thanks to foreign gooberments paying their farmers. So farmers in Canada grow dozens of different crops to try to diversify enough to offset unnatural market forces.

The good news in that is we have a very diversified cropping practice. 

That being said, I do not begrudge the places where the cities support the gist of gooberment support for farmers. In Europe in particular, they know what it is like to be hungry, so the general population WANTS to see a farm every few feet, rightly or wrongly. 

It is interesting to know that American farmers get money like they do. I am part of another site, and am always surprised at the many government programs you have down there to support farms. 

Up here, we have Crop Insurance, and a stability program you can opt in or out on, which triggers if your margin falls below a certain level. But up here, programs are not well planned, so triggering it is almost impossible, especially if you already have crop insurance.

So what are some of the programs guys get paid for? Are the advertised payments the whole lump of all payments, or are there several different lists? I guess some mentioned CRP and so on.

As a Canadian farmer, this topic is fascinating, and well, a "foreign" concept, as we in Canada do very little to support our farmers. Most farmers I know are happy to have so little government meddling in our businesses. ( other than dairy and feathers, which are under supply management)


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I've posted this before but for those who missed it here's an interesting read on how government money supports unneccessary cotton farming and increased the water woes in the southwest. https://projects.propublica.org/killing-the-colorado/story/arizona-cotton-drought-crisis


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> As a Canadian farmer, this topic is fascinating, and well, a "foreign" concept, as we in Canada do very little to support our farmers. Most farmers I know are happy to have so little government meddling in our businesses. ( other than dairy and feathers, which are under supply management)


Are our tobacco farms being assisted in any way? I know very little about that aspect and would think that with our last increase on cigarettes that there may be some need for restructuring their land usage.

What are your thoughts on the wheat board?


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

wr said:


> Are our tobacco farms being assisted in any way? I know very little about that aspect and would think that with our last increase on cigarettes that there may be some need for restructuring their land usage.
> 
> What are your thoughts on the wheat board?


I believe there was talk of a buyout of tobacco farmers in Ontario a bit ago. I have no idea what came of it. 

I was never more glad than when the grains I grow were free to be sold by me to the buyer of my choosing, at the time of my choosing, at the price of my choosing. I am enjoying the freedom, let me tell you! But the Wheat Board was not a subsidy, so I am not sure how it fits in here???


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> I believe there was talk of a buyout of tobacco farmers in Ontario a bit ago. I have no idea what came of it.
> 
> I was never more glad than when the grains I grow were free to be sold by me to the buyer of my choosing, at the time of my choosing, at the price of my choosing. I am enjoying the freedom, let me tell you! But the Wheat Board was not a subsidy, so I am not sure how it fits in here???


No, it wasn't a subsidy and I never intended to suggest it was. I looked upon it as one of the reasons government shouldn't be involved in our business.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Not trying to point a finger at farmers. but, in the spirit of attempting to stay within the confines of subsidies related to agriculture, I've found the following that discuss this topic, and enjoyed reading them.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

http://usliberals.about.com/od/FoodFarmingIssues/a/What-Are-Farm-Subsidies.htm

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...mers-grow-subsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers

http://freakonomics.com/2008/07/24/the-illogic-of-farm-subsidies-and-other-agricultural-truths/

http://farm.ewg.org/subsidyprimer.php

https://www.cfda.gov/

http://aic.ucdavis.edu/research/farmbill07/aeibriefs/20070515_sumnerRationalesfinal.pdf


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not sure I'd call crop insurance and disaster payments "subsidies", and "conservation payments" are payments for leasing farmland.


Hmmmmmm - I know for a fact the one year my Dad filed a claim on crop insurance because one field of his corn didn't grow. (This was field corn that he would put in a corn crib in the fall and then grind up with other grains to feed his beef cows.)

Do you know WHY the corn in that field didn't grow? Because the guy who planted it for him spaced the corn seed too close together. If I remember correctly, the crop insurance guy didn't even bother to look at the field.

Now granted, my Dad did pay into the system for crop insurance - but he was payed a whole lot more for his "failed" field of corn than what he paid for insurance.

I would think crop insurance would be paid out on a crop because it didn't grow - due to too much moisture, too little moisture, hail damage, etc. NOT due to planting the seed too close together!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also noticed the one farmer who has been retired for the past 20 years or so. He was a dairy farmer, but retired when the government was doing the "We will pay you to NOT have dairy cows in hope of increasing the price of milk for farmers."

To pay somebody NOT to do something - is very much like the welfare system -at least in my book.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

gibbsgirl said:


> That's very interesting. I would think if he spent the money for the equipment, he must have expected it made business sense and would turn a profit.
> 
> How did the quota program work that would allow the government to shut his plans down and get him to accept their offer that would not cover his losses?


I was young when all tis happened so I do not know the nuances of how it worked. Basically you had to have an allotment to grow tobacco to keep the prices high. The allotments were attached to the land but people would buy land with them and sublease it out to other growers or buy land with it and grow the actual crop on other more productive land. The tobacco was then auctioned off to the highest bidder in lots. When the government ended this process, people had to start contracting directly with companies for a set price based on the company's needs.

The government paid off farmers with allotments when they took away the system that allowed tobacco to be so profitable a crop. I have no idea how they determined the price, but I imagine that it was based on how much of the quota you had moreso than what you had invested in it because a lot of people in this area were really mad when this all went down. A lot of the farmers had invested a lot leading up to this to replace the old barns with the propane powered curing sheds. I don't know the ins and outs of all the equipment needed throughout the whole tobacco growing process as to what else could have been at play. I do remember I did not like to see them tearing down all the old barns.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

I happen to be the recipient of some of these subsidies every year, due to enrolling farm ground in several conservation reserve and permanent wildlife habitat projects. I could make considerably more $$ by farming the ground, but choose to do this as it aligns better with my interests. 

The money received helps cover some of the taxes, upkeep and planting expenses. My view is, that if uncle Sam is going to give the money out for these programs, I am going to take advantage of it. Your federal government is encouraging landowners like myself to take tillable farm ground out of farming and put it into wildlife habitat, and they are willing to pay us to do so.

I don't feel the least bit guilty about this. As the owner of a farm and business, I pay out a heck of a lot more in taxes than this token amount I get back annually, so this is just a way to reduce my overall taxes a bit.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Declan said:


> I was young when all tis happened so I do not know the nuances of how it worked. Basically you had to have an allotment to grow tobacco to keep the prices high. The allotments were attached to the land but people would buy land with them and sublease it out to other growers or buy land with it and grow the actual crop on other more productive land. The tobacco was then auctioned off to the highest bidder in lots. When the government ended this process, people had to start contracting directly with companies for a set price based on the company's needs.
> 
> The government paid off farmers with allotments when they took away the system that allowed tobacco to be so profitable a crop. I have no idea how they determined the price, but I imagine that it was based on how much of the quota you had moreso than what you had invested in it because a lot of people in this area were really mad when this all went down. A lot of the farmers had invested a lot leading up to this to replace the old barns with the propane powered curing sheds. I don't know the ins and outs of all the equipment needed throughout the whole tobacco growing process as to what else could have been at play. I do remember I did not like to see them tearing down all the old barns.


 The quota system was set up to stop overproduction which had destroyed the price and caused many farmers to go bust. It allowed farmers to turn a profit on their crop with a minimum price guarantee on sale day. If the crop did not bring the guaranteed price at auction the program would buy the tobacco and hold it until the demand increased enough to bring that minimum price. Each farmer paid into that system out of their share of the price and wound up costing the government nothing. When the government opted to shut the system down the quotas were bought from the farmers who had been investing every year in it. As I recall they received the equivalent of one years crop (around 2 bucks per pound) that payment was to be spread out over a period of years. It was NOT a subsidy, and did NOT pay farmers not to grow tobacco. It merely stopped the price support program.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Thanks for explaining Yvonne's hubby.

Fishndude, I understand what you mean about knowing your overall taxes and government imposed financial costs are being offset by recouping what you can in other places.

Well put. That's the funny math that bothers me about so many of the tax and subsidy programs.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

Fishindude said:


> I happen to be the recipient of some of these subsidies every year, due to enrolling farm ground in several conservation reserve and permanent wildlife habitat projects. I could make considerably more $$ by farming the ground, but choose to do this as it aligns better with my interests.
> 
> The money received helps cover some of the taxes, upkeep and planting expenses. My view is, that if uncle Sam is going to give the money out for these programs, I am going to take advantage of it. Your federal government is encouraging landowners like myself to take tillable farm ground out of farming and put it into wildlife habitat, and they are willing to pay us to do so.
> 
> I don't feel the least bit guilty about this. As the owner of a farm and business, I pay out a heck of a lot more in taxes than this token amount I get back annually, so this is just a way to reduce my overall taxes a bit.


Sure if you otherwise would farm it. The criticism is that so many of these conservation checks are going to places like New York City to suitcase farmers who never had any intention of farming the land and programs like the black farmer settlement on which there was no meaningful verification process to show that these people applying had ever even been farmers.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

What is the matter with the conservation check going to a "suitcase farmer" in New York City? You don't have to make your living as a farmer to own farm ground.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> It was 10 years ago and just finished up last year.
> 
> So what? It was $10 billion *taxpayer dollars*, paying farmers *not* to grow tobacco.
> 
> ...


You can repeat the "paid to not grow" fallacy as much as you like, but the payments were for the value of the allotments the Govt took from the farmers which were worth more than the payouts


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Farm subsidies are intended to alleviate farmer poverty, but the *majority of subsidies* go to commercial farms with average incomes of $200,000 and net worths of nearly $2 million.


Is anyone truly confused by knowing that subsidies based on ACRES produced go more to larger farms?

It's useless rhetoric such as that which makes the arguments seem so lame


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> That's very interesting. I would think if he spent the money for the equipment, he must have expected it made business sense and would turn a profit.
> 
> How did the quota program work that would allow the government to shut his plans down and *get him to accept their offer* that would not cover his losses?


Their "offer" was "this is how it will be, take it or get nothing at all"

They had no choice but to accept the payments because they abolished the allotments altogether.

People love to whine about "taxpayer money" when those large farms pay more in taxes than some of the whiners make as income


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Sure if you otherwise would farm it. The criticism is that so many of these conservation checks are going to places like New York City to suitcase farmers who never had any intention of farming the land and programs like the black farmer settlement on which there was no meaningful verification process to show that these people applying had ever even been farmers.


Landowners don't have to farm it themselves.
I lease a portion of my farm to someone else to raise crops.

They get all the crop subsidies because they invest the money into the crops.

If any land was in a CRP type program, that money would come to me because I would be agreeing to LEASE the land to the Govt instead of the farmers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> As I recall they received the equivalent of one years crop (around 2 bucks per pound) that payment was to be spread out over a period of years. It was NOT a subsidy, and did NOT pay farmers not to grow tobacco. It merely stopped the price support program.


It's nice to see someone who knows the facts
The payments were spread over a 10 year period


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

In my neck of the woods, there are no small farmers anymore. There are some guys like me that own smaller tracts and let someone else farm it, or have it in various habitat programs, but the little guy can't afford to farm anymore.

A small full time farmer around here is likely to farm at least 1000 acres, probably owns half of it ($3.75 mil in land), leases the other half ($100,000 annual lease cost), and probably has a minimum of $500,000 in equipment, bins and facilities. 

These are not small business. They have big expenses and pay huge taxes. At current grain prices, most are going to struggle this year. I don't begrudge them the few dollars they get returned in subsidies.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's nice to see someone who knows the facts


Just one of the perks of being a Ky tobacco grower for several years. 
Fer what its worth I didnt have an allotment on my farm so didnt reap the rewards of the buyout program.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Fer what its worth I didnt have an allotment on my farm so didnt reap the rewards of the buyout program.


I had enough of one that it barely paid my property taxes for the past 10 years, but losing it didn't decrease the tax value, nor did it change the price I paid for the land based on it's having an allotment.

I'm still paying on the same tax values as before, but the pay out money no longer comes in

(And income taxes were paid on that money also)


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I had enough of one that it barely paid my property taxes for the past 10 years, but losing it didn't decrease the tax value, nor did it change the price I paid for the land based on it's having an allotment.
> 
> I'm still paying on the same tax values as before, but the pay out money no longer comes in
> 
> (And income taxes were paid on that money also)


Sounds like you were in about the same position a lot of the small farmers were in. They could just about cover their property tax bill by leasing it out, or if they opted to raise it themselves they could pay their taxes and do a bit of Christmas shopping with all those "profits". When I was raising it I pretty much broke even, very little real profit, but it was nice to have that check coming in during the winter. It was kinda like a Christmas club bank account... you add to it all year long so at Christmas time the kids get new toys.


----------

