• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Regarding farm price supports?

I

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,819
Reaction score
281
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm Supposn said:
… PresidentTruman's Secretary of Agriculture proposed that larger corporations should be denied federal commodity price subsidy payments.
I've read that 10% of USA farming enterprises currently receive 75% of such federal expenditures at great costs to our annual federal budgets. … There's legal and public accounting differences and restrictions upon the common form of corporations, or small corporations, (i.e. "C" or "S" Corps), and other forms of partnerships or single owner commercial entities.

May not a partial solution be the prohibiting those federal payments for crops derived from land even partially owned or controlled by any "C Corp" or any entity that's not a legal U.S. resident, or recognized by our IRS as a dependent of an individual USA income taxpayer?
Click to expand...


Can any of this group's members suggest why this concept would not be worthy of consideration?
I'm a city guy and you'll have to walk me gently through any agricultural terms or concepts.
Refer to: S corporation - Wikipedia
Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
Can any of this group's members suggest why this concept would not be worthy of consideration? I'm a city guy and you'll have to walk me gently through any agricultural terms or concepts. Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...


Soooo, let's start with the program's spending- the biggest two use about 24B annually. Big bucks to you and me, but the Gubmint spends around 4 TRILLION dollars a year. The 'big 5'- corn, wheat, cotton, rice and peanuts account for 28% of the total agricultural production but receive 94% of the federal payments.

The 'insurance' program pays out 2 bucks for every dollar taken in as premiums.

Now farms rely on investors to help finance operations. With so many subsidies to back the industry (compared to the stock market) many see investing in corporate farms as a good place to park money. (Many larger family farms are in fact more accurately, corporate farms.) Foreign investors see the USofA as a safe place to park money, farming a good alternative to the far more volatile stock market, several tax shelters are built into farming and until the trade war farming was, on average, far more stable than the stock market. The stock market is saturated with money, some say the flood of retirement fund money has warped the market- so a farmland has become the new 'market'. There are a bunch of corporations that specialize in farm investments.

Denying farmers the financial alternative to banks for financial backing would save the USofA taxpayer so little and hurt many larger farms so much. I'm by no means a big farmer and don't really support much of the tax/federal payment system leaned their way but this idea isn't very sound.... just a bit more spiteful.... :peace
 
I'm Supposn said:


[SIZE][FONT]Can any of this group's members suggest why this concept would not be worthy of consideration?[SIZE][FONT]
[SIZE][FONT]I'm a city guy and you'll have to walk me gently through any agricultural terms or concepts.[SIZE][FONT]
Refer to: [SIZE]S corporation - Wikipedia[SIZE][FONT][COLOR][URL]
Respectfully, Supposn[SIZE][FONT][COLOR][SIZE][FONT][COLOR]
Click to expand...


Its unfair. Everyone should be treated the same. However, to me that means NO ONE gets subsidies.
 
notquiteright said:
Soooo, let's start with the program's spending- the biggest two use about 24B annually. Big bucks to you and me, but the Gubmint spends around 4 TRILLION dollars a year. The 'big 5'- corn, wheat, cotton, rice and peanuts account for 28% of the total agricultural production but receive 94% of the federal payments.

The 'insurance' program pays out 2 bucks for every dollar taken in as premiums.

Now farms rely on investors to help finance operations. With so many subsidies to back the industry (compared to the stock market) many see investing in corporate farms as a good place to park money. (Many larger family farms are in fact more accurately, corporate farms.) Foreign investors see the USofA as a safe place to park money, farming a good alternative to the far more volatile stock market, several tax shelters are built into farming and until the trade war farming was, on average, far more stable than the stock market. The stock market is saturated with money, some say the flood of retirement fund money has warped the market- so a farmland has become the new 'market'. There are a bunch of corporations that specialize in farm investments.

Denying farmers the financial alternative to banks for financial backing would save the USofA taxpayer so little and hurt many larger farms so much. I'm by no means a big farmer and don't really support much of the tax/federal payment system leaned their way but this idea isn't very sound.... just a bit more spiteful.... :peace
Click to expand...
Jonny5 and NotQuiteRight, I'm not justifying agricultural commodity subsidies or refuting NotQuiteRight's quoted post. The proposal described within this thread's first post definitely would not increase federal expenses.

It would insure that the eventual recipients would be ENTIRELY limited to USA legal residents and their dependents, and likely much more of the money would be sent to owners and often also the managers of farm land that reside within the states and often the counties where those farms are located, rather than to larger and often huge national and international corporations.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:


Can any of this group's members suggest why this concept would not be worthy of consideration?
I'm a city guy and you'll have to walk me gently through any agricultural terms or concepts.
Refer to: S corporation - Wikipedia
Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Well...not exactly sure what you are asking because there seem to be multiple issues here since you copied from somewhere.. and then you linked to what an S corp is.

S and C corps differ for a variety of reasons. A family farm may be a C corp... or an S corp. Simply using that designation to assume foreign interest seems to be problematic.

Second there seems to be a lot of assumption as to what it means that 10% of the farming enterprises receive 75% of federal expenditures.

1. In part that is because only certain farming interests are subsidized or subsidized heavily. So its not the size, nor the foreign interest but is a function of the particular agricultural industry.

2. even in a situation where its the largest farming.. that receives the most benefit.. so? It stands to reason that a larger supplier would receive more benefit.. by virtue of its larger size. This does not discredit or lessen the importance of the subsidy for smaller producers.

For example..much is made of a tax cut benefiting the rich. For example a tax cut of 5% for the rich.. ends up saving them 50 ,000 dollars While that same tax cut saves 1,000 for those that are poor. The overwhelming money may benefit the rich.. but that does not deter from the greater importance for that 1000 dollars for someone poor.

And
 
I'm in Kansas and used to be a 1/3 owner in a middle sized farming operation.

It's quite a game. By that I mean to prosper you must game the system. Even though it's muddy as He** right now those farmers, of all sizes, WILL get seed planted. Because you cannot get insurance or a subsidy unless you plant. Doesn't matter if anything comes up then.

If you're smart you will also buy some crop futures on the futures market.

And you will break up that large operation and put each division in some relatives name, so each can be considered a small family farm.

Stay away from livestock as you can't get insurance on that.

There are dozens of ways to play this game. Just learn the rules and then find out how other people are making the rules work for them.
 
I'm Supposn said:
Jonny5 and NotQuiteRight, I'm not justifying agricultural commodity subsidies or refuting NotQuiteRight's quoted post. The proposal described within this thread's first post definitely would not increase federal expenses.

It would insure that the eventual recipients would be ENTIRELY limited to USA legal residents and their dependents, and likely much more of the money would be sent to owners and often also the managers of farm land that reside within the states and often the counties where those farms are located, rather than to larger and often huge national and international corporations.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

Im not really sure what the point is. To prohibit money going overseas? The easier solution is stop funneling tax dollars to citizens. Thats not the purpose of taxes or spending. The govt should provide services to all, for example defending their farms, ensuring property rights, consumer safety. Doesnt matter if they are local or foreign owned.
 
notquiteright said:
Soooo, let's start with the program's spending- the biggest two use about 24B annually. Big bucks to you and me, but the Gubmint spends around 4 TRILLION dollars a year. The 'big 5'- corn, wheat, cotton, rice and peanuts account for 28% of the total agricultural production but receive 94% of the federal payments.

The 'insurance' program pays out 2 bucks for every dollar taken in as premiums.

Now farms rely on investors to help finance operations. With so many subsidies to back the industry (compared to the stock market) many see investing in corporate farms as a good place to park money. (Many larger family farms are in fact more accurately, corporate farms.) Foreign investors see the USofA as a safe place to park money, farming a good alternative to the far more volatile stock market, several tax shelters are built into farming and until the trade war farming was, on average, far more stable than the stock market. The stock market is saturated with money, some say the flood of retirement fund money has warped the market- so a farmland has become the new 'market'. There are a bunch of corporations that specialize in farm investments.

Denying farmers the financial alternative to banks for financial backing would save the USofA taxpayer so little and hurt many larger farms so much. I'm by no means a big farmer and don't really support much of the tax/federal payment system leaned their way but this idea isn't very sound.... just a bit more spiteful.... :peace
Click to expand...

New Zealand farmers seem to be doing fine without subsidies. In fact, it's forced them to step up their game.
VIEWPOINT – Farming without subsidies – a better way. Why New Zealand agriculture is a world leader. – POLITICO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom