Sunshine... taxpayer funded farm subsidies in Elk County, KS

[thatsMRSc2u]

I think I'll take next year's "WELFARE" check and buy me some big fancy new equipment. Since your money will be funding my purchase, maybe you'd like to accompany me to the dealership, I'll even let ya pick out the color.

love it

[Sarah]

Welfare is any money taken from taxpayers and paid to another for aid.  Farm subsidies are taken from tax payers and paid to farmers to "level the playing field" so to speak.  Even though taxes are paid on it, it's still money that isn't earned.  Farm subsidies were started back in the Great Depression to help struggling farmers get back on their feet after the depression.  But I do not see how it's needed today.  The average income for American farmers is $76,000 in 2009, and that's actually down a little from 2008 and 2007.  That's not to say ALL farmers make that much, but that's the average and it's WELL above the poverty line. 

I see a lot of arguments that tax is paid on subsidies, but I would hazard to guess that most farmers are very good at itemizing everything they have to offset the amount of tax paid in.  In other words, inflating and deflating their incomes as they need it.  For small struggling farms, I don't see any problem with farm subsidies to help, but a huge chunk of farm subsidy monies are being paid to corporate farms which shouldn't need it anyway.   A lot of corporate farms are reporting incomes over $200,000 with net worth over $2 million dollars!  And yet they receive govt. subsidies based on what they produce. 

Food stabilization?  It really doesn't stabilize anything except the price the farmer gets for that food. The cost of food is mostly determined by food commodities sold and traded.  But here is what it does for the farmer:

The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops and guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold, farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007.[16] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel (52 cents plus the $0.06 price difference).

Corn is the top crop for subsidy payments. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year. Producers also benefit from a federal subsidy of 51 cents per gallon, additional state subsidies, and federal crop subsidies that can bring the total to 85 cents per gallon or more.[17] (US corn-ethanol producers are also shielded from competition from cheaper Brazilian sugarcane-ethanol by a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff[18][19])

I saw a post talking about they don't drive new trucks, but they list 3 trucks all 10 years old or less.  And all fairly expensive trucks.  The 07 is still a $30,000 dollar truck, give or take a couple thousand.  The 03 F-250 is about $15,000 dollars.  I can only imagine what the property tax and tags and insurance are on those. 

[Lookatmeknow!!]

I can tell you that are newest feed pickup is a 1986 Chevy. I have to say, that by the time we have put this on it, replaced that on it, and now we have some damage that was done to the bed, that we have a small chunk of change in that pickup. I think that also everyone should know that I am pretty sure that you have to turn any subsidies in as income. I know that I get money reimbursement for food at the daycare, and I have to turn that in as income. My food bill well surpasses that amount, but still have to turn it in. As for the itemizing, yes we itemize. But don't alot of people itemize?? I am just glad that we are free and clear in the items that we buy. We don't buy anything we can't pay for on the spot. It just wouldn't work for us any other way.

But we can argue all day about this being right or wrong, it's all based on our own perceptions of how you feel on this issue, wrong or right. There are things that were said on here that are so off base that is why I had to chime in. I feel like this topic is a hot issue, but really what would we do without farmers? Especially US farmers?? I guess then you would all be buying your things from over seas???

[thatsMRSc2u]

Exactly Angie


for the Naysayers....Lot of corporate farms/ranches in that neck of the woods is there?? Sure wasn't in the 35 years I spent there....lot of FAMILY farms...some bigger than others....but still FAMILY farms.

MOST of us are pretty good at using our deductions to our best advantage...anybody who says they dont is lyin or too stupid to do it.

Corporate farms get subsidies meant for small farms by MANIPULATING the system, so again it falls back to throwin the baby out with the bathwater to stop THAT practice.

I have a question: We all pay taxes, that's a fact of life.....They are going to get spent on things OTHER than us.....Which would you RATHER your money went for......to help a small-town farmer get a ten year old feed truck....or to finance some OTHER countries latest wanna be dictator with weapons to blow shit up so THEN we can send them YOUR/AND MY tax dollars to build a newer better one on the OFF chance they might "like" us and be "appreciative"??
To pay some small town guys DISABILITY check or some foreign dictators extortion money to TRY to convince him to do things the way that benefits the few US interests that HAVE interests there?

ME?? I choose the farmer and the disabled guy.

Face it...government is NOT gonna get any smaller....unless something better left not said happens...WE the PEOPLE allowed this monster to come into existence and we are stuck with it for the foreseeable future. The next election will change NOTHING other than which "party" gets the bigger piece of the pie....so the rest of us just gotta suck it up and make it work for US any way we can.
Theres a LOT of shit that should go before farm subsidies are even considered.

[Sarah]

Angie, I have no problem with the farmers that actually NEED it.  ~smiles warmly~  The problem I have are those that don't need it are getting a lot of it.  Shoot, if you need the money, take it!  Heaven knows I'm using govt. funds to go to school.  I couldn't do it any other way.  But I also know I've driven by a lot of farms with millions of dollars worth of house, vehicles, equipments, animals, etc.   If I had the money I'd be doing it too!  And honestly, if there was a subsidy or grant for what I want to do, I'd be doing it too because other wise it'll probably never happen.  

But to live on subsidies year after year, and I saw some ranchers up near a million dollars, I have to wonder.  What I couldn't do with a million dollars.  Even if I had to pay tax on it....and I'm sure I could off set it.....I could do wonders with that much money.  But like all things, farming is mostly going the way of the big corporations and a big chunk of the subsidies are going the way of the corporations also.  And as far as keeping our food prices low, I think I'd rather keep my tax dollars.  

[Sarah]

Face it...government is NOT gonna get any smaller....unless something better left not said happens...WE the PEOPLE allowed this monster to come into existence and we are stuck with it for the foreseeable future. The next election will change NOTHING other than which "party" gets the bigger piece of the pie....so the rest of us just gotta suck it up and make it work for US any way we can.

Now this I agree with.  But to say, let's keep it, lest they spend the money on something else is silly.  The govt will spend money on other things anyway, or did you not notice the trillion dollar deficit?  I'm all for helping SMALL farmers and I'm not just talking Elk county farmers, but US as a whole.  But I saw quite a few in Elk county getting thousands of dollars in subsidies that wasn't earned.  I don't care if you do pay taxes on it, it's still income that isn't earned.  Shoot, give me $300,000!  I don't care if I do have to pay taxes on it!  I'd gladly start a little microdairy with it.  shrug

[thatsMRSc2u]

Shoot, give me $300,000!  I don't care if I do have to pay taxes on it!  I'd gladly start a little microdairy with it.  shrug

Then apply for it...they don't just come out to the house and offer it to you.

to say, let's keep it, lest they spend the money on something else is silly.

Whats silly about it? It's the truth. They ARE going to spend it on SOMETHING so it might as well be HERE on people who PAID some of it to start with.

[thatsMRSc2u]

 and again this is just MY point of view......I'm most likely not gonna change it I got a lawn-mower out there callin my name so yall have a great day and dont spent too much time thinkin bout the government....they sure aint thinkin bout us LOL

[mtcookson]

But we can argue all day about this being right or wrong, it's all based on our own perceptions of how you feel on this issue, wrong or right.

No, that is not correct. The government is absolutely NOT supposed to do this. This is a simple fact. The constitution does not allow for the government to redistribute money like that and for good reason too.

Yes, you can get the constitution amended to change it so that it is allowed but I guarantee that if the government would completely get out of it, the farmers (and everyone else) would be much better off. Let the free market be free and everyone wins. Continue to allow the government to get into it and it will only makes things much worse. Its a simple fact proven over and over again by history.

I can tell you that are newest feed pickup is a 1986 Chevy. I have to say, that by the time we have put this on it, replaced that on it, and now we have some damage that was done to the bed, that we have a small chunk of change in that pickup.

I prefer used vehicles like that myself. Even if you have to repair them, unless you have some low production, rare, or exotic vehicle, they will almost always be cheaper than a newer vehicle.

I just recently purchased a 1997 Subaru Impreza. Has 304k miles but runs great, is in decent shape, and I only had to put in maybe a couple hundred dollars for preventative maintenance. Even if the engine were to blow today, I can hop on Ebay and buy a short block with under 100k miles for $150. That's nearly the same price I pay just on insurance for my 08 Mazda CX-7.

I have a 1986 Chevy Blazer 4WD that I bought for $500 with a bit over 200k miles. The body isn't in great shape and the powertrain could certainly be better but it still runs great. I've probably not even put $150 into it and I've been using it off and on for a few years now. The purchase price and a full year of insurance on it is less than a single month's payment and month of insurance on the Mazda.

I know farm trucks get used much more and in many cases probably way more abused than a daily driven street car but say you were to get a loan on a newer truck for say $15,000. Lets say its a 5 year loan with 7.3% sales tax and 9% interest. Your payments are $334.10 per month or $4009.2 per year. Just did a search on Auto Trader within 100 miles for a pickup at exactly $15,000 and got 4 results. Found a 2004 Ford F250 Crew Cab 4WD with the Powerstroke Diesel, looks good and would be an awesome heavy duty truck. Doing a quick quote online for full coverage insurance for a farming vehicle for me would be $77.52 per month. The insurance I'm sure could be lower with other types of discounts but lets just keep it at for now. Now we're at $4939.44 per year.

If I search for trucks up to $2000 I found a decent looking 1987 Ford F150 4WD listed at $1,995. Doing another insurance quote for liability insurance I get a rate of $13.34 per month. So for the year I would have paid, including the truck and 7.3% sales tax, $2,300.72. Not to mention tags and property tax would be substantially cheaper on the older vehicle. I imagine the newer Ford would be in the $200 to $300 range while the older truck should be in the $40 to $60 dollar range. Lets take the low of the first and the high of the second.

Totals:
2004 Ford - $5139.44 per year
1987 Ford - $2360.72 per year

Yes, you get more creature comforts and more power from the '04 but as long as the '87 can get the job done its a way better deal when it comes to saving money. Even if you have to put $1000 of repairs into the '87 and it ONLY lasted 1 year you would still be spending less on it than the '04. You could buy a $2000 truck every year and end up spending less than the '04.

That's why I like used cars so much. Yeah, you may have to repair them but they are almost always going to be cheaper in the end than a newer vehicle. That Mazda I purchase was one of the biggest vehicle mistakes I've ever made. While my wife and I were dating she wanted to get a new car and for whatever reason I didn't bring out my logic of the used car and now we're stuck with this thing. To make matters worse, I hate the car too (actually we both do). It was awesome when we first got it but now it has some major annoyances that just drive me nuts. If we hadn't purchased it we could actually nearly have our house paid off already. I just dislike having large payments on vehicles. If I can keep it around $5k to $6k or less I'm pretty happy. Even less, like on the Subaru I just got, and I'm extremely pleased. Granted I know how to work on cars which can definitely save some money but even if you know how to do the basic maintenance of a vehicle you can greatly reduce your costs of a vehicle.

I love a lot of the newer vehicles out there but for what you spend all you're really getting is a vehicle that looks better (and one that is bloated, overweight, and computers that don't let you do anything with the car without tripping a check engine light or have overbearing "driver's aid"). I prefer performance vehicles and for the prices of the newer vehicles I could easily get an older car, modify it, and have a better performing vehicle than the new one for a fraction of the cost that would likely even get better fuel economy as well.