Newer farm (corn) subsidies abuse taxpayers

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Craig Cox notes that under the old subsidy program, taxpayers would have subsidized corn crops in Bartholomew County at a cost of about $24 an acre, while helping farmers with their losses. Under the new program, the government is paying up to $39 an acre.

Interesting that in the intense budget talks in Washington so little is being said about this bizarre transfer of wealth to farmers, which will cost $90 billion over the next 10 years, according to Congressional Budget Office projections.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Newer-farm-subsidies-abuse-taxpayers-4100303.php


There are approximately 30 Billion $ that we spend on corn subsidies- corn is dubbed the welfare queen by farmers.

Seeing how many of us hate welfare, would you end corn subsidies even if it means a major increase in ALL food prices (including bread, grain-fed meat, drinks, beer, etc...).

It would however make grass-fed meat a more viable business model.

Cheers!
Shc

[rehmwa 2]

yes - as long as that spending doesn't get spent somewhere else it would be a reduction on the 'spend' side of the budget. every single reduction in spending we do, no matter how small is in the direction of goodness.

subsidies and penalties, once removed, the market will balance itself out

the idea that food prices will go up, is silly if it's balanced by all of us keeping more of our money - the net/net would be more money that's not funneled through government (and the corresponding 'shrinkage' that occurs). Any time citizens get to keep more money where the government doesn't take a 'cut' is a win for all of us.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,151]

Yes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

yes - as long as that spending doesn't get spent somewhere else it would be a reduction on the 'spend' side of the budget. every single reduction in spending we do, no matter how small is in the direction of goodness.

subsidies and penalties, once removed, the market will balance itself out

the idea that food prices will go up, is silly if it's balanced by all of us keeping more of our money - the net/net would be more money that's not funneled through government (and the corresponding 'shrinkage' that occurs). Any time citizens get to keep more money where the government doesn't take a 'cut' is a win for all of us.

Of course there are also efficiencies foregone to recapture as well. As ShcShc11 pointed out, the decision to use corn over grass (or grain) is better approached without subsidies. Of course ridiculously subsidized water rates for livestock farmers should also be addressed.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Craig Cox notes that under the old subsidy program, taxpayers would have subsidized corn crops in Bartholomew County at a cost of about $24 an acre, while helping farmers with their losses. Under the new program, the government is paying up to $39 an acre.

Interesting that in the intense budget talks in Washington so little is being said about this bizarre transfer of wealth to farmers, which will cost $90 billion over the next 10 years, according to Congressional Budget Office projections.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Newer-farm-subsidies-abuse-taxpayers-4100303.php


There are approximately 30 Billion $ that we spend on corn subsidies- corn is dubbed the welfare queen by farmers.

Seeing how many of us hate welfare, would you end corn subsidies even if it means a major increase in ALL food prices (including bread, grain-fed meat, drinks, beer, etc...).

It would however make grass-fed meat a more viable business model.

Cheers!
Shc

My dad was a e farmer (no retired)

He said for years he wished the gov would get out of the farmers business

If he were alive he would still say the same

My brother in law farms today
He would agree with you

But to survive today, you have no choice but to take the money

Gov regulations require certain "involvement" from farmers so they can get the insurance lenders require.

It is a less than simple mess

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I would never blame the individual for taking advantage of the system (kind of reminds me of the argument about how Warren Buffet should just send the government money if he thinks taxes on the rich should rise). If your father refused the subsidy it would not change the system one bit.

[rushmc 23]

. If your father refused the subsidy it would not change the system one bit.

[headoverheels 334]

Quote

. If your father refused the subsidy it would not change the system one bit.

Nor would it my brother in law

But it would put them at an operational disadvantage

[kallend 2,151]

One of my colleagues at work (a professor of engineering) inherited the family farm. He gets paid by the federal govt. to grow NOTHING. So that's what he does. And yet the righties only complain about welfare for indigent citizens.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[adamUK 3]

I don't know exactly how it works in the 'States but here in the EU the subsidies even apply to exported produce (as the payment is on a per hectare basis) so the taxpayer is paying for non-EU taxpayers to have cheaper food .

EU farm subsidies accounts for roughly $80-$100 for each citizen in the EU.

P.S. Food prices might go up but (in theory) taxes should go down.

[lawrocket 3]

Some of us (like me) complain about al welfare.

I think corn subsidies are particularly insidious. You've got people wanting to ban odas - it's so cheap and filled with HFCS. YEah, think HFCS would be so damned cheap if the government quit subsidizing it?

This is a subsidy that affects public health and remaining prt of the government's seeming mission to make diabetes and obesity cheap and affordable.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I don't know exactly how it works in the 'States but here in the EU the subsidies even apply to exported produce (as the payment is on a per hectare basis) so the taxpayer is paying for non-EU taxpayers to have cheaper food .

Actually it's worse than that. Those export subsidies often result in retaliatory tariffs. The net effect is a transfer of wealth from you to a foreign government.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Last I checked corn prices were at historic highs.

well that was due to the drought caused by irregular climate in this year's harvest.


Cheers!
Shc

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Last I checked corn prices were at historic highs.

well that was due to the drought caused by irregular climate in this year's harvest.


Cheers!
Shc

As well as Spring flooding in the mid-west. Also, as for high corn prices, isn't it the 'middle man' and the govt. demand for corn for ethanol. Not necessarily the farmer cashing in on the high corn prices? Recently, I've sen a 50lb. sack of dried corn go for as much as $15.00.


Chuck