DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Religious Dick on May 25, 2010, 12:50:40 AM
-
We are Better than That!!!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhIO7DG0#ws)
-
Love it!
[><]
-
So does the Ag commissioner need to ride the range and shoot varmints?
Let's get this straight: Alabama is losing family farms because of illegal immigrants? Aren't they the ones who pick the crops on the cheap and help these families stay in business?
Ah'm a Republican! See mah gun? Yewall better take me seriously, and stop a-stealin' mah signs! See mah Grand Ole Opry clothes? See how Ah kin ride a horse into the sunset jes' lak in the movies? Wanna hear mah Buford Pusser imitation?
I agree that the ad will probably score with the redneck vote, which seems to include a majority of White Alabamians.
In most countries, this ad would inspire outrage and laughter, not votes.
-
Good thing it's only Americans that can vote for American candidates. You know, like the ones in Virginia & Mass. Those damn Bostonian rednecks
-
So does the Ag commissioner need to ride the range and shoot varmints?
Let's get this straight: Alabama is losing family farms because of illegal immigrants? Aren't they the ones who pick the crops on the cheap and help these families stay in business?
Ah'm a Republican! See mah gun? Yewall better take me seriously, and stop a-stealin' mah signs! See mah Grand Ole Opry clothes? See how Ah kin ride a horse into the sunset jes' lak in the movies? Wanna hear mah Buford Pusser imitation?
I agree that the ad will probably score with the redneck vote, which seems to include a majority of White Alabamians.
In most countries, this ad would inspire outrage and laughter, not votes.
I imagine he could ride you hard and put you away wet.Care to challenge him to an arm wrestle?
-
Why would I challenge him for anything?
I just think he comes across as a rather bombastic redneck. As I said, in a sane country, he'd either provoke two emotions: outrage and laughter. Pretty much the same as you, Kramer. All hat and no cattle. But he does apparently have a horse, or can borrow one. That's gonna come in handy, I'm sure.
Why would a Commissioner of Agriculture dress up like a Grand Ole Opry singer and carry a rifle? What is he going to shoot? Immigrants? Varmints? Democrats?
His main quarrel with his opponent is something foolish on Facebook, and someone messing with his campaign signs.
-
Why would I challenge him for anything?
I just think he comes across as a rather bombastic redneck. As I said, in a sane country, he'd either provoke two emotions: outrage and laughter. Pretty much the same as you, Kramer. All hat and no cattle. But he does apparently have a horse, or can borrow one. That's gonna come in handy, I'm sure.
Why would a Commissioner of Agriculture dress up like a Grand Ole Opry singer and carry a rifle? What is he going to shoot? Immigrants? Varmints? Democrats?
His main quarrel with his opponent is something foolish on Facebook, and someone messing with his campaign signs.
Americana has dismayed, baffled and frustrated liberals like you for years.
-
So does the Ag commissioner need to ride the range and shoot varmints?
Let's get this straight: Alabama is losing family farms because of illegal immigrants? Aren't they the ones who pick the crops on the cheap and help these families stay in business?
No , agribusiness wants cheap labor , small farmers are labor.
-
No , agribusiness wants cheap labor , small farmers are labor.
================================================
It depends on the crop: if you are growing strawberries or lettuce, the whole crop comes in all at once, and not even a family as fecund as the Waltons can harvest and pack it all away alone.
Illegals have no other effect on small farmers: they surely do not replace them. Most small farmers are more like hobbyists these days: they have a job in town and grow stuff for themselves and neighbors and perhaps a little for the farmers' market. When they lose the farm, it is generally because the crop did not come in or someone lost a job in town and they can't pay the bank off.
-
No , agribusiness wants cheap labor , small farmers are labor.
================================================
It depends on the crop: if you are growing strawberries or lettuce, the whole crop comes in all at once, and not even a family as fecund as the Waltons can harvest and pack it all away alone.
Illegals have no other effect on small farmers: they surely do not replace them. Most small farmers are more like hobbyists these days: they have a job in town and grow stuff for themselves and neighbors and perhaps a little for the farmers' market. When they lose the farm, it is generally because the crop did not come in or someone lost a job in town and they can't pay the bank off.
Most family farms are lost to confiscatory tax loads when the patriarch dies. The US government hates small farms with such passion that few are left.
When I was a boy the local highschools produced the labor for the peach harvest , teens are no longer tempted by such wages.
The labor needed does depend on the crop , farmers keep this in mind when they choose the planting.
-
Most family farms are lost to confiscatory tax loads when the patriarch dies.
That is not true. The inheritance tax is zero. Plus, there are a zillion ways to pass the farm on to the next generation. What you say is a myth.
Farms are lost due to an inability to pay off loans, and occasionally steep medical bills.Also, there are a lot of farm kids who prefer to sell the damn thing and get a decent job in the city. People DO get tired of slopping hogs, feeding chickens, and plowing the back 40, you know. It is always a better pretext to say "The gummint took it" than "the ole man made bad decisions about planting, borrowing or managing the farm".
-
That is not true. The inheritance tax is zero. Plus, there are a zillion ways to pass the farm on to the next generation. What you say is a myth.
For something that doesn't exist, I wonder why the IRS has a form for it, including a tax table. Form 706, also publication 950.
-
<<For something that doesn't exist, I wonder why the IRS has a form for it, including a tax table. Form 706, also publication 950.>>
You need to look at the Instructions for Form 706, which state:
<<The applicable exclusion amount for estates of decedents dying in calendar year 2009 is $3,500,000. >>
I think it's a pretty safe bet that America's small farmers don't have a hell of a lot to worry about in the inheritance tax.
-
I think it's a pretty safe bet that America's small farmers don't have a hell of a lot to worry about in the inheritance tax.
Farm for sale: http://www.landandfarm.com/properties/parks_bottom_farm.asp (http://www.landandfarm.com/properties/parks_bottom_farm.asp)
Especially if equipment is included, it's pretty easy for a farm to get over that value. A combine harvester runs close to half a million by itself.
-
What I meant was that the rate on the inheritance tax is ZERO.
And as I said, there are many, many ways to avoid the inheritance tax: incorporating the farm, for example. But this year it is unnecessary.
-
What I meant was that the rate on the inheritance tax is ZERO.
And as I said, there are many, many ways to avoid the inheritance tax: incorporating the farm, for example. But this year it is unnecessary.
Perhaps you should read up:
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/inheritance-tax3.htm (http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/inheritance-tax3.htm)
Also, the Federal estate rate ranges from 18% to 45% (Page 4):
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i706.pdf (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i706.pdf)
-
<<Farm for sale: . . . >>
Yeah right, just a small, typical family farm of 1,500 acres. Farmed by sharecroppers too poor to afford a mule. Seems a mite small fer me, Ami - - got ennathang bigger?
-
<<For something that doesn't exist, I wonder why the IRS has a form for it, including a tax table. Form 706, also publication 950.>>
You need to look at the Instructions for Form 706, which state:
<<The applicable exclusion amount for estates of decedents dying in calendar year 2009 is $3,500,000. >>
I think it's a pretty safe bet that America's small farmers don't have a hell of a lot to worry about in the inheritance tax.
That is a very small farm.
If the farm were worth six million you would only need to give up half of it.
-
I think it's a pretty safe bet that America's small farmers don't have a hell of a lot to worry about in the inheritance tax.
Farm for sale: http://www.landandfarm.com/properties/parks_bottom_farm.asp (http://www.landandfarm.com/properties/parks_bottom_farm.asp)
Especially if equipment is included, it's pretty easy for a farm to get over that value. A combine harvester runs close to half a million by itself.
Sigh******
How I wish I could manage such a purchase.
The modern method is to get a degree in agriculture so that the bank will beleive in you , borrow the land price and a two year operateing capitol , then spend decades paying mostly intrest.
Eventually of course handing it over to the government as if you had done nothing .
Thanks so much Government , what makes you hate family traditions of farming with such rabid vigor?
-
Yeah right, just a small, typical family farm of 1,500 acres. Farmed by sharecroppers too poor to afford a mule. Seems a mite small fer me, Ami - - got ennathang bigger?
A farmer farming corn makes about $100 per year per acre. So, this farm of 1,500 acres would have an income of around $150,000.
Sound like a big operation to you?
Anything much smaller than that is considered a "hobby" farm around here (not a real farm, just something for the guys up from the cities to get their hands dirty with on the weekends). You seem to think an acre is a lot of land - my yard is 3 acres.
-
When the Province of Upper Canada (Ontario) was founded, around 1790, the farm lots surveyed for distribution were 200 acres each. 200 acres in the late 18th century were probably one-thirtieth as productive as 200 acres would be today, yet they were expected to be family farms supporting farm families much bigger than today's families.
A small farm is under 200 acres, the usual distribution between two sons of the original settler was half-lots of 100 acres each and nobody bitched about getting "only" 100 acres - - that TOO could feed a farm family at production levels way below modern agricultural land productivity.
An auto mechanic makes 36K per year. Your "small farmer" farming "only" 1500 acres makes more than FOUR auto mechanics do? His family lives better than the families of FOUR auto mechanics??? Sorry but 1500 acres is NOT a small farm, nor is the owner a "small farmer."
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-auto+mechanic (http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-auto+mechanic)
-
Minnesota has over 6,200 farms that are 1,000+ acres in size.
Here is a report from the University of MN (http://www.cffm.umn.edu/Publications/pubs/FarmMgtTopics/earnlvgfarm.pdf) showing that it requires 850 acres of corn production to feed and house an average farm family of 3.3 persons.
But, of course, you know more than the people who study these things...
Also, comparing modern farms to those from 200+ years ago is a bit facetious.
-
<<Minnesota has over 6,200 farms that are 1,000+ acres in size.>>
The real issue is how many are under 200 acres.
<<Here is a report from the University of MN showing that it requires 850 acres of corn production to feed and house an average farm family of 3.3 persons.>>
Irrelevant when the issue is how many are going to be affected by an inheritance tax that doesn't touch anything under $3.5 million. Even using your own figures for a 1500 acre farm, this is roughly half the size and would come in at well under $3.5 million.
<<But, of course, you know more than the people who study these things...>>
Of course.
<<Also, comparing modern farms to those from 200+ years ago is a bit facetious.>>
Sure it's facetious, because modern farms are so much more productive.
-
The real issue is how many are under 200 acres.
Oh, there are quite a few "hobby" farms in that size range. They are not "real" farms, however. They do not earn enough money to feed a family if they are that small, so they're not a "family farm" - they are not full time farms and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion. Hell, I have "crops" on my property, are you gonna start calling it a "farm" now?
Irrelevant when the issue is how many are going to be affected by an inheritance tax that doesn't touch anything under $3.5 million. Even using your own figures for a 1500 acre farm, this is roughly half the size and would come in at well under $3.5 million.
From the farm listing I posted earlier:
Cropland Acres : 525.00 acres
So, only 525 acres are cleared for crops, and it listed for over $3.5 million. Quite a bit over $3.5 million. With no equipment. (The equipment would also be added in to the value of the inheritance and, as I stated earlier, a combine harvester is approaching $0.5 million alone.)
-
<<Oh, there are quite a few "hobby" farms in that size range. They are not "real" farms, however. They do not earn enough money to feed a family if they are that small, so they're not a "family farm" - they are not full time farms and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion. >>
Nonsense. I believe they are in many cases the original "family farm" that never was any bigger than 200 acres. Furthermore, I believe that if a family farm of 200 acres could have fed the current farmer's ancestors a hundred years ago, those same 200 acres could probably feed the farmer's family today. Moreover, unless the settlers of Minnesota got a helluva lot more land than the settlers of Upper Canada, I'll bet that your 1500 acre farm was assembled from about a half-dozen family farms over the decades and represents both the success of the capitalists who assembled it and the failure of the settlers and their descendants whose families lost their family farms to the assemblers.
<<So, only 525 acres are cleared for crops, and it listed for over $3.5 million. Quite a bit over $3.5 million. With no equipment. (The equipment would also be added in to the value of the inheritance and, as I stated earlier, a combine harvester is approaching $0.5 million alone.)>>
It's a big farm and the fact that the owners allowed only about a third of it to be cleared for crops indicates that these were wealthy investors, not a farm family eking out an existence from the soil. The more you write about this place, the less it looks like a small family farm.
-
Someone's been watching far too much Little House on the Prairie
-
Furthermore, I believe that if a family farm of 200 acres could have fed the current farmer's ancestors a hundred years ago, those same 200 acres could probably feed the farmer's family today.
Yeah, if all they did was fend for themselves. Of course, this leaves out the possibility of saving for college, providing health care for the family, paying self-employment taxes, etc.
Are you under the mistaken impression that food costs per capita in the US have stayed stable over the last century?
-
Moreover, unless the settlers of Minnesota got a helluva lot more land than the settlers of Upper Canada, I'll bet that your 1500 acre farm was assembled from about a half-dozen family farms over the decades and represents both the success of the capitalists who assembled it and the failure of the settlers and their descendants whose families lost their family farms to the assemblers.
"Although not necessarily fraud, it was common practice for the eligible children of a large family to claim nearby land as soon as possible. After a few generations, a family could build up a sizable estates.[citation needed] [20] Working a farm of 1,500 acres (6.1 km2) would not have been feasible for a homesteader using 19th-century animal-powered tilling and harvesting. The acreage limits were reasonable when the act was written."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Act)
-
<<Are you under the mistaken impression that food costs per capita in the US have stayed stable over the last century?>>
No, I'm under the impression that yields per acre have increased exponentially over that time.
-
Does Tee know something about Farming we don't. An acre of corn is still an acre of corn, last I checked
-
No, I'm under the impression that yields per acre have increased exponentially over that time.
And while the yield per acre has gone up, what has the sale price done (in terms of real cost)?
-
Does Tee know something about Farming we don't. An acre of corn is still an acre of corn, last I checked
He's correct, the yield per acre has gone up over the last century.
-
Exponentially?
-
Exponentially?
Define exponentially.
In 1900, average maize yields were 40 bu / acre. We're pushing average yields near 200 bu / acre now. (One county broke the record last year with nearly 400 bu / acre production.)
-
Exponentially?
Define exponentially.
Used as an adjective, it's largely related to something growing/increasing at an unheard of #. There is not specific # that can be applied, but one would ususally consider exponentially as 1000+x. AT least I would since there are other more accurate adjectives that could be used for lesser #'s
In 1900, average maize yields were 40 bu / acre. We're pushing average yields near 200 bu / acre now. (One county broke the record last year with nearly 400 bu / acre production.)
Impressive, though I wouldn't refer to that as exponentially impressive.
-
The amount a farmer will earn per acre, however, has gone way down in terms of spending power. Even when the Homestead Act was first passed, the lot size ("1/4 plot" or 160 acres) was considered only enough for subsistence farming. A farmer would earn enough to keep himself going from year to year, not really making any headway. That's why a "plot" was 640 acres. Anyway, later acts increased the size of the homestead lots to 320 acres and even later to 640 acres.
-
<<Are you under the mistaken impression that food costs per capita in the US have stayed stable over the last century?>>
No, I'm under the impression that yields per acre have increased exponentially over that time.
This requires modern methods.
Like buying Hybrid seed corn and operateing a tractor.
How long would it take a person operateing a 200 acre "farm" to pay for a tractor?
If Ami is accurate: A farmer farming corn makes about $100 per year per acre. So, this farm of 1,500 acres would have an income of around $150,000.
A person operateing a 200 acre farm might possibly get 20,000 a year , which if entirely devoted to tractor buying would pay for a tractor every other year , too bad that the farmer must also eat and fuel that tractor.
By the way- I grew up on a hobby farm in central Georga. At first the owner did a lot of the tasks himself and my father and I tended the cattle , but when he got serious about makeing a profit he rented the land to a more professional farmer who planted it in soy and tended the crop with very professional large equipment. This farm was only 600 acres and so was not enough by itself to support such an effecient and modern set of large tractors , harvestors and associated equippage.
600 acres is approxamately one square mile and was more than half airable , at this size it could possibly have been self sustaining , but would have been a marginal operation prone to loose money when the crop year was especially bad , or good.
And being near to a growing town its land value was considered in light of the surrounding Levvitowns , if it had been the main family asset the government would have confiscated half of it at the owners death , lucky for us the owner had sufficient other recorces , elese the government would have tossed us sharecroppers onto the street on that occasion.
That has happened to a lot of sharecroppers , and this is why the tipical American farm is corprate owned now , operated by employees of companys like Monsanto , Prudential or Turner Broadcasting .The government loves effieciency and the farm that is sixty miles square is effecient in a way that a farm that is only one mile square cannot be.
The government is complicit in the trend twards large agribusiness farms , by confiscateing everything large enough to be self sustaining but giveing subsity to every farm big enough to hire its own staff of lawyers , the squeeze is applied to eliminate the family farmer .