|
southern MN | I believe many parts of the farm programs since the 1980s really 'help' keep property values and thus taxes higher, as the money is filtered to the landowners in higher costs or rents.
We farmers are locked into needing seed, fertilizer, fuel, and iron to make a crop, we always work to keep these costs in check but there is only so much we can do, these costs will be there and are a given.
As grain prices rise and fall, about the only thing we can change is the land price - what we pay for buying or renting land.
So most any farm program will end up revolving around land costs.
Town folk don't realize how much extra property taxes are generated by farmers through the farm program. This is why school districts and such end up supporting high dollar farm programs.... But I digress.
I thought one of the more 'fair' farm programs of the past was the Counter Cyclical program, which paid a stipend a year after a disaster based on how badly your farm or county did compared to the rest of the country. It was a very basic safety net.
In a way, the current farm program is patterned after that.
It pays out in a similar way.
Some folks are confused, that they had a lousy 2015 and now they get nothing, while others had a really good 2015 and are collecting maximum payouts.
But these payouts this month are for the 2014 crop year.
They use a very complex and confusing equation to come up with the payout formula, I suppose that is necessary but it sure 'hides' how they come up with the payments, making it a very grey deal for anyone to understand.
Your biggest issue it seems is that since 1985 or so, some farmers and more so landowners chose not to be part of the govt program, or grew crops that were not covered by the various programs in place over the years.
These were choices they made, and those choices now stick with the acres in question.
Between then and now, there were two times one was allowed to somewhat update their acres. Both times you still sufferered, and might not want to update, but at least there were some options, if the land owner wanted to do so.
I too suffer a 1/5 penalty in acres because dad, dead over a decade now, didnt bother signing up the farm one year. That has carried through for a lot of decades.....
But, that is how it is. It was a choice.
Maybe every 30 years or so there should be a true update of what base acres really are, instead of hanging on to mid 1980s numbers. But realistically, that would benefit absentee landowners much more that real farm families, as most real farmers kept themselves in the programs, while the investors were more likely to skip.
The land value, or the rent from it, should reflect that the farm is now less profitable because of those choices. Around here, if you are renting out land with a greatly reduced govt program, it likely rents for less, so it is the exact opposite of what you say - the land owner gets less rent, and since they are outside the program they get no govt dollars either.
So I'm not really sure where to go with your thoughts, I'm not sure they are really true?
In my view, the crop insurance subsidy and Prevent Plant programs hurts smaller and starting farmers. It allows the big to get bigger at small risk, and those programs benefit insurance companies and bankers almost exclusively. IMHO those are the ones that should be chopped or heavily modified to something more reasonable and fair.
Paul
Edited by paul the original 11/4/2015 09:14
| |
|
Farm Program
